Long ago and far away (Oxford University, 1986) I successfully defended my doctoral dissertation (A Functional Examination of Intermediate Cognitive Processes). I conducted experiments using a computer game I had written that showed that people learned to perform complex tasks without being able to explain (or even identify) the actual processes they used. Basically, explicit knowledge (the things we claim we know) and implicit knowledge (the information that is reflected by patterns in our observed behavior) are two different things that only occasionally overlap. Dan Kahneman’ s best-selling, Thinking Fast and Slow, has a full explanation of these two information processing systems. There has been a great deal of research in this area; unfortunately, it is seldom brought to bear on legal issues, especially those that are emotionally charged.
I recently published an essay about the many disconnects and discontinuities between Title IX programs and the individual perceptions and judgments reflected by a survey study: The Baffling 'Bull' Behind Title IX — Minding The Campus
While human behavior is influenced by intentions it is also influenced by identity, belief, and circumstances. The survey study showed that liberal lesbians had very different criteria for identifying hostile environments than did moderate, heterosexual male respondents. Experienced or reported harm is already full of conjecture and disagreement, trying to develop a system that seeks to establish standards for anticipated harm is a fool’s errand…
'Keep in mind: It may be against someone you don’t like today, but tomorrow…you may well be next.'
Well said! This is exactly the point, isn't it? Free speech means nothing at all unless it applies specifically to someone one doesn't like. As Noam Chomsky pointed out, even Mao and Stalin believed in free speech for people whose ideas they liked.
The creators of "Fiddler on the Roof" came up with "Tradition" as the opening song to describe what the play is about. The song I would use to begin a play about current events would be called "Cognition," a nod to include the aspects of mindfulness, awareness, and understanding in how we perceive and approach the world. 🌲🙏🌲
... I believe it was Madame Blavatsky's house of spacer's choice rage against the broken crowley translation machine. All this talk about being fair and level-headed in your prejudiced ego made me think of a badpun. I gotta go, I got a mean puff ball lodged down there.
But yeah, maybe just "Gmail". And that title about missing chapters and fallen leaves triggered a dollhouse effect on me, although I was despicably sober.
Good points. Though one might suggest that there's some merit and utility in reaching a consensus. Not likely to be much social progress if everyone is madly riding off in all directions because they can't, or won't, agree on what words mean, on which is the best course of action for a society and a community to take. E pluribus unum; we hang together or we hang alone -- as Benjamin Franklin is reputed to have said on the eve of the American Revolution.
Not sure if I've commented on this here before, but you might want to take a gander at this old essay by Mark Twain on "Corn pone opinions":
"Men think they think upon great political questions, and they do; but they think with their party, not independently; they read its literature, but not that of the other side; they arrive at convictions, but they are drawn from a partial view of the matter in hand and are of no particular value. They swarm with their party, they feel with their party, they are happy in their party's approval; and where the party leads they will follow, whether for right and honor, or through blood and dirt and a mush of mutilated morals."
I think there is indeed utility in reaching some sort of consensus, but ideally by adapting more moderate positions and pulling people together by addressing their key concerns. For example, on abortion, a moderate position might be to have, say, a twelve week limit, and exceptions for things like rape or health risks. It won't please either fringe, but would likely have support by a large group of people on both sides of that debate. I tend to look for solutions like that.
"wise", indeed. "Speaking as a Canadian", it's too bad we can't claim him as one of our own ... 😉🙂 Though I'm not particularly impressed that some of my high-profile brethren have more or less endorsed Biden's Transgender Day of Visibility:
When some transwoman manages to conceive -- with his own ovaries, carry, and give birth to a baby is when I'll agree he has changed sex from male to female. Until then there's more than enough evidence to argue that he and his ilk are madder than hatters for insisting changing one's sex is only a matter of changing one's genitalia. "Change your genitalia, change your sex! Act now! Offer ends soon!" 🙄 An absolute medical scandal that that is what many so-called doctors are claiming:
The Economist: "Leaked discussions reveal uncertainty about transgender care
The files shed light on a controversial area of medicine that has largely retreated into the shadows"
But certainly can sympathize with compromises of various sorts, Though part of the problem is that in many cases we don't, and can't, really know all of the consequences of our actions until after we've acted -- maybe there really are "immortal souls" in those aborted babies who have to go to the back of the queue for another shot at being born? 😉🙂
We kind of have to screw-up our courage -- collective and individual -- and go with a best bet. Or look around for other alternatives to those on tap. Kind of think that's the case with abortion -- seems intrinsically a cheapening of human life. "Fetuses today, other useless eaters tomorrow! Kill a commie for Christ! Close cover before striking! ...." Slippery slopes indeed ...
Katherine, I'm with you on your approach. I like to read and hear views that challenge me. I consider it a great mutual accomplishment when someone is able to convince me to change my views or opinions because they have the better perspective.
We need more openness like that. Though, of course, the intention of discourse shouldn't even be to change someone's mind or convince them...it should be to understand why people believe what they do, and articulate why you believe what you do. The rest may fall as it will.
Long ago and far away (Oxford University, 1986) I successfully defended my doctoral dissertation (A Functional Examination of Intermediate Cognitive Processes). I conducted experiments using a computer game I had written that showed that people learned to perform complex tasks without being able to explain (or even identify) the actual processes they used. Basically, explicit knowledge (the things we claim we know) and implicit knowledge (the information that is reflected by patterns in our observed behavior) are two different things that only occasionally overlap. Dan Kahneman’ s best-selling, Thinking Fast and Slow, has a full explanation of these two information processing systems. There has been a great deal of research in this area; unfortunately, it is seldom brought to bear on legal issues, especially those that are emotionally charged.
I recently published an essay about the many disconnects and discontinuities between Title IX programs and the individual perceptions and judgments reflected by a survey study: The Baffling 'Bull' Behind Title IX — Minding The Campus
While human behavior is influenced by intentions it is also influenced by identity, belief, and circumstances. The survey study showed that liberal lesbians had very different criteria for identifying hostile environments than did moderate, heterosexual male respondents. Experienced or reported harm is already full of conjecture and disagreement, trying to develop a system that seeks to establish standards for anticipated harm is a fool’s errand…
'Keep in mind: It may be against someone you don’t like today, but tomorrow…you may well be next.'
Well said! This is exactly the point, isn't it? Free speech means nothing at all unless it applies specifically to someone one doesn't like. As Noam Chomsky pointed out, even Mao and Stalin believed in free speech for people whose ideas they liked.
Having just finished your book No Apologies, I'm glad to now read the extra chapter too. Wise words.
Thank you so much. I appreciate you taking the time to read my book. I hope you enjoyed it.
Amen sister
The creators of "Fiddler on the Roof" came up with "Tradition" as the opening song to describe what the play is about. The song I would use to begin a play about current events would be called "Cognition," a nod to include the aspects of mindfulness, awareness, and understanding in how we perceive and approach the world. 🌲🙏🌲
I believe you lady is advertising to me about chorizo. It's a done deal then. Tomorrow I will buy chorizo and eat some.
Greg, what drunken chat room did you just stumble out of?
... I believe it was Madame Blavatsky's house of spacer's choice rage against the broken crowley translation machine. All this talk about being fair and level-headed in your prejudiced ego made me think of a badpun. I gotta go, I got a mean puff ball lodged down there.
But yeah, maybe just "Gmail". And that title about missing chapters and fallen leaves triggered a dollhouse effect on me, although I was despicably sober.
hahahah!
Good points. Though one might suggest that there's some merit and utility in reaching a consensus. Not likely to be much social progress if everyone is madly riding off in all directions because they can't, or won't, agree on what words mean, on which is the best course of action for a society and a community to take. E pluribus unum; we hang together or we hang alone -- as Benjamin Franklin is reputed to have said on the eve of the American Revolution.
Not sure if I've commented on this here before, but you might want to take a gander at this old essay by Mark Twain on "Corn pone opinions":
"Men think they think upon great political questions, and they do; but they think with their party, not independently; they read its literature, but not that of the other side; they arrive at convictions, but they are drawn from a partial view of the matter in hand and are of no particular value. They swarm with their party, they feel with their party, they are happy in their party's approval; and where the party leads they will follow, whether for right and honor, or through blood and dirt and a mush of mutilated morals."
https://www.paulgraham.com/cornpone.html
A "mush of mutilated morals" seems to cover much of what you described.
Twain was rather wise.
I think there is indeed utility in reaching some sort of consensus, but ideally by adapting more moderate positions and pulling people together by addressing their key concerns. For example, on abortion, a moderate position might be to have, say, a twelve week limit, and exceptions for things like rape or health risks. It won't please either fringe, but would likely have support by a large group of people on both sides of that debate. I tend to look for solutions like that.
"wise", indeed. "Speaking as a Canadian", it's too bad we can't claim him as one of our own ... 😉🙂 Though I'm not particularly impressed that some of my high-profile brethren have more or less endorsed Biden's Transgender Day of Visibility:
https://globalnews.ca/news/10394167/canadian-artists-letter-transgender-policies/
When some transwoman manages to conceive -- with his own ovaries, carry, and give birth to a baby is when I'll agree he has changed sex from male to female. Until then there's more than enough evidence to argue that he and his ilk are madder than hatters for insisting changing one's sex is only a matter of changing one's genitalia. "Change your genitalia, change your sex! Act now! Offer ends soon!" 🙄 An absolute medical scandal that that is what many so-called doctors are claiming:
The Economist: "Leaked discussions reveal uncertainty about transgender care
The files shed light on a controversial area of medicine that has largely retreated into the shadows"
https://www.economist.com/united-states/2024/03/05/leaked-discussions-reveal-uncertainty-about-transgender-care
Archive link: https://archive.ph/r4WOl
But certainly can sympathize with compromises of various sorts, Though part of the problem is that in many cases we don't, and can't, really know all of the consequences of our actions until after we've acted -- maybe there really are "immortal souls" in those aborted babies who have to go to the back of the queue for another shot at being born? 😉🙂
We kind of have to screw-up our courage -- collective and individual -- and go with a best bet. Or look around for other alternatives to those on tap. Kind of think that's the case with abortion -- seems intrinsically a cheapening of human life. "Fetuses today, other useless eaters tomorrow! Kill a commie for Christ! Close cover before striking! ...." Slippery slopes indeed ...
Katherine, I'm with you on your approach. I like to read and hear views that challenge me. I consider it a great mutual accomplishment when someone is able to convince me to change my views or opinions because they have the better perspective.
We need more openness like that. Though, of course, the intention of discourse shouldn't even be to change someone's mind or convince them...it should be to understand why people believe what they do, and articulate why you believe what you do. The rest may fall as it will.
Better said.