Why do we feel aroused when two ideas contradict each other?
Immortalist
"Inconsistency among related beliefs . . .produces motivation to do
whatever is easiest in order to regain cognitive consistency or
consonance among beliefs." --Jones and Gerard
Basically, cognitive dissonance is a state of tension that occurs
whenever an individual simualtaniiously holds two cognitions (ideas,
attitudes, beliefs, opinions) that are psychologically inconsistent.
Stated differently, two cognitions are dissonant if, considering these
two cognitions alone, the opposite of one follows from the other.
Because the occurrance of cognitive dissonance is unpleasant, people
are motivated to reduce it; this is roughly analogous to the processes
involved in the induction and reduction of such drives as hunger or
thirst----except that, here, the driving force arises from cognitive
dissonance rather than physiological needs. To hold two ideas that
contradict each other is to flirt with absurdity, and---as Albert
Camus, the existentialist philosopher, has observed---humans are
creatures who sppend their lives trying to convine themselves their
existence is not absurd.
During the late 1950's Leon Festinger developed the cognitive
dissonance theory to explain attitude formation and change. According
to the theory, there is a tendency to seek consistency among their
cognitions (i.e., ideas, beliefs, opinions).
Cognitive dissonance is the state
of tension one feels after making
a decision, taking an action, or
being exposed to some information
that is (contrary) to a prior attitude
-(Zimbardo et al., 1999, p. 752).
The state of tension is
psychologically unpleasant,
so something must change to
reduce the dissonance --
usually the prior attitude.
For example, a person may believe smoking is bad for her health, but
when she starts smoking she finds herself with inconsistent cognitions
("Smoking is unhealthy" and "I smoke") creating an unpleasant state of
dissonance, so she changes her prior attitude ("Smoking is not really
as bad for you as they make it seem"). Festinger also theorized that,
if a person could sufficiently attribute their behavior to an external
influence, his dissonance would be lower and thus there would be a
lesser attitude change. For a great example of this, see Supporting
Studies.
Cognitive dissonance explains well the process of effort
justification. If a person puts for a great deal of effort (i.e.,
energy, time, money), he wants to feel like it was worth it. For
example, if someone pays a high price for a new car and finds the car
uncomfortable, he may experience dissonance and so to reduce it, he
alters his attitude about the car to be more positive. One well-known
study that supported this, showed that if someone puts forth a lot of
effort to get into a group, the dissonance of potentially working hard
for nothing causes them to reduce that dissonance by liking the group
more (Aronson, 1969).
Cognitive dissonance is by no means a full-proof theory for predicting
attitude change. People do not always change their attitudes when
there is dissonance. For one thing, people differ in how much
inconsistency they can tolerate. Another thing is that two cognitions
that seem inconsistent to one person may not be to another. Still,
despite some mixed results, many studies have supported the idea that
dissonance does underlie many of our attitude shifts.
http://www.sfb504.uni-mannheim.de/glossary/cogdis.htm
http://chiron.valdosta.edu/mawhatley/9710/cogdiss.htm
http://www.apa.org/books/4318830s.html
M Purcell
> Cognitive Dissonance Theory
>.
>.
>.
A contradiction indicates a false premise. We apply Occams Razor.
Immortalist
If we chose in favor of defending our ego so we feel like good and
normal people are history and science really just means to those
instinctual ends? This razor you mention may cut away at the truth so
we can feel good about how we are and do decide.
The Psychology of Inadequate Justification
Attitude change as a means of reducing dissonance is not, of course,
limited to postdecision situations. It can occur in countless other
contexts, including every time a person says something he or she
doesn't believe or does something stupid or immoral. The effects can
be extremely powerful. Let us look at some of them.
In a complex society, we occasionally find ourselves saying or doing
things we don't completely believe. Does this always lead to attitude
change? No. To illustrate, I will choose a simple example. Joe Lawyer
enters the office and sees that his law partner, Joyce, has hung a
perfectly atrocious painting on the wall of the office they share. He
is about to tell her how awful he thinks it is when she says proudly,
"How do you like the painting? I did it myself—you know, in the art
class I'm taking at night."
"Very nice, Joyce," Joe answers. Theoretically, Joe's cognition "I am
a truthful person" is dissonant with the cognition "I said that
painting was nice, although it really is disastrous." Whatever
dissonance might be aroused by this inconsistency can easily and
quickly be reduced by Joe's cognition that it is important not to hurt
other people: "I lied so as not to hurt Joyce; why should I tell her
it's an ugly painting? It serves no useful purpose." This is an
effective way of reducing dissonance because it completely justifies
Joe's action. In effect, the justification is situation-determined. I
will call this external justification.
But what happens if there is not ample justification in the situation
itself? For example, imagine that Joe Lawyer, who is politically
conservative, finds himself at a cocktail party with many people he
doesn't know very well. The conversation turns to politics. The people
are talking with horror about the fact that the United States seems to
be drastically escalating its friendly overtures toward Castro's
regime in Cuba. Joe's belief is a complicated one; he has mixed
feelings about the topic, but generally he is opposed to our forming
an alliance with the Cuban dictatorship because he feels it is an evil
regime and we should not compromise with evil. Partly because Joe's
companions are sounding so pious and partly as a lark, he gradually
finds himself taking a much more liberal-radical position than the one
he really holds. As a matter of fact, Joe even goes so far as to
assert that Fidel Castro is an extraordinarily gifted leader and that
the Cuban people are better off with Communism than they've been in
hundreds of years. Somebody counters Joe's argument by talking about
the thousands of people that Castro is alleged to have murdered or
imprisoned in order to achieve a unified government. In the heat of
the argument, Joe replies that those figures are grossly exaggerated.
Quite a performance for a man who does, in fact, believe that Castro
killed thousands of innocent people during his rise to power.
When Joe awakens the next morning and thinks back on the previous
evening's events, he gasps in horror. "Oh, my God, what have I done?"
he says. He is intensely uncomfortable. Put another way, he is
experiencing a great deal of dissonance. His cognition "I misled a
bunch of people; I told them a lot of things about Cuba that I don't
really believe" is dissonant with his cognition "I am a reasonable,
decent, and truthful person." What does he do to reduce dissonance? He
searches around for external justifications. First, it occurs to Joe
that he might have been drunk and therefore not responsible for what
he said. But he remembers he had only one or two beers—no external
justification there. Because Joe cannot find sufficient external
justification for his behavior, it is necessary for him to attempt to
explain his behavior by using internal justification, changing his
attitude in the direction of his statements. That is, if Joe can
succeed in convincing himself that his statements were not so very far
from the truth, then he will have reduced dissonance; that is, his
behavior of the preceding night will no longer be absurd in his own
view. I do not mean to imply that Joe will suddenly become an avowed
Communist revolutionary. What I do mean is that he might begin to feel
a little less harsh about the Cuban regime than he felt before he made
those statements. Most events and issues in our world are neither
completely black nor completely white; there are many gray areas.
Thus, Joe might begin to take a different look at some of the events
that have taken place in Cuba during the past 50 years. He might start
looking into Castro's politics and decisions and become more disposed
toward seeing wisdom that he hadn't seen before. He might also begin
to be more receptive to information that indicates the extent of the
corruption, brutality, and ineptitude of the previous government. To
repeat: If an individual states a belief that is difficult to justify
externally, that person will attempt to justify it internally by
making his or her attitudes more consistent with the statement.
I have mentioned a couple of forms of external justification. One is
the idea that it's all right to tell a harmless lie in order to avoid
hurting a person's feelings—as in the case of Joe Lawyer and his
partner. Another is drunkenness as an excuse for one's actions. Still
another form of external justification is reward. Put yourself in
Joe's shoes for a moment, and suppose that you and I both were at that
cocktail party and I am an eccentric millionaire. As the conversation
turns to Cuba, I pull you aside and say, "Hey, I would like you to
come out strongly in favor of Fidel Castro and Cuban Communism."
What's more, suppose I hand you $5,000 for doing it. After counting
the money, you gasp, put the $5,000 in your pocket, return to the
discussion, and defend Fidel Castro to the hilt. The next morning when
you wake up, would you experience any dissonance? I don't think so.
Your cognition "I said some things about Fidel Castro and Cuban
Communism that I don't believe" is dissonant with the cognition "I am
a truthful and decent person." But, at the same time, you have
adequate external justification for having made that statement: "I
said those favorable things about Cuban communism in order to earn
$5,000—and it was worth it." You don't have to soften your attitude
toward Castro in order to justify that statement because you know why
you made those statements.
The Social Animal - Elliot Aronson - 8th Edition 1999
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0716733129/
mr dude@harvarduniversity.edu
>
> A contradiction indicates a false premise. We apply Occams Razor.
A contradiction cannot exist. An atom is itself, and so is the
universe; neither can contradict its own identity; nor can a part
contradict the whole. No concept man forms is valid unless he
integrates it without contradiction into the total sum of his
knowledge. To arrive at a contradiction is to confess an error in
one’s thinking; to maintain a contradiction is to abdicate one’s mind
and to evict oneself from the realm of reality.
Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a
contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is
wrong.
Ayn Rand
mr dude
M Purcell
The contradiction is real, Joe was not honest. I have a problem with
tact but I believe people generally want to know the truth, or at
least your perception of it. Rationalizations or self justification
are another matter.
M Purcell
*Anarcissie*
Only in abstract logic. In the real world, assuming
there is such a thing and it is ultimately logically
consistent, it implies incomplete knowledge. But
we already knew that.
I question, though, whether holding inconsistent
ideas troubles people very much. Many polls have
obtained simultaneously positive replies to such
pairs of questions as "Should the government do
more for the poor?" and "Do we spend too much
money on Welfare?"
My view is that "doublethink", as George Orwell
called it in 1984 -- the ability to maintain two or
more contradictory models of the world more or
less continuously -- is of considerable advantage
to life and reproduction. Our faculty for this
behavior is derived from evolutionary pressures.
M Purcell
I suspect this is more like fence sitting, our options remain open
until there is a need to chose, an adaptability to social pressures.
Michael Coburn
No. It is actually a sign of idiocy.
--
"Senate rules don't trump the Constitution" -- http://GreaterVoice.org/60
Rod Speed
> M Purcell <sacsca...@aol.com> wrote
>> Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>> Cognitive Dissonance Theory
>> A contradiction indicates a false premise. We apply Occams Razor.
> Only in abstract logic. In the real world, assuming
> there is such a thing and it is ultimately logically
> consistent, it implies incomplete knowledge.
> But we already knew that.
> I question, though, whether holding inconsistent ideas troubles people very much.
It clearly doesnt.
I've always been amazed that the fools that pray to some
damned god or other when someone they care about ends
up with a serious medical problem or there is a drought etc
when that arsehole of a god must have deliberately produced
both if there actually is some god that can control that stuff.
The other obvious example is the scientists who believe that
evolution has been established as what happens who keep
believing that that pathetic collection of fairy storys they call
their bible is the literal word of some damned god or other.
> Many polls have obtained simultaneously positive replies to such
> pairs of questions as "Should the government do
> more for the poor?" and "Do we spend too much
> money on Welfare?"
That isnt necessarily a contradiction if they believe
that the govt should be doing more for the poor by say
funding operations that 'help' them or say providing
free medical services for them, but who believe that
welfare in the sense of paying them money that they
can spend on anything they like including alcohol and
drugs isnt actually helping them at all.
I personally believe that almost all govts should do more
for the poor, but not with more welfare handouts, they
should be forcing them to get their act into gear on
getting a decent job with the employable and not allowing
them to not bother to work and just 'live' on welfare forever.
> My view is that "doublethink", as George Orwell
> called it in 1984 -- the ability to maintain two or
> more contradictory models of the world more or less
> continuously -- is of considerable advantage to life
Yes, it clearly is, particularly when the contradictions arent readily resolvable.
Welfare is one obvious example of that. Clearly those who are
incapable of useful work because they have a disability or just
have a problem with ear to ear dog shit that makes them
unemployable need at least a decent place to live and enough
to eat etc, particularly when they have kids etc, but that approach
will always see some who decide that what they get from the state
that way is all they need and choose to not bother to work etc.
> and reproduction.
Cant really see that so much.
> Our faculty for this behavior is derived from evolutionary pressures.
It may just be a side effect of a much more advanced brain, just like religion itself most likely is.
In other words it has nothing to do with evolutionary pressures at all and is just one of
the odder side effects of a very fancy brain compared with even just the higher animals.
Superstitions clearly are in that category.
Rod Speed
I doubt it, because there isnt usually any need to choose.
Its prefectly possible to grovel to some god or other when things arent
turning out the way you like and ignore the fundamental contradiction
that that arsehole of a god must have produced what you dont like.
jos boersema
On 2010-03-26, *Anarcissie* <anarc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 25, 9:24 pm, M Purcell <sacsca...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 25, 5:46 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Cognitive Dissonance Theory
>>
>
> Only in abstract logic. In the real world, assuming
> there is such a thing and it is ultimately logically
> consistent, it implies incomplete knowledge. But
> we already knew that.
>
> I question, though, whether holding inconsistent
> ideas troubles people very much. Many polls have
> obtained simultaneously positive replies to such
> pairs of questions as "Should the government do
> more for the poor?" and "Do we spend too much
> money on Welfare?"
Is that a contradiction ? Of course it isn't.
For example doing something for the poor could mean such things as:
- increase the minimum wage, savagely enforce that law
(Oh haha, the USA doesn't even have minimum wage law ? Slavery is
fine in the USA, part of their great 'freedom.')
- Give every person its share of land.
- Democratize businesses so that the business tyrant isn't the perpetual
enemy of labor income (share of profit).
- Socialize investment credit so that it will fund happy businesses,
rather then the most exploitive of them. You can do that either by
outlawing rent-seeking, shares, stock and whatever tricks they made
up, you can dry out capital so the markets will slowly grow but
according to market share and not by the effects of capital
investments; or you can introduce a permit system that only allows
adequately social investment groups (such as well controlled credit
unions and adequately policed good causes) the ability to invest money
non-profit to invest in businesses.
- Introduce a maximum on wealth owned by an individual and corporation,
so that no super-wealth class emerges, which tends to press everyone
else into the fringe and poverty. Without the super-wealthy, many
chances to make money that they would (and to a degree only they
could) exploit would not get exploited, leading to more chances left
over to now poor people to partake in the markets.
- Work to foment a culture that admires a reasonable wage, stimulate the
natural hatred of the people of the Plutocratic super-wealthy (usually
quite evil bastards) class, so that price per work hour rises and
people would get offended at very low work prices.
- Some kind of system where people who can't pay taxes out of poverty
are enrolled in Government services where they can at least work to
pay taxes after they have been able to make a living wage from that
work too.
- Dramatically reduce Government corruption by ending the imperial
ambition, back to national politics (Kingdom size rather then emperor
size), and dramatically increase the democracy of the Government.
- Improve health care and services so that people have less chance of
becoming very poor from bad health of any kind.
- Set a maximum amount of work hours a week and a year, and savagely
enforce such laws, so that the few won't be worked to near death while
others stand on the sideline in poverty without being able to work
(a well known trick by the capitalists to make more money: intensify
the work greatly). Causes more people to be able to find work, thus
fewer are in poverty.
- Introduce classes for all children on how to make a living from their
share of land. If they can, even if nobody helps them they can still
rely on their farming skills to survive.
- Stop waging wars as a nation, because waging wars introduces a criminal
normative culture, where dog will eat dog, which gets transported into
salary agreements and the wish to opress others, causing poverty in
those not too adept in going about this violence (which actually makes
them better people, but they get hit for it).
All these things do mean you would do more for the poor and the
opressed, while not spending more money on welfare. You could spend
even less on welfare this way, while reducing poverty greatly
(potentially).
Frito Pendejo
> Cognitive Dissonance Theory
>
> "Inconsistency among related beliefs . . .produces motivation to do
> whatever is easiest in order to regain cognitive consistency or
> consonance among beliefs." --Jones and Gerard
"To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while
telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions
which canceled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in
both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while
laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that
the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was
necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the
moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again: and
above all, to apply the same process to the process itself. That was the
ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once
again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just
performed. Even to understand the word 'doublethink' involved the use of
doublethink."
--1984
Michael Gordge
> Nice plug but it's a common logical principle.
Idiot, logic is useless without matter, logic derives its meaning from
an observation of matter, i.e. matter dependent, Rand's premise of non-
contradiction (logic) is derived from matter.
MG
Clave
news:4f47de97-9ecb-485d...@k4g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
=====================================================================
More faux-intellecshul horseshit from the pretentious douche.
Logic emerges from analysis of relationships between non-material ideas, ie
REASONING.
Hardly a surprise that you have less than a passing acquaintance with it.
Jim
Arindam Banerjee
isn't usually, that's true. Not usually, we have the classic
confrontation between love and duty, as we may see in the Hindi movie
Mughal-a-Azam. Pop the king says ditch the girl, that's the duty; son
the prince says no shit I am going to rebel. (A lot more eloquently
of course, in ultra-refined urdu.)
> Its prefectly possible to grovel to some god or other when things arent
> turning out the way you like and ignore the fundamental contradiction
> that that arsehole of a god must have produced what you dont like.
Sorta personal, that.
- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Rod Speed
>>>> M Purcell <sacsca...@aol.com> wrote
>>>>> Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>>> Cognitive Dissonance Theory
>>>>> A contradiction indicates a false premise. We apply Occams Razor.
>>>> Only in abstract logic. In the real world, assuming
>>>> there is such a thing and it is ultimately logically
>>>> consistent, it implies incomplete knowledge. But
>>>> we already knew that.
>>>> I question, though, whether holding inconsistent
>>>> ideas troubles people very much. Many polls have
>>>> obtained simultaneously positive replies to such
>>>> pairs of questions as "Should the government do
>>>> more for the poor?" and "Do we spend too much
>>>> money on Welfare?"
>>>> My view is that "doublethink", as George Orwell
>>>> called it in 1984 -- the ability to maintain two or
>>>> more contradictory models of the world more or
>>>> less continuously -- is of considerable advantage
>>>> to life and reproduction. Our faculty for this
>>>> behavior is derived from evolutionary pressures.
>>> I suspect this is more like fence sitting, our options remain open
>>> until there is a need to chose, an adaptability to social pressures.
>> I doubt it, because there isnt usually any need to choose.
> isn't usually, that's true. Not usually, we have
> the classic confrontation between love and duty,
Even that doesnt happen all that much anymore in the west.
> as we may see in the Hindi movie Mughal-a-Azam.
> Pop the king says ditch the girl, that's the duty;
> son the prince says no shit I am going to rebel.
> (A lot more eloquently of course, in ultra-refined urdu.)
And Chaz and Camilla did something similar eventually
after Di turned into a hamburger in some french tunnel.
Bet that saw his dad choke on his tea just a tad.
>> Its prefectly possible to grovel to some god or other when things arent
>> turning out the way you like and ignore the fundamental contradiction
>> that that arsehole of a god must have produced what you dont like.
> Sorta personal, that.
True.
Zerkon
> Cognitive Dissonance Theory
>
> "Inconsistency among related beliefs . . .produces motivation to do
> whatever is easiest in order to regain cognitive consistency or
> consonance among beliefs." --Jones and Gerard
>
> Basically, cognitive dissonance is a state of tension that occurs
> whenever an individual simualtaniiously holds two cognitions (ideas,
> attitudes, beliefs, opinions) that are psychologically inconsistent.
Is this an example?
A person likes pornography. This same person thinks pornography is bad.
.. insert some resolve here ....
I do not think this is an example of 'two' opposite ideas or beliefs.
The pornography is object while the response or attraction is a
complexity composed of many things. The feeling of bad also is not just
one thought but one word which sums up complexity.
The concept of double bind better captures this same basic condition, I
think, in that it centers on communication or the process that results in
the person 'holding' the conflict. It also does not make it seem as if
the contradiction/conflict is made of two equally weighed ideas, each
equally approachable by reason.
It also suggests that if this is a given condition inside of the
environment it can have distinct negative consequences.
Zerkon
> My view is that "doublethink", as George Orwell called it in 1984 -- the
> ability to maintain two or more contradictory models of the world more
> or less continuously -- is of considerable advantage to life and
> reproduction. Our faculty for this behavior is derived from
> evolutionary pressures.
de-evolutionary, I'd say.
Double-think was made possible by Newspeak. Newspeak was an eradication
of existing concepts. Opposition to the CorpState became impossible
because the concept 'opposition to state' was removed so thought about
this was impossible.
bigfl...@gmail.com
More a case of 'know thyselve's.
The part of the brain that responds to actions resulting in well being
is often countered by the part that wants inactivity and laziness.
We use a common term to 'tame' such contradictions, but most do not
really grasp what they are saying. The term is 'self discipline' ,
more accurately 'selfs disciplined.
Either aspects can dominate, which leads to inbalance. The 'bits of
the brain' do not negotiate. "You" officiate.The 'self' is not being
disciplined, but disciplining.
Of course there are also 'parts of the brain' that, not understanding
such basic principles, come up with all sorts of weird and wonderful
theories.Not 'full proof' he states....Id never have guessed!!! (that
comes from the sarcastic part of my brain, but 'I' decided to use it
to emphasise a useful insight.)
BOfL
bigfl...@gmail.com
This view is the cause of most human conflict. How can a perfectly
normal healthy contributing member of society, have fantasies about
---------------(fill in the blanks). Answer, our psyche is capable of
imagining anything imaginable, much of which is experienced, some in
sleeping and some in waking dreams. We thrive on 'indulging' in such
opposites'. I wonder what Ayn Rand's fantasies where (I am an admirer
of the ladt btw and share many of her views).
Often, such contradictions are only so, because they do not fit
cultural norms. You can be indulging in monotonous activity, and day
dream about sking down a mountain. Nothing wrong with those
premises,but breaking into the Whitehouse with a graffiti can ?(that
also just crossed your mind. The mind is like that :-).
BOfL
bigfl...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
What of 'your version of the truth'? Cannot that be defined as
rationalisation?
BOfL
bigfl...@gmail.com
More to do with where we are going, than where we have been!
BOfL
Anarcissie
Zerkon <Z...@erkonx.net> wrote:
Doublethink appeared in nature long, long before
_1984_. A medium-sized carnivore prowling through the
brush hears something rustling. Is it lunch or a
larger-sized carnivore? The m.s.c. must simultaneously
entertain both contradictory possibilities until
something happens to fill out one pattern or the other
and then will have only a fraction of a second to act.
It will not have time to construct a new model of the
world because the previous one failed. Hence it
constructs two (or more) provisional models and keeps
them both in mind, however contradictory they may be.
Speaking of _1984_, it seems to me that logic is much
more consistent with the One True Truth of totalitarian
regimes than of liberalism or anarchism, which assume
that no one possesses the One True Truth, or that many
perhaps contradictory truths are possible. So why was
doublethink necessary? Because to some extent Big
Brother had to deal with the real, physical world which
may be logical in its deep structure but on the surface
presents many apparent contradictions to which logic
can be applied only intermittently and tentatively.
Curiously, Orwell finds this to be some kind of problem
whereas it is the one aspect of Ingsoc's fantasy of
unanimity which continues to have any possibility of
life in it.
Anarcissie
<8015b06a-49d9-46a0...@r1g2000yqj.google
groups.com>,
"mr du...@harvarduniversity.edu" <fost...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Mar 25, 9:24 pm, M Purcell <sacsca...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > A contradiction indicates a false premise. We apply Occams Razor.
>
>
> A contradiction cannot exist. An atom is itself, and so is the
> universe; neither can contradict its own identity; nor can a part
> contradict the whole. No concept man forms is valid unless he
> integrates it without contradiction into the total sum of his
> knowledge. To arrive at a contradiction is to confess an error in
> onešs thinking; to maintain a contradiction is to abdicate onešs mind
> and to evict oneself from the realm of reality.
>
> Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a
> contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is
> wrong.
> Ayn Rand
>
>
> mr dude
So, how do you resolve the apparent contradictions
between the Relativistic and the Quantum-Mechanical
views of the universe?
M Purcell
> In article <pan.2010.03.26.12.04...@erkonx.net>,
>
> Zerkon <Z...@erkonx.net> wrote:
> > On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 19:36:26 -0700, *Anarcissie* wrote:
>
> > > My view is that "doublethink", as George Orwell called it in 1984 -- the
> > > ability to maintain two or more contradictory models of the world more
> > > or less continuously -- is of considerable advantage to life and
> > > reproduction. Our faculty for this behavior is derived from
> > > evolutionary pressures.
>
> > de-evolutionary, I'd say.
>
> > Double-think was made possible by Newspeak. Newspeak was an eradication
> > of existing concepts. Opposition to the CorpState became impossible
> > because the concept 'opposition to state' was removed so thought about
> > this was impossible.
>
> Doublethink appeared in nature long, long before
> _1984_. A medium-sized carnivore prowling through the
> brush hears something rustling. Is it lunch or a
> larger-sized carnivore? The m.s.c. must simultaneously
> entertain both contradictory possibilities until
> something happens to fill out one pattern or the other
> and then will have only a fraction of a second to act.
> It will not have time to construct a new model of the
> world because the previous one failed. Hence it
> constructs two (or more) provisional models and keeps
> them both in mind, however contradictory they may be.
You seem to have a contradictory equivocation of doublethink with the
fight or flee responce (resulting from ignorance of the enviornment)
and cognative dissonance (an internal conflict). From what I
understand, doublethink is a willful contradiction.
> Speaking of _1984_, it seems to me that logic is much
> more consistent with the One True Truth of totalitarian
> regimes than of liberalism or anarchism, which assume
> that no one possesses the One True Truth, or that many
> perhaps contradictory truths are possible. So why was
> doublethink necessary? Because to some extent Big
> Brother had to deal with the real, physical world which
> may be logical in its deep structure but on the surface
> presents many apparent contradictions to which logic
> can be applied only intermittently and tentatively.
> Curiously, Orwell finds this to be some kind of problem
> whereas it is the one aspect of Ingsoc's fantasy of
> unanimity which continues to have any possibility of
> life in it.
Otherwise you might be a totalitarian? There is a difference between
objectivity and subjectivity and you are refering to a fictional novel.
Anarcissie
<15763dd2-6e58-4bfd...@j5g2000prn.google
groups.com>,
M Purcell <sacs...@aol.com> wrote:
A necessary contradiction, although in the case of Big
Brother (a many modern politicians) much of the
difficulty is self-caused, such as simultaneously
creating libertarian and authoritarian rhetoric which
the public is expected to consume. So what is
contradictory in my equivocation, if that's what it is?
I said that animals (including humans) are ignorant, so
that they need the ability to maintain contradictory
views of the world. Our small predator is in exactly
this situation. If the s.p. took the time to work out
things logically, it would probably wind up missing
lunch or being lunch.
That's why intuition (association and pattern-matching)
show up early in evolution and logic shows up late even
though it's simpler and less costly to perform.
> > Speaking of _1984_, it seems to me that logic is much
> > more consistent with the One True Truth of totalitarian
> > regimes than of liberalism or anarchism, which assume
> > that no one possesses the One True Truth, or that many
> > perhaps contradictory truths are possible. So why was
> > doublethink necessary? Because to some extent Big
> > Brother had to deal with the real, physical world which
> > may be logical in its deep structure but on the surface
> > presents many apparent contradictions to which logic
> > can be applied only intermittently and tentatively.
> > Curiously, Orwell finds this to be some kind of problem
> > whereas it is the one aspect of Ingsoc's fantasy of
> > unanimity which continues to have any possibility of
> > life in it.
>
> Otherwise you might be a totalitarian? There is a difference between
> objectivity and subjectivity and you are refering to a fictional novel.
I'm simply pointing out that logic, which requires
agreement about premises and methods, is more
consistent with one single authority than the
contradictions (and fuzziness) which inevitably result
from our imperfect perception and knowledge. If
freedom of expression (for example) is a good thing, it
must be because no one has announced the last,
absolutely correct word.
The novel is an example of what I am talking about,
regardless of its fictionality. In fact, if you read
Orwell's appendix or afterword you'll find that much of
it is a transcription of behavior he observed around
him during World War 2 (he worked for the BBC).
M Purcell
> groups.com>,
There are different types of contradictions, doublethink is not the
same as cognitive dissonance and neither are the same as an adrenaline
rush.
> That's why intuition (association and pattern-matching)
> show up early in evolution and logic shows up late even
> though it's simpler and less costly to perform.
Subconscious is not the same as conscious and logic is not simple or
cheap.
> > > Speaking of _1984_, it seems to me that logic is much
> > > more consistent with the One True Truth of totalitarian
> > > regimes than of liberalism or anarchism, which assume
> > > that no one possesses the One True Truth, or that many
> > > perhaps contradictory truths are possible. So why was
> > > doublethink necessary? Because to some extent Big
> > > Brother had to deal with the real, physical world which
> > > may be logical in its deep structure but on the surface
> > > presents many apparent contradictions to which logic
> > > can be applied only intermittently and tentatively.
> > > Curiously, Orwell finds this to be some kind of problem
> > > whereas it is the one aspect of Ingsoc's fantasy of
> > > unanimity which continues to have any possibility of
> > > life in it.
>
> > Otherwise you might be a totalitarian? There is a difference between
> > objectivity and subjectivity and you are refering to a fictional novel.
>
> I'm simply pointing out that logic, which requires
> agreement about premises and methods, is more
> consistent with one single authority than the
> contradictions (and fuzziness) which inevitably result
> from our imperfect perception and knowledge. If
> freedom of expression (for example) is a good thing, it
> must be because no one has announced the last,
> absolutely correct word.
Who is this single authority?
> The novel is an example of what I am talking about,
> regardless of its fictionality. In fact, if you read
> Orwell's appendix or afterword you'll find that much of
> it is a transcription of behavior he observed around
> him during World War 2 (he worked for the BBC).
So Orwell is the single authority?
Rod Speed
> In article
> <8015b06a-49d9-46a0...@r1g2000yqj.google
> groups.com>,
> "mr du...@harvarduniversity.edu" <fost...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Mar 25, 9:24 pm, M Purcell <sacsca...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> A contradiction indicates a false premise. We apply Occams Razor.
>>
>>
>> A contradiction cannot exist. An atom is itself, and so is the
>> universe; neither can contradict its own identity; nor can a part
>> contradict the whole. No concept man forms is valid unless he
>> integrates it without contradiction into the total sum of his
>> knowledge. To arrive at a contradiction is to confess an error in
>> and to evict oneself from the realm of reality.
>>
>> Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a
>> contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is
>> wrong.
>> Ayn Rand
>>
>>
>> mr dude
>
> So, how do you resolve the apparent contradictions
> between the Relativistic and the Quantum-Mechanical
> views of the universe?
By gathering more evidence that may resolve the contradiction.
Thats happened plenty of times in rigorous science, often when
it turns out that a third explanation is actually the correct one.
*Anarcissie*
> Anarcissie wrote:
> > In article
> > <8015b06a-49d9-46a0-8e36-5f4770028...@r1g2000yqj.google
> > groups.com>,
> > "mr d...@harvarduniversity.edu" <foster...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >> On Mar 25, 9:24 pm, M Purcell <sacsca...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >>> A contradiction indicates a false premise. We apply Occams Razor.
>
> >> A contradiction cannot exist. An atom is itself, and so is the
> >> universe; neither can contradict its own identity; nor can a part
> >> contradict the whole. No concept man forms is valid unless he
> >> integrates it without contradiction into the total sum of his
> >> knowledge. To arrive at a contradiction is to confess an error in
> >> and to evict oneself from the realm of reality.
>
> >> Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a
> >> contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is
> >> wrong.
> >> Ayn Rand
>
> >> mr dude
>
> > So, how do you resolve the apparent contradictions
> > between the Relativistic and the Quantum-Mechanical
> > views of the universe?
>
> By gathering more evidence that may resolve the contradiction.
>
> Thats happened plenty of times in rigorous science, often when
> it turns out that a third explanation is actually the correct one.
I was curious as to how Mr. Dude dealt with
the situation in which that evidence has not
yet been gathered.
mr dude@harvarduniversity.edu
> I was curious as to how Mr. Dude dealt with
> the situation in which that evidence has not
> yet been gathered.
scraps from Longshank's table that you've missed your God given right
to something better. There is a difference between us. You think the
people of this country exist to provide you with position. I think
your position exists to provide those people with FREEDOM. And I go to
make sure that they have it.
mr dude
*Anarcissie*
Yes, well, I was actually interested in how you
deal the question, not in a quotation from a
movie. And you have demonstrated that you
don't know what I think, which was entirely
superfluous.
mr dude@harvarduniversity.edu
>
> > mr dude
>
> Yes, well, I was actually interested in how you
> deal the question, not in a quotation from a
> movie. And you have demonstrated that you
> don't know what I think, which was entirely
> superfluous.
I don't recklessly deal with abstracts when the truth is punching me
in the face.
mr dude
Anarcissie
<01bb0d31-e788-4ba4...@k19g2000yqn.googl
egroups.com>,
"mr du...@harvarduniversity.edu" <fost...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Well, that certainly makes sense. You don't have to go
looking for the truth if it comes up and punches you in
the face. But I had the idea from some of the things
you wrote previously that you were interested in
(abstract) philosophical issues like the principle of
non-contradiction. Can you get truth to take a break
from beating you up?
*Anarcissie*
I suppose one could get an adrenaline rush
from either. But you are certainly correct that
doublethink and cognitive dissonance are not the
same. Cognitive dissonance is a sort of mental
excitement which doublethinkers experience, or are
suppose to experience, when their contradictory
ideas rub up against one another. It's probably
a sort of intellectual taste -- as I said, most
people have no trouble entertaining contradictory
ideas about the world.
>> That's why intuition (association and pattern-matching) show up early
>> in evolution and logic shows up late even though it's simpler and less
>> costly to perform.
>
> Subconscious is not the same as conscious and logic is not simple or
> cheap.
Well, I don't know what your first phrase
refers to; for the second I have only my
experience of programming, in which pattern-
matching is considerably more complicated
than executing a few logical operations. But
I suppose that may be because the substrate
is logical. It's the other way around in the
animal brain, where intuition is much easier
than logic because that's the way the circuits
are built. Perhaps there is no underlying
"easier". I'll have to give that some thought.
>> > > Speaking of _1984_, it seems to me that logic is much more
>> > > consistent with the One True Truth of totalitarian regimes than of
>> > > liberalism or anarchism, which assume that no one possesses the One
>> > > True Truth, or that many perhaps contradictory truths are possible.
>> > > So why was doublethink necessary? Because to some extent Big
>> > > Brother had to deal with the real, physical world which may be
>> > > logical in its deep structure but on the surface presents many
>> > > apparent contradictions to which logic can be applied only
>> > > intermittently and tentatively. Curiously, Orwell finds this to be
>> > > some kind of problem whereas it is the one aspect of Ingsoc's
>> > > fantasy of unanimity which continues to have any possibility of
>> > > life in it.
>>
>> > Otherwise you might be a totalitarian? There is a difference between
>> > objectivity and subjectivity and you are refering to a fictional
>> > novel.
>>
>> I'm simply pointing out that logic, which requires agreement about
>> premises and methods, is more consistent with one single authority than
>> the contradictions (and fuzziness) which inevitably result from our
>> imperfect perception and knowledge. If freedom of expression (for
>> example) is a good thing, it must be because no one has announced the
>> last, absolutely correct word.
>
> Who is this single authority?
It could be anyone the logician likes,
I guess. You could ask one.
>> The novel is an example of what I am talking about, regardless of its
>> fictionality. In fact, if you read Orwell's appendix or afterword
>> you'll find that much of it is a transcription of behavior he observed
>> around him during World War 2 (he worked for the BBC).
>
> So Orwell is the single authority?
No, just an observer.
M Purcell
You seem to find it exciting. I suppose there is an excitement in
discovering a contradiction which can lead to new knowledge but I
don't believe that is considered cognitive dissonance while
"doublethink" is deliberate.
> >> That's why intuition (association and pattern-matching) show up early
> >> in evolution and logic shows up late even though it's simpler and less
> >> costly to perform.
>
> > Subconscious is not the same as conscious and logic is not simple or
> > cheap.
>
> Well, I don't know what your first phrase
> refers to; for the second I have only my
> experience of programming, in which pattern-
> matching is considerably more complicated
> than executing a few logical operations. But
> I suppose that may be because the substrate
> is logical. It's the other way around in the
> animal brain, where intuition is much easier
> than logic because that's the way the circuits
> are built. Perhaps there is no underlying
> "easier". I'll have to give that some thought.
Logic is not instinctual as intuition is and although the same logic
can be applied in different situations, it requires an initial
investment and is certainly not the same as pattern-matching. And the
human brain is not the same as a computer. These are all false
equivocations, are you trying to be disingenuous?
> >> > > Speaking of _1984_, it seems to me that logic is much more
> >> > > consistent with the One True Truth of totalitarian regimes than of
> >> > > liberalism or anarchism, which assume that no one possesses the One
> >> > > True Truth, or that many perhaps contradictory truths are possible.
> >> > > So why was doublethink necessary? Because to some extent Big
> >> > > Brother had to deal with the real, physical world which may be
> >> > > logical in its deep structure but on the surface presents many
> >> > > apparent contradictions to which logic can be applied only
> >> > > intermittently and tentatively. Curiously, Orwell finds this to be
> >> > > some kind of problem whereas it is the one aspect of Ingsoc's
> >> > > fantasy of unanimity which continues to have any possibility of
> >> > > life in it.
>
> >> > Otherwise you might be a totalitarian? There is a difference between
> >> > objectivity and subjectivity and you are refering to a fictional
> >> > novel.
>
> >> I'm simply pointing out that logic, which requires agreement about
> >> premises and methods, is more consistent with one single authority than
> >> the contradictions (and fuzziness) which inevitably result from our
> >> imperfect perception and knowledge. If freedom of expression (for
> >> example) is a good thing, it must be because no one has announced the
> >> last, absolutely correct word.
>
> > Who is this single authority?
>
> It could be anyone the logician likes,
> I guess. You could ask one.
Which logician?
> >> The novel is an example of what I am talking about, regardless of its
> >> fictionality. In fact, if you read Orwell's appendix or afterword
> >> you'll find that much of it is a transcription of behavior he observed
> >> around him during World War 2 (he worked for the BBC).
>
> > So Orwell is the single authority?
>
> No, just an observer.
He is the only "observer" you have presented.
mr dude@harvarduniversity.edu
Can you get truth to take a break
> from beating you up?
The truth is a mighty pugilist.
I don't need to be distracted by whimsical paradoxes during the
battle.
mr dude
Michael Gordge
wrote:
> Logic emerges from analysis of relationships between non-material ideas, ie
> REASONING.
Dumb Kantian fuck, ideas not about matter, ideas which can not be
reduced to an irreducable and sensory level of preception in their
origin, can only be ideas about ideas based about ideas about ideas.
Having ideas about ideas pretending to be gaining knowledge in the
process, is the retard chewing its hands off hoping to sustain its
body.
Reasoning is NOT about linking ideas to ideas, its about linking /
reducing your ideas to matter, to the perceptions of sensory
evidence.
Reasoning is man's only means to knowledge, reasoning is the faculty
of man of non-contradictory identification and integration of the
perceptions of evidence, sensory evidence.
Clue for the Kantians retards, your fucking eye ears nose hands and
skin are not decorations and ornaments.
MG
Michael Gordge
wrote:
> Logic emerges from analysis of relationships between non-material ideas, ie
> REASONING.
Hey dopey, god is a non-material idea, there is NO REASONING & NO
LOGIC being used when two mystics are rabbiting on about god, and that
nauseating nasal chant of ewe knuckle-dragging lefturdian retards "the
greater good" also requires the total abandonment of reason and logic.
MG
Clave
> Logic emerges from analysis of relationships between non-material ideas,
> ie
> REASONING.
Dumb Kantian...
======================================================
You again, Pretentious Doucheman?
Fuck off.
Jim
Clave
> Logic emerges from analysis of relationships between non-material ideas,
> ie
> REASONING.
Hey...
=======================================================
No one cares what pretentious douches have to say about it, even if it takes
two posts to do it.
Jim
Anarcissie
<c8444504-3cc7-44aa...@m25g2000prj.googl
egroups.com>,
M Purcell <sacs...@aol.com> wrote:
To my observation, the practice of holding two or more
contradictory ideas of the world with no apparent
evidence of discomfort is the default case (and this is
borne out by polls on political issues, as I have
mentioned). This is what I'm calling "doublethink".
It doesn't need to be practiced intentionally if it's
naturally the default. People just do it. In order to
be uncomfortable with cognitive dissonance, they have
to expect cognitive consonance, and I'm guessing that
is the result of a specific kind of training reserved
for intellectuals and intellectual-wannabes. George
Orwell, for example. The guy wrote books -- how many
people ever write a book? Once you learn about how
your ideas ought not to contradict one another, you can
enjoy getting all excited and bent out of shape because
you discover that some of them do contradict each other.
Of course I find it exciting -- I am cursed with
reason, which sets me at odds with most of the human
race. Recently I've come to the conclusion that I must
be from another planet.
> > >> That's why intuition (association and pattern-matching) show up early
> > >> in evolution and logic shows up late even though it's simpler and less
> > >> costly to perform.
> >
> > > Subconscious is not the same as conscious and logic is not simple or
> > > cheap.
> >
> > Well, I don't know what your first phrase
> > refers to; for the second I have only my
> > experience of programming, in which pattern-
> > matching is considerably more complicated
> > than executing a few logical operations. But
> > I suppose that may be because the substrate
> > is logical. It's the other way around in the
> > animal brain, where intuition is much easier
> > than logic because that's the way the circuits
> > are built. Perhaps there is no underlying
> > "easier". I'll have to give that some thought.
>
> Logic is not instinctual as intuition is and although the same logic
> can be applied in different situations, it requires an initial
> investment and is certainly not the same as pattern-matching. And the
> human brain is not the same as a computer. These are all false
> equivocations, are you trying to be disingenuous?
Yeah, that must be it.
I only need one if I'm trying to present an example.
Rod Speed
Nope, you fucked that up completely.
> This is what I'm calling "doublethink".
That isnt what the word means.
> It doesn't need to be practiced intentionally
> if it's naturally the default. People just do it.
That isnt doublethink.
> In order to be uncomfortable with cognitive dissonance,
> they have to expect cognitive consonance,
Utterly mangled all over again.
> and I'm guessing that is the result of a specific kind of
> training reserved for intellectuals and intellectual-wannabes.
Nope, its got nothing to do with training.
> George Orwell, for example.
No one trained him in that.
> The guy wrote books -- how many people ever write a book?
Irrelevant to whether anyone ever trained him.
> Once you learn about how your ideas ought not to contradict one another,
Doesnt have to be taught.
> you can enjoy getting all excited and bent out of shape because
> you discover that some of them do contradict each other.
Or you can just ignore the contradiction as so many religious scientists do.
> Of course I find it exciting -- I am cursed with reason,
> which sets me at odds with most of the human race.
> Recently I've come to the conclusion that I must
> be from another planet.
Then fuck off back there.
M Purcell
> egroups.com>,
I think you are lying to yourself.
Les Cargill
First, on Orwell, here's two prominent Orwell scholars wrestling with
him :
<http://www.booktv.org/Watch/11280/After+Words+George+Packer+ed+George+Orwells+Facing+Unpleasant+Facts+and+All+Art+Is+Propaganda+interviewed+by+Christopher+Hitchens.aspx>
(sorry, long-arse URL, but good stuff)
Indeed, the picture that emerges with Orwell is:
- a preference for physical risk
- an abhorrence of inconsistency in his own behavior.
- intolerance of hypocrisy at the visceral level
he emerges as a bit vain and egocentric. Not that bad a trade,
I think. He extends the fundamental premise of Liberalism - that
the individual is the irreducible unit - to a much higher plane.
But there's more to it than that. The (arguably) greatest rising
technology of the last 60 years is entertainment. Entertainment
depends completely on the willing suspension of disbelief - on
pure cognitive dissonance. Of course, we expect that tension
to be resolved at the end. The point is that people are
possibly "addicted" to increasing levels of cognitive dissonance.
> Of course I find it exciting -- I am cursed with
> reason, which sets me at odds with most of the human
> race. Recently I've come to the conclusion that I must
> be from another planet.
>
But you still have this thing, too. No escaping it. Your
mid and hindbrain are just as much a part of
reason as your frontal lobes.
The logic parts are nothing but handmaidens of the
unconscious/id.
<snip>
--
Les Cargill
M Purcell
> Anarcissie wrote:
> > In article
> > <c8444504-3cc7-44aa-9432-b69ee0a70...@m25g2000prj.googl
> > egroups.com>,
>
> (sorry, long-arse URL, but good stuff)
>
> Indeed, the picture that emerges with Orwell is:
> - a preference for physical risk
> - an abhorrence of inconsistency in his own behavior.
> - intolerance of hypocrisy at the visceral level
>
> he emerges as a bit vain and egocentric. Not that bad a trade,
> I think. He extends the fundamental premise of Liberalism - that
> the individual is the irreducible unit - to a much higher plane.
>
> But there's more to it than that. The (arguably) greatest rising
> technology of the last 60 years is entertainment. Entertainment
> depends completely on the willing suspension of disbelief - on
> pure cognitive dissonance. Of course, we expect that tension
> to be resolved at the end. The point is that people are
> possibly "addicted" to increasing levels of cognitive dissonance.
Advertisment is unavoidable and incessant.
> > Of course I find it exciting -- I am cursed with
> > reason, which sets me at odds with most of the human
> > race. Recently I've come to the conclusion that I must
> > be from another planet.
>
> But you still have this thing, too. No escaping it. Your
> mid and hindbrain are just as much a part of
> reason as your frontal lobes.
>
> The logic parts are nothing but handmaidens of the
> unconscious/id.
So all other mammels are just as capable of reason? Logic is a useful
tool.
Les Cargill
>> But there's more to it than that. The (arguably) greatest rising
>> technology of the last 60 years is entertainment. Entertainment
>> depends completely on the willing suspension of disbelief - on
>> pure cognitive dissonance. Of course, we expect that tension
>> to be resolved at the end. The point is that people are
>> possibly "addicted" to increasing levels of cognitive dissonance.
>
> Advertisment is unavoidable and incessant.
>
It has an off switch.
>>> Of course I find it exciting -- I am cursed with
>>> reason, which sets me at odds with most of the human
>>> race. Recently I've come to the conclusion that I must
>>> be from another planet.
>>
>> But you still have this thing, too. No escaping it. Your
>> mid and hindbrain are just as much a part of
>> reason as your frontal lobes.
>>
>> The logic parts are nothing but handmaidens of the
>> unconscious/id.
>
> So all other mammels are just as capable of reason? Logic is a useful
> tool.
Probably not. Animals like grey parrots solve puzzles, but
I don't know that we know whether or not they use symbolic
thought.
--
Les Cargill
Arindam Banerjee
> egroups.com>,
Criminals and madmen do doublethink naturally. Or, if not one of
those two groups, those really desperate. Of course, I am placing
politicians, businessmen, theoretical physicists, theologians, etc. in
the criminal-madman category. The huge success of these types, is
essentially parasitical or piratical - when applied to the masses
there is massive madness expressing as depression - and that is a big
hooray for the pharmaceutical industries and the shrinks.
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
> I only need one if I'm trying to present an example.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
M Purcell
> M Purcell wrote:
> > On Mar 28, 11:36 am, Les Cargill<lcargil...@comcast.net> wrote:
> <snip>
> >> But there's more to it than that. The (arguably) greatest rising
> >> technology of the last 60 years is entertainment. Entertainment
> >> depends completely on the willing suspension of disbelief - on
> >> pure cognitive dissonance. Of course, we expect that tension
> >> to be resolved at the end. The point is that people are
> >> possibly "addicted" to increasing levels of cognitive dissonance.
>
> > Advertisment is unavoidable and incessant.
>
> It has an off switch.
Television and radio, and more people seem to be restricting their
children from watching TV. But it is not so easy to turn off
billboards and packaging and the fact is most Americans have been
watching TV for decades.
> >>> Of course I find it exciting -- I am cursed with
> >>> reason, which sets me at odds with most of the human
> >>> race. Recently I've come to the conclusion that I must
> >>> be from another planet.
>
> >> But you still have this thing, too. No escaping it. Your
> >> mid and hindbrain are just as much a part of
> >> reason as your frontal lobes.
>
> >> The logic parts are nothing but handmaidens of the
> >> unconscious/id.
>
> > So all other mammels are just as capable of reason? Logic is a useful
> > tool.
>
> Probably not. Animals like grey parrots solve puzzles, but
> I don't know that we know whether or not they use symbolic
> thought.
Sure we do, chickens recognized the outline of a hawk, bees
communicate locations (and have been shown to exhibit abstract
thought), and chimpanzees outperform humans in a short-term memory
test involving numbers. But very few are tool users.
Anarcissie
That's an interesting hypothesis, one which I think
the evidence bears out. Indeed, many kinds of
entertainment (including the arts low and high) not
only present a special world at odds with the greater
world around them, but also conflicts within themselves
between interests, emotions, perceptions and ideas. I
think this would follow from my hypothesis that
doublethink (my meaning) is advantageous to survival
of the individual; nature sees to it that its exercise
is pleasurable.
So then the question arises, who has a problem with
cognitive dissonance, and why, when doublethink is
such an excellent thing? My guess is that it is an
intellectuals' quirk. While doublethink is
advantageous to perception and cognition, the exercise
of will and power is usually best when it is unitary.
In most of the more complex societies, the role of the
intellectual is to subordinate oneself to and serve
the rulers, that is, to serve power as a tool. The
doublethinking intellectual is unpredictable,
unreliable, a bad tool for power. Therefore, the
intellectual-wannabe is taught in school to be
consistent so that he or she will be a good tool
for the rulers. The intellectual earnestly sweats to
iron out contradictions, while the folk go on merrily
playing with them.
However, I agree that a fondness for cognitive
dissonance may become a dangerous addiction,
as witness American politics.
> > Of course I find it exciting -- I am cursed with
> > reason, which sets me at odds with most of the human
> > race. Recently I've come to the conclusion that I must
> > be from another planet.
> >
>
> But you still have this thing, too. No escaping it. Your
> mid and hindbrain are just as much a part of
> reason as your frontal lobes.
That depends on how the Neptunians constructed me.
They may have gotten a few things wrong.
> The logic parts are nothing but handmaidens of the
> unconscious/id.
As Hume said, although with a more elegant 18th-century
vocabulary.
Rod Speed
Thats just entertainment tho, just a device that makes that work better.
> Indeed, many kinds of entertainment (including the arts
> low and high) not only present a special world at odds
> with the greater world around them,
Thats just plain wrong with a lot of art.
> but also conflicts within themselves between
> interests, emotions, perceptions and ideas.
Thats not what cognitive dissonance is about.
> I think this would follow from my hypothesis that doublethink
> (my meaning) is advantageous to survival of the individual;
Easy to claim. Pity you cant actually substantiate that claim.
> nature sees to it that its exercise is pleasurable.
'nature' doesnt 'see' a damned thing.
> So then the question arises, who has a problem
> with cognitive dissonance, and why, when
> doublethink is such an excellent thing?
You havent established that it is, just CLAIMED that, a different matter entirely.
> My guess is that it is an intellectuals' quirk.
More just whats easy to with with unresolvable conflicts.
If for example you have a mental need to believe in some
damned god or other, because you need that crutch for
your 'mind', its hardly surprising that the conflict between
that line and reality, that whether you end up with a serious
medical problem is much more due to luck than any arsehole
of a god deciding to give you cancer etc is unresolvable.
> While doublethink is advantageous to perception and cognition,
You havent established that it is.
> the exercise of will and power is usually best when it is unitary.
Its perfectly possible to engage in doublethink and grovel to some
god or other while also getting medical attention for your cancer etc.
> In most of the more complex societies, the role of the
> intellectual is to subordinate oneself to and serve the rulers,
Oh bullshit. There are no 'rulers' in modern democratic societys.
Its all about ideas and selling ideas to the voters etc.
> that is, to serve power as a tool.
Even sillier.
> The doublethinking intellectual is unpredictable,
> unreliable, a bad tool for power.
Yes, someone who cant resolve conficts isnt going
to be much use in the development of new policy etc.
It makes a hell of a lot more sense to be able to accept
that there will always be downsides with any policy, like
the fact that while modern welfare works a hell of a lot
better than charity does, it will always have the massive
downside that some will be quite happy with the standard
of living that welfare provides and wont bother to work etc.
Or that a decent compulsory provision for the time
past working will always see some rather profligate
with their savings because they can always rely on
the govt pension for their time past working.
Or that while ever the govt does provide unemployment
relief, that will inevitably see some not try as hard to find
a job or not be prepared to accept any work available that
doesnt appeal as much as the sort of work you prefer does etc.
> Therefore, the intellectual-wannabe is taught in school to be
> consistent so that he or she will be a good tool for the rulers.
Even sillier. There are no rulers who decide that level of detail
of what is taught in schools. The reality is that kids are taught
the importance of consistency because if you dont strive for
consistency in your arguments, you wont convince anyone etc.
> The intellectual earnestly sweats to iron out contradictions,
> while the folk go on merrily playing with them.
Even sillier.
> However, I agree that a fondness for cognitive dissonance may
> become a dangerous addiction, as witness American politics.
Its MUCH more pervasive in religion.
>>> Of course I find it exciting -- I am cursed with reason,
>>> which sets me at odds with most of the human race.
>>> Recently I've come to the conclusion that I must
>>> be from another planet.
>> But you still have this thing, too. No escaping it.
>> Your mid and hindbrain are just as much a part
>> of reason as your frontal lobes.
> That depends on how the Neptunians constructed me.
> They may have gotten a few things wrong.
No may have about it.
Rod Speed
Almost everyone does, most obviously with religion.
At the most fundamental level that if there is just one
'true' god, how come there are so many of them ?
> Or, if not one of those two groups, those really desperate.
It isnt just the really desperate, its almost everyone, most obviously with religion.
> Of course, I am placing politicians, businessmen, theoretical
> physicists, theologians, etc. in the criminal-madman category.
And its completely silly to do that.
> The huge success of these types, is essentially parasitical or piratical
Not with with theoretical physicists.
> - when applied to the masses there is massive madness expressing as depression
Depression isnt madness.
> - and that is a big hooray for the pharmaceutical industries and the shrinks.
Most dont bother with either when depressed.
Arindam Banerjee
No. Only the literates are capable of doublethink. Does not mean all
literates are doublethinkers.
> At the most fundamental level that if there is just one
> 'true' god, how come there are so many of them ?
The illiterates I know would not agree to the if statement. They
have a highly advanced metaphysics.
Immortalist
wrote:
> On Mar 26, 8:46 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Cognitive Dissonance Theory
>
> More a case of 'know thyselve's.
>
That would be more like "relax and know thyself and get eaten alive"
theory. Being disturbed/aroused by inconsistency is probably a
survival instinct. You don't want to forget the cave man.
Error Management Theory
Humans live in an uncertain world. We rely on our senses to pick up
information from the world, and then use our information processing
capacities to make inferences about the true state of the world. Real
threats to our survival and relationships are not always readily
apparent, given the ambiguity and uncertainty of the information.
Consider a relatively simple problem of walking through the woods and
fleetingly sensing a slithering object scurry underneath some leaves
in the path directly in front of you. There are two possible states of
reality: either there is a dangerous snake in your path or there is
not a dangerous snake in your path. Given the incomplete and uncertain
information that you have percieved, there are also two inferences you
could make. There is indeed a dangerous snake, and you act to avoid
it. Or you could conclude that there is no snake and continue walking
down the path.
There are also two possible ways that you could be wrong. You could
believe that there is a snake when in fact no snake exists. Or you
could believe that no snake when in fact a venomous rattler is lurking
right in your path. The costs of these two types of errors, however,
are vastly different. In the first case, your belief causes you to
incur the trivial metabolic cost of taking an unnecessary evasive
action. By giving a wide birth to the area that you believe harbors a
snake, you have merely gone out of your way a little, incurring a
minor delay in your walk. In the second case, however, failing to
detect a snake that is in fact lurking in your path can cost you your
life. THe two ways of being wrong carry substantially different costs.
Now imagine that this scenario not only repeats itself thousands and
thousands of times in your liftime, but billions and billions of times
over human evolutionary history. Those who made the first kind of
mistake tended to survive, whereas those who made the second kind of
mistake tended to die. As a result, modern humans have descended from
a line of ancestors whose inferences about the uncertain world erred
in the direction of believing that snakes existed more than they do.
These can be called adaptive errors.
Consider uncertainty about whether your romantic partner is having an
affair or is likely to have an affair.... Continued on page 76 The
Dangerous Passion - Why jealousy is necessary as love and sex - David
M Buss
The Dangerous Passion:
Why Jealousy Is As Necessary As Love and Sex
by David M. Buss
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0684850818/
> The part of the brain that responds to actions resulting in well being
> is often countered by the part that wants inactivity and laziness.
>
> We use a common term to 'tame' such contradictions, but most do not
> really grasp what they are saying. The term is 'self discipline' ,
> more accurately 'selfs disciplined.
>
> Either aspects can dominate, which leads to inbalance. The 'bits of
> the brain' do not negotiate. "You" officiate.The 'self' is not being
> disciplined, but disciplining.
>
> Of course there are also 'parts of the brain' that, not understanding
> such basic principles, come up with all sorts of weird and wonderful
> theories.Not 'full proof' he states....Id never have guessed!!! (that
> comes from the sarcastic part of my brain, but 'I' decided to use it
> to emphasise a useful insight.)
>
> BOfL
Immortalist
> On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 17:46:55 -0700, Immortalist wrote:
> > Cognitive Dissonance Theory
>
> > "Inconsistency among related beliefs . . .produces motivation to do
> > whatever is easiest in order to regain cognitive consistency or
> > consonance among beliefs." --Jones and Gerard
>
> > Basically, cognitive dissonance is a state of tension that occurs
> > whenever an individual simualtaniiously holds two cognitions (ideas,
> > attitudes, beliefs, opinions) that are psychologically inconsistent.
>
> Is this an example?
>
> A person likes pornography. This same person thinks pornography is bad.
> .. insert some resolve here ....
>
Not a very good example, you need one where it seems believable if two
contradictory thoughts happen simultaneously, like this trying to quit
smoking example;
Suppose a person smokes cigarettes and then reads a report of the
medical evidence linking cigarette smoking to lung cancer and other
respiratory diseases. The smoker experiences dissonance. The cognition
"I smoke cigarettes" is dissonant with the cognition "cigarette
smoking produces cancer." Clearly, the most efficient way for this
person to reduce dissonance in such a situation is to give up smoking.
The cognition "cigarette smoking produces cancer" is consonant with
the cognition "I do not smoke."
But, for most people, it is not easy to give up smoking. Imagine
Sally, a young woman who tried to stop smoking but failed. What will
she do to reduce dissonance? In all probability, she will try to work
on the other cognition: "cigarette smoking produces cancer." Sally
might attempt to make light of evidence linking cigarette smoking to
cancer. For example, she might try to convince herself that the
experimental evidence is inconclusive. In addition, she might seek out
intelligent people who smoke and, by so doing, convince herself that
if Debbie, Nicole, and Larry smoke, it can't be all that dangerous.
Sally might switch to a filter-tipped brand and delude herself into
believing that the filter traps the cancer-producing materials.
Finally, she might add cognitions that are consonant with smoking in
an attempt to make the behavior less absurd in spite of its danger.
Thus, Sally might enhance the value placed on smoking; that is, she
might come to believe smoking is an important and highly enjoyable
activity that is essential for relaxation: "I may lead a shorter life,
but it will be a more enjoyable one." Similarly, she might try to make
a virtue out of smoking by developing a romantic, devil-may-care self-
image, flouting danger by smoking cigarettes. All such behavior
reduces dissonance by reducing the absurdity of the notion of going
out of one's way to contract cancer. Sally has justified her behavior
by cognitively minimizing the danger or by exaggerating the importance
of the action. In effect, she has succeeded either in constructing a
new attitude or in changing an existing attitude.
Indeed, shortly after the publicity surrounding the original surgeon
general's report in 1964, a survey was conducted to assess people's
reactions to the new evidence that smoking helps cause cancer.
Nonsmokers overwhelmingly believed the health report, only 10 percent
of those queried saying that the link between smoking and cancer had
not been proven to exist; these respondents had no motivation to
disbelieve the report. The smokers faced a more difficult quandary.
Smoking is a difficult habit to break; only 9 percent of the smokers
had been able to quit. To justify continuing the activity, smokers
tended to debunk the report. They were more likely to deny the
evidence: 40 percent of the heavy smokers said a link had not been
proven to exist. They were also more apt to employ rationalizations:
Over twice as many smokers as nonsmokers agreed that there are many
hazards in life and that both smokers and nonsmokers get cancer.
Smokers who are painfully aware of the health hazards associated with
smoking may reduce dissonance in yet another way—by minimizing the
extent of their habit. One study found that of 155 smokers who smoked
between one and two packs of cigarettes a day, 60 percent considered
themselves moderate smokers; the remaining 40 percent considered
themselves heavy smokers. How can we explain these different self-
perceptions? Not surprisingly, those who labeled themselves as
moderates were more aware of the pathological long-term effects of
smoking than were those who labeled themselves as heavy smokers. That
is, these particular smokers apparently reduced dissonance by
convincing themselves that smoking one or two packs a day isn't really
all that much. Moderate and heavy are, after all, subjective terms.
Imagine a teenage girl who has not yet begun to smoke. After reading
the surgeon general's report, is she apt to believe it? Like most of
the nonsmokers in the survey, she should. The evidence is objectively
sound, the source is expert and trustworthy, and there is no reason
not to believe the report. And this is the crux of the matter. Earlier
in this book, I made the point that people strive to be right, and
that values and beliefs become internalized when they appear to be
correct. It is this striving to be right that motivates people to pay
close attention to what other people are doing and to heed the advice
of expert, trustworthy communicators. This is extremely rational
behavior. There are forces, however, that can work against this
rational behavior. The theory of cognitive dissonance does not picture
people as rational beings; rather, it pictures them as rationalizing
beings. According to the underlying assumptions of the theory, we
humans are motivated not so much to be right as to believe-we are
right (and wise, and decent, and good).
Sometimes, our motivation to be right and our motivation to believe we
are right work in the same direction. This is what is happening with
the young woman who doesn't smoke and therefore finds it easy to
accept the notion that smoking causes lung cancer. This would also be
true for a smoker who encounters the evidence linking cigarette
smoking to lung cancer and does succeed in giving up cigarettes.
Occasionally, however, the need to reduce dissonance (the need to
convince oneself that one is right or good) leads to behavior that is
maladaptive and therefore irrational. For example, many people have
tried to quit smoking and failed. What do these people do? It would be
erroneous to assume that they simply swallow hard and prepare to die.
They don't. Instead, they try to reduce their dissonance in a
different way: namely, by convincing themselves that smoking isn't as
bad as they thought. Thus, Rick Gibbons and his colleagues recently
found that heavy smokers who attended a smoking cessation clinic, quit
smoking for a while and then relapsed into heavy smoking again,
subsequently succeeded in lowering their perception of the dangers of
smoking.
Why might this change of heart occur? If a person makes a serious
commitment to a course of action, such as quitting smoking, and then
fails to keep that commitment, his or her self-concept as a strong,
self-controlled individual is threatened. This, of course, arouses
dissonance. One way to reduce this dissonance and regain a healthy
sense of self—if not a healthy set of lungs—is to trivialize the
commitment by perceiving smoking as less dangerous. A more general
study that tracked the progress of 135 students who made New Year's
resolutions supports this observation. Individuals who broke their
resolutions—such as to quit smoking, lose weight, or exercise more—
initially felt bad about themselves for failing but, after a short
time, succeeded in downplaying the importance of the resolution.
Ironically, making light of a commitment they failed to keep serves to
restore their self-esteem but it also makes self-defeat a near
certainty in the future. In the short run, they are able to feel
better about themselves; in the long run, however, they have
drastically reduced the chances that they'll ever succeed in achieving
their goals.
Is this the only way to reduce the dissonance associated with failing
to achieve a goal? No. An alternative response—and perhaps a less
maladaptive one—would be to lower one's expectations for success. For
example, a person who has been unable to give up smoking completely,
but who has cut down on the number of cigarettes smoked daily, could
interpret this outcome as a partial success rather than as a complete
failure. This course of action would soften the blow to his or her
self-esteem for having failed while still holding out the possibility
of achieving success in future efforts to quit smoking altogether.
Let's stay with the topic of cigarette smoking for a moment and
consider an extreme example: Suppose you are one of the top executives
of a major cigarette company—and therefore in a situation of maximum
commitment to the idea of cigarette smoking. Your job consists of
producing, advertising, and selling cigarettes to millions of people.
If it is true that cigarette smoking causes cancer, then, in a sense,
you are partially responsible for the illness and death of a great
many people. This would produce a painful degree of dissonance: Your
cognition "I am a decent, kind human being" would be dissonant with
your cognition "I am contributing to the early death of a great many
people." In order to reduce this dissonance, you must try to convince
yourself that cigarette smoking is not harmful; this would involve a
refutation of the mountain of evidence suggesting a causal link
between cigarettes and cancer. Moreover, in order to convince yourself
further that you are a good, moral person, you might go so far as to
demonstrate how much you disbelieve the evidence by smoking a great
deal yourself. If your need is great enough, you might even succeed in
convincing yourself that cigarettes are good for people. Thus, in
order to see yourself as wise, good, and right, you take action that
is stupid and detrimental to your health.
This analysis is so fantastic that it's almost beyond belief—almost.
In 1994, under the chairmanship of Henry Waxman, the U.S. Congress
conducted hearings on the dangers of smoking. At these hearings, the
top executives of most of the major tobacco companies admitted they
were smokers and actually argued that cigarettes are no more harmful
or addictive than playing video games or eating Twinkies! In a
subsequent hearing, in 1997, James J. Morgan, president and chief
executive officer of the leading U.S. cigarette maker, said that
cigarettes are not pharmacologically addictive. "Look, I like gummy
bears, and I eat gummy bears. And I don't like it when I don't eat
gummy bears," Morgan said. "But I'm certainly not addicted to them."
This kind of public denial is nothing new, of course. Over a quarter
of a century ago, the following news item was released by the
Washington Post's News Service:
Jack Landry pulls what must be his 30th Marlboro of the day out of one
of the two packs on his desk, lights a match to it and tells how he
doesn't believe all those reports about smoking and cancer and
emphysema. He has just begun to market yet another cigarette for
Philip Morris U.S.A. and is brimming over with satisfaction over its
prospects. But how does he square with his conscience the spending of
$10 million in these United States over the next year to lure people
into smoking his new brand? "It's not a matter of that," says Landry,
Philip Morris'vice president for marketing. "Nearly half the adults in
this country smoke. It's a basic commodity for them. I'm serving a
need. . . . There are studies by pretty eminent medical and scientific
authorities, one on a theory of stress, on how a heck of a lot of
people, if they didn't have cigarette smoking to relieve stress, would
be one hell of a lot worse off. And there are plenty of valid studies
that indicate cigarette smoking and all those diseases are not
related." His satisfaction, says Landry, comes from being very good at
his job in a very competitive business, and he will point out that
Philip Morris and its big-selling Marlboro has just passed American
Tobacco as the No. 2 cigarette seller in America (R. J. Reynolds is
still No. 1). Why a new cigarette now? Because it is there to be sold,
says Landry. And therein lies the inspiration of the marketing of a
new American cigarette, which Landry confidently predicts will have a
1 percent share of the American market within 12 months. That 1
percent will equal about five billion cigarettes and a healthy profit
for Philip Morris U.S.A.
It is possible that James Morgan and Jack Landry are simply lying. But
it may be a bit more complicated than that; my guess is that, over the
years, they may have succeeded in deceiving themselves. Near the close
of Chapter 3,I discussed the fact that information campaigns are
relatively ineffective when they attempt to change deep-seated
attitudes. We can now see precisely why. If people are committed to an
attitude, the information the communicator presents arouses
dissonance; frequently, the best way to reduce the dissonance is to
reject or distort the evidence. The deeper a person's commitment to an
attitude, the greater his or her tendency to reject dissonant
evidence. You may recall that in Chapter 1,I described an incident in
which, shortly before their suicide, the members of the Heaven's Gate
cult demanded their money back because the telescope they had just
purchased didn't reveal the spaceship they believed was following in
the wake of the Hale-Bopp comet. Needless to say, there was no
spaceship. But if you are deeply committed to believing in the
existence of a spaceship and your telescope doesn't reveal it, then
obviously there must be something wrong with the telescope!
Juicy anecdotes are suggestive. But they do not constitute scientific
evidence and are, therefore, not convincing in themselves. Again,
taking the cigarette example, it is always possible that Mr. Morgan
and Mr. Landry know that cigarettes are harmful and are simply being
cynical. Likewise, it is possible that Landry always believed
cigarettes were good for people even before he began to peddle them.
Obviously, if either of these possibilities were true, his excitement
about the benefits of cigarette smoking could hardly be attributed to
dissonance. Much more convincing would be a demonstration of a clear
case of attitudinal distortion in a unique event. Such a demonstration
was provided back in the 1950s by (of all things) a football game in
the Ivy League. An important game between Princeton and Dartmouth, the
contest was billed as a grudge match, and this soon became evident on
the field: The game is remembered as the roughest and dirtiest in the
history of either school. On the Princeton team was an All-American
named Dick Kazmaier; as the game progressed, it became increasingly
clear that the Dartmouth players were out to get him. Whenever he
carried the ball, he was gang-tackled, piled on, and mauled. He was
finally forced to leave the game with a broken nose. Meanwhile, the
Princeton team was not exactly inactive: Soon after Kazmaier's injury,
a Dartmouth player was carried off the field with a broken leg.
Several fistfights broke out on the field in the course of the game,
and many injuries were suffered on both sides.
Sometime after the game, a couple of psychologists—Albert Hastorf of
Dartmouth and Hadley Cantril of Princeton—visited both campuses and
showed films of the game to a number of students on each campus. The
students were instructed to be completely objective and, while
watching the film, to take notes of each infraction of the rules, how
it started, and who was responsible. As you might imagine, there was a
huge difference in the way this game was viewed by the students at
each university. There was a strong tendency for the students to see
their own fellow students as victims of illegal infractions rather
than as perpetrators of such acts of aggression. Moreover, this was no
minor distortion: It was found that Princeton students saw fully twice
as many violations on the part of the Dartmouth players as the
Dartmouth students saw. Again, people are not passive receptacles for
the deposition of information. The manner in which they view and
interpret information depends on how deeply they are committed to a
particular belief or course of action. Individuals will distort the
objective world in order to reduce their dissonance. The manner in
which they will distort and the intensity of their distortion are
highly predictable.
A few years later, Lenny Bruce, a perceptive comedian and social
commentator (who almost certainly never read about cognitive
dissonance theory), had the following insight into the 1960
presidential election campaign between Richard Nixon and John Kennedy:
I would be with a bunch of Kennedy fans watching the debate and their
comment would be, "He's really slaughtering Nixon." Then we would all
go to another apartment, and the Nixon fans would say, "How do you
like the shellacking he gave Kennedy?" And then I realized that each
group loved their candidate so that a guy would have to be this blatant
—he would have to look into the camera and say: "I am a thief, a
crook, do you hear me, I am the worst choice you could ever make for
the Presidency!" And even then his following would say, "Now there's
an honest man for you. It takes a big guy to admit that. There's the
kind of guy we need for President."
People don't like to see or hear things that conflict with their
deeply held beliefs or wishes. An ancient response to such bad news
was literally to kill the messenger. A modern-day figurative version
of killing the messenger is to blame the media for the presentation of
material that produces the pain of dissonance. For example, when
Ronald Reagan was running for president in 1980, Time published an
analysis of his campaign. Subsequent angry letters to the editor
vividly illustrated the widely divergent responses of his supporters,
on the one hand, and his detractors, on the other. Consider the
following two letters:
Lawrence Barrett's pre-election piece on Candidate Ronald Reagan
[October 20] was a slick hatchet job, and you know it. You ought to be
ashamed of yourselves for printing it disguised as an objective look
at the man.
Your story on "The Real Ronald Reagan" did it. Why didn't you just
editorially endorse him? Barrett glosses over Reagan's fatal flaws so
handily that the "real" Ronald Reagan came across as the answer to all
our problems.
Needless to say, the diversity of perception reflected in these
letters is not unique to the 1980 campaign. It happens every 4 years.
During the next presidential election, check out the letters to the
editor of your favorite news magazine following a piece on one of the
leading candidates, and you will find a similar array of divergent
perceptions.
The Social Animal - Elliot Aronson - 8th Edition 1999
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0716733129/
> I do not think this is an example of 'two' opposite ideas or beliefs.
> The pornography is object while the response or attraction is a
> complexity composed of many things. The feeling of bad also is not just
> one thought but one word which sums up complexity.
>
> The concept of double bind better captures this same basic condition, I
> think, in that it centers on communication or the process that results in
> the person 'holding' the conflict. It also does not make it seem as if
> the contradiction/conflict is made of two equally weighed ideas, each
> equally approachable by reason.
>
> It also suggests that if this is a given condition inside of the
> environment it can have distinct negative consequences.
Rod Speed
>>>> M Purcell <sacsca...@aol.com> wrote
>>>>> Anarcissie <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>> M Purcell
>>>>>>> Anarcissie <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>>> M Purcell <sacsca...@aol.com> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> de-evolutionary, I'd say.
Mindlessly silly, most obviously with the religious who
engage in double think when they pray to some damned
god or other that has just given them cancer or a drought etc.
> Does not mean all literates are doublethinkers.
>> At the most fundamental level that if there is just one
>> 'true' god, how come there are so many of them ?
> The illiterates I know would not agree to the if statement.
Their problem.
> They have a highly advanced metaphysics.
Nope, just another crutch for their pathetically inadequate 'minds'.
Arindam Banerjee
Irrelevant, that is not doublethink. They don't think they got cancer
or drought from the Divine, they got the bads from the imperfect
mortal condition. And relief of some sort may (or may not) come from
supernatural sources. Arrogant atheistic arseholes are incapable of
comprehending the mentality of illiterate polytheists.
Doublethink examples are (and these are confined to the literate):
- Really believing in creation in the church, and really believing in
evolution in the labs
- Really believing that light is a wave sometimes, and that light is
a particle or photon sometimes
- Really believing in conservation, and really believing in
development
> > Does not mean all literates are doublethinkers.
> >> At the most fundamental level that if there is just one
> >> 'true' god, how come there are so many of them ?
> > The illiterates I know would not agree to the if statement.
>
> Their problem.
>
> > They have a highly advanced metaphysics.
>
> Nope, just another crutch for their pathetically inadequate 'minds'
Arrogant atheistic all-polluting arseholes are incapable of
comprehending the by far superior mentality, let alone morality, of
the illiterate polytheists.
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
.- Hide quoted text -
Rod Speed
> bigflet...@gmail.com <bigflet...@gmail.com wrote
>> Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>> Cognitive Dissonance Theory
>> More a case of 'know thyselve's.
> That would be more like "relax and know thyself and get eaten alive" theory.
> Being disturbed/aroused by inconsistency is probably a survival instinct.
Easy to claim. Have fun actually substantiating that claim.
Its MUCH more likely that it actually helps with survival if you can handle congitive dissonance effortlessly.
> You don't want to forget the cave man.
You aint established that they are relevant.
> Error Management Theory
> Humans live in an uncertain world. We rely on our senses to pick up
> information from the world, and then use our information processing
> capacities to make inferences about the true state of the world.
> Real threats to our survival and relationships are not always readily
> apparent, given the ambiguity and uncertainty of the information.
Thats hardly ever the case and has no relevance to cognative dissonance anyway.
> Consider a relatively simple problem of walking through
> the woods and fleetingly sensing a slithering object scurry
> underneath some leaves in the path directly in front of you.
Its almost certainly of no significance what so ever.
> There are two possible states of reality: either there is a dangerous snake in your path
Nope, if its slithering away, its not a problem, just let it leave.
> or there is not a dangerous snake in your path. Given
> the incomplete and uncertain information that you have
> percieved, there are also two inferences you could make.
Or you might get real radical and see if you can see any snake
and if you can, see if it looks like one of the rare poisonous ones.
> There is indeed a dangerous snake, and you act to avoid it.
Dont need to if its slithering away, its already leaving, stupid.
> Or you could conclude that there is no snake and continue walking down the path.
Or you might take the precaution of waiting till whatever it is has left etc.
Nothing to do with cognative dissonance.
> There are also two possible ways that you could be wrong.
There are a hell of a lot more than just two.
> You could believe that there is a snake when in fact no
> snake exists. Or you could believe that no snake when
> in fact a venomous rattler is lurking right in your path.
They dont slither around when something approaches, stupid.
> The costs of these two types of errors, however, are vastly different.
Not necessarily, most obviously when you let it leave or just wait till it leaves, whatever it is.
> In the first case, your belief causes you to incur the trivial
> metabolic cost of taking an unnecessary evasive action.
You dont need to do that either, just let whatever it is leave.
> By giving a wide birth to the area that you believe
> harbors a snake, you have merely gone out of your
> way a little, incurring a minor delay in your walk.
And you dont even do anything except pause and let it leave if you have a clue.
> In the second case, however, failing to detect a snake
> that is in fact lurking in your path can cost you your life.
Hardly ever.
> THe two ways of being wrong carry substantially different costs.
There is no need to be wrong at all if you just let whatever it is leave.
> Now imagine that this scenario not only repeats itself
> thousands and thousands of times in your liftime,
That doesnt happen.
> but billions and billions of times over human evolutionary history.
> Those who made the first kind of mistake tended to survive, whereas
> those who made the second kind of mistake tended to die.
It aint that binary, fool.
> As a result, modern humans have descended from a line of
> ancestors whose inferences about the uncertain world erred in
> the direction of believing that snakes existed more than they do.
Wrong when the evolving happened were there are no poisonous snakes.
> These can be called adaptive errors.
Only by wankers.
> Consider uncertainty about whether your romantic partner is having an
> affair or is likely to have an affair.... Continued on page 76 The Dangerous
> Passion - Why jealousy is necessary as love and sex - David M Buss
Wota fucking wanker.
> The Dangerous Passion:
> Why Jealousy Is As Necessary As Love and Sex
Just another wanker with a title designed to flog his shit.
> by David M. Buss
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0684850818/
Just another completely mindless steaming turd.
Why are you into completely mindless steaming turds ?
Immortalist
> On Mar 25, 6:40 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 25, 6:24 pm, M Purcell <sacsca...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 25, 5:46 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Cognitive Dissonance Theory
> > > >.
> > > >.
>
> > > A contradiction indicates a false premise. We apply Occams Razor.
>
> > If we chose in favor of defending our ego so we feel like good and
> > normal people are history and science really just means to those
> > instinctual ends? This razor you mention may cut away at the truth so
> > we can feel good about how we are and do decide.
>
> > The Psychology of Inadequate Justification
>
> > Attitude change as a means of reducing dissonance is not, of course,
>
> > The Social Animal - Elliot Aronson - 8th Edition 1999http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0716733129/
>
> tact but I believe people generally want to know the truth, or at
> least your perception of it. Rationalizations or self justification
> are another matter.
Remember, people hold a multitude of cognitions simultaneously, and
these cognitions form
1. irrelevant,
2. consonant
3. dissonant
relationships with one another.
1. Cognitive Irrelevance probably describes the bulk of the
relationships among a person¹s cognitions. Irrelevance simply means
that the two cognitions have nothing to do with each other. Two
cognitions are consonant if one cognition follows from, or fits with,
the other.
2. People like consonance among their cognitions. We do not know
whether this stems from the nature of the human organism or whether it
is learned during the process of socialization, but people appear to
prefer cognitions that fit together to those that do not. It is this
simple observation that gives the theory of cognitive dissonance its
interesting form.
3. Two cognitions are said to be dissonant if one cognition follows
from the opposite of another. What happens to people when they
discover dissonant cognitions? A person who has dissonant or
discrepant cognitions is said to be in a state of psychological
dissonance, which is experienced as unpleasant psychological tension.
This tension state has drivelike properties that are much like those
of hunger and thirst. When a person has been deprived of food for
several hours, he/she experiences unpleasant tension and is driven to
reduce the unpleasant tension state that results. Reducing the
psychological sate of dissonance is not as simple as eating or
drinking however.
http://www.ithaca.edu/faculty/stephens/cdback.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9DVJE_bhVU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hSW67ySCio
Rod Speed
>>>>>>>>>>>>> de-evolutionary, I'd say.
Corse it is.
> They don't think they got cancer or drought from the Divine,
> they got the bads from the imperfect mortal condition.
Mindlessly silly.
> And relief of some sort may (or may not) come from supernatural
> sources. Arrogant atheistic arseholes are incapable of
> comprehending the mentality of illiterate polytheists.
Wota stunning line in rational argument you have there.
> Doublethink examples are (and these are confined to the literate):
> - Really believing in creation in the church,
> and really believing in evolution in the labs
And that is another example seen with a hell of a lot more than criminals and madmen.
> - Really believing that light is a wave sometimes,
> and that light is a particle or photon sometimes
Thats not necessarily double think, more that the real explanation is not yet available.
And those that do believe both are certainly not ciminals or madmen either.
> - Really believing in conservation, and really believing in development
Even sillier. Thats not double think. Its perfectly possible to do both.
>>> Does not mean all literates are doublethinkers.
>>>> At the most fundamental level that if there is just one
>>>> 'true' god, how come there are so many of them ?
>>> The illiterates I know would not agree to the if statement.
>> Their problem.
>>> They have a highly advanced metaphysics.
>> Nope, just another crutch for their pathetically inadequate 'minds'
> Arrogant atheistic all-polluting arseholes are incapable of
> comprehending the by far superior mentality, let alone morality, of
> the illiterate polytheists.
Wota stunning line in rational argument you have there.
No surprise that you are completely unemployable.
Immortalist
> Immortalist wrote
>
> > bigflet...@gmail.com <bigflet...@gmail.com wrote
> >> Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote
> >>> Cognitive Dissonance Theory
> >> More a case of 'know thyselve's.
> > That would be more like "relax and know thyself and get eaten alive" theory.
> > Being disturbed/aroused by inconsistency is probably a survival instinct.
>
> Easy to claim. Have fun actually substantiating that claim.
>
> Its MUCH more likely that it actually helps with survival if you can handle congitive dissonance effortlessly.
>
I agree. But also it would also help one's survival to recognize
arousal arising from conflicting sense data and memories. This
probably would apply to animals also, these instincts are some of the
oldest.
Section IX of the Enquiry is a short section entitled "Of the Reason
of Animals." Hume suggests that we reason by analogy, linking similar
causes and similar effects. He suggests that his theories regarding
human understanding might then be well supported if we could find
something analogous to be true with regard to animal understanding. He
identifies two respects in which this analogy holds. First, animals,
just like humans, learn from experience and come to infer causal
connections between events. Second, animals certainly do not learn to
make these inferences by means of reason or argument. Nor do children,
and nor, Hume argues, do adults or even philosophers. We infer effects
from causes not by means of human reason, but through a species of
belief, whereby the imagination comes to perceive some sort of
necessary connection between cause and effect. We often admire the
innate instincts of animals that help them get by, and Hume suggests
that our ability to infer causal connections is a similar kind of
instinct.
http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/understanding/section9.rhtml
Of The Reason Of Animals
David Hume (1711–76).
An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding.
ALL our reasonings concerning matter of fact are founded on a species
of Analogy, which leads us to expect from any cause the same events,
which we have observed to result from similar causes. Where the causes
are entirely similar, the analogy is perfect, and the inference, drawn
from it, is regarded as certain and conclusive: nor does any man ever
entertain a doubt, where he sees a piece of iron, that it will have
weight and cohesion of parts; as in all other instances, which have
ever fallen under hit observation. But where the objects have not so
exact a similarity, the analogy is less perfect, and the inference is
less conclusive; though still it has some force, in proportion to the
degree of similarity and resemblance. The anatomical observations,
formed upon one animal, are, by this species of reasoning, extended to
all animals; and it is...
http://www.bartleby.com/37/3/13.html
------------------------------------
But for your pointing towards strength and the "Freeze" in "Fight/
Flight/Freeze" I support cognitive therapy and "Stoicism". But it
would be more than just strength and the ability to not be noticed
while aroused but the consideration that what is happening in the mind
is hoped to be "consonant" with what is happening.
"What disturbs people's minds are not events but their judgments on
events..."
"Seek not that the things which happen should happen as you wish; but
wish the things which happen to be as they are, and you will have a
tranquil flow of life..."
"Men are not worried by things, but by their ideas about things. When
we meet difficulties, become anxious or troubled, let us not blame
others, but rather ourselves, that is: our idea about things ... Some
things are up to us and some are not up to us. Our opinions are up to
us, our impulses, desires, aversions, in-short whatever is our doing.
Our bodies are not up to us, nor our possessions, our reputations, or
our public offices, or that is, whatever is not of our own doing..."
--Epictetus (Roman Slave)
http://www.google.com/search?q=epictetus
--------------------------------------
The theory of REBT has evolved mainly through the research and
writings of Albert Ellis. The theory states that humans are born with
strong biological predispositions among which are the sex/love
relationships and the need to live in some kind of family group. To
meet these needs successfully, Ellis believes that humans will attempt
to negotiate relationship with the use of their potential self-
determination.
His main philosophy is from Epictetus, the Roman stoic philosopher
who, in the first century AD, wrote that Humans are disturbed not by
things but by the views they take of them. The fallibility of the
human is his ability to approach his or her environment with views
that things are either harmful/disturbing or safe/undisturbing. These
thought patterns Ellis calls the Rational or Irrational Beliefs. By
successfully confronting these thought patterns (or view creation
patterns) the client is able to better cope and not become disturbed.
A Christian perspective on this thinking is reflected in 2 Corinthians
10:5 "We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up
against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to
make it obedient to Christ." The goal of the REBT therapist is to
bring the views of life into a place in which the client may obtain
the long-range maximized pleasure. The focus through Pastoral
Counseling is to bring this goal into a place that is theologically
focused on serving God. The confrontation of irrational belief is from
a format of scripture, prayer, and Christ centered living.
Ellis sees his approach as coming out of the ancient Stoic tradition,
and supported by such philosophers as Spinoza. He sees additional
similarities in existentialism and existential psychology. Any
approach that puts the responsibility squarely on the shoulders of the
individual and his or her beliefs is likely to have commonalities with
Ellis’s REBT.
http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/ellis.html
The Tenets of Rational Emotive Behavioral Therapy
REBT differs from other cognitive therapies in that it attempts to
bring the client to a philosophical change, not a temporary change.
Ellis refers to this as the "elegant solution" and he feels that it
grants the client an ability to protect against future problems after
therapy ends.
What is the philosophy that Ellis wants his clients to share?
The philosophical outlook of REBT believes in: "refined hedonism" or
respectful self interest, self-direction, tolerance of self and
others, flexiblity, acceptance of uncertainty, commitment to vital
interesets, self acceptance, scientific thinking, and a non utopian
perspective. Students of Ayn Rand will note the incredible similarity
between the work of Ellis and the writings of Rand.
In the therapeutic environment, human thinking and emotions are seen
as interrelated. The therapeutic model uses a simple mneumonic device
to teach its contentions: the "ABCs" of REBT.
Let's learn the ABCs
A is for activating experiences, which are all the many things we
point to as the cause of our unhappiness. C is for consequences, the
neurotic symptoms and negative emotions such as depression panic, and
rage, that come from our beliefs.
Yeah, I know. I skipped B.
Well, I did so on purpose.
The key to REBT (and Ellis might very well add, to life itself) is the
B. The B stands for beliefs, especially irrational, self-defeating
beliefs that are the actual sources of our unhappiness. Although the
activating experiences may be quite real and cause real pain, it is
our irrational beliefs that create long-term, disabling problems. In
short, psychoneurological consequences are determined by person's
belief system regarding particular activating events. In this, Ellis'
philosophy goes right back the Greek Stoic Epictetus:
"Your body is chained, but not your mind."
- Epictetus
Ellis doesn't stop where Epictetus did, however. Ellis goes on to add
the D and E to ABC: The therapist must dispute (D) irrational beliefs,
in order for the client to ultimately enjoy the positive psychological
Effects (E) of rational beliefs. (Ok, so he was stuck for a good "E",
so sue him.)
REBT assumes that substituting overgeneralized, absolutist thought
with realistic desires leads to major changes in emotional and
behavior - but irrational thoughts have a preseverative nature and
require much work to eradicate. REBT is a multidimensional therapy,
but at root is a "logico-empirical method" based on client's self
reports.
Ellis maintains that irrational beliefs develop as the the result of
philosophical conditioning, or "habits" as David Hume would say. For
example, we might form bad habits by using such logical fallacies as:
Ignoring the positive, Exaggerating the negative or Overgeneralizing
singular instances. These are all the types of errors that Francis
Bacon warned scientists about. They lead to a warped view of reality.
Yet, we live with such errors every day, and most of us avoid becoming
too neurotic. Why is this so?
This is because irrational beliefs typically take the form of absolute
statements. Instead of acknowledging a preference or a desire, we make
unqualified demands on others, or convince ourselves that we have
overwhelming needs. Once our "needs" become "Musts" or "Shoulds" they
take on an a dogmatic quality that leads to feelings of guilt, low
self worth, pity and guilt - i.e. pathogenic thoughts.
But why should even irrational musts and shoulds bother us?
Ah, now you ask the real question. Musts and Shoulds can only really
bother us, Ellis tells us, when they lead to EVALUATIVE irrational
beliefs. These beliefs "stand in judgement of us" and tell us things
about us that drive us wacky - that we are worthless, weak, stupid,
incompetent, etc.
Ok, so how do we get to irrational beliefs in therapy?
The therapist first tries to get to these irrational beliefs, usually
by asking a question like "What were you telling yourself when you
thought/felt/did that? Eventually, the therapist can trace back the
pain the cliet is experiencing to an irrational belief.
> > You don't want to forget the cave man.
>
> You aint established that they are relevant.
>
The relevance to me is the attention to arousal. And particularly the
evolution of "inference" between cognition in animals and humans. I
might sound scatter brain on this because I have been trying to invent
a way to talk about it for many years.
> > Error Management Theory
> > Humans live in an uncertain world. We rely on our senses to pick up
> > information from the world, and then use our information processing
> > capacities to make inferences about the true state of the world.
> > Real threats to our survival and relationships are not always readily
> > apparent, given the ambiguity and uncertainty of the information.
>
> Thats hardly ever the case and has no relevance to cognative dissonance anyway.
>
I was thinking of the relation of arousal to the evolution of
inference neurons in brains, sorry, a little deep and off topic.
> > Consider a relatively simple problem of walking through
> > the woods and fleetingly sensing a slithering object scurry
> > underneath some leaves in the path directly in front of you.
>
> Its almost certainly of no significance what so ever.
>
> > There are two possible states of reality: either there is a dangerous snake in your path
>
> Nope, if its slithering away, its not a problem, just let it leave.
>
Just let it there seems like a pathetic response, does it imply some
skill learned along the way or something vague? Are you claiming that
phobias are not hard wired instinctual drives we are born with?
Phobias hooked up with or evolutionarily modified from "food
avoidance" instincts, modified from smell disgust and the small
"freeze" between fight and flight and the recent discovery of the
"worry circuit" in the brain all this stuff has it wiring from, leads
to all the new frontier of "human nature" and its wiring? Is that
sentence a Gordian knot or what!?
Disgust is an emotion, typically associated with things that are
perceived as unclean or inedible. In The Expression of the Emotions in
Man and Animals, Charles Darwin wrote that disgust refers to something
revolting. Primarily in relation to the sense of taste, as actually
perceived or vividly imagined; and secondarily to anything which
causes a similar feeling. Through the sense of smell, touch, and even
of eyesight. Disgust is one of the basic emotions of Robert Plutchik's
theory of emotions.
Disgust may be further subdivided into physical disgust, associated
with physical or metaphorical uncleanness, and moral disgust, a
similar feeling related to courses of action. Antonyms to disgust are
sympathy and also liking.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disgust
A phobia (from the Greek "fear"), is a strong, persistent fear of
situations, objects, activities, or persons. The main symptom of this
disorder is the excessive, unreasonable desire to avoid the feared
subject. When the fear is beyond one's control, or if the fear is
interfering with daily life, then a diagnosis under one of the anxiety
disorders can be made.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phobia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_phobia
> > or there is not a dangerous snake in your path. Given
> > the incomplete and uncertain information that you have
> > percieved, there are also two inferences you could make.
>
> Or you might get real radical and see if you can see any snake
> and if you can, see if it looks like one of the rare poisonous ones.
>
These is some real cause and effect empirical evidence about these
neural structures we are born with called phobias. Are you promoting
the idea that there is no human nature pre-wired into us, that there
are no biases that humans have because they are human, or are you just
jerkin around here with a strange sounding subject, good buddy?
> > There is indeed a dangerous snake, and you act to avoid it.
>
> Dont need to if its slithering away, its already leaving, stupid.
>
> > Or you could conclude that there is no snake and continue walking down the path.
>
> Or you might take the precaution of waiting till whatever it is has left etc.
>
> Nothing to do with cognative dissonance.
>
I admit my orientation is the evolution of an entire package or suite
of instincts, many related in seemingly paradoxical ways.
> > There are also two possible ways that you could be wrong.
>
> There are a hell of a lot more than just two.
>
> > You could believe that there is a snake when in fact no
> > snake exists. Or you could believe that no snake when
> > in fact a venomous rattler is lurking right in your path.
>
> They dont slither around when something approaches, stupid.
>
The author is trying to distinguish between false-positive and false-
negative errors.
A new theory of cognitive biases, called error management theory
(EMT), proposes that psychological mechanisms are designed to be
predictably biased when the costs of false-positive and false-negative
errors were asymmetrical over evolutionary history. This theory
explains known phenomena such as men's overperception of women's
sexual intent, and it predicts new biases in social inference such as
women's underestimation of men's commitment.
Buss comments on Error Management Theory. In an uncertain world, two
potential errors in thinking: a. partner having affair (but isn't) b.
partner isn't having affair (but is) The cost of making those two
errors are very different. Those making the first error have less cost
(from a reproductive success standpoint) than those who make the
second. Theoretically we evolved toward vigilance and are more likely
to make adaptive error. Explains why men and women sometimes have
delusions that a partner is unfaithful or might be. "It's not paranoia
if they're really out to get you!"
http://www.psychologicalscience.org/media/releases/2002/pr020103.cfm
> > The costs of these two types of errors, however, are vastly different.
>
> Not necessarily, most obviously when you let it leave or just wait till it leaves, whatever it is.
>
> > In the first case, your belief causes you to incur the trivial
> > metabolic cost of taking an unnecessary evasive action.
>
> You dont need to do that either, just let whatever it is leave.
>
> > By giving a wide birth to the area that you believe
> > harbors a snake, you have merely gone out of your
> > way a little, incurring a minor delay in your walk.
>
> And you dont even do anything except pause and let it leave if you have a clue.
>
> > In the second case, however, failing to detect a snake
> > that is in fact lurking in your path can cost you your life.
>
> Hardly ever.
>
> > THe two ways of being wrong carry substantially different costs.
>
> There is no need to be wrong at all if you just let whatever it is leave.
>
Look I don't want to make you look ignorant because I think your a
very smart guy but your common sense folk psychology is bleeding over
into a folk science, the kind that got people tortured in the Middle
Ages because it all sounded so logical and persuasive.
Folk Psychology as a Theory
Many philosophers and cognitive scientists claim that our everyday or
"folk" understanding of mental states constitutes a theory of mind.
That theory is widely called "folk psychology" (sometimes
"commonsense" psychology). The terms in which folk psychology is
couched are the familiar ones of "belief" and "desire", "hunger",
"pain" and so forth. According to many theorists, folk psychology
plays a central role in our capacity to predict and explain the
behavior of ourselves and others. However, the nature and status of
folk psychology remains controversial.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/folkpsych-theory/
Biological classification is a form of scientific taxonomy, but should
be distinguished from folk taxonomy, which lacks scientific basis.
Folk taxonomies are generated from social knowledge and are used in
everyday speech. They are distinguished from scientific taxonomies
that claim to be disembedded from social relations and thus objective
and universal.; they are generally embedded in local cultural and
social systems, and serve various social functions.
Folk taxonomies exist to allow popular identification of classes of
objects, and apply to all areas of human activity. All parts of the
world have their own systems of naming local plants and animals. These
naming systems are a vital aid to survival and include information
such as the fruiting patterns of trees and the habits of large
mammals. These localised naming systems are folk taxonomies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_classification
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folk_taxonomy
> > Now imagine that this scenario not only repeats itself
> > thousands and thousands of times in your liftime,
>
> That doesnt happen.
>
> > but billions and billions of times over human evolutionary history.
> > Those who made the first kind of mistake tended to survive, whereas
> > those who made the second kind of mistake tended to die.
>
> It aint that binary, fool.
>
How is he making it sound binary when he is describing two statistical
population with each individual having more or less of some traits?
> > As a result, modern humans have descended from a line of
> > ancestors whose inferences about the uncertain world erred in
> > the direction of believing that snakes existed more than they do.
>
> Wrong when the evolving happened were there are no poisonous snakes.
>
> > These can be called adaptive errors.
>
> Only by wankers.
>
Folksy sounding, like how even though the Earth is proved roundish it
still looks flat when we look out on the horizon. Are you part of the
flat world society?
The idea of a flat Earth is that the surface of the Earth is flat (a
plane), rather than the correct view that it is to a very close
approximation the surface of a sphere.
Note that the flatness or otherwise of the earth is only relevant when
considering large distances; the curvature of the earth over local
distances is so small that the approximation of a flat earth is very
good locally. Consequently in antiquity only sailors, astronomers,
philosophers, and theologians would be concerned about the large-scale
shape of the earth...
...Before dismissing the idea as ignorant and useless, we should bear
in mind that the earth is, indeed, flat to a very good approximation
over distances much less than its radius. Assuming the whole earth to
be flat was actually a sophisticated insight by primitive people: they
realized that all the local accidents of geography: hills, valleys,
rivers, and so on, were merely unevenness of a surface which was on
average flat as far as they could go. The flat-earth approximation was
(and still is) entirely satisfactory for making mental and drawn local
maps; the larger-scale shape of the earth only became of practical
importance when long sea voyages were possible.
Indeed, even now we are all flat earthers in our local neighborhood.
We are content with flat maps, instead of using a globe. When
surveying and direction-finding we assume that the angles of a
triangle add up to 180°, which is not true for a triangle on the
surface of a sphere.
Obviously the local usefulness of the flat-earth approximation does
not justify any claim that the large-scale shape of the earth is other
than approximately spherical.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth
http://www.weird-encyclopedia.com/images/flat_earth.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatism
> > Consider uncertainty about whether your romantic partner is having an
> > affair or is likely to have an affair.... Continued on page 76 The Dangerous
> > Passion - Why jealousy is necessary as love and sex - David M Buss
>
> Wota fucking wanker.
>
> > The Dangerous Passion:
> > Why Jealousy Is As Necessary As Love and Sex
>
> Just another wanker with a title designed to flog his shit.
>
> > by David M. Buss
> >http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0684850818/
>
> Just another completely mindless steaming turd.
>
Oh ya, David Buss created the very first textbook and class in
evolutionary psychology some years back. There are other textbooks
now, but that guy started the revolution that has taken over more than
80% of evolutionary science.
> Why are you into completely mindless steaming turds ?
>
Because I like to understand what evolutionary theory offers to guide
life than some fake religious or social dogma?
M Purcell
Personally, I'd go looking to find out what was making the noise. It's
been a long time since I've come across a rattle snake but there might
be something else intesting such as dinner. And I have complete trust
in my wife.
M Purcell
I suspect it's the drive towards self consistency, we don't like to be
wrong, being wrong means we make bad survival decisions.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9DVJE_bhVUhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hSW67ySCio
Oldies but goodies.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> Immortalist wrote
>>> bigflet...@gmail.com <bigflet...@gmail.com wrote
>>>> Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>> Cognitive Dissonance Theory
>>>> More a case of 'know thyselve's.
>>> That would be more like "relax and know thyself and get eaten alive" theory.
>>> Being disturbed/aroused by inconsistency is probably a survival instinct.
>> Easy to claim. Have fun actually substantiating that claim.
>> Its MUCH more likely that it actually helps with survival
>> if you can handle congitive dissonance effortlessly.
> I agree. But also it would also help one's survival to recognize
> arousal arising from conflicting sense data and memories.
You havent established that.
> This probably would apply to animals also,
Cant see they get cognative dissonance.
> these instincts are some of the oldest.
You dont know that.
> Section IX of the Enquiry is a short section entitled "Of
> the Reason of Animals." Hume suggests that we reason
> by analogy, linking similar causes and similar effects.
Thats very arguable indeed, most obviously with rigorous science.
> He suggests that his theories regarding human understanding
> might then be well supported if we could find something
> analogous to be true with regard to animal understanding.
Its very far from clear that animals actually have any real understanding at all.
> He identifies two respects in which this analogy holds.
> First, animals, just like humans, learn from experience
> and come to infer causal connections between events.
Yes.
> Second, animals certainly do not learn to make
> these inferences by means of reason or argument.
Yes.
> Nor do children,
Thats very arguable indeed.
> and nor, Hume argues, do adults or even philosophers.
Easy to claim. Have fun actually substantiating that claim.
In spades with the adults involved in rigorous science.
> We infer effects from causes not by means of human reason,
Plenty of the time we do just that, most obviously with fault diagnosis.
> but through a species of belief, whereby the imagination comes to
> perceive some sort of necessary connection between cause and effect.
That isnt even possible when diagnosing a fault you have never seen before.
> We often admire the innate instincts of animals that help them get by,
And anyone who has had anything to do with animals
knows that it can get them into one hell of a mess too.
It can even see them die when they follow their innate instincts when that is not appropriate.
Humans are quite capable of reasoning past innate instincts when they choose to or need to.
> and Hume suggests that our ability to infer causal connections is a similar kind of instinct.
He's wrong.
And thats got nothing to do with cognative dissonance anyway.
> http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/understanding/section9.rhtml
> Of The Reason Of Animals
> David Hume (1711�76).
> An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding.
> ALL our reasonings concerning matter of fact are founded on a
> species of Analogy, which leads us to expect from any cause the
> same events, which we have observed to result from similar causes.
He's just plain wrong, most obviously with the diagnosis of
a complex fault that you havent seen anything like before.
> Where the causes are entirely similar, the analogy is perfect,
> and the inference, drawn from it, is regarded as certain and
> conclusive: nor does any man ever entertain a doubt, where he
> sees a piece of iron, that it will have weight and cohesion of parts;
> as in all other instances, which have ever fallen under hit observation.
Plenty do, most obviously when matching a magician
and when what you see makes no sense etc.
> But where the objects have not so exact a similarity, the analogy is
> less perfect, and the inference is less conclusive; though still it has
> some force, in proportion to the degree of similarity and resemblance.
And sometimes there is no analogy at all, even a less than perfect one.
> The anatomical observations, formed upon one animal, are,
> by this species of reasoning, extended to all animals; and it is...
Thats not reasoning, thats just association, a different animal entirely.
> http://www.bartleby.com/37/3/13.html
<reams of even more irrelevant crap flushed where it belongs>
>>> You don't want to forget the cave man.
>> You aint established that they are relevant.
> The relevance to me is the attention to arousal. And particularly the
> evolution of "inference" between cognition in animals and humans.
Irrelevant to what is being discussed, cognative dissonance.
> I might sound scatter brain on this because I have been
> trying to invent a way to talk about it for many years.
>>> Error Management Theory
>>> Humans live in an uncertain world. We rely on our senses to pick up
>>> information from the world, and then use our information processing
>>> capacities to make inferences about the true state of the world.
>>> Real threats to our survival and relationships are not always readily
>>> apparent, given the ambiguity and uncertainty of the information.
>> Thats hardly ever the case and has no relevance to cognative dissonance anyway.
> I was thinking of the relation of arousal to the evolution of
> inference neurons in brains, sorry, a little deep and off topic.
>>> Consider a relatively simple problem of walking through
>>> the woods and fleetingly sensing a slithering object scurry
>>> underneath some leaves in the path directly in front of you.
>> Its almost certainly of no significance what so ever.
>>> There are two possible states of reality: either there is a
>>> dangerous snake in your path
>> Nope, if its slithering away, its not a problem, just let it leave.
> Just let it there seems like a pathetic response,
Nope, its what anyone with any clue about snakes does.
They dont slither up and savage things the sized of humans, they try to get away.
They dont slither up to anything they are going to bite either,
they strike instead, because that is much more effective.
> does it imply some skill learned along the way or something vague?
Just a knowledge of how snakes operate.
> Are you claiming that phobias are not hard wired instinctual drives we are born with?
Didnt say a word about phobias.
And your line cant explain phobias about mice etc which dont run up and savage people very much.
> Phobias hooked up with or evolutionarily modified from "food
> avoidance" instincts, modified from smell disgust and the small
> "freeze" between fight and flight and the recent discovery of the
> "worry circuit" in the brain all this stuff has it wiring from, leads
> to all the new frontier of "human nature" and its wiring?
> Is that sentence a Gordian knot or what!?
Just a steaming turd.
> Disgust is an emotion, typically associated with
> things that are perceived as unclean or inedible.
Thats wrong too, most obviously with disgust about the obscenely obese.
Or disgust about someone who picks their nose and eats what they get out of their nose.
And this has absolutely nothing to do with what is being discussed anyway, cognitative dissonance.
>>> or there is not a dangerous snake in your path. Given
>>> the incomplete and uncertain information that you have
>>> percieved, there are also two inferences you could make.
>> Or you might get real radical and see if you can see any snake
>> and if you can, see if it looks like one of the rare poisonous ones.
> These is some real cause and effect empirical evidence about
> these neural structures we are born with called phobias.
Thats not a phobia, thats doing what makes sense.
> Are you promoting the idea that there is no human nature pre-wired into us,
Nope, in fact I have said the exact opposite, most obviously with little
kids that very quickly exhibit an instinct for what is and is not fair,
before they can even speak or understand what is said to them.
> that there are no biases that humans have because they are human,
I wouldnt be that stupid.
> or are you just jerkin around here with a strange sounding subject, good buddy?
Just exposing your wank for what it is.
>>> There is indeed a dangerous snake, and you act to avoid it.
>> Dont need to if its slithering away, its already leaving, stupid.
>>> Or you could conclude that there is no snake and continue walking down the path.
>> Or you might take the precaution of waiting till whatever it is has left etc.
>> Nothing to do with cognative dissonance.
> I admit my orientation is the evolution of an entire package or
> suite of instincts, many related in seemingly paradoxical ways.
Your orientation is actually to mindless rave on about complete irrelevancys.
>>> There are also two possible ways that you could be wrong.
>> There are a hell of a lot more than just two.
>>> You could believe that there is a snake when in fact no
>>> snake exists. Or you could believe that no snake when
>>> in fact a venomous rattler is lurking right in your path.
>> They dont slither around when something approaches, stupid.
> The author is trying to distinguish between false-positive and false-negative errors.
And fucked up very comprehensively indeed and flaunted the fact
that he doesnt have a fucking clue about how snakes operate.
<reams of even more irrelevant crap flushed where it belongs>
>>> The costs of these two types of errors, however, are vastly different.
>> Not necessarily, most obviously when you let it leave or just wait till it leaves, whatever it is.
>>> In the first case, your belief causes you to incur the trivial
>>> metabolic cost of taking an unnecessary evasive action.
>> You dont need to do that either, just let whatever it is leave.
>>> By giving a wide birth to the area that you believe
>>> harbors a snake, you have merely gone out of your
>>> way a little, incurring a minor delay in your walk.
>> And you dont even do anything except pause and let it leave if you have a clue.
>>> In the second case, however, failing to detect a snake
>>> that is in fact lurking in your path can cost you your life.
>> Hardly ever.
>>> THe two ways of being wrong carry substantially different costs.
>> There is no need to be wrong at all if you just let whatever it is leave.
> Look I don't want to make you look ignorant
Not even possible for you to do that.
> because I think your a very smart guy but your common
> sense folk psychology is bleeding over into a folk science,
Like hell it is. Its completely trivial to work out how snakes operate.
> the kind that got people tortured in the Middle Ages
> because it all sounded so logical and persuasive.
Pigs arse it ever did.
<reams of your completely irrelevant crap flushed where it belongs>
>>> Now imagine that this scenario not only repeats itself
>>> thousands and thousands of times in your liftime,
>> That doesnt happen.
>>> but billions and billions of times over human evolutionary history.
>>> Those who made the first kind of mistake tended to survive,
>>> whereas those who made the second kind of mistake tended to die.
>> It aint that binary, fool.
> How is he making it sound binary when he is describing two statistical
> population with each individual having more or less of some traits?
Like hell he is doing anything of the kind.
>>> As a result, modern humans have descended from a line of
>>> ancestors whose inferences about the uncertain world erred in
>>> the direction of believing that snakes existed more than they do.
>> Wrong when the evolving happened were there are no poisonous snakes.
>>> These can be called adaptive errors.
>> Only by wankers.
<reams of your completely irrelevant crap flushed where it belongs>
>>> Consider uncertainty about whether your romantic partner is having an
>>> affair or is likely to have an affair.... Continued on page 76 The Dangerous
>>> Passion - Why jealousy is necessary as love and sex - David M Buss
>> Wota fucking wanker.
>>> The Dangerous Passion:
>>> Why Jealousy Is As Necessary As Love and Sex
>> Just another wanker with a title designed to flog his shit.
>>> by David M. Buss
>>> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0684850818/
>> Just another completely mindless steaming turd.
> Oh ya, David Buss created the very first textbook and
> class in evolutionary psychology some years back.
So fucking what ?
> There are other textbooks now, but that guy started the revolution
> that has taken over more than 80% of evolutionary science.
Pigs arse he did.
>> Why are you into completely mindless steaming turds ?
> Because I like to understand what evolutionary theory offers
> to guide life than some fake religious or social dogma?
Pity its completely irrelevant to what was being discussed.
Rod Speed
>> that the two cognitions have nothing to do with each other. Two
>> cognitions are consonant if one cognition follows from, or fits with,
>> the other.
>>
>> 2. People like consonance among their cognitions. We do not know
>> whether this stems from the nature of the human organism or whether
>> it is learned during the process of socialization, but people appear
>> to prefer cognitions that fit together to those that do not. It is
>> this simple observation that gives the theory of cognitive
>> dissonance its interesting form.
>>
>> 3. Two cognitions are said to be dissonant if one cognition follows
>> from the opposite of another. What happens to people when they
>> discover dissonant cognitions? A person who has dissonant or
>> discrepant cognitions is said to be in a state of psychological
>> dissonance, which is experienced as unpleasant psychological tension.
>> This tension state has drivelike properties that are much like those
>> of hunger and thirst. When a person has been deprived of food for
>> several hours, he/she experiences unpleasant tension and is driven to
>> reduce the unpleasant tension state that results. Reducing the
>> psychological sate of dissonance is not as simple as eating or
>> drinking however.
>>
>> http://www.ithaca.edu/faculty/stephens/cdback.html
> I suspect it's the drive towards self consistency, we don't like to
> be wrong, being wrong means we make bad survival decisions.
Its hardly ever about survival decisions.
We dont like being wrong because being wrong produces a less than
the best outcome that we would have got if we had not been wrong.
Arindam Banerjee
No one can argue with a doublethinker!
Arindam Banerjee
> No surprise that you are completely unemployable
You fool, I have been totally employed for 30+ years, and do not need
to work any more. Certainly, I do not care to work for wankers and
arseholes, like you.
Rod Speed
>> No surprise that you are completely unemployable
> I have been totally employed for 30+ years,
And then got the bums rush from that sheltered workshop.
> and do not need to work any more.
Corse you would claim that.
Me, ...again!
Hey, Rod...
Lay off of Arindam Banerjee. He's really a good guy.
Me, ...again!
Hi Arindam,
He might be thinking of hypocrasy but wanting to use the "doublethink"
label, which is ambiguous and political.
>> At the most fundamental level that if there is just one
>> 'true' god, how come there are so many of them ?
>
> The illiterates I know would not agree to the if statement.
Illiterate and unsophisticated, too.
They
> have a highly advanced metaphysics.
"They"? Applies to what? The many "true" gods, or all of the gods
including both "true" and "untrue"?
Or the Illiterates? I can't think of any illiterates that have any kind of
metaphysics, let alone highly advanced metaphysics.
;-)
M Purcell
How would you distinguish religion and spirituality from metaphysics?
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>>> No surprise that you are completely unemployable
>>> I have been totally employed for 30+ years,
>> And then got the bums rush from that sheltered workshop.
>>> and do not need to work any more.
>> Corse you would claim that.
> Hey, Rod...
> Lay off of Arindam Banerjee.
Go and fuck yourself, again.
> He's really a good guy.
He's a completely unemployable wanker.
Rod Speed
> Arindam Banerjee wrote>>>> Anarcissie <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> M Purcell <sacsca...@aol.com> wrote
>>>>> borne out by polls on political issues, as I have
>>>>> mentioned). This is what I'm calling "doublethink".
>>>>> It doesn't need to be practiced intentionally if it's
>>>>> naturally the default. People just do it.
>>>> Criminals and madmen do doublethink naturally.
>>> Almost everyone does, most obviously with religion.
>> No. Only the literates are capable of doublethink.
>> Does not mean all literates are doublethinkers.
> He might be thinking of hypocrasy
Nope.
> but wanting to use the "doublethink" label,
Nope, I was talking about double think.
> which is ambiguous and political.
Like hell it is.
>>> At the most fundamental level that if there is just one
>>> 'true' god, how come there are so many of them ?
>> The illiterates I know would not agree to the if statement.
> Illiterate and unsophisticated, too.
>> They have a highly advanced metaphysics.
> "They"? Applies to what? The many "true" gods,
> or all of the gods including both "true" and "untrue"?
> Or the Illiterates? I can't think of any illiterates that have any
> kind of metaphysics, let alone highly advanced metaphysics.
> ;-)
Yeah, he's a wanker.
Immortalist
> Immortalist wrote
>
> > Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
> >> Immortalist wrote
> >>> bigflet...@gmail.com <bigflet...@gmail.com wrote
> >>>> Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote
> >>>>> Cognitive Dissonance Theory
> >>>> More a case of 'know thyselve's.
> >>> That would be more like "relax and know thyself and get eaten alive" theory.
> >>> Being disturbed/aroused by inconsistency is probably a survival instinct.
> >> Easy to claim. Have fun actually substantiating that claim.
> >> Its MUCH more likely that it actually helps with survival
> >> if you can handle congitive dissonance effortlessly.
> > I agree. But also it would also help one's survival to recognize
> > arousal arising from conflicting sense data and memories.
>
> You havent established that.
>
You appear to be promoting the default and unstated assumption that
"all cases of emotional arousal are case that have absolutely no
instinctual bias and the responses are completely learned" while I was
assuming that there are at least some instinctual biases pre-wired
into the human brain even if they only slightly make some emotions and
decisions seem more reasonable than other emotions and decisions.
My claim is that all incidents of cognitive dissonance are not equal
and that some are keyed to a more ancient environment from which
natural and cultural selection determined such mutations as favorable.
As for establishing anything that is what the empirical evidence of
inborn phobias was for, to show how complex neural arrangements that
are identical to somewhat complex human subjectivity can come with the
embryological development of the brain ready to be adjusted by the
environment, in a way like thermostats can be adjusted to create a
sustained temperature.
---------------------------
"There are copious examples from human and animal behavior, which
present the notion that our environment affects the way our genes
express themselves. ...The switches controlling our 30,000 or so genes
not only form the structures of our brains but do so in such a way as
to cue off the outside environment in a tidy feedback loop of body and
behavior. ...We have genetic 'thermostats' that are turned up and down
by environmental factors. ...The proof is in the pudding for such
touchy subjects as monogamy, aggression, and parenting, which we now
understand have some genetic controls."
Nature Via Nurture: Genes, Experience,
and What Makes Us Human, by Matt Ridley
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060006781/
-----------------------------
> > This probably would apply to animals also,
>
> Cant see they get cognative dissonance.
>
Since, basically, cognitive dissonance is a state of tension that
occurs whenever an individual simualtaniiously holds two cognitions
(ideas, attitudes, beliefs, opinions) that are psychologically
inconsistent and there is an anologe between human and animal
cognition (see below) than you might see that they could get
dissonance.
Cognition is the scientific term for "the process of thought" to
knowing. Usage of the term varies in different disciplines; for
example in psychology and cognitive science, it usually refers to an
information processing view of an individual's psychological
functions. Other interpretations of the meaning of cognition link it
to the development of concepts; individual minds, groups, and
organizations. The psychological result of perception and learning and
reasoning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognition
Given the broad program of animal cognition, of looking for the animal
analogs of human cognitive processes, the areas of study in animal
cognition follow more or less from those in human cognitive
psychology;
Attention: Research has focused on animals' ability to distribute
attention between different aspects of a stimulus, and on visual
search. As in humans, it appears that sharing attention between
stimulus features reduces the capacity to detect any one of them,
though there are some ecologically relevant visual search tasks at
which particular species show remarkable abilities (for example,
pigeons have an extraordinary capacity to pick out grain from
substrate).
Categorization: Following pioneering research by Richard Herrnstein,
there has been a mass of research on birds' ability to discriminate
between categories of stimuli, including the kinds of ill-defined
category that are used in everyday human speech. Birds have been found
to learn this kind of task easily, and to transfer correct responses
readily to new instances of the categories.
Memory: The categories that have been developed to analyze human
memory (short term memory, long term memory, working memory) have been
applied to the study of animal memory, and some of the phenomena
characteristic of human short term memory (e.g. the serial position
effect) have been detected in animals, particularly monkeys[citation
needed]. However most progress has been made in the analysis of
spatial memory, partly in relation to studies of the physiological
basis of spatial memory and the role of the hippocampus, and partly in
relation to scatter-hoarder animals such as Clark's Nutcracker,
certain jays, tits and certain squirrels, whose ecological niches
require them to remember the locations of thousands of caches, often
following radical changes in the environment.
Spatial Cognition: The ability to properly navigate and search through
the environment is a critical task for many animals. Research in this
area (Brown & Cook, 2006) has focused on such diffuse topics as
landmark and beacon use by ants and bees, the encoding and use of
geometric properties of the environment by pigeons, and the ability of
rats to represent a spatial pattern in either radial arm mazes or pole
box mazes. Sometimes included under the envelope of Spatial Cognition
is work in humans and other animals in visual search tasks, which aim
to experimentally address questions about searching through one's
environment for a particular object.
Tool and weapon use: Some species, such as the Woodpecker Finch of the
Galapagos Islands, use particular tools as an essential part of their
foraging behavior. However, these behaviors are often quite inflexible
and cannot be applied effectively in new situations. Several species
have now been shown to be capable of more flexible tool use. A well
known example is Jane Goodall's observation of chimpanzees "fishing"
for termites in their natural environment, and captive great apes are
often observed to use tools effectively; several species of corvids
have also been trained to use tools in controlled experiments, or use
bread crumbs for bait-fishing. Research in 2007 shows that chimpanzees
in the Fongoli savannah sharpen sticks to use as spears when hunting,
considered the first evidence of systematic use of weapons in a
species other than humans. Some cephalopods are known to use coconut
shells for protection or camoflage.
Reasoning and problem solving: Closely related to tool use is the
study of reasoning and problem solving. It has been observed that the
manner in which chimpanzees solve problems, such as that of retrieving
bananas positioned out of reach, is not through trial-and-error.
Instead, they were observed to proceed in a manner that was
“unwaveringly purposeful.” It is clear that animals of quite a range
of species are capable of solving a range of problems that are argued
to involve abstract reasoning[citation needed]; modern research has
tended to show that the performances of Wolfgang Köhler's chimpanzees,
who could achieve spontaneous solutions to problems without training,
were by no means unique to that species, and that apparently similar
behavior can be found in animals usually thought of as much less
intelligent, if appropriate training is given.[citation needed] Causal
reasoning has also been observed in rooks and New Caledonian crows.
Language: The modeling of human language in animals is known as animal
language research. In addition to the ape-language experiments
mentioned above, there have also been more or less successful attempts
to teach language or language-like behavior to some non-primate
species, including parrots and Great Spotted Woodpeckers. Louis Herman
published research on artificial language comprehension in the
bottlenosed dolphin using cognitive research methods at the height of
the skepticism produced by Herbert Terrace's criticism of chimpanzee
language experiments through his own results with the animal Nim
Chimpsky. In particular, the focus on the comprehension mode only
allowed cognitive methods of utilizing blinded observers to grade the
animals' gross physical behavior, rather than trying to interpret
putative language production. Herman's results (Herman, Richards, &
Wolz, 1984) were published in the (human) journal Cognition, regarding
work on the dolphins Akeakamai and Phoenix. All such research has been
controversial among cognitive linguists.
Consciousness: The sense in which animals can be said to have
consciousness or a self-concept has been hotly debated; it is often
referred to as the debate over animal minds. The best known research
technique in this area is the mirror test devised by Gordon G. Gallup,
in which an animal's skin is marked in some way while it is asleep or
sedated, and it is then allowed to see its reflection in a mirror; if
the animal spontaneously directs grooming behavior towards the mark,
that is taken as an indication that it is aware of itself. Self-
awareness, by this criterion, has been reported for chimpanzees and
also for some other great apes, the European Magpie, some cetaceans
and a solitary elephant, but not for monkeys. The mirror test has
attracted controversy among some researchers because it is entirely
focused on vision, the primary sense in humans, while other species
rely more heavily on other senses such as the olfactory sense in dogs.
A different approach to determine whether a non-human animal is
conscious derives from passive speech research with a macaw (see
Arielle). Some researchers propose that by passively listening to an
animal's voluntary speech, it is possible to learn about the thoughts
of another creature and to determine that the speaker is conscious.
This type of research was originally used to investigate a child's
crib speech by Weir (1962) and in investigations of early speech in
children by Greenfield and others (1976). With speech-capable birds,
the methods of passive-speech research open a new avenue for
investigation.
Mathematics: Some animals are capable of distinguishing between
different amounts and rudimentary counting. Elephants have been known
to perform simple arithmetic and rhesus monkeys can count. Ants are
able to use quantitative values and transmit this information. For
instance, ants of several species are able to estimate quite precisely
numbers of encounters with members of other colonies on their feeding
territories.Young chimpanzees have outperformed human college students
in tasks requiring remembering numbers.
Some animals, including great apes, crows, dolphins, dogs, elephants,
cats, pigs, rats, and parrots are still typically thought by laypeople
as intelligent in ways that some other species of animal are not...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_cognition
> > these instincts are some of the oldest.
>
> You dont know that.
>
As you should know in science, a theory is an explanation. Evolution
is a theory, just like gravitation. Gravity is not a law of nature but
an explanation of observations. If you drop something, it's going to
fall. That's an observation: unsupported things fall. But you explain
that observation with the theory of gravity, which is that the mass of
what whatever it is you dropped, a pencil or a pen or something, is
attracted by the mass...it's really a theory of gravity? But remember,
a theory is an explanation. The explanation I am using for what
theoretically would constitute old and older instincts would be
somewhat a Darwinian hypothesis where intelligence and instincts trend
in some species towards more complexity. The default assumption being
that "survival" and the mental processes an animal would necessarily
have to satisfy the case (of surviving) would deal with arousal/
emotions that would meet life and death situations, holmes.
> > Section IX of the Enquiry is a short section entitled "Of
> > the Reason of Animals." Hume suggests that we reason
> > by analogy, linking similar causes and similar effects.
>
> Thats very arguable indeed, most obviously with rigorous science.
>
I agree that in the mid 1700s when David Hume wrote that stuff,
Enlightenment science was only beginning to deal with empiricism,
evidence and cause and effect reasoning. But by the standards of the
day, pretty good; here were the standards of the day with Bacon &
Mills;
Mill's Methods
Mill's methods are some methods used to formulate hypotheses of
certain phenomena. It is clearly a species of inductive arguments as
we shall see. More precisely the methods, first proposed by British
philosopher and logician John Stuart Mill, are used to find causes of
the phenomena to be explained. All of Mill's methods share the same
characteristics in that they separate the phenomena into two parts,
namely the parts to be explained, or the effects, and the antecedent
phenomena which include the likely causes of the effects. The method
is conducted by observing the effects and then reason to the likely
causes by observing common features, different features, features that
vary with each other, and so on. According to Mill, there are five of
his methods:
1. Method of Agreement
2. Method of Difference
3. Method of Agreement and Difference (Joint Method)
4. Method of Residue
5. Method of Concomittant Variation
----------------------------------------
1. Method of Agreement
----------------------------------------
Here is what the first method, Method of Agreement, does. First you
have a phenomenon you would like explained, for example a group of
students in a certain school all having diarrhea and vomiting. You
want to know what caused the symptom. You know that the symptom could
only be caused by food. So you list all the food eaten by the affected
student up to the time when they were attacked, and suppose this is
the result:
A B C D ==> j h l k
E F A G ==> k o m n
H I J A ==> q r s k
The capital letters on the left hand side represent the antecedent
conditions, and the small letters on the right show the phenomena on
the effects side. Thus, in case of the students having diarrhea, the
left hand side represents the food eated by the students, and the
right hand side show the symptoms that they have. Suppose that each
capital letter represents a kind of food, and the small letters on the
right hand side represent a symptom. Then we can see that the
phenomena on the left hand side have one thing in common, A. And
similarly for the phenomena on the right hand side, the symptom k.
Thus we can conclude, using the First Method, that A is the likely
cause of k.
---------------------------------------
2. Method of Difference
---------------------------------------
Here is the diagram for the second method:
A B C D ==> j k l m
B C D ==> m l j
Suppose we have only two events which are alike in all aspects but
one. Then it is likely that the part that is the difference on the
left had side is the cause of the part that is missing on the right
hand side.
------------------------------------------------
3. Method of Agreement & Difference
- - (Joint Method)
------------------------------------------------
The third method has nothing but a joint consideration of the first
two methods in finding likely causes. Let's look at this diagram
A B C D ==> k l m o
A E F G ==> l p n r
A H I J ==> q u r l
H I M N ==> q r z y
O P Q R ==> x w n r
---------------------------------------------
4. Method of Residue
---------------------------------------------
Here is the diagram for the fourth method:
A B C D ==> o p q r
We know already that
A ==> p
B ==> q
C ==> r
Thus, we can conclude that D is the likely cause of o, because the
pair is the only one left from the matching of causes and effects
which we know already. That is why this method is called the Method of
Residue.
----------------------------------------------
5. Method of Concomittant Variation
----------------------------------------------
Here is the diagram for the last method:
A B C D1 ==> w x y z1
A B C D2 ==> w x y z2
A B C D3 ==> w x y z3
A B C D4 ==> w x y z4
A B C D5 ==> w x y z5
The phenomena are alike except only that there is a variation in the
degree of D on the left hand (causes) side, and the same for z on the
right hand side. Since everything else is equal we conclude that here
D is the likely cause of z.
http://pioneer.netserv.chula.ac.th/~hsoraj/PhilandLogic/WeekFive.html#Mill
http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/sci/mill.php
http://www.thelogician.net/4_logic_of_causation/4_mills_methods.htm
> > He suggests that his theories regarding human understanding
> > might then be well supported if we could find something
> > analogous to be true with regard to animal understanding.
>
> Its very far from clear that animals actually have any real understanding at all.
>
> > He identifies two respects in which this analogy holds.
> > First, animals, just like humans, learn from experience
> > and come to infer causal connections between events.
>
> Yes.
>
> > Second, animals certainly do not learn to make
> > these inferences by means of reason or argument.
>
> Yes.
>
> > Nor do children,
>
> Thats very arguable indeed.
>
> > and nor, Hume argues, do adults or even philosophers.
>
> Easy to claim. Have fun actually substantiating that claim.
>
He substantiated the claims on par with Enlightenment scientific
methods and standards which are pretty lame today.
> In spades with the adults involved in rigorous science.
>
Can't remember the fallacy name but you are judging ancient science by
current science or at least appearing to equate the two as identical
by your implied default assumptions.
en·thy·meme - n. Logic:
A syllogism in which one of the
premises or the conclusion is
not stated explicitly.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=enthymeme
http://www.google.com/search?q=enthymeme
"In the enthymeme the major premise has not been stated. Changing the
enthymeme into a syllogism provides us an opportunity to discover one
of the probable fallacies in the reasoning."
Enthymemes are mostly reconstructed using common-sense. An enthymeme
is an
argument which is missing a premise or the conclusion. The missing
statement
is implicit, but you will need to make it explicit.
Don't worry about translating the argument into a categorical
syllogism
until you have filled in the missing statement.
Utilize premise and conclusion indicator words as clues as you need.
You will usually be correct if you simply relax and write down your
first
reaction. You should then carefully examine your reconstructed
argument to
see if it makes sense.
Once you have written down the missing statement, refer back to
section 4.7
if you need help translating the statements of the syllogism into
standard
form propositions.
Then check to make sure your major and minor premises are on the
correct
order. (I'm assuming you automatically put the conclusion last.)
http://www.uky.edu/~rosdatte/phi120/cntablea.htm
> > We infer effects from causes not by means of human reason,
>
> Plenty of the time we do just that, most obviously with fault diagnosis.
>
> > but through a species of belief, whereby the imagination comes to
> > perceive some sort of necessary connection between cause and effect.
>
> That isnt even possible when diagnosing a fault you have never seen before.
>
> > We often admire the innate instincts of animals that help them get by,
>
> And anyone who has had anything to do with animals
> knows that it can get them into one hell of a mess too.
>
Especially Zoo keepers in the 18th century, right?
> It can even see them die when they follow their innate instincts when that is not appropriate.
>
> Humans are quite capable of reasoning past innate instincts when they choose to or need to.
>
> > and Hume suggests that our ability to infer causal connections is a similar kind of instinct.
>
> He's wrong.
>
You sound pretty certain there my man, are you claiming that there is
no chance for error in your proposal and that it is impossible for you
to be mistaken, or do you mean that other theories are so much more
reasonable with reliable evidence that contradict such a notion that
even a miniscuely margin of error can be ignored. (remember economics
too is just an empirical science based upon probabilities)
> And thats got nothing to do with cognative dissonance anyway.
>
My claim was something like human and animal reasoning are probably
related to particular types of emotional arousal. At most my claim
could be construed to mean that human and animal cognition came after
emotional cognition in the history and evolution of neural
infrastructures in animals (and animal humans). To be clear if you
were to look at about ten years of my debates on this issue you would
likely not find one instance where I argued it was the other way
around. My argument has always been that the reasoning abilities have
been grafted on and integrated with th mid-brain emotional reasoning
abilities, which themselve were grafted atop the lizard brain stem.
Your "3-Brains-in-One" Brain
You may have thought all you had was one, but inside there are two
more brains.
Actually, you already know this from your experience: for example,
remember a time when you really wanted to do something, but you knew
you shouldn't? The most illogical or irrational "wants" we have
probably derive from older parts of our brain, while the understanding
of smart versus dumb choices comes from the newest part. If that idea
offends you, or seems just too "Western" or "scientific", you might
take a "de-tour" for a moment and read this essay on science.
Take another example: you can be hungry, but not feel it until you
pay attention to it; then when you do notice, you realize you've been
getting hungrier for a long time. Hunger comes from the most basic
parts of our brain, but our awareness of it is controlled by the
newest part.
Here are the "3 brains":
Brain One
-Center of the Brain
-"R complex"
-snakes, lizards
Brain Two
-Wrapped around Brain One
-"limbic system" or "old mammalian brain"
-dogs, cats
Brain Three
-Outside Surface
-(Wrapped around Brain Two!)
-"neocortex"
-primates, especially human primates
Brain One
This is the brain we share with birds, and reptiles. Think of it as
the "housekeeping brain". Just the basics: hunger, temperature
control, fight-or-flight fear responses, defending territory, keeping
safe -- that kind of thing. The structures that perform these
functions within our brain are extremely similar to those in the
brains of reptiles. Thus, this brain is called the "R complex" (R for
reptilian). You can take a Tour of the R complex when you wish; and
you will see parts of it in the section on obsessions.
Brain Two
As animals became more complex, other structures were added around the
R complex in a shell, or "girdle". The Latin word for arc or girdle is
"limbus", and this brain is called the "limbic system". We humans
share this brain with older mammals like dogs, cats, and horses, and
even mice (as opposed to newer mammals like chimps; we'll get to them
in a moment). Their brains, and this part of our brains, are extremely
similar.
Think about the difference between a mouse and a lizard, or between a
cat and a snake, and you'll recognize what this mammalian brain adds
to a creature's capacities. Mammals have "feelings" like ours. We'll
be looking at the structures of the limbic system in the sections on
mood, memory, and hormone control. The main parts of the limbic system
(except the thalamus, which is generally regarded as part of Brain
One) are shown below. By taking all the Brain Tours you'll see each of
these parts and get a better sense of how this set of structures is
positioned underneath the cortex.
Brain Three
Here is the familiar "cortex" you can see from the outside. With this
brain, primates can do things that horses and cows cannot, like
complex social interactions and advance planning (such as planning an
attack on a neighboring troop). In humans the cortex has grown to a
huge size, somehow in association with our development of language.
Other primates like chimpanzees, or monkeys, have much less cortex,
which is surprising since chimpanzee DNA differs from ours by only
1.6%! (stunning, really; I hope you're stunned. Recently some
technical issues have arisen with this number, but for now, it's still
generally regarded as, well, amazing!). If you wonder why we humans
have populated the entire globe, while our chimp relatives are stuck
in a shrinking rain forest with their nearly identical DNA -- read The
Third Chimpanzee, by Jared Diamond. You've got a great question, and
his is a great answer. (Similarly, if you wonder why white-skinned
humans seem to have an unfair share of the resources and money, his
other masterpiece offers a solid explanation beside skin color: Guns,
Germs, and Steel).
Three Brains in One
To keep all this straight, think of the following image (ok, it's a
little odd, but it seems to work; write if you have another one). The
R brain is like a golf club. Let's make it a driver, one of those with
a big fat wooden head. Hold the club so that the head is at the top.
There's your R complex, with your spine sticking down toward the
ground. The R brain is just a big swelling at the top of a spinal
cord, and that's how it developed. Worms have little swellings, snakes
have bigger ones. OK so far?
Next we'll add the layer that makes mammals behave so differently from
reptiles. This next "layer", the old mammalian brain, evolved on top
of the R complex. It was not a remodel so much as an addition, like
adding on bedrooms all the way around a kitchen/bathroom. This
addition covers the entire R complex, leaving the R complex deep
within the brain. In our model, take the golf club, and cover the head
with a sock; a big thick red one would be nice. Now you have the R
brain (golf club), with the old mammalian brain wrapped around it
(sock). Notice that the red sock forms a shell, or continuous border
around the golf club head.
To complete the brain picture, add a bicycle or hockey helmet on top
of your red-socked golf club head: that's the newest mammalian
addition, the "cortex", and it is the grey squiggly stuff you can see
on the outside. If you'd like a tour of the cortex itself, as you've
seen it so far (like, what are those colored parts?), click here.
http://www.psycheducation.org/emotion/triune%20brain.htm
> >http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/understanding/section9.rhtml
> > Of The Reason Of Animals
> > David Hume (1711�76).
> > An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding.
> > ALL our reasonings concerning matter of fact are founded on a
> > species of Analogy, which leads us to expect from any cause the
> > same events, which we have observed to result from similar causes.
>
> He's just plain wrong, most obviously with the diagnosis of
> a complex fault that you havent seen anything like before.
>
By todays standards of scientific methodology he is probably somewhat
wrong, I agree.
In a sparse distributed network - memory is a type of
perception.....The act of remembering and the act of perceiving both
detect a pattern in a vary large choice of possible patterns....When
we remember we recreate the act of the original perception - that is
we relocate the pattern by a process similar to the one we used to
perceive the pattern originally
http://www.kk.org/outofcontrol/ch2-d.html
Here is another statement very similar to David Hume's (the
evolutionist's and Darwin's favorite philosopher by the way)
There is no I for a person, for a beehive, for a corperation, for an
animal, for a nation, for any living thing. The I of a vivisystem is a
ghost, an ephemeral shroud. It is like the transient form of a
whirlpool held upright by a million spinning atoms of water. It can be
scattered with a fingertip. But a moment later, the shroud reappears,
driven together by the churning deep distributed mob. Is the whirlpool
a different form, or the same? Are you different after a near-death
experience, or only more mature?
For better or worse, in reality we are not centered in our head. We
are not centered in our mind. Even if we were, our mind has no center,
no I. Our bodies have no centrality either. Bodies and minds blur
across each others supposed boundries. Bodies and minds are not that
different from one another. They are both composed of swarms of sub-
level things.
http://www.kk.org/outofcontrol/ch3-f.html
A noted authority in the feild. Your argument form is like a mocking
of Einstein because someone refered to his theory of relativity.
> > There are other textbooks now, but that guy started the revolution
> > that has taken over more than 80% of evolutionary science.
>
> Pigs arse he did.
>
> >> Why are you into completely mindless steaming turds ?
> > Because I like to understand what evolutionary theory offers
> > to guide life than some fake religious or social dogma?
>
> Pity its completely irrelevant to what was being discussed.>>>> The part of the brain that responds to actions resulting in well
> >>>> being is often countered by the part that wants inactivity and
> >>>> laziness. We use a common term to 'tame' such contradictions, but
> >>>> most do not really grasp what they are saying. The term is 'self
> >>>> discipline' ,
> >>>> more accurately 'selfs disciplined.
> >>>> Either aspects can dominate, which leads to inbalance. The 'bits of
> >>>> the brain' do not negotiate. "You" officiate.The 'self' is not
> >>>> being disciplined, but disciplining.
> >>>> Of course there are also 'parts of the brain' that, not
> >>>> understanding such basic principles, come up with all sorts of
> >>>> weird and wonderful theories.Not 'full proof' he states....Id
> >>>> never have guessed!!! (that comes from the sarcastic part of my
> >>>> brain, but 'I' decided to use it
> >>>> to emphasise a useful insight.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UWRypqz5-o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wD9mCp8SifM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esDUHNi9Er8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bZzM4s0Hgs
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> Immortalist wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Immortalist wrote
>>>>> bigflet...@gmail.com <bigflet...@gmail.com wrote
>>>>>> Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>>>> Cognitive Dissonance Theory
>>>>>> More a case of 'know thyselve's.
>>>>> That would be more like "relax and know thyself
>>>>> and get eaten alive" theory. Being disturbed/aroused
>>>>> by inconsistency is probably a survival instinct.
>>>> Easy to claim. Have fun actually substantiating that claim.
>>>> Its MUCH more likely that it actually helps with survival
>>>> if you can handle congitive dissonance effortlessly.
>>> I agree. But also it would also help one's survival to recognize
>>> arousal arising from conflicting sense data and memories.
>> You havent established that.
> You appear to be promoting the default and unstated assumption
> that "all cases of emotional arousal are case that have absolutely
> no instinctual bias and the responses are completely learned"
Never ever said anything even remotely resembling
anything like that, let alone 'promoted' it.
In fact I have said the exact opposite, most obviously with an instinct for fairness
seen with little kids that cant even speak or understand what you are saying etc.
> while I was assuming that there are at least some instinctual biases pre-wired
> into the human brain even if they only slightly make some emotions and
> decisions seem more reasonable than other emotions and decisions.
Having fun thrashing that straw man that has absolutely NOTHING
to do with what was being discussed, COGNATIVE DISSONANCE.
> My claim is that all incidents of cognitive dissonance are not equal
No one was ever stupid enough to claim that they are.
> and that some are keyed to a more ancient environment from which
> natural and cultural selection determined such mutations as favorable.
And you havent established that claim.
> As for establishing anything that is what the
> empirical evidence of inborn phobias was for,
You havent established that those are inborn.
And they have nothing to do with cognative dissonance ANYWAY.
> to show how complex neural arrangements that are identical
> to somewhat complex human subjectivity can come with the
> embryological development of the brain ready to be adjusted
> by the environment, in a way like thermostats can be adjusted
> to create a sustained temperature.
You havent established that either.
<reams of crap that has absolutely NOTHING to do with
what was actually being discussed flushed where it belongs>
>>> This probably would apply to animals also,
>> Cant see they get cognative dissonance.
> Since, basically, cognitive dissonance is a state of tension that
> occurs whenever an individual simualtaniiously holds two cognitions
> (ideas, attitudes, beliefs, opinions) that are psychologically
> inconsistent and there is an anologe between human and animal
> cognition (see below) than you might see that they could get dissonance.
But you havent established that they do in fact get cognative dissonance at all.
<reams of crap that has absolutely NOTHING to do with
what was actually being discussed flushed where it belongs>
>>> these instincts are some of the oldest.
>> You dont know that.
> As you should know in science, a theory is an explanation.
And you dont have a shred of evidence for that theory.
<reams of crap that has absolutely NOTHING to do with
what was actually being discussed flushed where it belongs>
>>> Section IX of the Enquiry is a short section entitled "Of
>>> the Reason of Animals." Hume suggests that we reason
>>> by analogy, linking similar causes and similar effects.
>> Thats very arguable indeed, most obviously with rigorous science.
> I agree that in the mid 1700s when David Hume wrote
> that stuff, Enlightenment science was only beginning to deal
> with empiricism, evidence and cause and effect reasoning.
And clearly fucked up completely there.
> But by the standards of the day, pretty good;
Wrong with that shit.
<reams of crap that has absolutely NOTHING to do with
what was actually being discussed flushed where it belongs>
>>> He suggests that his theories regarding human understanding
>>> might then be well supported if we could find something
>>> analogous to be true with regard to animal understanding.
>> Its very far from clear that animals actually have any real understanding at all.
>>> He identifies two respects in which this analogy holds.
>>> First, animals, just like humans, learn from experience
>>> and come to infer causal connections between events.
>> Yes.
>>> Second, animals certainly do not learn to make
>>> these inferences by means of reason or argument.
>> Yes.
>>> Nor do children,
>> Thats very arguable indeed.
>>> and nor, Hume argues, do adults or even philosophers.
>> Easy to claim. Have fun actually substantiating that claim.
> He substantiated the claims on par with Enlightenment scientific
> methods and standards which are pretty lame today.
He doesnt in fact substantiate a damned thing, just makes that stupid claim.
>> In spades with the adults involved in rigorous science.
> Can't remember the fallacy name but you are judging ancient science by current science
Like hell I am.
> or at least appearing to equate the two as identical by your implied default assumptions.
Like hell I am.
I am just pointing out that massive hole in Hume's claim.
And that massive hole applys BOTH to ancient science AND modern science,
most obviously with the establishment of the fact that the earth is in fact round
and calculating quite accurately what the diameter is etc.
<reams of crap that has absolutely NOTHING to do with
what was actually being discussed flushed where it belongs>
>>> We infer effects from causes not by means of human reason,
>> Plenty of the time we do just that, most obviously with fault diagnosis.
>>> but through a species of belief, whereby the imagination comes to
>>> perceive some sort of necessary connection between cause and effect.
>> That isnt even possible when diagnosing a fault you have never seen before.
>>> We often admire the innate instincts of animals that help them get by,
>> And anyone who has had anything to do with animals
>> knows that it can get them into one hell of a mess too.
> Especially Zoo keepers in the 18th century, right?
Its much more obvious with animals in the wild than in zoos.
>> It can even see them die when they follow their innate instincts when that is not appropriate.
>> Humans are quite capable of reasoning past innate instincts when they choose to or need to.
>>> and Hume suggests that our ability to infer causal connections is a similar kind of instinct.
>> He's wrong.
> You sound pretty certain there my man, are you claiming
> that there is no chance for error in your proposal
It isnt my proposal, its actually evidence that Hume's line cant explain.
> and that it is impossible for you to be mistaken, or do you mean that
> other theories are so much more reasonable with reliable evidence
> that contradict such a notion that even a miniscuely margin of error
> can be ignored. (remember economics too is just an empirical
> science based upon probabilities)
You'll end up completely blind if you dont watch out, child.
>> And thats got nothing to do with cognative dissonance anyway.
> My claim was something like human and animal reasoning
> are probably related to particular types of emotional arousal.
And there isnt a shred of support for that particular claim.
> At most my claim could be construed to mean that human
> and animal cognition came after emotional cognition in the
> history and evolution of neural infrastructures in animals
> (and animal humans). To be clear if you were to look at
> about ten years of my debates on this issue you would
> likely not find one instance where I argued it was the
> other way around. My argument has always been that
> the reasoning abilities have been grafted on and
> integrated with th mid-brain emotional reasoning abilities,
> which themselve were grafted atop the lizard brain stem.
Irrelevant to what is being discussed, COGNATIVE DISSONANCE.
<reams of crap that has absolutely NOTHING to do with
what was actually being discussed flushed where it belongs>
>>> http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/understanding/section9.rhtml
>>> Of The Reason Of Animals
>>> David Hume (1711�76).
>>> An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding.
>>> ALL our reasonings concerning matter of fact are founded on a
>>> species of Analogy, which leads us to expect from any cause the
>>> same events, which we have observed to result from similar causes.
>> He's just plain wrong, most obviously with the diagnosis of
>> a complex fault that you havent seen anything like before.
> By todays standards of scientific methodology he is probably somewhat wrong, I agree.
And it isnt just scientific metholodogy either, complex fault finding
has been around for a hell of a lot longer than that and has allowed
us to do some incredible engineering even in ancient times.
<reams of crap that has absolutely NOTHING to do with
what was actually being discussed flushed where it belongs>
>>> http://www.bartleby.com/37/3/13.html
>> Just a steaming turd.
>> So fucking what ?
Irrelevant to whether he fucked up very spectacularly indeed there.
> Your argument form is like a mocking of Einstein
> because someone refered to his theory of relativity.
Nothing like in fact.
>>> There are other textbooks now, but that guy started the revolution
>>> that has taken over more than 80% of evolutionary science.
>>
>> Pigs arse he did.
>>
>>>> Why are you into completely mindless steaming turds ?
>>> Because I like to understand what evolutionary theory offers
>>> to guide life than some fake religious or social dogma?
>>
>> Pity its completely irrelevant to what was being discussed.>>>> The
>> part of the brain that responds to actions resulting in well
>>>>>> being is often countered by the part that wants inactivity and
>>>>>> laziness. We use a common term to 'tame' such contradictions, but
>>>>>> most do not really grasp what they are saying. The term is 'self
>>>>>> discipline' ,
>>>>>> more accurately 'selfs disciplined.
>>>>>> Either aspects can dominate, which leads to inbalance. The 'bits
>>>>>> of the brain' do not negotiate. "You" officiate.The 'self' is not
>>>>>> being disciplined, but disciplining.
>>>>>> Of course there are also 'parts of the brain' that, not
>>>>>> understanding such basic principles, come up with all sorts of
>>>>>> weird and wonderful theories.Not 'full proof' he states....Id
>>>>>> never have guessed!!! (that comes from the sarcastic part of my
>>>>>> brain, but 'I' decided to use it
>>>>>> to emphasise a useful insight.)
<reams of crap that has absolutely NOTHING to do with
what was actually being discussed flushed where it belongs>
Coffee's For Closers
114047...@l11g2000pro.googlegroups.com>, sacs...@aol.com
says...
> On Mar 25, 6:40=A0pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > If we chose in favor of defending our ego so we feel like good and
> > normal people are history and science really just means to those
> > instinctual ends? This razor you mention may cut away at the truth so
> > we can feel good about how we are and do decide.
> >
> > The Psychology of Inadequate Justification
> >
> > Attitude change as a means of reducing dissonance is not, of course,
> > limited to postdecision situations. It can occur in countless other
> > contexts, including every time a person says something he or she
> > doesn't believe or does something stupid or immoral. The effects can
> > be extremely powerful. Let us look at some of them.
> >
> > In a complex society, we occasionally find ourselves saying or doing
> > things we don't completely believe. Does this always lead to attitude
> > change? No. To illustrate, I will choose a simple example. Joe Lawyer
> > enters the office and sees that his law partner, Joyce, has hung a
> > perfectly atrocious painting on the wall of the office they share. He
> > is about to tell her how awful he thinks it is when she says proudly,
> > "How do you like the painting? I did it myself=97you know, in the art
> > class I'm taking at night."
> >
> > "Very nice, Joyce," Joe answers. Theoretically, Joe's cognition "I am
> > a truthful person" is dissonant with the cognition "I said that
> > painting was nice, although it really is disastrous." Whatever
> > dissonance might be aroused by this inconsistency can easily and
> > quickly be reduced by Joe's cognition that it is important not to hurt
> > other people: "I lied so as not to hurt Joyce; why should I tell her
> > it's an ugly painting? It serves no useful purpose." This is an
> > effective way of reducing dissonance because it completely justifies
> > Joe's action. In effect, the justification is situation-determined. I
> > will call this external justification.
> >
> > But what happens if there is not ample justification in the situation
> > itself? For example, imagine that Joe Lawyer, who is politically
> > conservative, finds himself at a cocktail party with many people he
> > doesn't know very well. The conversation turns to politics. The people
> > are talking with horror about the fact that the United States seems to
> > be drastically escalating its friendly overtures toward Castro's
> > regime in Cuba. Joe's belief is a complicated one; he has mixed
> > feelings about the topic, but generally he is opposed to our forming
> > an alliance with the Cuban dictatorship because he feels it is an evil
> > regime and we should not compromise with evil. Partly because Joe's
> > companions are sounding so pious and partly as a lark, he gradually
> > finds himself taking a much more liberal-radical position than the one
> > he really holds. As a matter of fact, Joe even goes so far as to
> > assert that Fidel Castro is an extraordinarily gifted leader and that
> > the Cuban people are better off with Communism than they've been in
> > hundreds of years. Somebody counters Joe's argument by talking about
> > the thousands of people that Castro is alleged to have murdered or
> > imprisoned in order to achieve a unified government. In the heat of
> > the argument, Joe replies that those figures are grossly exaggerated.
> > Quite a performance for a man who does, in fact, believe that Castro
> > killed thousands of innocent people during his rise to power.
> >
> > When Joe awakens the next morning and thinks back on the previous
> > evening's events, he gasps in horror. "Oh, my God, what have I done?"
> > he says. He is intensely uncomfortable. Put another way, he is
> > experiencing a great deal of dissonance. His cognition "I misled a
> > bunch of people; I told them a lot of things about Cuba that I don't
> > really believe" is dissonant with his cognition "I am a reasonable,
> > decent, and truthful person." What does he do to reduce dissonance? He
> > searches around for external justifications. First, it occurs to Joe
> > that he might have been drunk and therefore not responsible for what
> > he said. But he remembers he had only one or two beers=97no external
> > justification there. Because Joe cannot find sufficient external
> > justification for his behavior, it is necessary for him to attempt to
> > explain his behavior by using internal justification, changing his
> > attitude in the direction of his statements. That is, if Joe can
> > succeed in convincing himself that his statements were not so very far
> > from the truth, then he will have reduced dissonance; that is, his
> > behavior of the preceding night will no longer be absurd in his own
> > view. I do not mean to imply that Joe will suddenly become an avowed
> > Communist revolutionary. What I do mean is that he might begin to feel
> > a little less harsh about the Cuban regime than he felt before he made
> > those statements. Most events and issues in our world are neither
> > completely black nor completely white; there are many gray areas.
> > Thus, Joe might begin to take a different look at some of the events
> > that have taken place in Cuba during the past 50 years. He might start
> > looking into Castro's politics and decisions and become more disposed
> > toward seeing wisdom that he hadn't seen before. He might also begin
> > to be more receptive to information that indicates the extent of the
> > corruption, brutality, and ineptitude of the previous government. To
> > repeat: If an individual states a belief that is difficult to justify
> > externally, that person will attempt to justify it internally by
> > making his or her attitudes more consistent with the statement.
> >
> > I have mentioned a couple of forms of external justification. One is
> > the idea that it's all right to tell a harmless lie in order to avoid
> > hurting a person's feelings=97as in the case of Joe Lawyer and his
> > partner. Another is drunkenness as an excuse for one's actions. Still
> > another form of external justification is reward. Put yourself in
> > Joe's shoes for a moment, and suppose that you and I both were at that
> > cocktail party and I am an eccentric millionaire. As the conversation
> > turns to Cuba, I pull you aside and say, "Hey, I would like you to
> > come out strongly in favor of Fidel Castro and Cuban Communism."
> > What's more, suppose I hand you $5,000 for doing it. After counting
> > the money, you gasp, put the $5,000 in your pocket, return to the
> > discussion, and defend Fidel Castro to the hilt. The next morning when
> > you wake up, would you experience any dissonance? I don't think so.
> > Your cognition "I said some things about Fidel Castro and Cuban
> > Communism that I don't believe" is dissonant with the cognition "I am
> > a truthful and decent person." But, at the same time, you have
> > adequate external justification for having made that statement: "I
> > said those favorable things about Cuban communism in order to earn
> > $5,000=97and it was worth it." You don't have to soften your attitude
> > toward Castro in order to justify that statement because you know why
> > you made those statements.
> >
> > The Social Animal - Elliot Aronson - 8th Edition 1999http://www.amazon.co=
> m/exec/obidos/ASIN/0716733129/
> The contradiction is real, Joe was not honest. I have a problem with
> tact but I believe people generally want to know the truth, or at
> least your perception of it. Rationalizations or self justification
> are another matter.
The contradiction comes from Joe thinking a blanket, simplified,
"I am a truthful and decent person."
He could change his thought to, "I am generally truthful
and decent, but I sometimes tell lies when I want to avoid
conflict over petty things (the painting), or to seem like a more
interesting conversationalist while feeling social anxiety (at
the party), or to obtain money ($5K to defend Castro.)" Then,
the dissonance would evaporate.
--
Get Credit Where Credit Is Due
http://www.cardreport.com/
Credit Tools, Reference, and Forum
M Purcell
IN.SIG> wrote:
> In article <60f2d8dd-398a-4f22-aed5-
> 1140474f5...@l11g2000pro.googlegroups.com>, sacsca...@aol.com
I understand the purpose of tact but I believe there are ways of
avoiding social conflict without being dishonest, that there is a
false dichotomy. And I would not consider a person who accepts a bribe
for being dishonest as generally truthful and decent.
jos boersema
It was reported once that the brain / mind experiences a form of
stress when it is presented with a picture that can be interpreted
in two ways. It wants to be certain it interprets the information
correctly and coherently. This could be due to survival needs, such
as knowing whether what it sees is a dead log in the water or a living
crocodile.
To hold two contradictory notions together is a case of idiocy imho.
Say a lack of consciousness, which could eventually lead to those
specimen lacking consioucness (zombies?) to die out in favor of those
more aware (alive); because they make too many mistakes when thinking
both are true in a contradiction, mistakes that end up killing them.
A modern example could be: we live suposedly in a democracy where the
people rule, yet the Government can do what it wants against the will
of the people. Not seeing anything wrong in that could be a prelude
to a large die-off of zombies ...
Me, ...again!
You can _be_ religious and spiritual without _knowing_ anything about
metaphysics, and, I think, vice versa.
Me, ...again!
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Rod Speed wrote:
> Me, ...again! wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>
>>>>> No surprise that you are completely unemployable
>
>>>> I have been totally employed for 30+ years,
>
>>> And then got the bums rush from that sheltered workshop.
>
>>>> and do not need to work any more.
>
>>> Corse you would claim that.
>
>> Hey, Rod...
>
>> Lay off of Arindam Banerjee.
>
> Go and fuck yourself, again.
You first.
>> He's really a good guy.
>
> He's a completely unemployable wanker.
Shall I post that "Rod Speed FAQ" again?
Me, ...again!
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Rod Speed wrote:
Are you sure?
M Purcell
That's just a repeation of your exclusivity, how would you define
metaphysics?
Rod Speed
> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Rod Speed wrote:
>
>> Me, ...again! wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>
>>>>>> No surprise that you are completely unemployable
>>
>>>>> I have been totally employed for 30+ years,
>>
>>>> And then got the bums rush from that sheltered workshop.
>>
>>>>> and do not need to work any more.
>>
>>>> Corse you would claim that.
>>
>>> Hey, Rod...
>>
>>> Lay off of Arindam Banerjee.
>>
>
> You first.
>
>>
>
> Shall I post that "Rod Speed FAQ" again?
You can make a fool of yourself as often as you like.
Rod Speed
> Subject: Re: Why do we feel aroused when two ideas contradict each other?
> It was reported once that the brain / mind experiences a form of stress
> when it is presented with a picture that can be interpreted in two ways.
It clearly doesnt with that classic optical effect where
you can see two faces or a solid object in the two ways.
http://www.amazing-illusion.com/2007/07/win-goblet-or-two-faces.html
> It wants to be certain it interprets the information correctly and coherently.
> This could be due to survival needs, such as knowing whether
> what it sees is a dead log in the water or a living crocodile.
Its likely that you only get any stress when one possibility is risky.
> To hold two contradictory notions together is a case of idiocy imho.
Why are your opinions horrible/hairy ?
> Say a lack of consciousness, which could eventually lead to those
> specimen lacking consioucness (zombies?) to die out in favor of those
> more aware (alive); because they make too many mistakes when thinking
> both are true in a contradiction, mistakes that end up killing them.
In modern human situations it doesnt ever kill you so it cant die out.
> A modern example could be: we live suposedly in a
> democracy where the people rule, yet the Government
> can do what it wants against the will of the people.
Like hell it can, if it tries that it gets the bums rush at the ballot box.
And thats not just academic, its actually happened a number of times.
> Not seeing anything wrong in that could be a prelude to a large die-off of zombies ...
Pure fantasy.
Rod Speed
Not always, particularly when you are asked explicitly what your
opinion is of something. Even just not answering explicitly makes it
clear to almost everyone that you are avoiding saying what you think.
Rod Speed
> On Mar 25, 6:40 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 25, 6:24 pm, M Purcell <sacsca...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> Cognitive Dissonance Theory
>>>> .
>>>> .
>>
>>> A contradiction indicates a false premise. We apply Occams Razor.
>>
>> normal people are history and science really just means to those
>> instinctual ends? This razor you mention may cut away at the truth so
>> we can feel good about how we are and do decide.
>>
>> The Psychology of Inadequate Justification
>>
>> Attitude change as a means of reducing dissonance is not, of course,
>> limited to postdecision situations. It can occur in countless other
>> contexts, including every time a person says something he or she
>> doesn't believe or does something stupid or immoral. The effects can
>> be extremely powerful. Let us look at some of them.
>>
>> In a complex society, we occasionally find ourselves saying or doing
>> things we don't completely believe. Does this always lead to attitude
>> change? No. To illustrate, I will choose a simple example. Joe Lawyer
>> enters the office and sees that his law partner, Joyce, has hung a
>> perfectly atrocious painting on the wall of the office they share. He
>> is about to tell her how awful he thinks it is when she says proudly,
>> partner. Another is drunkenness as an excuse for one's actions. Still
>> another form of external justification is reward. Put yourself in
>> Joe's shoes for a moment, and suppose that you and I both were at
>> that
>> cocktail party and I am an eccentric millionaire. As the conversation
>> turns to Cuba, I pull you aside and say, "Hey, I would like you to
>> come out strongly in favor of Fidel Castro and Cuban Communism."
>> What's more, suppose I hand you $5,000 for doing it. After counting
>> the money, you gasp, put the $5,000 in your pocket, return to the
>> discussion, and defend Fidel Castro to the hilt. The next morning
>> when
>> you wake up, would you experience any dissonance? I don't think so.
>> Your cognition "I said some things about Fidel Castro and Cuban
>> Communism that I don't believe" is dissonant with the cognition "I am
>> a truthful and decent person." But, at the same time, you have
>> adequate external justification for having made that statement: "I
>> said those favorable things about Cuban communism in order to earn
>> toward Castro in order to justify that statement because you know why
>> you made those statements.
>>
>> The Social Animal - Elliot Aronson - 8th Edition
> The contradiction is real, Joe was not honest. I have a
> problem with tact but I believe people generally want
> to know the truth, or at least your perception of it.
Like hell they do when they are asking about whether their child is an obnoxious little brat etc.
M Purcell
> M Purcell wrote:
> > I understand the purpose of tact but I believe there are
> > ways of avoiding social conflict without being dishonest,
>
> Not always, particularly when you are asked explicitly what your
> opinion is of something. Even just not answering explicitly makes it
> clear to almost everyone that you are avoiding saying what you think.
Indeed, people are very good at detecting discrepancies.
M Purcell
> > problem with tact but I believe people generally want
> > to know the truth, or at least your perception of it.
>
> Like hell they do when they are asking about whether their child is an obnoxious little brat etc.
I try not to be overly concerned about other peoples egos but you seem
to believe you dictate them.
Rod Speed
Nope, just realise that there is nothing to be gained by
making it clear what you think about something like that.
M Purcell
You try to act on such a belief and I'll shove a gun up your ass.
*Anarcissie*
> Subject: Re: Why do we feel aroused when two ideas contradict each other?
>
> It was reported once that the brain / mind experiences a form of
> stress when it is presented with a picture that can be interpreted
> in two ways. It wants to be certain it interprets the information
> correctly and coherently. This could be due to survival needs, such
> as knowing whether what it sees is a dead log in the water or a living
> crocodile.
>
> To hold two contradictory notions together is a case of idiocy imho.
> Say a lack of consciousness, which could eventually lead to those
> specimen lacking consioucness (zombies?) to die out in favor of those
> more aware (alive); because they make too many mistakes when thinking
> both are true in a contradiction, mistakes that end up killing them.
[ My reply unaccountably disappeared. Here it again,
with improvements. ]
Your theory is contrary to what we observe in daily life
and in evolution, where the ability to simultaneously
maintain multiple and often contradictory views of the
world appears to be advantageous to life and survival,
and conducive as well to happiness. Its main
disadvantage lies in the vacuity of abstract debate,
where one may find that according to the rules of
logic one is assisting one's opponent by arguing
against oneself. A truly wise wise guy could turn
even this to his or her advantage, however.
The idea that all of one's ideas must be consistent
seems like an intellectual's foible. And even
Emerson, certainly an intellectual's intellectual, said
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."
It's as if he saw Usenet coming from afar.
Rod Speed
You'll have to get past the shotty and the rotty first.
Me, ...again!
Thanks. Also, thanks, again, to you because I learned it from you.
>
>
>
>
Me, ...again!
Its philosophical, and neither religion nor spirituality are
philosophical.
M Purcell
How would you define philosophical?
Immortalist
> >> On Mar 25, 7:29 pm, M Purcell <sacsca...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Mar 25, 6:40 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> On Mar 25, 6:24 pm, M Purcell <sacsca...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Mar 25, 5:46 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> Cognitive Dissonance Theory
> >>>>>> .
> >>>>>> .
> >>>>>> .
>
> >>>>> A contradiction indicates a false premise. We apply Occams Razor.
>
> >>>> If we chose in favor of defending our ego so we feel like good and
> >>>> normal people are history and science really just means to those
> >>>> instinctual ends? This razor you mention may cut away at the truth
> >>>> so
> >>>> we can feel good about how we are and do decide.
>
> >>>> The Psychology of Inadequate Justification
>
> >>>> Attitude change as a means of reducing dissonance is not, of
> >>>> course,
>
> >>>> 1999http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0716733129/
>
> >>> tact but I believe people generally want to know the truth, or at
> >>> are another matter.
>
> >> Remember, people hold a multitude of cognitions simultaneously, and
> >> these cognitions form
>
> >> 1. irrelevant,
> >> 2. consonant
> >> 3. dissonant
>
> >> relationships with one another.
>
> >> 1. Cognitive Irrelevance probably describes the bulk of the
> >> relationships among a person¹s cognitions. Irrelevance simply means
> >> that the two cognitions have nothing to do with each other. Two
> >> cognitions are consonant if one cognition follows from, or fits with,
> >> the other.
>
> >> 2. People like consonance among their cognitions. We do not know
> >> whether this stems from the nature of the human organism or whether
> >> it is learned during the process of socialization, but people appear
> >> to prefer cognitions that fit together to those that do not. It is
> >> this simple observation that gives the theory of cognitive
> >> dissonance its interesting form.
>
> >> 3. Two cognitions are said to be dissonant if one cognition follows
> >> from the opposite of another. What happens to people when they
> >> discover dissonant cognitions? A person who has dissonant or
> >> discrepant cognitions is said to be in a state of psychological
> >> dissonance, which is experienced as unpleasant psychological tension.
> >> This tension state has drivelike properties that are much like those
> >> of hunger and thirst. When a person has been deprived of food for
> >> several hours, he/she experiences unpleasant tension and is driven to
> >> reduce the unpleasant tension state that results. Reducing the
> >> psychological sate of dissonance is not as simple as eating or
> >> drinking however.
>
> >>http://www.ithaca.edu/faculty/stephens/cdback.html
> > I suspect it's the drive towards self consistency, we don't like to
> > be wrong, being wrong means we make bad survival decisions.
>
> Its hardly ever about survival decisions.
>
> We dont like being wrong because being wrong produces a less than
> the best outcome that we would have got if we had not been wrong.
>
Seems kind of weak to claim that desiring the best outcome has never
had any survival value in terms of natural selection.
> >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9DVJE_bhVUhttp://www.youtube.com/watc...
>
> > Oldies but goodies.
Immortalist
Actually the stuff I am adding has everything to do with the topic I
introduced in these threads.
Rod Speed
>>>> M Purcell <sacsca...@aol.com> wrote
>>>>> Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>>> M Purcell <sacsca...@aol.com> wrote
>>>>>>> Immortalist reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>>>>> Cognitive Dissonance Theory
>>>>>>> A contradiction indicates a false premise. We apply Occams Razor.
>>>> relationships with one another.
>>>> http://www.ithaca.edu/faculty/stephens/cdback.html
Even weaker to claim that it does.
Rod Speed
>>>>>>>>> Cognitive Dissonance Theory
>>>> You havent established that.
But nothing to do with what was being discussed, cognative dissonance.
You keep tossing in reams and reams of completely irrelevant crap.
Immortalist
> >> what was actually being discussed flushed where it belongs>
> > Actually the stuff I am adding has everything to do with the topic I introduced in these threads.
>
> But nothing to do with what was being discussed, cognative dissonance.
>
> You keep tossing in reams and reams of completely irrelevant crap.
Are you sure that your not just failing to see the connection. I don't
believe that your that stupid when it comes to Darwinism, probably
just a ruse, some techniques that works on the weaklings you argue
with in these other groups?