Doctrine of credible threat: uncertain retaliation
Albert K. Fung
Washington was confronted with a weighty problem. What to do
in order to let the USSR know, that the USA was dead serious
about the NATO treaty: In the event that her European allies
were attacked, the USA would commit herself to war.
The solution: fifty thousand US troops at the front line.
The Pentagon seeked Congressional approval to station troops
near the NATO front line as human tripwire. Which was strong
signal to her allies as well as the USSR, that, if they were
harmed in any way. The USA would not hessitate to retaliate.
That, was the suggestion of the Harvard educated Californian
game theoretican, Dr. Thomas Schilling. As a pioneer in the
field of conflict, he is the recipient of this year's Nobel
prize in economics.
His Nobel citation:
Against the backdrop of the nuclear arms race in the late
1950s, Thomas Schelling's book The Strategy of Conflict set
forth his vision of game theory as a unifying framework for
the social sciences. Schelling showed that a party can st-
rengthen its position by overtly worsening its own options,
that the capability to retaliate canbe more useful than the
ability to resist an attack, and that uncertain retaliation
is more credible, and more efficient than certain retaliat-
ion.These insights have proven to be of great relevance for
conflict resolution and efforts to avoid war.
That deceptively simple idea was the main pillar of the Cold
War. Which was subsequently adopted in the Korean Peninsula,
and in Japan's Okinawa.
Pentagon's principal war doctrine for half a century ....
Regards,
Albert K. Fung
Estancia la Serenidad/Chubut, Argentina.
Jim Walsh
wrote:
> At the onset of the Cold War .... The Pentagon sought Congressional
> approval to station troops near the NATO front line as human tripwire.
> Which was strong signal to her allies as well as the USSR, that, if they
> were harmed in any way. The USA would not hessitate to retaliate. That,
> was the suggestion of the Harvard educated Californian game theoretican,
> Dr. Thomas Schilling. As a pioneer in the field of conflict, he is the
> recipient of this year's Nobel prize in economics....
Very interesting. Thanks for this.
--
Love, Jim
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
don_t...@hotmail.com
Albert K. Fung 寫道：
> At the onset of the Cold War ....
>
> Washington was confronted with a weighty problem. What to do
> in order to let the USSR know, that the USA was dead serious
> about the NATO treaty: In the event that her European allies
> were attacked, the USA would commit herself to war.
>
> The solution: fifty thousand US troops at the front line.
Hey Taiwan could use fifty thousand US troops right now!
Tak To
As anyone who has given thought to the game of "chicken"
knows, the best strategy is to make the other side believe
that you are totally mad.
(For those unfamiliar with this bit of American culture: the
game of chicken is played by two drivers in two cars driving
towards each other on a narrow strip of road. The first driver
that chickens out (i.e., feels frightened) and swerves to avoid
collison loses.)
Thus, the thing to do at the beginning of the is to ostensibly
chain the steering wheel down. The opponent, seeing that
your car cannot turn, will have no choice but try to turn and
thus lose the game.
It does not take a Nobel prize winner to know this.
It also does not take a Nobel prize to guess what would happen
if both side adopt this strategy. The question is, have the
Cold War strategists thought of that?
It is amazing that someone can look back at the Cold War and
saw wisdom in the US strategy. Those must be the kind that
thinks that Reagan "won the Cold War".
It always strikes me that the "contributions" of many a winner
of the Nobel Prize of Economics are nothing more than common
sense. The above is one example. Another is Herb Simon's
observation that people thinks for themselves rather than for
the business organization they work for.
It is perhaps befitting, since I have always thought that
"Nobel Prize in Economics" is one of the best con's ever.
Most people are unware that it was put up not by the Nobel
Foundation as per Alfred Nobel's will, but by the National
Bank of Sweden. (Its real name is "The Bank of Sweden
Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel".)
It imitates the real Nobel prizes in every way: look-alike
medals, same amount of award, announced at about the same
time of the year, and given out in the same ceremony.
Talk about misleading the public!
Tak
--
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ta...@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr
ltl...@hotmail.com
Everything that makes sense is not outside of common sense. In this
sense, common sense as a collective is also the highest possible
sense/wisdom.
haha
>
>
> As anyone who has given thought to the game of "chicken"
> knows, the best strategy is to make the other side believe
> that you are totally mad.
>
> (For those unfamiliar with this bit of American culture: the
> game of chicken is played by two drivers in two cars driving
> towards each other on a narrow strip of road. The first driver
> that chickens out (i.e., feels frightened) and swerves to avoid
> collison loses.)
>
> Thus, the thing to do at the beginning of the is to ostensibly
> chain the steering wheel down. The opponent, seeing that
> your car cannot turn, will have no choice but try to turn and
> thus lose the game.
>
> It does not take a Nobel prize winner to know this.
http://www.timharford.com/favourites/schelling.htm
Explaining the difference between stable and unstable deterrence, he
imagined a face-off in the wild west, with both men on a hair-trigger,
before observing: "If both were assured of living long enough to shoot
back with unimpaired aim, there would be no advantage in jumping the gun
and little reason to fear that the other would try it". Such thinking
helped to change the US's stated policy of massive retaliation for any
Soviet transgression, in favour of maintaining a credible second-strike
capability to discourage a surprise attack. The resulting face-off did
indeed prove more stable than anyone dared hope.
-------------------------
You can't "jump the gun" in a game of "chicken".
The purpose of maintaining a credible counter-strike is to eliminate
"first mover advantage".
> It also does not take a Nobel prize to guess what would happen
> if both side adopt this strategy. The question is, have the
> Cold War strategists thought of that?
if both sides adopt professor Schelling's strategy, which is exactly
what had happened, nobody would want to jump the gun, and therefore no
nuclear war.
> It is amazing that someone can look back at the Cold War and
> saw wisdom in the US strategy. Those must be the kind that
> thinks that Reagan "won the Cold War".
>
> It always strikes me that the "contributions" of many a winner
> of the Nobel Prize of Economics are nothing more than common
> sense. The above is one example. Another is Herb Simon's
> observation that people thinks for themselves rather than for
> the business organization they work for.
Does "parallel lines never intersect" sound like "common sense"
to you, too?
http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/002356.html
Game theory is no doubt wonderful for telling stories. However, it
flunks the main test of any scientific theory: The ability to make
empirically testable predictions. In most real-life situations, many
different outcomes -- from full cooperation to near-disastrous conflict
-- are consistent with the game-theory version of rationality.
To put it a different way: If the world had been blown up during
the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, game theorists could have explained
that as an unfortunate outcome -- but one that was just as rational as
what actually happened. Similarly, an industry that collapses into
run-amok competition, like the airlines, can be explained rationally by
game theorists as easily as one where cooperation is the norm.
------------------------
I have read several books on the subject. Each of them contains
similar warnings of the limitations of game theory.
> It is perhaps befitting, since I have always thought that
> "Nobel Prize in Economics" is one of the best con's ever.
> Most people are unware that it was put up not by the Nobel
> Foundation as per Alfred Nobel's will, but by the National
> Bank of Sweden. (Its real name is "The Bank of Sweden
> Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel".)
> It imitates the real Nobel prizes in every way: look-alike
> medals, same amount of award, announced at about the same
> time of the year, and given out in the same ceremony.
> Talk about misleading the public!
>
> Tak
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
> Tak To ta...@alum.mit.eduxx
> --------------------------------------------------------------------^^
> [taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr
>
---
Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net
Complaints to ne...@netfront.net
lechergod
he confess :
every common senese arised from tight control over media is the highest
possible wisdom.
Albert K. Fung
> It is amazing that someone can look back at the Cold War and
> saw wisdom in the US strategy. Those must be the kind that
> thinks that Reagan "won the Cold War".
>
> It always strikes me that the "contributions" of many a winner
> of the Nobel Prize of Economics are nothing more than common
> sense. The above is one example. Another is Herb Simon's
> observation that people thinks for themselves rather than for
> the business organization they work for.
haha:
> Does "parallel lines never intersect" sound like "common sense"
> to you, too?
今操已擁百萬之眾，挾天子而令諸侯 ....
The canonical chickens a la Bertrand Russell was, of course,
at once nightmarish and intuitive. But, the eminent philoso-
pher failed to acknowledge this sad fact: It was a zero-sum
game which had a matrix of four, and only four outcomes. And
there was no room for a fifth one. Which, was his humanistic
and preferred outcome.
He lacked the moral integrity to discern a moral asymmetry.
The Warsaw Pact, bounded together by fear and controlled via
a Hobbesian Leviathan was an efficient, well-oiled machinery
that was designed to carry out the will of the Kremlin with-
out consideration for the hopes, dreams, and wishes of those
who manned it. In contrast, the NATO was an alliance of dem-
ocratic countries. They must respond to overwhelming threats
despite divided governments. Member countries had separation
of powers, checks and balances, etc. And, issues of war and
peace were firmly in the hands of their people. The power to
declare war, in the USA, for example, was in the hand of the
Congress.
That was the reason why, in view of the overwhelming advant-
ages of his adversery, 孫權 must rely on the strategy of "國險
而民附，賢能為之用" to seek a Nash equilibrium. The
alternative,
was to surrender and became a chicken of history. That would
have been utterly regrettable. For the Chinese culture would
not have the three-country heros, and their timeless legends
to grace its romantic folklores. :)
The gentleman from California, had the moral courage to play
his part in the tragedy of live. So that the gentleman from
England could have the luxury of indulging his vanities from
the safety of the sideline.
And the absolute clarity of hindsights ....
Tak To
> It always strikes me that the "contributions" of many a winner
> of the Nobel Prize of Economics are nothing more than common
> sense. The above is one example. Another is Herb Simon's
> observation that people thinks for themselves rather than for
> the business organization they work for.
ltl...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Everything that makes sense is not outside of common sense. In this
> sense, common sense as a collective is also the highest possible
> sense/wisdom.
I don't know how you use the term "common sense", but
for me, the Special Theory of Relativity is beyond common
sense.
ltlee1
Tak To wrote:
> Tak To wrote:
> > It always strikes me that the "contributions" of many a winner
> > of the Nobel Prize of Economics are nothing more than common
> > sense. The above is one example. Another is Herb Simon's
> > observation that people thinks for themselves rather than for
> > the business organization they work for.
>
> ltl...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > Everything that makes sense is not outside of common sense. In this
> > sense, common sense as a collective is also the highest possible
> > sense/wisdom.
>
> I don't know how you use the term "common sense", but
> for me, the Special Theory of Relativity is beyond common
> sense.
>
I am sure someone will also say "contributions" of many a winner
of the Nobel Prize of Economics is beyond common sense. That is why
they got the Nobel Prize of Economics. The way I use the term "common
sense" is no different from the way you used it.
Each individual has his or her copy of "common sense." All of these
copies are incomplete. All of these copies together, however constitute
the best possible common sense. Nothing human can surpass it.
lechergod
deep.
[ common sense as a collective is also the highest possible
sense/wisdom. ]
when fucked deep,
change to
[> Each individual has his or her copy of "common sense." ]
Tak To
AF.0> "Schelling showed that a party can st-
AF.0> rengthen its position by overtly worsening its own options,
AF.0> [...]"
Tak To wrote:
TT.1> As anyone who has given thought to the game of "chicken"
TT.1> knows, the best strategy is to make the other side believe
TT.1> that you are totally mad.
TT.1> [...]
TT.1> Thus, the thing to do at the beginning of the is to ostensibly
TT.1> chain the steering wheel down. The opponent, seeing that
TT.1> your car cannot turn, will have no choice but try to turn and
TT.1> thus lose the game.
TT.1>
TT.1> It does not take a Nobel prize winner to know this.
TT.1>
TT.1> It also does not take a Nobel prize to guess what would happen
TT.1> if both side adopt this strategy. The question is, have the
TT.1> Cold War strategists thought of that?
haha wrote:
ha.2> http://www.timharford.com/favourites/schelling.htm
ha.2> Explaining the difference between stable and unstable deterrence, he
ha.2> imagined a face-off in the wild west, with both men on a hair-trigger,
ha.2> before observing: "If both were assured of living long enough to shoot
ha.2> back with unimpaired aim, there would be no advantage in jumping the gun
ha.2> and little reason to fear that the other would try it". Such thinking
ha.2> helped to change the US's stated policy of massive retaliation for any
ha.2> Soviet transgression, in favour of maintaining a credible second-strike
ha.2> capability to discourage a surprise attack. The resulting face-off did
ha.2> indeed prove more stable than anyone dared hope.
ha.2> -------------------------
ha.2>
ha.2> You can't "jump the gun" in a game of "chicken".
ha.2>
ha.2> The purpose of maintaining a credible counter-strike is
ha.2> to eliminate "first mover advantage".
The game of chicken was to illustrate the folly of "strengthening
through overtly worsening its own options". We are talking about
two different things. Apparently Schelling has said many things
and there are more than one "Schelling's strategy". :-)
ha.2> if both sides adopt professor Schelling's strategy, which is
ha.2> exactly what had happened, nobody would want to jump the gun,
ha.2> and therefore no nuclear war.
It is not at all clear to me the Soviet Union was thinking like
the US. For one, the Soviet Union was quite sure than the US
would never invade East Europe; whereas (the Cold Warriors in) the
US kept thinking that Soviet Union would always invade West Europe
if they thought they could get away with it.
It was quite plausible that the Soviet Union saw the US as
totally irrational, and that Kennedy's threat in the Cuban Missile
Crisis was akin to chaining down the steering wheel in the game
of chicken, and that it was they, the USSR, who was acting
with restrain and was willing to lose face to avoid a nuclear
war. Don't forget that the Soviet Union decided to move missiles
to Cuba only after the US deployed missiles to Turkey.
----- -----
TT.1> It always strikes me that the "contributions" of many a winner
TT.1> of the Nobel Prize of Economics are nothing more than common
TT.1> sense. The above is one example. Another is Herb Simon's
TT.1> observation that people thinks for themselves rather than for
TT.1> the business organization they work for.
ha.2> Does "parallel lines never intersect" sound like "common sense"
ha.2> to you, too?
Yes it does; or rather, that seems to be the meaning of "parallel"
in the ordinary sense (i.e., not in mathematics) of the word.
Your point?
ha.2> http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/002356.html
ha.2> Game theory is no doubt wonderful for telling stories. However, it
ha.2> flunks the main test of any scientific theory: The ability to make
ha.2> empirically testable predictions. In most real-life situations, many
ha.2> different outcomes -- from full cooperation to near-disastrous conflict
ha.2> -- are consistent with the game-theory version of rationality.
ha.2>
ha.2> To put it a different way: If the world had been blown up during the
ha.2> Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, game theorists could have explained that
ha.2> as an unfortunate outcome -- but one that was just as rational as what
ha.2> actually happened. Similarly, an industry that collapses into run-amok
ha.2> competition, like the airlines, can be explained rationally by game
ha.2> theorists as easily as one where cooperation is the norm.
ha.2> ------------------------
ha.2>
ha.2> I have read several books on the subject. Each of them contains
ha.2> similar warnings of the limitations of game theory.
Let's all distinguish game theorists who are interested in the
mathematics of it from game theorists who are interested in
using game theory to support the politics of whoever pays for
their salary.
Tak To
> [...]
> 今操已擁百萬之眾，挾天子而令諸侯 ....
>
> The canonical chickens a la Bertrand Russell was, of course,
> at once nightmarish and intuitive. But, the eminent philoso-
> pher failed to acknowledge this sad fact: It was a zero-sum
> game which had a matrix of four, and only four outcomes. And
> there was no room for a fifth one. Which, was his humanistic
> and preferred outcome.
It is not a zero-sum game.
No, Russell did not "fail to acknowledge" [a most curious
phrase!] the difference the game chicken and global politics,
he was using chicken as a metaphor. When someone says he is
going to let off some steam, do you think he is failing to
acknowledge the difference between his mind and a kettle?
> He lacked the moral integrity to discern a moral asymmetry.
>
> The Warsaw Pact, bounded together by fear and controlled via
> a Hobbesian Leviathan was an efficient, well-oiled machinery
> that was designed to carry out the will of the Kremlin with-
> out consideration for the hopes, dreams, and wishes of those
> who manned it. In contrast, the NATO was an alliance of dem-
> ocratic countries. They must respond to overwhelming threats
> despite divided governments. Member countries had separation
> of powers, checks and balances, etc. And, issues of war and
> peace were firmly in the hands of their people. The power to
> declare war, in the USA, for example, was in the hand of the
> Congress.
A war initiated by a democratic government is necessarily
moral? Perhaps you are the one who fail to acknowledge the
difference between democracy and morality. I am sure Mr LT
Lee will have a field day on this. :-)
Btw, to declare war and to use military force are two different
things. Many US Presidents have deployed troops without
declaring war -- from Madison's fight against the Barbary
pirates to Nixon's incursion into Cambodia. That was why
there was a separate War Power Act that was introduced in
1973. At the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis, Kennedy could
very well have been able to send off ICBM's without the
approval of the Congress.
> That was the reason why, in view of the overwhelming advant-
> ages of his adversery, 孫權 must rely on the strategy of "國險
> 而民附，賢能為之用" to seek a Nash equilibrium. The
> alternative,
> was to surrender and became a chicken of history. That would
> have been utterly regrettable. For the Chinese culture would
> not have the three-country heros, and their timeless legends
> to grace its romantic folklores. :)
How many lives does it take to make a military hero? Woe
is the people who need them.
> The gentleman from California, had the moral courage to play
> his part in the tragedy of live. So that the gentleman from
> England could have the luxury of indulging his vanities from
> the safety of the sideline.
You seriously think the the USSR would have invaded England
had the US not spent huge sums in arms?
> And the absolute clarity of hindsights ....
I wish. There are those who still cannot see clearly with
hindsight.
Tak To
TT.0> [...]
TT.0> It always strikes me that the "contributions" of many a winner
TT.0> of the Nobel Prize of Economics are nothing more than common
TT.0> sense. The above is one example. Another is Herb Simon's
TT.0> observation that people thinks for themselves rather than for
TT.0> the business organization they work for.
ltl...@hotmail.com wrote:
le.1> Everything that makes sense is not outside of common sense.
le.1> In this sense, common sense as a collective is also the highest
le.1> possible sense/wisdom.
TT.2> I don't know how you use the term "common sense", but
TT.2> for me, the Special Theory of Relativity is beyond common
TT.2> sense.
le.3> I am sure someone will also say "contributions" of many a winner
le.3> of the Nobel Prize of Economics is beyond common sense. That is why
le.3> they got the Nobel Prize of Economics.
To each his own opinion.
le.3> The way I use the term
le.3> "common sense" is no different from the way you used it.
?? But I don't agree that "common sense as a collective is also
the highest possible sense/wisdom".
le.3> Each individual has his or her copy of "common sense."
le.3> All of these copies are incomplete.
Incomplete in what sense?
le.3> All of these copies together, however constitute
le.3> the best possible common sense. Nothing human can surpass it.
This is not true. You are assuming that there is not one
piece of knowledge that everyone considers to be beyond common
sense.
In any case, the set union of copies of "common sense" is not
a particular meaningful entity. E.g., if half of the people think
that a piece of knowledge X is common sense and the other think
it is not, then why should X be in the "global" copy?
haha
Overtly worsening one's own options CAN strengthen his position, that's
what Schelling has said.
Whether it is the best strategy depends on the situation.
> ha.2> if both sides adopt professor Schelling's strategy, which is
> ha.2> exactly what had happened, nobody would want to jump the gun,
> ha.2> and therefore no nuclear war.
>
> It is not at all clear to me the Soviet Union was thinking like
> the US. For one, the Soviet Union was quite sure than the US
> would never invade East Europe; whereas (the Cold Warriors in) the
> US kept thinking that Soviet Union would always invade West Europe
> if they thought they could get away with it.
>
> It was quite plausible that the Soviet Union saw the US as
> totally irrational, and that Kennedy's threat in the Cuban Missile
> Crisis was akin to chaining down the steering wheel in the game
> of chicken, and that it was they, the USSR, who was acting
> with restrain and was willing to lose face to avoid a nuclear
> war. Don't forget that the Soviet Union decided to move missiles
> to Cuba only after the US deployed missiles to Turkey.
What threat did Kennedy utter to the Soviet Union?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_missile_crisis#U.S._response
With the news of the confirmed photographic evidence of Soviet missile
bases in Cuba, President Kennedy convened a special group of senior
advisers to meet secretly at the White House. This group later became
known as the ExComm, or Executive Committee of the National Security
Council. From the morning of October 16 this group met frequently to
devise a response to the threat. The officials had discussed the various
options - an immediate bombing strike was dismissed early on, as was a
potentially time-consuming appeal to the United Nations. The choice was
reduced to either a naval blockade and an ultimatum, or full-scale
invasion. A blockade was finally chosen, although there were a number of
hawks (notably Paul Nitze, and Generals Curtis LeMay and Maxwell Taylor)
who kept pushing for tougher action. An invasion was planned, and troops
were assembled in Florida (although with over 40,000 Russian soldiers in
Cuba, complete with tactical nuclear weapons, the proposed invading
force would have faced considerable difficulties).
--------------------------
"chaining down the steering wheel" means the driver can't change course
even if he wants to.
But Kennedy could cancel both the blockade and the invasion.
Both parties were just playing the game in the "normal" way: the US
chose to "stay", the USSR chose to "chicken out".
No "chaining down the steering wheel" was involved.
> ----- -----
>
> TT.1> It always strikes me that the "contributions" of many a winner
> TT.1> of the Nobel Prize of Economics are nothing more than common
> TT.1> sense. The above is one example. Another is Herb Simon's
> TT.1> observation that people thinks for themselves rather than for
> TT.1> the business organization they work for.
>
> ha.2> Does "parallel lines never intersect" sound like "common sense"
> ha.2> to you, too?
>
> Yes it does; or rather, that seems to be the meaning of "parallel"
> in the ordinary sense (i.e., not in mathematics) of the word.
> Your point?
Many mathematical theories are just "common sense", that is, if you
understand what those symbols mean.
> Let's all distinguish game theorists who are interested in the
> mathematics of it from game theorists who are interested in
> using game theory to support the politics of whoever pays for
> their salary.
>
http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/002356.html
[Assistant Secretary of Defense John] McNaughton came to see
[Schelling]. He outlined the administration's interest in escalating the
conflict in order to intimidate the North Vietnamese. Air power seemed
the logical instrument, but what sort of bombing campaign did Schelling
think would best ensure that the North would pick up on the signals and
respond accordingly? More broadly, what should the United States want
the North to do or stop doing; how would bombing convince them to obey;
how would we know that they had obeyed; and how could we ensure that
they wouldn't simply resume after the bombing had ceased?
Schelling and McNaughton pondered the problem for more than an
hour. In the end, they failed to come up with a single plausible answer
to these most basic questions. So assured when writing about sending
signals with force and inflicting pain to make an opponent behave, Tom
Schelling, when faced with a real-life war, was stumped.
He did leave McNaughton with one piece of advice: Whatever kind of
bombing campaign you end up launching, it shouldn't last more than three
weeks. It will either succeed by thenr it will never succeed.
The bombing campaignalled Operation Rolling Thunderommenced on
March 2, 1965. It didn't alter the behavior of the North Vietnamese or
Viet Cong in the slightest. Either they didn't read the signalsr the
signals had no effect.
ltlee1
Tak To wrote:
> Tak To wrote:
> TT.0> [...]
> TT.0> It always strikes me that the "contributions" of many a winner
> TT.0> of the Nobel Prize of Economics are nothing more than common
> TT.0> sense. The above is one example. Another is Herb Simon's
> TT.0> observation that people thinks for themselves rather than for
> TT.0> the business organization they work for.
>
> ltl...@hotmail.com wrote:
> le.1> Everything that makes sense is not outside of common sense.
> le.1> In this sense, common sense as a collective is also the highest
> le.1> possible sense/wisdom.
>
> TT.2> I don't know how you use the term "common sense", but
> TT.2> for me, the Special Theory of Relativity is beyond common
> TT.2> sense.
>
> le.3> I am sure someone will also say "contributions" of many a winner
> le.3> of the Nobel Prize of Economics is beyond common sense. That is why
> le.3> they got the Nobel Prize of Economics.
>
> To each his own opinion.
>
> le.3> The way I use the term
> le.3> "common sense" is no different from the way you used it.
>
> ?? But I don't agree that "common sense as a collective is also
> the highest possible sense/wisdom".
Why?
Tell me whether you agree with the following.
Student A talks with B, who is a professor of relativity. A does not
know anything about the Special Theory of Relativity at first. But
after a lenghty discussion, B makes A understand. How does B teach and
how does A learn? B and A must communicate in language and concepts
which make sense to both of them. In another word, B teaches and A
learns by using their common sense. Furthermore, after A has learnt
enough relativity, one can also says the Special Theory of Ralativity
is common sense to both A and B.
In fact, it is through common sense that one can communicate with and
make sense of each other. Communication through common sense can be
interpersonal and intrapersonal (reflexive thinking).
How did Einstein derive the 'Special Theory of Relativity'?
If we don't believe some aliens or God had put something into
Einsteain's head, the answer is: he figured things out through
discussion with colleagues and/or through thinking about the problem.
In another word, through interpersonal and intrapersonal communication
using his common sense.
> le.3> Each individual has his or her copy of "common sense."
> le.3> All of these copies are incomplete.
>
> Incomplete in what sense?
>
> le.3> All of these copies together, however constitute
> le.3> the best possible common sense. Nothing human can surpass it.
>
> This is not true. You are assuming that there is not one
> piece of knowledge that everyone considers to be beyond common
> sense.
I am saying that for every piece of information, someone will treat it,
consciously unconsciously, as common sense. Special relativity is
common sense to a certain group of physicists just like how to grow the
rare tulips is common sense to a certain group of gardeners.
> In any case, the set union of copies of "common sense" is not
> a particular meaningful entity. E.g., if half of the people think
> that a piece of knowledge X is common sense and the other think
> it is not, then why should X be in the "global" copy?
Common sense is only common because it is useful. Special Relativity is
not useful to most people. Hence they can ignore it. But the
information is considered useful by some, so they will perserve the
information in the global pool.
Of course, common sense also include a lot of nonsense. What is
considered common sense to the fundamentalists is considered by other
people. But the fundamentalists will keep the nonsense because such
nonsense is useful for them to support their fundamentalist view.
Albert K. Fung
>
> The Warsaw Pact, bounded together by fear and controlled via
> a Hobbesian Leviathan was an efficient, well-oiled machinery
> that was designed to carry out the will of the Kremlin with-
> out consideration for the hopes, dreams, and wishes of those
> who manned it. In contrast, the NATO was an alliance of dem-
> ocratic countries. They must respond to overwhelming threats
> despite divided governments. Member countries had separation
> of powers, checks and balances, etc. And, issues of war and
> peace were firmly in the hands of their people. The power to
> declare war, in the USA, for example, was in the hand of the
> Congress.
Tak To:
> A war initiated by a democratic government is necessarily
> moral? Perhaps you are the one who fail to acknowledge the
> difference between democracy and morality. I am sure Mr LT
> Lee will have a field day on this. :-)
>
> Btw, to declare war and to use military force are two different
> things. Many US Presidents have deployed troops without
> declaring war -- from Madison's fight against the Barbary
> pirates to Nixon's incursion into Cambodia. That was why
> there was a separate War Power Act that was introduced in
> 1973. At the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis, Kennedy could
> very well have been able to send off ICBM's without the
> approval of the Congress.
Unlike a totalitarian regime ....
It's substantially more difficult for a democracy, let alone
a coalition of democracies, to arrive at a conscenous. A war
declaration from a reluctant US Congress, to enter WWII took
intensive lobbying from Mr. Churchill, considerable cunnings
from Mr. Roosevelt. Even so, the congress, still shell shock
from WWI, was not willing.
Finally, it took a U-boat attack for USA to enter the fray.
Both the Kremlin and the Pentagon were keenly aware that the
post WWII US Congress was stilling licking wounds. Until and
unless the sky felt, it would never fight another war. Which
was a very serious concern of the NATO countries. Because it
posted no credible threat to its adversary, the Warsaw Pact,
due to the the questionable nature of this important option:
the USA's will to go to war. This's not unlike the HK Police
unwilling to use force or to carry a gun. BTW, this is where
reducing one's options makes war more likely.
Hence the deceptively simple proposal of Dr. Schilling ....
lechergod
>
> Tell me whether you agree with the following.
>
> Student A talks with B, who is a professor of relativity. A does not
> know anything about the Special Theory of Relativity at first. But
> after a lenghty discussion, B makes A understand. How does B teach and
> how does A learn? B and A must communicate in language and concepts
> which make sense to both of them. In another word, B teaches and A
> learns by using their common sense. Furthermore, after A has learnt
> enough relativity, one can also says the Special Theory of Ralativity
> is common sense to both A and B.
>
> In fact, it is through common sense that one can communicate with and
> make sense of each other. Communication through common sense can be
> interpersonal and intrapersonal (reflexive thinking).
>
> How did Einstein derive the 'Special Theory of Relativity'?
> If we don't believe some aliens or God had put something into
> Einsteain's head, the answer is: he figured things out through
> discussion with colleagues and/or through thinking about the problem.
> In another word, through interpersonal and intrapersonal communication
> using his common sense.
>
the communist dog insults 'Special Theory of Relativity' to be
non-common sense !!!!
in fact, it is within common sense, can be explain in common sense.
not like communism, extremely violating common sense,
so as to learn it before anyone can communicate with this communist dog.
that is why communism is so vicious.
>
> I am saying that for every piece of information, someone will treat it,
> consciously unconsciously, as common sense. Special relativity is
> common sense to a certain group of physicists just like how to grow the
> rare tulips is common sense to a certain group of gardeners.
>
'Special Theory of Relativity' is within the physics a special language
to make communicate more brief only.
the basis of 'Special Theory of Relativity' is common sense.
this communist dog is insulting 'Special Theory of Relativity' !!!!
>
> Common sense is only common because it is useful. Special Relativity is
> not useful to most people. Hence they can ignore it. But the
> information is considered useful by some, so they will perserve the
> information in the global pool.
this expose this communist dog[s mind as useful for such communists to
squeeze 1.3 billion chinks.
>
> Of course, common sense also include a lot of nonsense. What is
> considered common sense to the fundamentalists is considered by other
> people. But the fundamentalists will keep the nonsense because such
> nonsense is useful for them to support their fundamentalist view.
common sense do not include nonsense,
only common language such as communism include not only nonsense,
but vicious materials.
that is why communist dog's fundamentalist view is to squeeze 1.3
billion chinks.
Jim Walsh
> Tak To wrote:
>> ?? But I don't agree that "common sense as a collective is also the
>> highest possible sense/wisdom".
>
> Why?
Because he "highest possible sense/wisdom" does not include a lot of
nonsense, but AS YOU SAY, common sense does.
> Of course, common sense also include a lot of nonsense....
Tak To
TT.3> The game of chicken was to illustrate the folly of "strengthening
TT.3> through overtly worsening its own options". We are talking about
TT.3> two different things. Apparently Schelling has said many things
TT.3> and there are more than one "Schelling's strategy". :-)
haha wrote:
ha.4> Overtly worsening one's own options CAN strengthen his position,
ha.4> that's what Schelling has said. Whether it is the best strategy
ha.4> depends on the situation.
Yes, as I have explained, worsening one's own options amounts
to appearing irrational, thus handicapping a _rational_ opponent.
I have also said that this is little more than common sense.
Ask the any parent of young children. :-)
----- -----
TT.3> It is not at all clear to me the Soviet Union was thinking like
TT.3> the US. For one, the Soviet Union was quite sure than the US
TT.3> would never invade East Europe; whereas (the Cold Warriors in) the
TT.3> US kept thinking that Soviet Union would always invade West Europe
TT.3> if they thought they could get away with it.
TT.3>
TT.3> It was quite plausible that the Soviet Union saw the US as
TT.3> totally irrational, and that Kennedy's threat in the Cuban Missile
TT.3> Crisis was akin to chaining down the steering wheel in the game
TT.3> of chicken, and that it was they, the USSR, who was acting
TT.3> with restrain and was willing to lose face to avoid a nuclear
TT.3> war. Don't forget that the Soviet Union decided to move missiles
TT.3> to Cuba only after the US deployed missiles to Turkey.
ha.4> What threat did Kennedy utter to the Soviet Union?
From the wikipedia article that you have quoted: "blockade and an
ultimatum", that "the military was 'prepare[d] for any eventualities."
This was taken at that time to mean escalation to nuclear war.
ha.4> "chaining down the steering wheel" means the driver can't
ha.4> change course even if he wants to. But Kennedy could cancel
ha.4> both the blockade and the invasion. Both parties were just
ha.4> playing the game in the "normal" way: the US chose to "stay",
ha.4> the USSR chose to "chicken out". No "chaining down the
ha.4> steering wheel" was involved.
OK, it is chaining down without throwing away the key, so that
at the last minute the driver can unlock the chain. :-)
You have to take into account the particulars of diplomatic speak
and the context. "Prepared for any eventualities" was interpreted
by others to mean that "we WILL nuke you when things come to that".
Note that unlike for example the PRC, the US has always refused
to adopt a no-first-use policy on nuclear weapons (for obvious
reasons). Thus Kennedy's message was far more threatening than
"we will fight nukes with nukes".
----- -----
TT.1> It always strikes me that the "contributions" of many a winner
TT.1> of the Nobel Prize of Economics are nothing more than common
TT.1> sense. The above is one example. Another is Herb Simon's
TT.1> observation that people thinks for themselves rather than for
TT.1> the business organization they work for.
ha.2> Does "parallel lines never intersect" sound like "common sense"
ha.2> to you, too?
TT.3> Yes it does; or rather, that seems to be the meaning of "parallel"
TT.3> in the ordinary sense (i.e., not in mathematics) of the word.
TT.3> Your point?
ha.4> Many mathematical theories are just "common sense", that is,
ha.4> if you understand what those symbols mean.
Again, I am not sure how you use the terms. "Sense" by me is
a form of insight, not just knowledge. And the context has to
be sufficiently universal in order to be "common". Thus, that
the President of the US is George W Bush is common knowledge
but not common sense. And while I might have developed
some insights over the years to tell if a perspective employee
would be a good programmer, I would not call it common sense,
especially to people outside my field.
----- -----
Tak To
le.1> Everything that makes sense is not outside of common sense.
le.1> In this sense, common sense as a collective is also the highest
le.1> possible sense/wisdom.
Tak To wrote:
TT.2> I don't know how you use the term "common sense", but
TT.2> for me, the Special Theory of Relativity is beyond common
TT.2> sense.
le.3> The way I use the term
le.3> "common sense" is no different from the way you used it.
TT.4> ?? But I don't agree that "common sense as a collective is also
TT.4> the highest possible sense/wisdom".
le.5> Why?
le.5>
le.5> Tell me whether you agree with the following.
le.5>
le.5> Student A talks with B, who is a professor of relativity.
le.5> A does not know anything about the Special Theory of
le.5> Relativity at first. But after a lenghty discussion, B makes
le.5> A understand. How does B teach and how does A learn? B and A
le.5> must communicate in language and concepts which make sense
le.5> to both of them. In another word, B teaches and A learns by
le.5> using their common sense.
I would not use the word "common sense" here, unless I want
to redefine the term. I would say, "B teaches and A learns
by using a concepts common to both.
As I explained in another post in the same thread, "sense" in
"common sense" means insight, which is different from knowledge.
That the president of the US is George W Bush is common knowledge,
not common sense.
And "common" means "common place". "Common to both A and B"
is not "common place".
le.5> Furthermore, after A has learnt enough relativity, one can
le.5> also says the Special Theory of Ralativity is common sense
le.5> to both A and B.
le.5>
le.5> In fact, it is through common sense that one can communicate
le.5> with and make sense of each other. Communication through
le.5> common sense can be interpersonal and intrapersonal (reflexive
le.5> thinking).
le.5> [...]
It is quite clear that we use the term differently.
----- -----
le.3> Each individual has his or her copy of "common sense."
le.3> All of these copies are incomplete.
TT.4> Incomplete in what sense?
le.3> All of these copies together, however constitute
le.3> the best possible common sense. Nothing human can surpass it.
TT.4> This is not true. You are assuming that there is not one
TT.4> piece of knowledge that everyone considers to be beyond
TT.4> common sense.
le.5> I am saying that for every piece of information, someone will
le.5> treat it, consciously unconsciously, as common sense.
le.5> [...]
In the above, you used "common sense" as "knowledge/insight possessed
by all the members in a group". Thus, the fact that someone considers
a piece of knowledge/insight as "common" does not make it actually
common per your definition.
In any case, I don't see how this is true. For example, the knowledge
of what I dreamt about last night is possessed only by me, and I don't
treat it as "common" by me. And I don't see how anyone else would
treat it as "common".
----- -----
ltlee1
Common sense is more than common concepts. For instance, the meaning
ie. the sense of a word must be shared and common. Without which,
communication will not be possible.
> As I explained in another post in the same thread, "sense" in
> "common sense" means insight, which is different from knowledge.
> That the president of the US is George W Bush is common knowledge,
> not common sense.
>
> And "common" means "common place". "Common to both A and B"
> is not "common place".
The "common" in "common people", "common books," "common knowledge."
and etc do not means "common place."
I never said everyone is having the same level or share a same copy of
"common sense." For example, you consider some contributions by some
Bobel Prize winners common, but the committee members obvious did not
see it that way. Hence, their common sense must be different from you.
May be you misunderstand me. I clearly stated that each individual has
his or her own copy of "common sense."
> In any case, I don't see how this is true. For example, the knowledge
> of what I dreamt about last night is possessed only by me, and I don't
> treat it as "common" by me. And I don't see how anyone else would
> treat it as "common".
There are occassions that we cannot express ourselves. If it can be
expressed to oneself, it can also be expressed to another person, then
it is expressed through the common sense of a language.
The opposite of common sense is private sense.
One example is how one feels pain. It is difficult because we lack the
common sense on pain. Another example our incapability to explain color
to someone who was born blind.
lechergod
this Tak To will never understand, since Tak To can only
read,see,believe
no brain to think.
Jim Walsh
> Common sense is more than common concepts. For instance, the meaning ie.
> the sense of a word must be shared and common. Without which,
> communication will not be possible.
The "for instance" is not an example of common sense contain MORE THAN
common concepts. It is an instance of common sense containing common
concepts.
Tak To
le.1> Everything that makes sense is not outside of common sense.
le.1> In this sense, common sense as a collective is also the highest
le.1> possible sense/wisdom.
Tak To wrote:
TT.2> I don't know how you use the term "common sense", but
TT.2> for me, the Special Theory of Relativity is beyond common
TT.2> sense.
le.3> The way I use the term
le.3> "common sense" is no different from the way you used it.
TT.4> ?? But I don't agree that "common sense as a collective is also
TT.4> the highest possible sense/wisdom".
le.5> Why?
le.5>
le.5> Tell me whether you agree with the following.
le.5>
le.5> Student A talks with B, who is a professor of relativity.
le.5> A does not know anything about the Special Theory of
le.5> Relativity at first. But after a lenghty discussion, B makes
le.5> A understand. How does B teach and how does A learn? B and A
le.5> must communicate in language and concepts which make sense
le.5> to both of them. In another word, B teaches and A learns by
le.5> using their common sense.
TT.6> I would not use the word "common sense" here, unless I want
TT.6> to redefine the term. I would say, "B teaches and A learns
TT.6> by using a concepts common to both.
le.7> Common sense is more than common concepts. [...]
Right, and that is why I won't use the term "common sense" here.
----- ------
TT.6> As I explained in another post in the same thread, "sense" in
TT.6> "common sense" means insight, which is different from knowledge.
TT.6> That the president of the US is George W Bush is common knowledge,
TT.6> not common sense.
TT.6>
TT.6> And "common" means "common place". "Common to both A and B"
TT.6> is not "common place".
(Note: I was explaining my usage.)
le.7> The "common" in "common people", "common books," "common knowledge."
le.7> and etc do not means "common place."
The context should have made it clear that I was talking about the
"common" in "common sense", and whatever the other phrases mean is
entirely irrelevant.
Nonetheless, note that
- commonplace means widely available, thus ordinary, unremarkable,
"a dime a dozen"
- common sense means insight observed by many, perhaps unremarkable
- common people means ordinary people, not fansy types
- common books mean widely available books, not rare ones
- common knowledge means information that is widely known, not
esoteric
These meanings look the same to me.
----- -----
le.3> Each individual has his or her copy of "common sense."
le.3> All of these copies are incomplete.
TT.4> Incomplete in what sense?
le.3> All of these copies together, however constitute
le.3> the best possible common sense. Nothing human can surpass it.
TT.4> This is not true. You are assuming that there is not one
TT.4> piece of knowledge that everyone considers to be beyond
TT.4> common sense.
le.5> I am saying that for every piece of information, someone will
le.5> treat it, consciously unconsciously, as common sense.
le.5> [...]
TT.6> In the above, you used "common sense" as "knowledge/insight possessed
TT.6> by all the members in a group". Thus, the fact that someone considers
TT.6> a piece of knowledge/insight as "common" does not make it actually
TT.6> common per your definition.
le.7> I never said everyone is having the same level or share a same copy
le.7> of "common sense."
And I did not say you said. In fact, I was not talking about this
aspect at all; I was referring to your definition of "common sense".
Specifically, your previous paragraph
le.5] "B and A must communicate in language and concepts which
le.5] make sense to both of them. In another word, B teaches and A
le.5] learns by using their common sense."
indicates that your take "common sense" to mean "sense common to
both of them". I mean, if your "common" did not come from "common
to both", why put it in the paraphrase? What not say, "... by using
their senses" or "... by using what they already know"?
Perhaps before going any further, you should state clearly once
and for all what you mean by "common sense" is.
----- -----
TT.6> In any case, I don't see how this is true. For example, the knowledge
TT.6> of what I dreamt about last night is possessed only by me, and I don't
TT.6> treat it as "common" by me. And I don't see how anyone else would
TT.6> treat it as "common".
le.7> There are occassions that we cannot express ourselves. If it can be
le.7> expressed to oneself, it can also be expressed to another person, then
le.7> it is expressed through the common sense of a language.
Once again that the meaning of "common sense" in "the common sense of
a language" is unclear. To me, people have common sense, and maybe
animals as well. However, a language does not have common sense.
ltlee1
I am not sure our differences reflect different definitions. However, I
don't think the dictionary definition completely capture the full
meaning of complex concept.
It seems to me that you made a dichotomy between "common" and "rare"
knowledge according to your own private criteria. Hence you considered
the findings of certain Bobel prise winner common sense but the Special
theory of Relativity beyond common sesne. In contrast, I see each
person have his or her copy of "common sense". That is, a set of
knowledge, understanding, intuitions, values and etc. A person can only
communicate with himself and other persons and makes sense of the world
through this set of knowledge, understanding, intuitions, values, and
etc. (Student A who had learnt the theory of relativity is, in a sense,
a different person from student A who hadn't learnt the theory of
relativity. Yet there must be something common to both. Otherwise,
student A the ignorant cannot be transformed to student A the
knowledgeable.)
Each person's copy of "common sense" overlaps with other people's copy
of "common sense" to a large extent. The large degree of overlapping is
what makes common sense common. The overlapping also makes
interpersonal communication possible. At the same time, each person has
a slightly different copy.
>
> Specifically, your previous paragraph
>
> le.5] "B and A must communicate in language and concepts which
> le.5] make sense to both of them. In another word, B teaches and A
> le.5] learns by using their common sense."
>
> indicates that your take "common sense" to mean "sense common to
> both of them". I mean, if your "common" did not come from "common
> to both", why put it in the paraphrase? What not say, "... by using
> their senses" or "... by using what they already know"?
>
> Perhaps before going any further, you should state clearly once
> and for all what you mean by "common sense" is.
>
> ----- -----
>
> TT.6> In any case, I don't see how this is true. For example, the knowledge
> TT.6> of what I dreamt about last night is possessed only by me, and I don't
> TT.6> treat it as "common" by me. And I don't see how anyone else would
> TT.6> treat it as "common".
>
> le.7> There are occassions that we cannot express ourselves. If it can be
> le.7> expressed to oneself, it can also be expressed to another person, then
> le.7> it is expressed through the common sense of a language.
>
> Once again that the meaning of "common sense" in "the common sense of
> a language" is unclear. To me, people have common sense, and maybe
> animals as well. However, a language does not have common sense.
"Sense" here means "meaning."
haha
> Tak To wrote:
> TT.3> The game of chicken was to illustrate the folly of "strengthening
> TT.3> through overtly worsening its own options". We are talking about
> TT.3> two different things. Apparently Schelling has said many things
> TT.3> and there are more than one "Schelling's strategy". :-)
>
> haha wrote:
> ha.4> Overtly worsening one's own options CAN strengthen his position,
> ha.4> that's what Schelling has said. Whether it is the best strategy
> ha.4> depends on the situation.
>
> Yes, as I have explained, worsening one's own options amounts
> to appearing irrational, thus handicapping a _rational_ opponent.
> I have also said that this is little more than common sense.
> Ask the any parent of young children. :-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_of_chicken#Chicken_and_game_theory
One tactic in the game[of chicken] is for one party to signal their
intentions convincingly before the game begins. For example, if one
party were to ostentatiously disable their steering wheel just before
the match, the other party would be compelled to swerve. This shows
that, in some circumstances, reducing one's own options can be a good
strategy. One real-world example is a protester who handcuffs himself to
an object, so that no threat can be made which would compel him to move
(since he cannot move).
------------------
Does this protester appear irrational to you?
Besides, if you could arrange a reduction of your own options before the
match, it is no longer strictly speaking a game of chicken.
You have failed to distinguish between "adopting a particular stratgey"
and "reducing one's own options". Kennedy chose to "stay", but he could
have adopted another strategy, and the Russians knew he could have too.
Perhaps Kennedy was irrational, but he didn't reduce his own options. On
the contrary, by installing missiles in Turkey, he gave himself more
options.
I don't have the heart for a philosophical discussion on the nature of
"common sense". I just want to point out that some seemingly trivial
notions may have profound consequences.
> ----- -----
>
> Tak
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
> Tak To ta...@alum.mit.eduxx
> --------------------------------------------------------------------^^
> [taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr
>
Albert K. Fung
> Yes, as I have explained, worsening one's own options amounts
> to appearing irrational, thus handicapping a _rational_ opponent.
> I have also said that this is little more than common sense.
> Ask the any parent of young children. :-)
haha:
> Does this protester appear irrational to you?
> Besides, if you could arrange a reduction of your own options before the
> match, it is no longer strictly speaking a game of chicken.
Therein, lies the Nash "common sense" .... :)
Let's say the USSR were to dismental all of her nuclear arms
unilaterally.How would that USSR decision affect the leaders
of the USA? One would hope that the answer would be nothing.
Because no responsible, rational leader would want to gamble
with the lives and properties of the US citizens.
Assuming the USSR was rational, the same would also be true.
Therefore, even though the optimal outcome would've been for
both sides to cooperate and disarm. Conservative sentiments,
however, would dictate otherwise. The arms race would ensure
and even escalate.
That, is why religious faith is a sine qua non for a leader.
To play the canonical game of chicken a la Bertrand Russell,
one must have the requisite moral backbone. Deep religious
faith guided the gentlemen from Massachusetts and California
and helped them separate the black from the white. Moreover,
it is the religious imperatives, that give substance to that
American creed. Which, is but the metaphorical chain-to-the-
wheel to notify the US governments and foreign enemies alike
on the bottom line of US citizens.
Give me liberty, or give me death ....
Regards,
Albert K. Fung
Estancia la Serenidad/Chutbut, Argentina.
Albert K. Fung
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tak To:
> Yes, as I have explained, worsening one's own options amounts
> to appearing irrational, thus handicapping a _rational_ opponent.
> I have also said that this is little more than common sense.
> Ask the any parent of young children. :-)
haha:
> Does this protester appear irrational to you?
> Besides, if you could arrange a reduction of your own options before the
> match, it is no longer strictly speaking a game of chicken.
Therein, lies the Nash "common sense" .... :)
Let's say the USSR were to dismental all of her nuclear arms
unilaterally.How would that USSR decision affect the leaders
of the USA? One would hope that the answer would be nothing.
Because no responsible, rational leader would want to gamble
with the lives and properties of the US citizens.
Assuming the USSR was rational, the same would also be true.
Therefore, even though the optimal outcome would've been for
both sides to cooperate and disarm. Conservative sentiments,
however, would dictate otherwise. The arms race would ensure
and even escalate.
That was the seminal, some would say "common sense", contri-
bution of Prof. John Nash of MIT, to the field of economics.
He proposed to model the Smithian price model as von Neumann
non-cooperative game. In which, the classical assumpiton of
rational participants became irrelevant. For Nash equilibria
are frequently the apparently irrational outcomes, chosen by
seemingly rational players.
ltlee1
Tak To wrote:
> Tak To wrote:
> TT.3> The game of chicken was to illustrate the folly of "strengthening
> TT.3> through overtly worsening its own options". We are talking about
> TT.3> two different things. Apparently Schelling has said many things
> TT.3> and there are more than one "Schelling's strategy". :-)
>
> haha wrote:
> ha.4> Overtly worsening one's own options CAN strengthen his position,
> ha.4> that's what Schelling has said. Whether it is the best strategy
> ha.4> depends on the situation.
>
> Yes, as I have explained, worsening one's own options amounts
> to appearing irrational, thus handicapping a _rational_ opponent.
Don't agree
Actually, all domestic laws as well as international treaties are based
on worsening the government's own options. "Use a gun, go to jail" and
etc are rational.
> I have also said that this is little more than common sense.
> Ask the any parent of young children. :-)
The problem is that smart opponents may be able to create 'chicken rib'
situations. Young children are experts in this area. Their offenses are
irritated enough to provoke the parents but not bad enough to make
punishment automatic.
To preclude similar situations, pre-Qin legalists had suggested to
treat every infraction as serious offense.
Anyway, whether a certain course of action is rational depends on the
goal. Reduced option will in general discourage the opponent from risk
taking. But it increases the odd of accident. It is a trade off. If one
decides to chain the steering wheel, he better make sure that the
opponent is not mad or suicidal.
Tak To
TT.3> The game of chicken was to illustrate the folly of "strengthening
TT.3> through overtly worsening its own options". We are talking about
TT.3> two different things. Apparently Schelling has said many things
TT.3> and there are more than one "Schelling's strategy". :-)
haha wrote:
ha.4> Overtly worsening one's own options CAN strengthen his position,
ha.4> that's what Schelling has said. Whether it is the best strategy
ha.4> depends on the situation.
TT.5> Yes, as I have explained, worsening one's own options amounts
TT.5> to appearing irrational, thus handicapping a _rational_ opponent.
TT.5> I have also said that this is little more than common sense.
TT.5> Ask the any parent of young children. :-)
ha.6> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_of_chicken#Chicken_and_game_theory
ha.6> One tactic in the game[of chicken] is for one party to signal their
ha.6> intentions convincingly before the game begins. For example, if
ha.6> one party were to ostentatiously disable their steering wheel just
ha.6> before the match, the other party would be compelled to swerve. This
ha.6> shows that, in some circumstances, reducing one's own options can be
ha.6> a good strategy. One real-world example is a protester who handcuffs
ha.6> himself to an object, so that no threat can be made which would
ha.6> compel him to move (since he cannot move).
ha.6> ------------------
ha.6>
ha.6> Does this protester appear irrational to you?
The question is, in what way the protester has limited his options
by handcuffing himself to an object?
In the game of chicken, the options are driving straight or
turning. Turning is an option of real significance because it
can the driver's life. In contrast, the protestor is risking close
to nothing by handcuffing himself down (assuming he is doing it in
a democratic society). Thus, moving away is not real option.
On the other hand, if there is significant danger involved, such
as being killed by police (in a totalitarian society), well then,
the protestor does appear to be irrational.
ha.6> Besides, if you could arrange a reduction of your own options
ha.6> before the match, it is no longer strictly speaking a game of
ha.6> chicken.
Please elaborate.
----- -----
ha.4> "chaining down the steering wheel" means the driver can't
ha.4> change course even if he wants to. But Kennedy could cancel
ha.4> both the blockade and the invasion. Both parties were just
ha.4> playing the game in the "normal" way: the US chose to "stay",
ha.4> the USSR chose to "chicken out". No "chaining down the
ha.4> steering wheel" was involved.
TT.5> OK, it is chaining down without throwing away the key, so that
TT.5> at the last minute the driver can unlock the chain. :-)
ha.6> You have failed to distinguish between "adopting a particular
ha.6> stratgey" and "reducing one's own options". Kennedy chose to
ha.6> "stay", but he could have adopted another strategy, and the
ha.6> Russians knew he could have too.
Kennedy chose a strategy of meeting any escalation with further
escalation(*). This is analoguous to driving straight and not
turning (backing down) in the game of chicken.
(*) Note that ultimatum itself (and the blockade) is an
escalation. The US could have just lived with the missiles in
Cuba, like the Soviet Union living with missiles in Turkey.
ha.6> Perhaps Kennedy was irrational, but he didn't reduce his own
ha.6> options.
So I was right! Appearing to be irrational does strengthen one's
position. And this is more universal than "reducing one's option".
Do you think I deserve a Nobel prize for that? :-)
Seriously, ...
by announcing that he is prepared to escalate further, JFK made
it a lot hard to back down in the future, which would severely
weakens the US's credibility in the future.
ha.6> On the contrary, by installing missiles in Turkey, he gave
ha.6> himself more options.
I don't have any argument with this part.
----- -----
ha.6> I don't have the heart for a philosophical discussion on the
ha.6> nature of "common sense". I just want to point out that some
ha.6> seemingly trivial notions may have profound consequences.
So does common sense. If one does not follow the common sense of
watching out for cars before crossing a road, one could get kill
very easily.
Is that the extend of your disagreement? I wasn't really sure.
lechergod
that is why the axis of evil must be destroyed completely !!!!!
and the communists had yelled to redden the whole world.
Tak To
le.9> I am not sure our differences reflect different definitions.
le.9> However, I don't think the dictionary definition completely
l3.9> capture the full meaning of complex concept.
Well, I have stated that my "common sense" means "ordinary,
unremarkable insight". If your definition is the same as mine,
then in theory one can substitute every occurrence of "common
sense" in your post with "ordinary insight/knowledge/observation".
(I am ignoring the the difference between insight and knowledge
for the time being.)
So
"...common sense ... is the highest possible sense/wisdom"
=> "...ordinary knowledge ... is the highest possible sense/wisdom"
"...B teaches and A learns by using their common sense"
=> "...B teaches and A learns by using their ordinary knowledge"
"...it is through common sense that one can communicate..."
=> "...it is through ordinary knowledge that one can communicate..."
"... is expressed through the common sense of a language"
=> "... is expressed through the ordinary knowledge of a language"
Well, there you are. As you can see, the paraphrasing does not
work in all cases. Thus, it can be concluded that your definition
is different from mine.
----- -----
le.9> It seems to me that you made a dichotomy between "common"
le.9> and "rare" knowledge according to your own private criteria.
le.9> Hence you considered the findings of certain Bobel prise
le.9> winner common sense but the Special theory of Relativity
le.9> beyond common sesne. In contrast, I see each person have
le.9> his or her copy of "common sense".
I too think that each person has his own criterion of "common
sense". However, whereas you seem to think that each person's
criteria depends on what what he knows, I think it depends more
on what he thinks others know.
In particular, you seem to be confused with the following two
different notions of "S is common sense/knowledge to P"
A. P judges that the general public is familiar with S.
B. (Someone, perhaps P himself, judges that) P is familiar
with S.
For example, you think that since every piece of knowledge/insight
X is familiar to at least one person (notion B), then at least
one person must consider X to be "common sense" (notion A).
To clarify further: I have consistantly used notion A in this
thread. When I said that Schelling's finding seems to be not
much more than common sense, I meant that in my assessment, most
people bave already arrived at the same insight from their
experience. And when I said the STofR is beyond common sense,
I meant that in my assessment, most people would not have arrived
at the same insight from their own experience. Whether I
personally have any insight on either subject is irrelevant.
And no, I don't expect everyone's assessment to give the same
result.
----- -----
le.9> That is, a set of knowledge, understanding, intuitions, values
le.9> and etc. A person can only communicate with himself and other
le.9> persons and makes sense of the world through this set of
le.9> knowledge, understanding, intuitions, values, and etc. [...]
I really have no interest in discussing this part. Let me
just note again that you are confusing knowledge with insight.
----- -----
TT.8> [...] your previous paragraph
TT.8>
TT.8> le.5] "B and A must communicate in language and concepts which
TT.8> le.5] make sense to both of them. In another word, B teaches
TT.8> le.5] and A learns by using their common sense."
TT.8>
TT.8> indicates that your take "common sense" to mean "sense common to
TT.8> both of them". I mean, if your "common" did not come from "common
TT.8> to both", why put it in the paraphrase? What not say, "... by using
TT.9> their senses" or "... by using what they already know"?
Any comment on what I have said here? I was saying that your
"common" here has a slight different meaning (= "shared", not
"widely available, ordinary").
----- -----
le.7> [...]
le.7> There are occassions that we cannot express ourselves.
le.7> If it can be expressed to oneself, it can also be expressed
le.7> to another person, then it is expressed through the common
le.7> sense of a language.
TT.8> Once again that the meaning of "common sense" in "the common
TT.8> sense of a language" is unclear. To me, people have common
TT.8> sense, and maybe animals as well. However, a language does
TT.8> not have common sense.
le.9> "Sense" here means "meaning."
There you go again. Adding yet another notion of "common sense"
to the already overloaded term.
Tak To
TT> [...] worsening one's own options amounts to appearing irrational,
TT> thus handicapping a _rational_ opponent.
ltlee1 wrote:
le> Don't agree
le> Actually, all domestic laws as well as international treaties are
le> based on worsening the government's own options. "Use a gun, go
le> to jail" and etc are rational.
Let's compare a law with a (apparently) less rational variation.
A. "If I catch you stealing, I will put you in jail."
B. "If I see you at night for whatever reason, even if you have
stolen anything, I will shoot and kill you."
Which one do you think is more effective in reducing burglary?
TT> I have also said that this is little more than common sense.
TT> Ask the any parent of young children. :-)
le> The problem is that smart opponents may be able to create
le> 'chicken rib' situations. Young children are experts in this
le> area. Their offenses are irritated enough to provoke the
le> parents but not bad enough to make punishment automatic.
The very young are using themselves as hostages, even though
they are not aware of it. (Have you ever try to spoon feed
an infant who doesn't like the food? :-))
le> [...]
le> If one decides to chain the steering wheel, he better make
le> sure that the opponent is not mad or suicidal.
Precisely my point.
ltlee1
Tak To wrote:
> ltlee1 wrote:
> le.9> I am not sure our differences reflect different definitions.
> le.9> However, I don't think the dictionary definition completely
> l3.9> capture the full meaning of complex concept.
>
> Well, I have stated that my "common sense" means "ordinary,
> unremarkable insight". If your definition is the same as mine,
> then in theory one can substitute every occurrence of "common
> sense" in your post with "ordinary insight/knowledge/observation".
> (I am ignoring the the difference between insight and knowledge
> for the time being.)
>
> So
> "...common sense ... is the highest possible sense/wisdom"
> => "...ordinary knowledge ... is the highest possible sense/wisdom"
I specified the common sense of all humans taken as a whole.
"Each individual has his or her copy of "common sense." All of these
copies are incomplete. All of these copies together, however constitute
the best possible common sense."
>
> "...B teaches and A learns by using their common sense"
> => "...B teaches and A learns by using their ordinary knowledge"
>
> "...it is through common sense that one can communicate..."
> => "...it is through ordinary knowledge that one can communicate..."
>
> "... is expressed through the common sense of a language"
> => "... is expressed through the ordinary knowledge of a language"
>
> Well, there you are. As you can see, the paraphrasing does not
> work in all cases. Thus, it can be concluded that your definition
> is different from mine.
It does not work in the first example for a reason. Common sense of the
collective, not common sense of an individual, is the highest possible
sense/wisdom.
> ----- -----
>
> le.9> It seems to me that you made a dichotomy between "common"
> le.9> and "rare" knowledge according to your own private criteria.
> le.9> Hence you considered the findings of certain Bobel prise
> le.9> winner common sense but the Special theory of Relativity
> le.9> beyond common sesne. In contrast, I see each person have
> le.9> his or her copy of "common sense".
>
> I too think that each person has his own criterion of "common
> sense". However, whereas you seem to think that each person's
> criteria depends on what what he knows, I think it depends more
> on what he thinks others know.
>
> In particular, you seem to be confused with the following two
> different notions of "S is common sense/knowledge to P"
>
> A. P judges that the general public is familiar with S.
> B. (Someone, perhaps P himself, judges that) P is familiar
> with S.
Please answer the following questions.
Generally speaking:
Is person P in a position to judge what he himself is familiar with
regardless how 'familiar' is defined? Is P in the same poisiton to
judge what the general public is faimilar with?
The answer is "NO." As a matter of fact, P can't judge the public's
knnowledge/insight at all if he cannot judge his own knowledge/insight.
Conclusion: P may think he can judge what the general is familiar with.
But he could be totally wrong.
>
> For example, you think that since every piece of knowledge/insight
> X is familiar to at least one person (notion B), then at least
> one person must consider X to be "common sense" (notion A).
That is not what I wrote.
"I am saying that for every piece of information, someone will treat
it,
consciously unconsciously, as common sense."
Some one treating a piece of information as common sense does not mean
that piece of informationis commonsensical in the society. For
instance, the neonazis see white supremacy as common sense. The society
at large does not see it that way.
> To clarify further: I have consistantly used notion A in this
> thread. When I said that Schelling's finding seems to be not
> much more than common sense, I meant that in my assessment, most
> people bave already arrived at the same insight from their
> experience. And when I said the STofR is beyond common sense,
> I meant that in my assessment, most people would not have arrived
> at the same insight from their own experience. Whether I
> personally have any insight on either subject is irrelevant.
>
> And no, I don't expect everyone's assessment to give the same
> result.
>
> ----- -----
>
> le.9> That is, a set of knowledge, understanding, intuitions, values
> le.9> and etc. A person can only communicate with himself and other
> le.9> persons and makes sense of the world through this set of
> le.9> knowledge, understanding, intuitions, values, and etc. [...]
>
> I really have no interest in discussing this part. Let me
> just note again that you are confusing knowledge with insight.
I saw an under 2 years old trying to get the last tic-tac which had
been stuck at the corner of the container. The little boy repeatedly
turned the container upside down and expected the tic-tac to fall out.
He was frustrated by his failures. What wss the basis of his
expectation? Knowledge? Insight? I can't tell. Can you?
>
> ----- -----
>
> TT.8> [...] your previous paragraph
> TT.8>
> TT.8> le.5] "B and A must communicate in language and concepts which
> TT.8> le.5] make sense to both of them. In another word, B teaches
> TT.8> le.5] and A learns by using their common sense."
> TT.8>
> TT.8> indicates that your take "common sense" to mean "sense common to
> TT.8> both of them". I mean, if your "common" did not come from "common
> TT.8> to both", why put it in the paraphrase? What not say, "... by using
> TT.9> their senses" or "... by using what they already know"?
>
> Any comment on what I have said here? I was saying that your
> "common" here has a slight different meaning (= "shared", not
> "widely available, ordinary").
I take "common sense" to mean "sense common to both of them" as you had
stated. It is not only their individual sense or knolwedge.
Acquiring knowlege is freqently a building up process. For example, one
must learn about numbers and then multiplication and substraction and
then algebra and trigonoetry and then calcalus.
If T is to teach S calcalus, their common knowledge or sense must be
tapped.
In this case, it is obvious that T and S do not have common knowledge
in calcalus. So they have seek common ground at lower level knowledge
such as algebra and trigonometry.
What if S does not know algebra and trigonometry? Well, they must seek
common knowlege at a still lower level such as multiplicaiton and
subtraction.
The subject matter is different. But the process is the same for
Einstein to derive the theory of relativity.
haha
The article from wikipedia said it, he cannot move.
> In the game of chicken, the options are driving straight or
> turning. Turning is an option of real significance because it
> can the driver's life. In contrast, the protestor is risking close
> to nothing by handcuffing himself down (assuming he is doing it in
> a democratic society). Thus, moving away is not real option.
In the context of our discussion, an option is a particular action, or a
series of particular actions one can take. Whether the consequence is
significance is irrelevant.
> On the other hand, if there is significant danger involved, such
> as being killed by police (in a totalitarian society), well then,
> the protestor does appear to be irrational.
Those are the other side's options: kill him or not kill him.
> ha.6> Besides, if you could arrange a reduction of your own options
> ha.6> before the match, it is no longer strictly speaking a game of
> ha.6> chicken.
>
> Please elaborate.
If one of the player can't "chicken out", it is no longer a game of chicken.
> ----- -----
>
> ha.4> "chaining down the steering wheel" means the driver can't
> ha.4> change course even if he wants to. But Kennedy could cancel
> ha.4> both the blockade and the invasion. Both parties were just
> ha.4> playing the game in the "normal" way: the US chose to "stay",
> ha.4> the USSR chose to "chicken out". No "chaining down the
> ha.4> steering wheel" was involved.
>
> TT.5> OK, it is chaining down without throwing away the key, so that
> TT.5> at the last minute the driver can unlock the chain. :-)
>
> ha.6> You have failed to distinguish between "adopting a particular
> ha.6> stratgey" and "reducing one's own options". Kennedy chose to
> ha.6> "stay", but he could have adopted another strategy, and the
> ha.6> Russians knew he could have too.
>
> Kennedy chose a strategy of meeting any escalation with further
> escalation(*). This is analoguous to driving straight and not
> turning (backing down) in the game of chicken.
>
> (*) Note that ultimatum itself (and the blockade) is an
> escalation. The US could have just lived with the missiles in
> Cuba, like the Soviet Union living with missiles in Turkey.
Yes, he could have, that's the point.
The fact that he didn't adopt this strategy doesn't mean it wasn't
available to him.
> ha.6> Perhaps Kennedy was irrational, but he didn't reduce his own
> ha.6> options.
>
> So I was right! Appearing to be irrational does strengthen one's
> position. And this is more universal than "reducing one's option".
Sometimes, appearing to be irrational does strengthen one's position.
Sometimes it doesn't.
You said it yourself.
> Do you think I deserve a Nobel prize for that? :-)
Perhaps you do. But unfortunately I don't have the authority to award
you one.
> Seriously, ...
>
> by announcing that he is prepared to escalate further, JFK made
> it a lot hard to back down in the future, which would severely
> weakens the US's credibility in the future.
Perhaps it was hard, but it wasn't impossible.
> ha.6> On the contrary, by installing missiles in Turkey, he gave
> ha.6> himself more options.
>
> I don't have any argument with this part.
>
> ----- -----
>
> ha.6> I don't have the heart for a philosophical discussion on the
> ha.6> nature of "common sense". I just want to point out that some
> ha.6> seemingly trivial notions may have profound consequences.
>
> So does common sense. If one does not follow the common sense of
> watching out for cars before crossing a road, one could get kill
> very easily.
>
> Is that the extend of your disagreement? I wasn't really sure.
>
> Tak
Jim Walsh
> "Each individual has his or her copy of "common sense." All of these
> copies are incomplete. All of these copies together, however constitute
> the best possible common sense."
Your copy of "common sense" says that the CCP is good. My copy says that
the CCP is bad.
Collecting our two copies together, we get gibberish.
> It does not work in the first example for a reason. Common sense of the
> collective, not common sense of an individual, is the highest possible
> sense/wisdom.
There is no collective brain. So there is no "collective common sense".
> That is not what I wrote.
>
> "I am saying that for every piece of information, someone will treat it,
> consciously unconsciously, as common sense."
Actually a lot of "common sense" consists of false statements like "There
is a god". And there are a lot of pieces of information which no one has
made part of their common sense.
ltlee1
Tak To wrote:
> Tak To wrote:
> TT> [...] worsening one's own options amounts to appearing irrational,
> TT> thus handicapping a _rational_ opponent.
>
> ltlee1 wrote:
> le> Don't agree
> le> Actually, all domestic laws as well as international treaties are
> le> based on worsening the government's own options. "Use a gun, go
> le> to jail" and etc are rational.
>
> Let's compare a law with a (apparently) less rational variation.
>
> A. "If I catch you stealing, I will put you in jail."
> B. "If I see you at night for whatever reason, even if you have
> stolen anything, I will shoot and kill you."
>
> Which one do you think is more effective in reducing burglary?
B will be more effective in reducing burglary.
May be the more appropriate question is the whether the marginal
benefits, i.e. marginal decrease in crime and consequences, matches the
marginal cost in killing innocent people. Depending on the goal and the
situation, the question may not be easy to answer.
Lynette
> Hey Taiwan could use fifty thousand US troops right now!
Wouldn't it be better (and less expensive) just to have a single
nuclear bomb, instead?
Tak To
TT.3> The game of chicken was to illustrate the folly of "strengthening
TT.3> through overtly worsening its own options". We are talking about
TT.3> two different things. Apparently Schelling has said many things
TT.3> and there are more than one "Schelling's strategy". :-)
haha wrote:
ha.4> Overtly worsening one's own options CAN strengthen his position,
ha.4> that's what Schelling has said. Whether it is the best strategy
ha.4> depends on the situation.
TT.5> Yes, as I have explained, worsening one's own options amounts
TT.5> to appearing irrational, thus handicapping a _rational_ opponent.
TT.5> I have also said that this is little more than common sense.
TT.5> Ask the any parent of young children. :-)
ha.6> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_of_chicken#Chicken_and_game_theory
ha.6> One tactic in the game[of chicken] is for one party to signal their
ha.6> intentions convincingly before the game begins. For example, if
ha.6> one party were to ostentatiously disable their steering wheel just
ha.6> before the match, the other party would be compelled to swerve.
ha.6> This shows that, in some circumstances, reducing one's own options
ha.6> can be a good strategy. One real-world example is a protester who
ha.6> handcuffs himself to an object, so that no threat can be made
ha.6> which would compel him to move (since he cannot move).
ha.6> ------------------
ha.6>
ha.6> Does this protester appear irrational to you?
TT.7> The question is, in what way the protester has limited his
TT.7> options by handcuffing himself to an object?
TT.7>
TT.7> In the game of chicken, the options are driving straight or
TT.7> turning. Turning is an option of real significance because it
TT.7> can the driver's life. In contrast, the protestor is risking
TT.7> close to nothing by handcuffing himself down (assuming he is
TT.7> doing it in a democratic society). Thus, moving away is not
TT.7> real option.
ha.8> In the context of our discussion, an option is a particular
ha.8> action, or a series of particular actions one can take. Whether
ha.8> the consequence is significance is irrelevant.
Not all actions are options. E.g., scratching one's nose,
wiggling one's toe, speaking in Swahili, etc.
With due respect to the author of the Wikipedia article, I think
handcuffing oneself to an object (in a democratic society) is not
a good example of "reducing one's option". It is more of a
counter-measure by creating obstacles for the opponent.
TT.7> On the other hand, if there is significant danger involved,
TT.7> such as being killed by police (in a totalitarian society),
TT.7> well then, the protestor does appear to be irrational.
ha.8> Those are the other side's options: kill him or not kill him.
Yes.
----- -----
ha.6> Besides, if you could arrange a reduction of your own options
ha.6> before the match, it is no longer strictly speaking a game of
ha.6> chicken.
TT.7> Please elaborate.
ha.8> If one of the player can't "chicken out", it is no longer a
ha.8> game of chicken.
You can say that. But then, it would be a meta-game of trying
to change the rules of the game. The factors of "irrationality"
or "reducing one's option" are still applicable at the meta-game
level.
----- -----
ha.4> "chaining down the steering wheel" means the driver can't
ha.4> change course even if he wants to. But Kennedy could cancel
ha.4> both the blockade and the invasion. Both parties were just
ha.4> playing the game in the "normal" way: the US chose to "stay",
ha.4> the USSR chose to "chicken out". No "chaining down the
ha.4> steering wheel" was involved.
TT.5> OK, it is chaining down without throwing away the key, so that
TT.5> at the last minute the driver can unlock the chain. :-)
ha.6> You have failed to distinguish between "adopting a particular
ha.6> stratgey" and "reducing one's own options". Kennedy chose to
ha.6> "stay", but he could have adopted another strategy, and the
ha.6> Russians knew he could have too.
TT.7> Kennedy chose a strategy of meeting any escalation with further
TT.7> escalation(*). This is analoguous to driving straight and not
TT.7> turning (backing down) in the game of chicken.
ha.8> Yes, he could have, that's the point.
ha.8> The fact that he didn't adopt this strategy doesn't mean it
ha.8> wasn't available to him.
As I said before
TT.7] by announcing that he is prepared to escalate further,
TT.7] JFK made it a lot hard to back down in the future,
TT.7] which would severely weakens the US's credibility in
TT.7] the future.
In other words, backing down is (virtually) no longer available
as an option.
Tak To
> That, is why religious faith is a sine qua non for a leader.
> To play the canonical game of chicken a la Bertrand Russell,
> one must have the requisite moral backbone.
That is why the self proclaimed religious is so dangerous.
They pass the responsibility to God.
> Deep religious
> faith guided the gentlemen from Massachusetts and California
> and helped them separate the black from the white.
Did deep religious faith guided Kennedy to have extra-marital
affairs with the likes of Judith Exner and Marilyn Monroe too?
And we all know that Regan was guided by his wife who was guided
by the horoscope in the newspaper.
lechergod
that is too easy.
of course, to this communist dog ltlee1,
he must be obedient to the corruptive officials and big boys
prince-gang,
who are feeding him licking arsehole rice.
this communist dog can never dare to touch the answer.
Tak To
TT.10> I too think that each person has his own criterion of "common
TT.10> sense". However, whereas you seem to think that each person's
TT.10> criteria depends on what what he knows, I think it depends more
TT.10> on what he thinks others know.
TT.10>
TT.10> In particular, you seem to be confused with the following two
TT.10> different notions of "S is common sense/knowledge to P"
TT.10>
TT.10> A. P judges that the general public is familiar with S.
TT.10> B. (Someone, perhaps P himself, judges that) P is familiar
TT.10> with S.
Ltlee1 wrote:
le.11> Please answer the following questions.
le.11>
le.11> Generally speaking:
le.11> Is person P in a position to judge what he himself is familiar
le.11> with regardless how 'familiar' is defined? Is P in the same
le.11> poisiton to judge what the general public is faimilar with?
le.11> [...]
This is entirely irrelevant. Whether we know for sure or not,
we assess what other people are thinking all the time. We
consider something to be "popular" if we think a lot of people
like it; and we consider something to be "common knowledge" if we
think a lot of people know it. Ditto for "common sense".
----- ------
TT.10> For example, you think that since every piece of knowledge/
TT.10> insight X is familiar to at least one person (notion B),
TT.10> then at least one person must consider X to be "common
TT.10> sense" (notion A).
le.11> That is not what I wrote.
le.11>
le.11> "I am saying that for every piece of information, someone will
le.11> treat it, consciously unconsciously, as common sense."
"treat ... as common sense", "consider to be common sense",
what's the difference?
le.11> Some one treating a piece of information as common sense does
le.11> not mean that piece of informationis commonsensical in the
le.11> society.
I don't know what "commonsenical in the society" mean, and I did
not say that.
----- -----
le.11> For instance, the neonazis see white supremacy as common sense.
le.11> The society at large does not see it that way.
Yes, and what is your point?
"The Neo-Nazi's consider white supremacy to be common sense"
simply means that the Neo-Nazi's think that a lot of people think
that whites are superior to other races. Of course they can be
wrong!
----- -----
le.9> That is, a set of knowledge, understanding, intuitions, values
le.9> and etc. A person can only communicate with himself and other
le.9> persons and makes sense of the world through this set of
le.9> knowledge, understanding, intuitions, values, and etc. [...]
TT.10> I really have no interest in discussing this part. Let me
TT.10> just note again that you are confusing knowledge with insight.
le.11> I saw an under 2 years old trying to get the last tic-tac which
le.11> had been stuck at the corner of the container. The little boy
le.11> repeatedly turned the container upside down and expected the
le.11> tic-tac to fall out. He was frustrated by his failures.
le.11> What wss the basis of his expectation? Knowledge? Insight?
le.11> I can't tell. Can you?
There difference between insight and knowledge is not in the
content but in the way they are gained. One can be fed
knowledge but one has to digest, reorganize and abstractize
knowledge in order to get insight. Knowing Pythagoras's
Theorem is one thing, but if one can't work out a proof
than one has no insight on the subject.
----- -----
TT.8> [...] your previous paragraph
TT.8>
TT.8> le.5] "B and A must communicate in language and concepts which
TT.8> le.5] make sense to both of them. In another word, B teaches
TT.8> le.5] and A learns by using their common sense."
TT.8>
TT.8> indicates that your take "common sense" to mean "sense common to
TT.8> both of them". I mean, if your "common" did not come from "common
TT.8> to both", why put it in the paraphrase? What not say, "... by using
TT.9> their senses" or "... by using what they already know"?
TT.10> Any comment on what I have said here? I was saying that your
TT.10> "common" here has a slight different meaning (= "shared", not
TT.10> "widely available, ordinary").
le.11> I take "common sense" to mean "sense common to both of them" as
le.11> you had stated. [...]
I am glad that you agree that you are using several different
meanings of "common sense" at the same time.
Tak To
TT.0> [...] worsening one's own options amounts to appearing
TT.0> irrational, thus handicapping a _rational_ opponent.
ltlee1 wrote:
le.1> Don't agree
le.1> Actually, all domestic laws as well as international treaties
le.1> are based on worsening the government's own options. "Use a
le.1> gun, go to jail" and etc are rational.
TT.2> Let's compare a law with a (apparently) less rational variation.
TT.2>
TT.2> A. "If I catch you stealing, I will put you in jail."
TT.2> B. "If I see you at night for whatever reason, even if you have
TT.2> stolen anything, I will shoot and kill you."
TT.2>
TT.2> Which one do you think is more effective in reducing burglary?
le.3> B will be more effective in reducing burglary.
So "appearing to be irrational" can strengthen one's position.
QED
le.3> May be the more appropriate question is the whether the
le.3> marginal benefits, i.e. marginal decrease in crime and
le.3> consequences, matches the marginal cost in killing innocent
le.3> people. Depending on the goal and the situation, the
le.3> question may not be easy to answer.
I am really not interested in discussing this.
ltl...@hotmail.com
The above is no difference. But the difference betwee notion A and B as
you had defined is not there.
Unless we did a survey on whether subject matter S is part of the
common sense, we can't tell whether S is part of common sense. This of
course, does not prevent one from seeing S as common sense.
>
> le.11> Some one treating a piece of information as common sense does
> le.11> not mean that piece of informationis commonsensical in the
> le.11> society.
>
> I don't know what "commonsenical in the society" mean, and I did
> not say that.
>
> ----- -----
>
> le.11> For instance, the neonazis see white supremacy as common sense.
> le.11> The society at large does not see it that way.
>
> Yes, and what is your point?
1. As stated above, unless we did a survey on whether a cerntain notion
S is part of the common sense, we can't tell whether S is part of
common sense objectively speaking. This of course, does not prevent one
from seeing S as common sense.
2. Although a certain notion can be shown to be not of common sense
objectivley, people can still hold it as common sense.
> "The Neo-Nazi's consider white supremacy to be common sense"
> simply means that the Neo-Nazi's think that a lot of people think
> that whites are superior to other races. Of course they can be
> wrong!
>
> ----- -----
>
> le.9> That is, a set of knowledge, understanding, intuitions, values
> le.9> and etc. A person can only communicate with himself and other
> le.9> persons and makes sense of the world through this set of
> le.9> knowledge, understanding, intuitions, values, and etc. [...]
>
> TT.10> I really have no interest in discussing this part. Let me
> TT.10> just note again that you are confusing knowledge with insight.
>
> le.11> I saw an under 2 years old trying to get the last tic-tac which
> le.11> had been stuck at the corner of the container. The little boy
> le.11> repeatedly turned the container upside down and expected the
> le.11> tic-tac to fall out. He was frustrated by his failures.
> le.11> What wss the basis of his expectation? Knowledge? Insight?
> le.11> I can't tell. Can you?
>
> There difference between insight and knowledge is not in the
> content but in the way they are gained. One can be fed
> knowledge but one has to digest, reorganize and abstractize
> knowledge in order to get insight. Knowing Pythagoras's
> Theorem is one thing, but if one can't work out a proof
> than one has no insight on the subject.
Don't agree.
According to Piaget, a person is not capable of formal reasoning
involving abstract thinking until he or she is 12 or older. You
definition of insight appears to be too narrow.
> ----- -----
>
> TT.8> [...] your previous paragraph
> TT.8>
> TT.8> le.5] "B and A must communicate in language and concepts which
> TT.8> le.5] make sense to both of them. In another word, B teaches
> TT.8> le.5] and A learns by using their common sense."
> TT.8>
> TT.8> indicates that your take "common sense" to mean "sense common to
> TT.8> both of them". I mean, if your "common" did not come from "common
> TT.8> to both", why put it in the paraphrase? What not say, "... by using
> TT.9> their senses" or "... by using what they already know"?
>
> TT.10> Any comment on what I have said here? I was saying that your
> TT.10> "common" here has a slight different meaning (= "shared", not
> TT.10> "widely available, ordinary").
>
> le.11> I take "common sense" to mean "sense common to both of them" as
> le.11> you had stated. [...]
>
> I am glad that you agree that you are using several different
> meanings of "common sense" at the same time.
I expressed the same notion differently.
The following is the summary of my current understanding of common
sense.
1. Common sense as a subjective assessment is different from common
sense as an objective reality as determined by a survey or other
empirical method.
2. Within the latter, the "common" can exist within a person, shared
among a small number of people or widespread in the society. The
common-ness allows communication among people and allows us to learn.
3. Each person's subjective copy of "common sense" is different and
incomplete. All of the copies together, however, will form the highest
wisdom. We know nothing beyond that. We can't.
Thank you for the discussion.
This is my last post on this topic. You are welcomed to have a final
word.
sigmund
hehe you two sure like to discuss..
what about a glance at the dictionary?
Main Entry: insight
Pronunciation: 'in-"sIt
Function: noun
1 : the power or act of seeing into a situation : PENETRATION
2 : the act or result of apprehending the inner nature of things or of
seeing intuitively
synonym see DISCERNMENT
Main Entry: common sense
Function: noun
1 : the unreflective opinions of ordinary people
2 : sound and prudent but often unsophisticated judgment
synonym see SENSE
- com·mon·sense /'kä-m&n-'sen(t)s/ adjective
- com·mon·sen·si·ble /-'sen(t)-s&-b&l/ adjective
- com·mon·sen·si·cal /-'sen(t)-si-k&l/ adjective
- com·mon·sen·si·cal·ly /-si-k(&-)lE/ adverb
haha
Point noted.
> With due respect to the author of the Wikipedia article, I think
> handcuffing oneself to an object (in a democratic society) is not
> a good example of "reducing one's option". It is more of a
> counter-measure by creating obstacles for the opponent.
It is not at all clear that this strategy has no significance. Maybe
prolonging the protest makes a great deal of difference. Maybe forcing
to police to use more drastic measures makes a great deal of difference.
The fact is, the author didn't fully describe the "game" being played.
You don't know politicans. They shamelessly change course all the time.
> Tak
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
> Tak To ta...@alum.mit.eduxx
> --------------------------------------------------------------------^^
> [taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr
>
Albert K. Fung
> Did deep religious faith guided Kennedy to have extra-marital
> affairs with the likes of Judith Exner and Marilyn Monroe too?
>
> And we all know that Regan was guided by his wife who was guided
> by the horoscope in the newspaper.
Hear, hear ....
And, that most proper English gentleman, Neville Chamnerlin,
curteously pulled his car over. The German Chancellor, Herr
Hitler, promptly obligue. While that sad, alcoholic ruffin,
Mr. Winston Churchill, not only irrationally took the steer-
ing wheel off. But roughly stepped on the accelerator.
And deeply offended Mr. Russell's genteel sensibilities ....
Regards,
Albert K. Fung
Estancia la Serenidad/Chubut, Argentina.
Tak To
> [...] that most proper English gentleman, Neville Chamnerlin,
> curteously pulled his car over. The German Chancellor, Herr
> Hitler, promptly obligue. While that sad, alcoholic ruffin,
> Mr. Winston Churchill, not only irrationally took the steer-
> ing wheel off. But roughly stepped on the accelerator.
... only to stop at Yalta.
> And deeply offended Mr. Russell's genteel sensibilities ....
Russell's words and acts can speak for themselves. OTOH,
are you implying that Russell's pacificism necessarily stems
from his atheism?
Tak To
TT.9> Not all actions are options. E.g., scratching one's nose,
TT.9> wiggling one's toe, speaking in Swahili, etc.
TT.9> [...]
TT.9> With due respect to the author of the Wikipedia article,
TT.9> I think handcuffing oneself to an object (in a democratic
TT.9> society) is not a good example of "reducing one's option".
TT.9> It is more of a counter-measure by creating obstacles for
TT.9> the opponent.
haha wrote:
ha.10> It is not at all clear that this strategy has no significance.
ha.10> Maybe prolonging the protest makes a great deal of difference.
ha.10> Maybe forcing to police to use more drastic measures makes
ha.10> a great deal of difference.
What I meant was that "NOT handcuffing" is not really an
_alternative_ as far as strategy is concerned. It is of course
a _variable_ within a plan, not unlike speeding up or slowing
down in the game of chicken.
ha.10>? The fact is, the author didn't fully describe the "game"
ha.10> being played.
There is always a limit as to how far a metaphore can go.
----- -----
ha.4> "chaining down the steering wheel" means the driver can't
ha.4> change course even if he wants to. But Kennedy could cancel
ha.4> both the blockade and the invasion. Both parties were just
ha.4> playing the game in the "normal" way: the US chose to "stay",
ha.4> the USSR chose to "chicken out". No "chaining down the
ha.4> steering wheel" was involved.
TT.5> OK, it is chaining down without throwing away the key, so that
TT.5> at the last minute the driver can unlock the chain. :-)
ha.6> You have failed to distinguish between "adopting a particular
ha.6> stratgey" and "reducing one's own options". Kennedy chose to
ha.6> "stay", but he could have adopted another strategy, and the
ha.6> Russians knew he could have too.
TT.7> Kennedy chose a strategy of meeting any escalation with further
TT.7> escalation(*). This is analoguous to driving straight and not
TT.7> turning (backing down) in the game of chicken.
ha.8> Yes, he could have, that's the point.
ha.8> The fact that he didn't adopt this strategy doesn't mean it
ha.8> wasn't available to him.
TT.9> As I said before
TT.9>
TT.9> TT.7] by announcing that he is prepared to escalate further,
TT.9> TT.7] JFK made it a lot hard to back down in the future,
TT.9> TT.7] which would severely weakens the US's credibility in
TT.9> TT.7] the future.
TT.9>
TT.9> In other words, backing down is (virtually) no longer available
TT.9> as an option.
ha.10> You don't know politicans. They shamelessly change course all
ha.10> the time.
Back paddling at this scale is political suicide. Besides, it is
not clear if once started, things can be stopped at all.
haha
> Tak to wrote:
> TT.9> Not all actions are options. E.g., scratching one's nose,
> TT.9> wiggling one's toe, speaking in Swahili, etc.
> TT.9> [...]
> TT.9> With due respect to the author of the Wikipedia article,
> TT.9> I think handcuffing oneself to an object (in a democratic
> TT.9> society) is not a good example of "reducing one's option".
> TT.9> It is more of a counter-measure by creating obstacles for
> TT.9> the opponent.
>
> haha wrote:
> ha.10> It is not at all clear that this strategy has no significance.
> ha.10> Maybe prolonging the protest makes a great deal of difference.
> ha.10> Maybe forcing to police to use more drastic measures makes
> ha.10> a great deal of difference.
>
> What I meant was that "NOT handcuffing" is not really an
> _alternative_ as far as strategy is concerned. It is of course
> a _variable_ within a plan, not unlike speeding up or slowing
> down in the game of chicken.
What's the difference between an "option" and a "variable"? If it really
has significant impact on the outcome, maybe we should treat it as an
"option".
> ha.10>? The fact is, the author didn't fully describe the "game"
> ha.10> being played.
>
> There is always a limit as to how far a metaphore can go.
Or, it depends on how we model the situation. Mathematical models are
always imperfect. That is one of the reasons why it is difficult to
apply game theory to real life situations.
He didn't offically commit the US to a "no backdown" position. And he
secretly agreed to remove the missiles in Turkey. Kennedy was not as
crazy as you think.
> Tak
Albert K. Fung
> Russell's words and acts can speak for themselves. OTOH,
> are you implying that Russell's pacificism necessarily stems
> from his atheism?
"Give me liberty ...."
"Or give me death." In life, there must be a bottom line. It
is a principle that religious faithful observe, instinctive-
ly. One must strive to do one's best. But, when one's bottom
line is in peril, the best choice is not a faustian bargain,
but to entrust one's family, honor, liberty, and life in the
hands of Providence.
And calmly takes out the musket and dry the gun powder.
Most well meaning atheists understand that as well, but only
intellectual.More often than not, pacifism is only a veil to
conceal one's instinctive fear of death and deep-seated fear
of the responsibility of making morally difficult decisions.
During WWII, many Christians hided Jewish strangers. Knowing
full well that their entire family could be hang by the Nazi
SS's. One wonders: As a politial leader, would the honorable
gentleman be a Churchill and say "never!"?
Or, be a Chamberlain and say "peace!"? ....
Albert K. Fung
------------------------------------------------------------
Tak To:
> Russell's words and acts can speak for themselves. OTOH,
> are you implying that Russell's pacificism necessarily stems
> from his atheism?
"Give me liberty ...."
"Or give me death." In life, there must be a bottom line. It
is a principle that religious faithful observe, instinctive-
ly. One must strive to do one's best. But, when one's bottom
line is in peril, the best choice is not a faustian bargain,
but to entrust one's family, honor, liberty, and life in the
hands of Providence.
And calmly takes out the musket and dry the gun powder.
Most well meaning atheists understand that as well, but only
intellectual. More often than not, pacifism is but a veil to
conceal one's instinctive fear of death and deep-seated pho-
bia of the responsibility to make morally difficult choices.
During WWII, many Christians hided Jewish strangers. Knowing
full well that their entire family could be hang by the Nazi
SS police. They were not rackless nor irrational. They loved
their families. But as Christians, they must heed that moral
imperative: "I am my brother's keeper." No if's, no but's.
One wonders: Had he been a politial leader during WWII would
the honorable gentleman turned out to be a Churchill and say
Tak To
> Russell's words and acts can speak for themselves. OTOH,
> are you implying that Russell's pacificism necessarily stems
> from his atheism?
Albert K. Fung wrote:
> "Give me liberty ...."
>
> "Or give me death." In life, there must be a bottom line. It
> is a principle that religious faithful observe, instinctive-
> ly. One must strive to do one's best. But, when one's bottom
> line is in peril, the best choice is not a faustian bargain,
> but to entrust one's family, honor, liberty, and life in the
> hands of Providence.
>
> And calmly takes out the musket and dry the gun powder.
An atheist/agnostist can have just as much conviction in his
principles.
> Most well meaning atheists understand that as well, but only
> intellectual. More often than not, pacifism is but a veil to
> conceal one's instinctive fear of death and deep-seated pho-
> bia of the responsibility to make morally difficult choices.
And Christian pacifists any different?
Evidently you don't know Russell.
> During WWII, many Christians hided Jewish strangers. Knowing
> full well that their entire family could be hang by the Nazi
> SS police. They were not rackless nor irrational. They loved
> their families. But as Christians, they must heed that moral
> imperative: "I am my brother's keeper." No if's, no but's.
And many more persecuted Jews.
> One wonders: Had he been a politial leader during WWII would
> the honorable gentleman turned out to be a Churchill and say
> "never!"?
You don't seem to be aware that Russell has changed his position
regarding Germany after the war started.
> Or, be a Chamberlain and say "peace!"? ....
Note that Chamberlain was still in office when Britain declared
war on Germany and continued to serve for another 8 months.
I wonder what Churchill said at Yalta.
Albert K. Fung
> You don't seem to be aware that Russell has changed his position
> regarding Germany after the war started.
The Quakers would call that sunshine pacifism .... :)
Tak To
> You don't seem to be aware that Russell has changed his position
> regarding Germany after the war started.
Albert K. Fung wrote:
> The Quakers would call that sunshine pacifism .... :)
You think Britain had a moral imperative to enter WWI??