"I turned out okay"

[Alan Forrester]

When people say, in response to TCS, "I was raised coercively and I
turned out okay" what is the appropriate response?

I think there are a couple of problems.

(1) When a child is coerced he suffers at the time. If he manages to
get over this that doesn't change the fact that some adult chose to
make his life worse at that time.

(2) What does "okay" mean? Indefinite improvement is possible. So if
the coercion held you back at all you're worse off than you would have
been if you hadn't been coerced. And it's impossible to know how much
better off you would be if you had not been coerced. At the time you
were coerced you thought there was some opportunity worth pursuing and
the coercion prevented you from doing that in the way you wanted to.
You can't know the results of doing something when you didn't do it
and weren't given a persuasive criticism of it.

Alan

[Erin Minter]

Yes, it is impossible to know what could have been. I think a lot of ppl don't understand that they could have been "better" in ways that they right now don't fully appreciate as better. Some think that doing better means just doing the stuff they refer to when they say "I turned out OK" (like career, family, friends, wealth, house, prestige/status) *really* well.

They don't realize that there is another way of looking at "better" or what "I turned out ok" should refer to. Such as problem solving ability/thinking, independence in thinking and not living as a second-hander, responsibility, happiness, joy instead of inexplicit chronic fear.

Erin

[Elliot Temple]

On Mar 19, 2014, at 12:38 PM, Erin Minter <erin....@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>> On Mar 19, 2014, at 9:29 AM, Alan Forrester <alanmichae...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>

> Yes, it is impossible to know what could have been. I think a lot of ppl don't understand that they could have been "better" in ways that they right now don't fully appreciate as better. Some think that doing better means just doing the stuff they refer to when they say "I turned out OK" (like career, family, friends, wealth, house, prestige/status) *really* well.
>
> They don't realize that there is another way of looking at "better" or what "I turned out ok" should refer to. Such as problem solving ability/thinking, independence in thinking and not living as a second-hander, responsibility, happiness, joy instead of inexplicit chronic fear.

and liking criticism and taking initiative

apart from the suffering as a child, and having nothing to compare the "OK" outcome to (actually what they are comparing to is other adults who were also raised coercively, and they turned out "OK" compared to them...), here's another issue:

the guy turned out "OK" as judged by his "OK" adult self, judging himself. this kind of self-reported scoring system is biased.

you can't do something to a person, wait over 10 years for them to rationalize it, make it part of their identity, forget about it, etc, then ask them if their current life is "OK" and think that is a fair way to judge whether that thing done long in the past was good, bad, or neutral.

there's also the confounding factors issue. maybe the coercive parenting was bad but his parents did something else good. or maybe his coercive parents were bad but he was born to be a super genius before they messed it up. (i don't think that kinda of genetic determinism is actually possible, but he very well might. in any case, the way i determine it's impossible also leads me to think coercive parenting is bad, so he can't consistently use my reasoning to reject genetic geniuses while also endorsing coercive parenting).


-- Elliot Temple
http://curi.us/

[Lulie Tanett]

> On 19 Mar 2014, at 01:29 pm, Alan Forrester <alanmichae...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> When people say, in response to TCS, "I was raised coercively and I
> turned out okay" what is the appropriate response?

The short answer is: They didn't.

How it screwed them up and how to respond in such a way they'd understand depends on the person.

Maybe they have irrationalities they know about but are comfortable talking about. Maybe they've criticised some common mistake in society that you can explain came from being raised coercively. Maybe a better approach would be to point out what the mindset is of the non-coerced person (that they have all these benefits like enjoying learning, expecting problems to be soluble, not expecting conflicts and getting into fights, etc.).

A generic response might be to point out the ways everyone knows that coercive education messes people up:

Being punished for being wrong makes people scared of making mistakes. Being forced to learn things you're not interested in makes you think learning is hard or painful, and/or can make you hate certain subjects. Being raised with authority figures makes it hard to question authority and be critical later.

What is the person imagining when he's saying this? Why is he saying it?

People use it to reply to any disagreements in parenting styles, not TCS in particular. So maybe it's used to emphasise relativism/we-don't-know-the-answers in parenting, or maybe it's used to shut down further discussion. While that doesn't mean it's a point not worth discussing -- nor does it mean they're unreachable and discussing won't work -- it does mean that the most effective way to make progress in the discussion might be to zoom out and focus on areas with shared agreement as a starting point.

--
Lulie Tanett

[Jason]

On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 6:29 AM, Alan Forrester
<alanmichae...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> When people say, in response to TCS, "I was raised coercively and I
> turned out okay" what is the appropriate response?

Simply saying "I turned out okay" assumes that the future will be just
like the past. What may have been "okay" or even ideal for you is not
necessarily "okay" for your kid. Your kid isn't you, and the world
your kid is growing up in isn't the same world that you grew up in.

One example: I didn't touch a computer until I was 11 years old, and I
turned out okay. That doesn't mean it would be okay for my kids not to
touch a computer until age 11.

Another example: I was required to attend 6-10 hours of church
activities every week until I was 16, and I turned out okay. That
doesn't mean I should place the same requirement on my kids.

If you press a bit, I suspect you could find examples like the two
above that would resonate with pretty much any western parent. I've
personally never met a parent who says and will actually defend when
challenged "I want to raise my kids exactly the same way as I was
raised." There is a strong thread of trying to do better in most
parents I've run into, and an argument that begins and ends with "I
was raised X and I turned out okay" is fundamentally at odds with what
they probably already believe.

"I was raised X and I turned out okay AND I'm not convinced that not-X
would be better for my kid" is a tougher (and, with regard to
TCS-coercion, I think more likely) pattern to respond to.

> I think there are a couple of problems.
>
> (1) When a child is coerced he suffers at the time.

I'm aware that TCS defines suffering and coercion in such a way that
they are inextricably linked. Most parents, especially those who would
say "I was raised coercively and I turned out okay" do not agree with
those definitions.

> If he manages to
> get over this that doesn't change the fact that some adult chose to
> make his life worse at that time.

I think we should evaluate life as a whole. There is no "make his life
worse at that time" that's distinct from "make his life worse." Either
the parent made the child's life worse, or not.

> (2) What does "okay" mean? Indefinite improvement is possible. So if
> the coercion held you back at all you're worse off than you would have
> been if you hadn't been coerced.

This seems to agree with what I said immediately above (we should
evaluate life is a whole, not limited to just "at the time"). Setting
aside our disagreement about whether coercion always makes a person
worse off, do we agree that life should be analyzed as a whole?

> And it's impossible to know how much
> better off you would be if you had not been coerced. At the time you
> were coerced you thought there was some opportunity worth pursuing and
> the coercion prevented you from doing that in the way you wanted to.
> You can't know the results of doing something when you didn't do it
> and weren't given a persuasive criticism of it.

I think you could have stopped at "You can't know the results of doing
something when you didn't do it." Whether or not you were given a
persuasive criticism doesn't change the fact that once an action is
taken, what would have happened if the action wasn't taken always has
an element of the unknown.

Also, I think this argument works equally well in reverse, "You can't
know the results of not doing something when you actually did it."

So I don't see how this last section is any substantial argument for
or against anything...it's too easy to vary because it applies to
pretty much any action or inaction, coerced or not.

--Jason

[Lulie Tanett]

On 19 Mar 2014, at 13:29, Alan Forrester <alanmichae...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> When people say, in response to TCS, "I was raised coercively and I
> turned out okay" what is the appropriate response?

TCS isn't about how people "turn out". It's not this method for making people with certain properties like being "okay", or having

> problem solving ability/thinking, independence in thinking and not living as a second-hander, responsibility, happiness, joy instead of inexplicit chronic fear.

-- Erin Minter

or

> liking criticism and taking initiative

-- Elliot Temple

or being awesome or successful or whatever.

All those things are besides the point. That way of thinking is having an agenda for your child.

What TCS is about is how to treat people morally, how to avoid and resolve conflicts (external and internal), how to think about education according to the best ideas we have about epistemology, how to think about and solve problems, etc.

--
Lulie Tanett

[Elliot Temple]

On Mar 23, 2014, at 4:11 AM, Lulie Tanett <lu...@lulie.org> wrote:

>
> On 19 Mar 2014, at 13:29, Alan Forrester <alanmichae...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> When people say, in response to TCS, "I was raised coercively and I
>> turned out okay" what is the appropriate response?
>
> TCS isn't about how people "turn out". It's not this method for making people with certain properties like being "okay", or having
>
>> problem solving ability/thinking, independence in thinking and not living as a second-hander, responsibility, happiness, joy instead of inexplicit chronic fear.
> -- Erin Minter
>
> or
>
>> liking criticism and taking initiative
> -- Elliot Temple
>
> or being awesome or successful or whatever.
>
> All those things are besides the point. That way of thinking is having an agenda for your child.

Lulie took these quotes out of context. Erin didn't say "it's good to care how your child turns out, but make sure to use these TCS criteria instead of the conventional ones". (the context for mine, btw, was adding to Erin's list, in her context)

Erin Minter quoted Alan:

>> (2) What does "okay" mean? ... it's impossible to know how much better off you would be if you had not been coerced.

and she began, replying to that, not to the subject line, nor to the other Alan question Lulie quotes above:

> Yes, it is impossible to know what could have been. I think a lot of ppl don't understand that they could have been "better" in ways that they right now don't fully appreciate as better.

In the context of this point, which Erin explained a bit more, she offered some examples. The examples illustrated ways people can be better or worse. The issues raised are ones people commonly would not appreciate and account for well, while judging how they turned out.

this was not advocacy of parenting to achieve particular outcomes like independent thinking or high initiative. it was saying ppl who think they turned out OK may not realize it's possible to have more independent thinking and initiative than they have, which detracts from the meaningfulness of their "OK" judgment.

Lulie says not living as a second-hander is "besides (sic) the point". But there were multiple points being discussed. one issue was parenting outcomes. another was how people misjudge the quality of their life and misunderstand what else could have been possible.

-- Elliot Temple
http://beginningofinfinity.com/

[Alan Forrester]

The relevant ideas are explanations not definitions. You might want to
look up Popper's criticisms of essentialism.

>> If he manages to
>> get over this that doesn't change the fact that some adult chose to
>> make his life worse at that time.
>
> I think we should evaluate life as a whole. There is no "make his life
> worse at that time" that's distinct from "make his life worse." Either
> the parent made the child's life worse, or not.
>
>> (2) What does "okay" mean? Indefinite improvement is possible. So if
>> the coercion held you back at all you're worse off than you would have
>> been if you hadn't been coerced.
>
> This seems to agree with what I said immediately above (we should
> evaluate life is a whole, not limited to just "at the time"). Setting
> aside our disagreement about whether coercion always makes a person
> worse off, do we agree that life should be analyzed as a whole?

Suppose that Peter gets into Jim's house using a key concealed near
the front door and he intends to steal stuff and shoot the house owner
if he gets in the way. Jim hears Peter downstairs and knows he is
being robbed and feels scared. But the police happen to be in the
neighbourhood and see Peter's torch shining and arrest Peter.

Jim might decide to take better security precautions and get a gun and
self defence training as a result of this incident. This might improve
his life. But it would be wrong to say that Peter improved Jim's life
by breaking into his house. It is possible that Jim could have reached
the same conclusion by persuasion rather than by having somebody try
to rob him. The route involving persuasion would be an improvement at
every step of the process.

If in addition to getting trained in self defence, Jim had taken the
next day off work and cried all day, then he might have lost money and
failed to improve his performance at work in some identifiable way.
But even if nothing like that happens he was worse off at the time of
the robbery.

>> And it's impossible to know how much
>> better off you would be if you had not been coerced. At the time you
>> were coerced you thought there was some opportunity worth pursuing and
>> the coercion prevented you from doing that in the way you wanted to.
>> You can't know the results of doing something when you didn't do it
>> and weren't given a persuasive criticism of it.
>
> I think you could have stopped at "You can't know the results of doing
> something when you didn't do it." Whether or not you were given a
> persuasive criticism doesn't change the fact that once an action is
> taken, what would have happened if the action wasn't taken always has
> an element of the unknown.

So if I had swallowed cyanide yesterday that might have been a good
idea? I don't think it would have been because I have a criticism of
doing that: it would kill me.

If I had planned to swallow cyanide and decided not to do so because
somebody had persuaded me it was a bad idea, then I would know I was
better off as a result of not taking the cyanide.

But if I had planned to take cyanide and I told somebody and they
stopped me by force then I would not know what the result of taking
cyanide would be. I also don't understand the result that the forcer
was trying to bring about because he hasn't explained his actions.

Alan

[Jason]

On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 7:37 AM, Alan Forrester

Right. It's TCS's explanation of coercion and suffering that I don't
find persuasive. For reference the explanation I'm referring to is
here:
http://fallibleideas.com/coercion

TCS's definition is just TCS's definition - which I'm aware of but
most parents aren't.

Most parents, especially those who would say "I was raised coercively

and I turned out okay" are not aware of TCS's definition and, if it
was explained to them as it was explained in the link above, I think
they would find it unpersuasive.

>>> If he manages to
>>> get over this that doesn't change the fact that some adult chose to
>>> make his life worse at that time.
>>
>> I think we should evaluate life as a whole. There is no "make his life
>> worse at that time" that's distinct from "make his life worse." Either
>> the parent made the child's life worse, or not.
>>
>>> (2) What does "okay" mean? Indefinite improvement is possible. So if
>>> the coercion held you back at all you're worse off than you would have
>>> been if you hadn't been coerced.
>>
>> This seems to agree with what I said immediately above (we should
>> evaluate life is a whole, not limited to just "at the time"). Setting
>> aside our disagreement about whether coercion always makes a person
>> worse off, do we agree that life should be analyzed as a whole?
>
> Suppose that Peter gets into Jim's house using a key concealed near
> the front door and he intends to steal stuff and shoot the house owner
> if he gets in the way. Jim hears Peter downstairs and knows he is
> being robbed and feels scared. But the police happen to be in the
> neighbourhood and see Peter's torch shining and arrest Peter.
>
> Jim might decide to take better security precautions and get a gun and
> self defence training as a result of this incident. This might improve
> his life. But it would be wrong to say that Peter improved Jim's life
> by breaking into his house.

I don't think it is wrong to say that Peter improved Jim's life by
breaking into his house, but I think more is needed than just that
statement to accurately convey the reality of the situation.

The important fact that must be stated to provide context is: The lack
of harm to Jim from the robbery and Jim's life's subsequent
improvement was an *accident*. It was not a likely outcome of Peter
breaking into Jim's house. Quite the opposite - the most likely
outcome was that Jim would be harmed by the act. Furthermore, Peter's
intent wasn't to help Jim, it was to harm him.

> It is possible that Jim could have reached
> the same conclusion by persuasion rather than by having somebody try
> to rob him. The route involving persuasion would be an improvement at
> every step of the process.

Yes, but in this unlikely turn of events the reason it would have been
better is that persuasion would have been a lot safer for all involved
and much more likely to produce a positive outcome rather than value
destruction. Nothing is 100% certain, but even an unsuccessful robbery
attempt is very likely to destroy value in some meaningful way.

> If in addition to getting trained in self defence, Jim had taken the
> next day off work and cried all day, then he might have lost money and
> failed to improve his performance at work in some identifiable way.

Or maybe Jim had to pay to get his door re-keyed or clean his carpet
or whatever...the scenario you laid out where there is really no
actual harm that came from the robbery attempt is highly unlikely.

> But even if nothing like that happens he was worse off at the time of
> the robbery.

This is where I think you go wrong. You set up a hypothetical (and as
I said, highly unlikely) situation in which no harm is caused by the
robbery attempt, then you just assert that "he was worse off".

How exactly is Jim worse off?

>>> And it's impossible to know how much
>>> better off you would be if you had not been coerced. At the time you
>>> were coerced you thought there was some opportunity worth pursuing and
>>> the coercion prevented you from doing that in the way you wanted to.
>>> You can't know the results of doing something when you didn't do it
>>> and weren't given a persuasive criticism of it.
>>
>> I think you could have stopped at "You can't know the results of doing
>> something when you didn't do it." Whether or not you were given a
>> persuasive criticism doesn't change the fact that once an action is
>> taken, what would have happened if the action wasn't taken always has
>> an element of the unknown.
>
> So if I had swallowed cyanide yesterday that might have been a good
> idea? I don't think it would have been because I have a criticism of
> doing that: it would kill me.
>
> If I had planned to swallow cyanide and decided not to do so because
> somebody had persuaded me it was a bad idea, then I would know I was
> better off as a result of not taking the cyanide.
>
> But if I had planned to take cyanide and I told somebody and they
> stopped me by force then I would not know what the result of taking
> cyanide would be. I also don't understand the result that the forcer
> was trying to bring about because he hasn't explained his actions.

Whether you were given a persuasive criticism or not doesn't change
whether swallowing the cyanide was objectively good for you or
objectively bad for you.

If you take it, you probably die - whether you were persuaded to take
it or forced to take it.
If you don't take it, you probably don't die - whether you were
persuaded not to take it or forced not to take it.

That's just a derivative of the conjecture that reality is objective, right?

In neither case (death or not death) is the outcome 100% determined in
advance. It's possible maybe you have an unusual resistance to
cyanide, or the cyanide is unusually weak, or something else happens
that prevents it from killing you even though you take it.

However, once a path is taken (take cyanide or not take cyanide), the
outcome of that path is determined - it's in the past. So it is
possible that we can eliminate the errors in our knowledge about that
path - we can know it. The path that was not taken, however, we can
never know because it never happened. We can speculate on what would
have happened, and have good explanations for why our speculation is
good, but there is no real event which our speculation could ever
faithfully represent. It will forever remain a speculation.

None of that changes based on whether you were persuaded or forced.

What changes based on whether you were persuaded or forced isn't
knowledge, but value. In the case where you were forced to take
cyanide the value of your life was likely destroyed. The case where
you were forced not to take cyanide is harder because the value of
your life was likely saved, but because you actually wanted to die now
you may try ways of killing yourself that are more harmful to others
than just taking cyanide.

--Jason

[Alan Forrester]

On 29 March 2014 00:43, Jason <auv...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> I'm aware that TCS defines suffering and coercion in such a way that
>>> they are inextricably linked. Most parents, especially those who would
>>> say "I was raised coercively and I turned out okay" do not agree with
>>> those definitions.
>>
>> The relevant ideas are explanations not definitions. You might want to
>> look up Popper's criticisms of essentialism.
>
> Right. It's TCS's explanation of coercion and suffering that I don't
> find persuasive. For reference the explanation I'm referring to is
> here:
> http://fallibleideas.com/coercion
>
> TCS's definition is just TCS's definition - which I'm aware of but
> most parents aren't.

What are your criticisms of that essay?

Alan

[Alan Forrester]

On 29 March 2014 00:43, Jason <auv...@gmail.com> wrote:

Somebody's trying to steal his stuff and for all he knows the burglar
might kill him to get rid of witnesses, or the burglar might just be a
really bad person who likes murder.

If I am persuaded not to take it, then I have no criticisms of the
course of action of not taking it and I regard myself as unambiguously
better off. If I am forced to refrain from taking it then there is a
period when I think taking it would have been the better option.
During that period I am acting on an idea I think is wrong and I am
worse off in that respect.

Alan

[Vollmer]

On 29 Mar 2014, at 15:24, Kristen Ely <krist...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Why is it unlikely that someone could have persuaded Jim that it's a good idea to take better security precautions? (In this scenario, the robbery doesn't happen at all.)
>
> Jim gains some knowledge, improves his life, and no robbery was needed for these things to happen.

>
>> the reason it would have been
>> better is that persuasion would have been a lot safer for all involved
>> and much more likely to produce a positive outcome rather than value
>> destruction. Nothing is 100% certain, but even an unsuccessful robbery
>> attempt is very likely to destroy value in some meaningful way.
>>
>>> If in addition to getting trained in self defence, Jim had taken the
>>> next day off work and cried all day, then he might have lost money and
>>> failed to improve his performance at work in some identifiable way.
>>
>> Or maybe Jim had to pay to get his door re-keyed or clean his carpet
>> or whatever...the scenario you laid out where there is really no
>> actual harm that came from the robbery attempt is highly unlikely.
>>
>>> But even if nothing like that happens he was worse off at the time of
>>> the robbery.
>>
>> This is where I think you go wrong. You set up a hypothetical (and as
>> I said, highly unlikely) situation in which no harm is caused by the
>> robbery attempt, then you just assert that "he was worse off".
>

> I think the hypothetical where no harm is caused is the one that doesn't actually involve a robbery.

> Being persuaded = someone giving you knowledge about cyanide and the consequences of taking it, which you can use now and in the future when you encounter situations that involve cyanide. Your knowledge has changed.
>
> Force wouldn't give you that knowledge.

expanding on ‘your knowledge has changed’:

if you conjecture that taking cyanide is the solution to some kind of problem, then maybe your conjecture contains errors/ ignorance about reality. if someone doesn’t persuade you to change your mind (by criticising your existing ideas or giving you alternative explanations about the effects of cyanide) and instead coerces you, the idea you had about cyanide or the problem you were trying to solve by using cyanide does not get criticised. instead new problems are forcefully attached to your existing problem, depending on how you are coerced. such as if you receive punishment for thinking about cyanide as a candy, or any other explanation that differs from what the coercer thinks you are doing, they introduce their explanation of your actions into your own ideas. coercers, also being fallible, do not know what ideas they are coercing against. they only have an explanation that will likely have error. they force you to deal with that error in an unrelated way to the problem you were trying to solve.

if forced against taking cyanide, talking about cyanide from then on can become a taboo because thinking about it can cause pain; you remember the traumatic event when you were punished, or the many contradictions you had to resolve, or the new unwanted problems that followed. you may find a solution to these things. maybe you can ignore the pain, or block out the memory. you can think that if you care too much it means you have too much to lose and get hurt that much more. so then you should not care about things too much or give them any value. or not think too much about things because you’re always wrong and it’s easier to just listen to the coercer. or hide the things you value and think of them shamefully.

maybe you aren't hurt that badly by the coercion because it was something small and not that important. but you still want to do it and creatively come up with an alternative solution to get around the coercive obstacle. but the result still involves taking cyanide and meets with equal coercion. maybe then you devalue creativity after this goes on enough times because it never seems to work. such as the coercer applying creativity to their problem and hiding the cyanide or locking it away out of reach. so you replace your method with obedience. maybe you start to see value in giving up rather than fighting for things you want. or listening to the authority. because look, when you do listen the authority rewards you for it.

if you were right about your idea of cyanide, then someone coercing you is introducing unrelated criticism into your problem. you have to find a solution now that contradicts reality. if someone forced you to believe 1+1=3, and you believe you have to believe them because of authority or god or some kind of punishment awaits you then you will have to create contradictory knowledge to explain it. either you rebel against the contradiction and fake it to undermine the contradiction, or you build new knowledge to make sense from that point of contradiction. if you think authority or god is infallible, and your ideas contradict them, then you must be wrong. so an easier solution is to believe contradictions are possible and necessary. i.e. that evil is necessary.

[Elliot Temple]

i don't really get your point.

those parents mean "i was raised with force, and i turned out ok". as i see it, that's fucking awful. yes i do agree that's what they mean.

that's gotta be less defensible, in your (Jason's) opinion, than "i was raised with tcs-coercion, and i turned out ok". so it seems like a point on Alan's side, not a problem for him. it's fine to say stuff like that, pointing out virtues of any side, but i would have expected some kinda explanation of what your intended point is.

what are you (Jason) hoping to accomplish by pointing out this distinction? do you think it's problematic for Alan or I or TCS?

Alan said, "at the time of the robbery" – meaning before the eventual not-so-bad outcome has happened, and while some other outcome could still occur.

BTW a good phrase for discussing these kinds of things is "expectation value". Some people, such as poker players, already understand it. The expectation value of being robbed is negative. The expectation value of being hit by a car is negative (despite the commonly mentioned possibility of marrying your nurse). It means looking at the reasonably expected results of decisions at the time they are made, which is the right way to judge decisions, NOT by the particular outcomes they get (a bad poker bet doesn't become a good decision if you get lucky and win money. don't rewrite history according to hindsight bias. that's very very important to understand if you want to play poker. it's similar with all decisions and events.)

(Though actually some people get hit by cars on purpose. In those circumstances it may have positive expectation value, though I'm not sure, I think they may be dumb. But that's basically only due to possible insurance payout stuff having a very high value if you're poor enough.)

huh?

"What changes based on whether you were persuaded or forced isn't knowledge"

but there is a knowledge difference btwn persuasion and force. with persuasion for X someone communicates about, and you learn about, the virtues of X. if X is forced then that doesn't happen – you don't get that knowledge. this seems pretty straightforward.

[Erin Minter]

On Mar 28, 2014, at 8:43 PM, Jason <auv...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 7:37 AM, Alan Forrester
> <alanmichae...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> On 21 March 2014 04:32, Jason <auv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 6:29 AM, Alan Forrester
>>> <alanmichae...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> And it's impossible to know how much
>>>> better off you would be if you had not been coerced. At the time you
>>>> were coerced you thought there was some opportunity worth pursuing and
>>>> the coercion prevented you from doing that in the way you wanted to.
>>>> You can't know the results of doing something when you didn't do it
>>>> and weren't given a persuasive criticism of it.
>>>
>>> I think you could have stopped at "You can't know the results of doing
>>> something when you didn't do it." Whether or not you were given a
>>> persuasive criticism doesn't change the fact that once an action is
>>> taken, what would have happened if the action wasn't taken always has
>>> an element of the unknown.

It has an element of the unknown if you are looking at 'knowing' something from a sort of omniscient perspective where you are able to infallibly know what alternate choices would have led to. But in the following sentence, "You can't know the results of doing something when you didn't do it and weren't given a persuasive criticism of it.", that is not what the word 'know' refers to.

You can know (meaning you can gain knowledge and learn) about things by receiving persuasive criticisms about ideas *even without having to experience them*. So you could solve a hypothetical problem (aka create knowledge) about whether or not to swallow cyanide without actually experiencing swallowing it.

>> So if I had swallowed cyanide yesterday that might have been a good
>> idea? I don't think it would have been because I have a criticism of
>> doing that: it would kill me.
>>
>> If I had planned to swallow cyanide and decided not to do so because
>> somebody had persuaded me it was a bad idea, then I would know I was
>> better off as a result of not taking the cyanide.
>>
>> But if I had planned to take cyanide and I told somebody and they
>> stopped me by force then I would not know what the result of taking
>> cyanide would be. I also don't understand the result that the forcer
>> was trying to bring about because he hasn't explained his actions.
>
> Whether you were given a persuasive criticism or not doesn't change
> whether swallowing the cyanide was objectively good for you or
> objectively bad for you.

I agree with sentence. The Truth of the situation exists regardless of our knowledge of it. But just because we can't with our minds (and any pertinent persuasive criticisms) change the Truth to whatever we decide doesn't mean we can't change the amount of knowledge we have of the Truth.

> If you take it, you probably die - whether you were persuaded to take
> it or forced to take it.
> If you don't take it, you probably don't die - whether you were
> persuaded not to take it or forced not to take it.
>
> That's just a derivative of the conjecture that reality is objective, right?
>
> In neither case (death or not death) is the outcome 100% determined in
> advance.

That's not what knowledge or knowing is. It doesn't mean being able to see into the future and determine with 100% accuracy what events will occur.

> It's possible maybe you have an unusual resistance to
> cyanide, or the cyanide is unusually weak, or something else happens
> that prevents it from killing you even though you take it.
>
> However, once a path is taken (take cyanide or not take cyanide), the
> outcome of that path is determined - it's in the past. So it is
> possible that we can eliminate the errors in our knowledge about that
> path - we can know it. The path that was not taken, however, we can
> never know because it never happened.

See above, we *can* gain knowledge (which think of as useful ideas that solve a problem) in situations that have not happened yet and we have not experienced.

> We can speculate on what would
> have happened, and have good explanations for why our speculation is
> good, but there is no real event which our speculation could ever
> faithfully represent. It will forever remain a speculation.

Our knowledge is conjectural. Is this what you mean by speculation? Certainty isn't the standard for what constitutes knowledge.

Also, consider that knowledge is best thought of a solution to a specific problem or context. Then what problem would you be trying to solve if you were to search out 'knowing' all of the outcomes that would have resulted from alternate choices that were never made? First of all, this seems like a bad problem to try to solve. Secondly, I think that if this is what 'to know' means, it would mean that knowledge is impossible since we are all fallible and not omniscient. Thoughts? I am not clear on this paragraph. Trying to figure out exactly how the idea of knowing something in a omniscient, infallible sense conflicts with the idea of knowledge as solutions to specific problems.

> None of that changes based on whether you were persuaded or forced.

> What changes based on whether you were persuaded or forced isn't
> knowledge, but value.

Unlike persuasion, force does not lead to knowledge creation. Employing force means there are outstanding criticisms of ideas that have not been addressed. It means there are more than 1 unrefuted ideas left standing after rounds of criticism. If there was only 1 unrefuted idea available after criticizing all of the others, then force wouldn't be necessary.

Erin Minter

[Elliot Temple]

On Apr 2, 2014, at 2:26 PM, Erin Minter <erinm...@icloud.com> wrote:

>
> On Mar 28, 2014, at 8:43 PM, Jason <auv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 7:37 AM, Alan Forrester
>> <alanmichae...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> On 21 March 2014 04:32, Jason <auv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 6:29 AM, Alan Forrester
>>>> <alanmichae...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> And it's impossible to know how much
>>>>> better off you would be if you had not been coerced. At the time you
>>>>> were coerced you thought there was some opportunity worth pursuing and
>>>>> the coercion prevented you from doing that in the way you wanted to.
>>>>> You can't know the results of doing something when you didn't do it
>>>>> and weren't given a persuasive criticism of it.
>>>>
>>>> I think you could have stopped at "You can't know the results of doing
>>>> something when you didn't do it." Whether or not you were given a
>>>> persuasive criticism doesn't change the fact that once an action is
>>>> taken, what would have happened if the action wasn't taken always has
>>>> an element of the unknown.
>
> It has an element of the unknown if you are looking at 'knowing' something from a sort of omniscient perspective where you are able to infallibly know what alternate choices would have led to. But in the following sentence, "You can't know the results of doing something when you didn't do it and weren't given a persuasive criticism of it.", that is not what the word 'know' refers to.
>
> You can know (meaning you can gain knowledge and learn) about things by receiving persuasive criticisms about ideas *even without having to experience them*. So you could solve a hypothetical problem (aka create knowledge) about whether or not to swallow cyanide without actually experiencing swallowing it.

Related, you cannot omnisciently know the results of an action you *did* either. Doing it doesn't give you magic knowledge of its results.

>
>>> So if I had swallowed cyanide yesterday that might have been a good
>>> idea? I don't think it would have been because I have a criticism of
>>> doing that: it would kill me.
>>>
>>> If I had planned to swallow cyanide and decided not to do so because
>>> somebody had persuaded me it was a bad idea, then I would know I was
>>> better off as a result of not taking the cyanide.
>>>
>>> But if I had planned to take cyanide and I told somebody and they
>>> stopped me by force then I would not know what the result of taking
>>> cyanide would be. I also don't understand the result that the forcer
>>> was trying to bring about because he hasn't explained his actions.
>>
>> Whether you were given a persuasive criticism or not doesn't change
>> whether swallowing the cyanide was objectively good for you or
>> objectively bad for you.
>
> I agree with sentence. The Truth of the situation exists regardless of our knowledge of it. But just because we can't with our minds (and any pertinent persuasive criticisms) change the Truth to whatever we decide doesn't mean we can't change the amount of knowledge we have of the Truth.

we don't have any access to The Truth directly. we always have to act on, and criticize in terms of, human knowledge.

>
>> If you take it, you probably die - whether you were persuaded to take
>> it or forced to take it.
>> If you don't take it, you probably don't die - whether you were
>> persuaded not to take it or forced not to take it.
>>
>> That's just a derivative of the conjecture that reality is objective, right?
>>
>> In neither case (death or not death) is the outcome 100% determined in
>> advance.
>
> That's not what knowledge or knowing is. It doesn't mean being able to see into the future and determine with 100% accuracy what events will occur.
>
>> It's possible maybe you have an unusual resistance to
>> cyanide, or the cyanide is unusually weak, or something else happens
>> that prevents it from killing you even though you take it.
>>
>> However, once a path is taken (take cyanide or not take cyanide), the
>> outcome of that path is determined - it's in the past. So it is
>> possible that we can eliminate the errors in our knowledge about that
>> path - we can know it. The path that was not taken, however, we can
>> never know because it never happened.
>
> See above, we *can* gain knowledge (which think of as useful ideas that solve a problem) in situations that have not happened yet and we have not experienced.
>
>> We can speculate on what would
>> have happened, and have good explanations for why our speculation is
>> good, but there is no real event which our speculation could ever
>> faithfully represent. It will forever remain a speculation.
>
> Our knowledge is conjectural. Is this what you mean by speculation? Certainty isn't the standard for what constitutes knowledge.

he's not a Popperian. he thinks that like "theories" are better than "speculations" or something, and he's some kind of empiricist too.

how can one type of idea be epistemologically better than another? he hasn't posted clear answers, presumably because the only answer is authority, but he doesn't think about it clearly enough to see it that way and doesn't like authority directly-openly.

all of this is basically *the standard mainstream conventional epistemology* shared by most people. (well, except that plenty of other people somewhat openly and explicitly do like authority, and some of them are more clear that that is what their epistemology consists of).

>
> Also, consider that knowledge is best thought of a solution to a specific problem or context. Then what problem would you be trying to solve if you were to search out 'knowing' all of the outcomes that would have resulted from alternate choices that were never made? First of all, this seems like a bad problem to try to solve. Secondly, I think that if this is what 'to know' means, it would mean that knowledge is impossible since we are all fallible and not omniscient. Thoughts? I am not clear on this paragraph. Trying to figure out exactly how the idea of knowing something in a omniscient, infallible sense conflicts with the idea of knowledge as solutions to specific problems.

there is a general problem that goes roughly, "How can X have *ever been* knowledge, if we now have discovered a mistake in X, and learned X is false?"

does that help? is that related to your issue? Do you know the answer to that question?

>
>> None of that changes based on whether you were persuaded or forced.
>
>> What changes based on whether you were persuaded or forced isn't
>> knowledge, but value.
>
> Unlike persuasion, force does not lead to knowledge creation. Employing force means there are outstanding criticisms of ideas that have not been addressed. It means there are more than 1 unrefuted ideas left standing after rounds of criticism. If there was only 1 unrefuted idea available after criticizing all of the others, then force wouldn't be necessary.

yeah the basic meaning of force is that adequate knowledge isn't created about the right thing to do. if there was such knowledge, force wouldn't be used, ppl would agree. force is all about not creating knowledge.

[Erin Minter]

On Apr 2, 2014, at 7:50 PM, Elliot Temple <cu...@curi.us> wrote:

> On Apr 2, 2014, at 2:26 PM, Erin Minter <erinm...@icloud.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mar 28, 2014, at 8:43 PM, Jason <auv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 7:37 AM, Alan Forrester
>>> <alanmichae...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 21 March 2014 04:32, Jason <auv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 6:29 AM, Alan Forrester
>>>>> <alanmichae...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> And it's impossible to know how much
>>>>>> better off you would be if you had not been coerced. At the time you
>>>>>> were coerced you thought there was some opportunity worth pursuing and
>>>>>> the coercion prevented you from doing that in the way you wanted to.
>>>>>> You can't know the results of doing something when you didn't do it
>>>>>> and weren't given a persuasive criticism of it.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think you could have stopped at "You can't know the results of doing
>>>>> something when you didn't do it." Whether or not you were given a
>>>>> persuasive criticism doesn't change the fact that once an action is
>>>>> taken, what would have happened if the action wasn't taken always has
>>>>> an element of the unknown.
>>
>> It has an element of the unknown if you are looking at 'knowing' something from a sort of omniscient perspective where you are able to infallibly know what alternate choices would have led to. But in the following sentence, "You can't know the results of doing something when you didn't do it and weren't given a persuasive criticism of it.", that is not what the word 'know' refers to.
>>
>> You can know (meaning you can gain knowledge and learn) about things by receiving persuasive criticisms about ideas *even without having to experience them*. So you could solve a hypothetical problem (aka create knowledge) about whether or not to swallow cyanide without actually experiencing swallowing it.
>
> Related, you cannot omnisciently know the results of an action you *did* either. Doing it doesn't give you magic knowledge of its results.

because first of all our interpretation of the results of an action could be mistaken. Also, relying on the authority of experience is a justificationist mistake. Creating knowledge always requires the same process of guessing and criticizing.

Such as the authority of experience if you think that you can only know about things that have already happened.

> but he doesn't think about it clearly enough to see it that way and doesn't like authority directly-openly.
>
> all of this is basically *the standard mainstream conventional epistemology* shared by most people. (well, except that plenty of other people somewhat openly and explicitly do like authority, and some of them are more clear that that is what their epistemology consists of).
>
>>
>> Also, consider that knowledge is best thought of a solution to a specific problem or context. Then what problem would you be trying to solve if you were to search out 'knowing' all of the outcomes that would have resulted from alternate choices that were never made? First of all, this seems like a bad problem to try to solve. Secondly, I think that if this is what 'to know' means, it would mean that knowledge is impossible since we are all fallible and not omniscient. Thoughts? I am not clear on this paragraph. Trying to figure out exactly how the idea of knowing something in a omniscient, infallible sense conflicts with the idea of knowledge as solutions to specific problems.
>
> there is a general problem that goes roughly, "How can X have *ever been* knowledge, if we now have discovered a mistake in X, and learned X is false?"
>
> does that help? is that related to your issue? Do you know the answer to that question?

Regarding the question from above, knowledge is contextual so X could have been considered knowledge in the past from an old context. For that past context X had all of the attributes of knowledge and was knowledge. It was the only unrefuted idea that solved a specific problem. So to be knowledge there can only be 1 idea, it has to have no known criticisms, and it has to be oriented to solve a specific problem or context.

As we learn more and make progress and discover errors in our currently held ideas, the context changes and we seek new knowledge that fits the new context. But that doesn't mean the old idea X wasn't knowledge in the past. It was because it had conclusively solved our original problem.

So a JTB approach to knowledge or anyone who thinks knowing requires omniscience would disagree with this idea. The idea that X could be considered knowledge in the past even if it was later found out to be flawed. From my understanding, their view of knowledge wouldn't allow for any flaws to be discovered later. They think knowledge = Truth.

Is the idea of considering knowledge as solutions to problems unique to CR?

>>
>>> None of that changes based on whether you were persuaded or forced.
>>
>>> What changes based on whether you were persuaded or forced isn't
>>> knowledge, but value.
>>
>> Unlike persuasion, force does not lead to knowledge creation. Employing force means there are outstanding criticisms of ideas that have not been addressed. It means there are more than 1 unrefuted ideas left standing after rounds of criticism. If there was only 1 unrefuted idea available after criticizing all of the others, then force wouldn't be necessary.
>
> yeah the basic meaning of force is that adequate knowledge isn't created about the right thing to do. if there was such knowledge, force wouldn't be used, ppl would agree. force is all about not creating knowledge.

The word adequate here is helpful. Even if my initial idea is a great solution and maybe even "outwardly" what we end up doing, if I can't persuade someone then it's not good enough. We need to come up with *another* idea that while it may contain parts of the first idea it *also* contains the crucial persuasive criticisms of any rival ideas.

Erin Minter

[Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum]

On Apr 4, 2014, at 9:48 AM, Erin Minter <erinm...@icloud.com> wrote:

>> yeah the basic meaning of force is that adequate knowledge isn't created about the right thing to do. if there was such knowledge, force wouldn't be used, ppl would agree. force is all about not creating knowledge.
>
> The word adequate here is helpful. Even if my initial idea is a great solution and maybe even "outwardly" what we end up doing, if I can't persuade someone then it's not good enough. We need to come up with *another* idea that while it may contain parts of the first idea it *also* contains the crucial persuasive criticisms of any rival ideas.

Great point. I'll try to say this in my own words. The knowledge that an idea must have in order to solve a problem without using force includes the criticisms of all rival ideas. It's not enough to have an idea that solves the "external/ behavioral" part of the problem. The winning idea must also include the knowledge of how to persuade each of its rivals that they are wrong. It doesn't have to persuade all conceivable rivals, only the rivals that currently exist. When new rival ideas come up for which adequate criticism is not known, the old idea is no longer good enough, because the problem it has to solve has changed.

[Erin Minter]

On Apr 4, 2014, at 9:57 PM, Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum <petrogradp...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Apr 4, 2014, at 9:48 AM, Erin Minter <erinm...@icloud.com> wrote:
>
>>> yeah the basic meaning of force is that adequate knowledge isn't created about the right thing to do. if there was such knowledge, force wouldn't be used, ppl would agree. force is all about not creating knowledge.
>>
>> The word adequate here is helpful. Even if my initial idea is a great solution and maybe even "outwardly" what we end up doing, if I can't persuade someone then it's not good enough. We need to come up with *another* idea that while it may contain parts of the first idea it *also* contains the crucial persuasive criticisms of any rival ideas.
>
> Great point. I'll try to say this in my own words. The knowledge that an idea must have in order to solve a problem without using force includes the criticisms of all rival ideas.

I think I previously thought that when an idea solves a problem it *becomes* knowledge. But would it be better to think that when an idea solves a problem it *contains* knowledge? One important part of this question would be whether or not there are aspects of a problem-solving idea that are something else other than knowledge? Like with medications, there are the active ingredients and the inactive ingredients. The active ingredients would be the knowledge (everything that is absolutely needed to solve the problem and criticize all rivals), while the inactive ingredients wouldn't be necessary, but maybe go along with it?? Is there anything like this or not really?

> It's not enough to have an idea that solves the "external/ behavioral" part of the problem. The winning idea must also include the knowledge of how to persuade each of its rivals that they are wrong. It doesn't have to persuade all conceivable rivals, only the rivals that currently exist.

Just some examples to check my understanding. If there were 2 groups of ppl. One group has 5 ppl, the other has 4 ppl. Both groups are trying to solve a problem on how to drive to NYC because they want to see the Statue of Liberty. In the group with 5 ppl, 4 of them have different route choices to go to NYC and the 5th one thinks they should drive to Florida instead. The other group with just 4 ppl is identical in all respects except they they don't have this 5th person who thinks Florida is where they should go.

Upon solving their problem, the groups come up with identical routes and plans on what to do. But that doesn't mean the prob situation was the same because the 5-person group also had to come up with a criticism of the Florida idea (which had to be part of the knowledge created). Even tho the final solution looked the same as they ended up taking identical routes, the knowledge each group created was different.

> When new rival ideas come up for which adequate criticism is not known,

Do new rival ideas just come up or does it *always* start with noticing a new problem? And then you would guess new rival ideas for this new problem situation. Kind of like how do you know where to direct your attention to think of new rival ideas if there isn't already some sort of new problem situation.

> the old idea is no longer good enough, because the problem it has to solve has changed.

Another example to check: You have a problem and you solved it with a solution. You created knowledge. One day down the road, you discover a potential problem with your original solution. You think of a rival idea. After thinking about it, you are able to criticize this rival idea and you realize that you were mistaken about the potential problem. Your initial idea is still unproblematic or unrefuted after all. *However*, you have actually created new knowledge to a new problem because your new idea contains one persuasive criticism of a rival idea that your old idea didn't. So this would be considered a new context/problem situation since there is one new rival idea that had to be criticized.

Considering what rival ideas need to be criticized as a part of the adequate knowledge needed to solve a problem helps me realize how much and how often the context can change and consequently how our knowledge can be progressive.

Erin Minter

[Erin Minter]

Yes

> It means there are more than 1 unrefuted ideas left standing after rounds of criticism.

Is this true? There could actually be just 1 idea (idea A) left that had enough knowledge to crticize all of the rival ideas, but perhaps there is still some minor criticism of idea A that still exists. This idea needs improved further.

So is it correct that there is only 1 idea left (even tho it still isn't good enough yet)? Or are there actually 2 or more unrefuted ideas at this point? This one (idea A), but also another (idea B) which basically is saying that *we should think more about and create another idea that doesn't have any crits whatsoever*. If this is true, then there are always 2 or more unrefuted ideas for a given problem *every time* force is employed.

Erin Minter

[Elliot Temple]

Force doesn't resolve conflicts of ideas and create situations of having one idea to act on without conflict.

In addition to not doing that, it also creates conflict. Like a person would want to think about what to do and act using their best ideas, not be forced, but also they don't want to be shot/hurt/etc so there's a conflict created by the use of force.

[Jordan Talcot]

On Mar 19, 2014, at 6:29, Alan Forrester <alanmichae...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> When people say, in response to TCS, "I was raised coercively and I
> turned out okay" what is the appropriate response?

I’m not really sure what their point is. There are lots of things they could mean by this — like, they agree that coercion is bad, but don’t think it is that bad because they turned out fine despite being coerced. Or they think that since they turned out okay, that means the coercion *wasn’t* bad. They might think it was neutral or even beneficial.

How to respond depends on what they actually mean. What are they trying to argue?

One thing to note is that this same argument could be made about child abuse — many people were abused as children, but turned out okay as adults. Does that make child abuse okay, or not harmful? Some people would even say they believe they turned out *stronger* because of the abuse. Does that mean child abuse can actually be good?

Jordan

[Rami Rustom]

On Apr 14, 2014, at 1:59 AM, Jordan Talcot <jordan...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On Mar 19, 2014, at 6:29, Alan Forrester <alanmichae...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> When people say, in response to TCS, "I was raised coercively and I
>> turned out okay" what is the appropriate response?
>

> I'm not really sure what their point is. There are lots of things they could mean by this -- like, they agree that coercion is bad, but don't think it is that bad because they turned out fine despite being coerced. Or they think that since they turned out okay, that means the coercion *wasn't* bad. They might think it was neutral or even beneficial.

>
> How to respond depends on what they actually mean. What are they trying to argue?
>

> One thing to note is that this same argument could be made about child abuse -- many people were abused as children, but turned out okay as adults. Does that make child abuse okay, or not harmful? Some people would even say they believe they turned out *stronger* because of the abuse. Does that mean child abuse can actually be good?

the same (false) argument is used for the idea of teaching the fear of god/hell to children: “you and i were taught to fear god and hell, and we turned out as good people who don’t do crimes and stuff, so fear-of-god-hell *must* be good. so i’ll teach it to my kids too.”

-- Rami Rustom
ramirustom.com