|
Post by fauxmaha on Nov 7, 2019 13:08:00 GMT -5
I was going to put this in Mark's science thread, but then Lar posted this in the impeachment thread: My hope has been to bring some sort of moderation to this thread. I've failed. Conservatives and liberals (or whatever you want to call yourselves) seem irrevocably stuck on Trump being either completely guilty or completely innocent. I don't believe either of those points of view is entirely accurate although I do acknowledge that there are good reasons for the views on either side of the issues. And I thought about putting it there. (BTW, Lar, I don't think you failed, and your thoughts are appreciated.) But eventually decided not to derail either thread, so here it is.
This is excerpted from something I've been working on off and on for a while now. The greatest risk of extended motorcycle riding is you have a lot of time to ponder this sort of thing. More or less, this is how we think perception works. There is a thing. We look at the thing. We perceive the thing for what it is. It seems both simple, and self-evident: I don't think consciousness works that way. If nothing else, the sheer magnitude of sensory inputs we are subjected to are overwhelming. I don't think we have the capacity to absorb and integrate everything we are subjected to. It's just too much. If we had the capacity to perceive reality directly, it would look like this: Pure chaos: To make the universe comprehensible, we've built lenses through which we perceive reality. Theologians and evolutionary biologists differ on how these lenses came about, but there is a surprising degree of agreement that we filter all perception through something. What that means is that when we think we are looking at something...even something as relatively simple as a gear...we are really looking at the output of our "reality lens". Like this: Some say it's ridiculous to suggest that there is ambiguity about how some simple object is perceived. To them I say "Ask a dozen eight year olds to draw a picture of a bicycle". But it is also true that the simpler the object, the less divergence our independent perceptual lenses will create. And in extremely simple arenas (like machinery), with training and determination, we can achieve functional convergence of perception, such that we can actually make things that work. (As an aside, it is also an error to suggest that each of us only have one lens, or that our lenses don't change over time, or that only one lens is used at a time.) In fact, a reasonable measure of the complexity of a "real thing" is the extent to which there is divergence of perception. The less divergence, the less complexity, and vice versa. The most complex thing in the known universe is the human brain. Its so complex, we have no way of measuring its complexity. We have no scale. Lets invent one. No need to name the scale, but lets define the complexity of one human brain as "X". If one human brain is X units complex, then the interaction of 330,000,000 human brains with each other is X^330,000,000 units complex. (Something about the Dunbar Number makes sense here, but this rant is already destined to be long enough.) That get's pretty out of hand, pretty fast.
We know that some people perceive reality like this: And others perceive reality like this: (With the acknowledgement that that might bracket the extremes, but there are an unlimited number of possible perceptions between them. That is a point that John frequently makes...the way politics wants to compress everything to the poles, when reality is more nuanced.) What is really happening looks more like this: The thing they are looking at....the underlying infinite chaos of reality...is identical, but their individual perceptual lenses give them opposite views of what they are seeing. And it's quite maddening. You are staring right at an f-ing [angel/demon], and its impossible to understand how it is anyone else sees something like a [demon/angel]. To me, the interesting question is how it is that we've arrived at a place where we have a roughly 50/50 distribution of diametrically opposed lenses. I've got a theory on that, but this is already long enough, so maybe later.
|
|
|
Post by majorminor on Nov 7, 2019 13:10:57 GMT -5
That's not a gear asshole. That's a saw blade.
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Nov 7, 2019 13:12:17 GMT -5
That's not a gear asshole. That's a saw blade. U get it.
|
|
|
Post by RickW on Nov 7, 2019 13:18:32 GMT -5
And I don’t blame politicians, or politics. They are simply the pointy end of the differing viewpoints.
I might add, that for whatever reason, laziness, stupidity, or simply the overwhelming need to try to make sense of everything, people willfully cut down on the number of inputs they accept. They quite ruthlessly do so, to make their lives easier, because if they don’t, as you say, it’s chaos. And most folks want peace, quite, simplicity. Also, the number of inputs has risen astronomically in our lifetimes. When it was just dad, mom and the village priest telling you what to do, things were much easier..
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Nov 7, 2019 13:33:05 GMT -5
You've been riding your motorcycle? Isn't it a little late in the year for that?
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Nov 7, 2019 14:11:48 GMT -5
Jeff, with regard to how we perceive things, I think you're quite right. Our senses take in far more data than our brains could ever focus on. It has to be filtered. One hypothesis I've read is that our brains tend to filter out what we're used to seeing/hearing/smelling and focus on what's different. Another is that our filters eliminate data that has no survival value and let through data that does. Both hypotheses may be correct. I suspect the filters are very complex.
You also discuss how we think about what we perceive, which I think presents distinct issues. There's been quite a bit of research about that. I've only read snippets.
I have to question one part of what you're saying. I know Trump supporters who don't like the guy and certainly don't think he's an angel. I know plenty of Trump opponents who don't view him as the devil. I don't think we have the opposite perceptions that you suggest, and I don't think that's a quibble. I think the common tendency these days to put everybody who disagrees with you in a box is a big part of what fuels the crazy polarization we see.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Nov 7, 2019 14:28:13 GMT -5
I have to question one part of what you're saying. I know Trump supporters who don't like the guy and certainly don't think he's an angel. I know plenty of Trump opponents who don't view him as the devil. I don't think we have the opposite perceptions that you suggest, and I don't think that's a quibble. I think the common tendency these days to put everybody who disagrees with you in a box is a big part of what fuels the crazy polarization we see. I agree with you and I've thought for a long time that it's one of the inherent downsides of social media and the "democratization" of opinion. It used to be that the opinions that mattered were ones that had earned that right through experience. If the roofing guy says you need a new roof because he's been successfully in the business for 25 years, you get a new roof. Who gives a rooty toot what someone's nephew twice removed thinks about it? But social media, etc. has succeeded in giving every third rate moron living in his mother's basement the democratic right to have his opinion not only heard, but respected. The noise floor of every day life has become deafening. And many just simply have no way to cut through the clutter. OK, back to Jeff's thesis.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Nov 7, 2019 14:37:44 GMT -5
When some new data defies our filters, we run back to an information source that will help us -- not to expand our filter so we can understand the new data -- but how to make the filter less penetrable from that kind of data.
We've become so aware of that factor -- the power and almost total reliance on bias confirmation for our psychological comfort -- that the newest game is in shoring up those filters by way of "Fact Checking" organizations that now help us maintain the opacity of our bias confirming filters.
And cornflake is correct (though he cannot read this) that the other major development of late is that the chief means by which our filter is shored up is by the demonization of the "other". We don't have to understand anything the other side offers. They are disqualified by their otherness. We need no more than that.
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Nov 7, 2019 14:46:08 GMT -5
I have to question one part of what you're saying. I know Trump supporters who don't like the guy and certainly don't think he's an angel. I know plenty of Trump opponents who don't view him as the devil. I don't think we have the opposite perceptions that you suggest, and I don't think that's a quibble. I think the common tendency these days to put everybody who disagrees with you in a box is a big part of what fuels the crazy polarization we see. Totally agree: (With the acknowledgement that that might bracket the extremes, but there are an unlimited number of possible perceptions between them. That is a point that John frequently makes...the way politics wants to compress everything to the poles, when reality is more nuanced.)
|
|
|
Post by lar on Nov 7, 2019 15:03:57 GMT -5
Good analysis, Jeff. I might suggest, though, that you put a sidecar on that motorcycle. You've obviously been spending too much time alone on that thing. Or you could spend less time on the bike and use the time saved on art lessons.
I'm an accountant by trade and training. At least a part of my filter is the need to understand the why of things. Why was this successful and how can we repeat that? Why was this a disaster and how can we avoid a repeat. I don't know if that part of my filter makes things clearer or cloudier. I do know that it frustrates me to no end when I can't figure out what the "why" is.
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Nov 7, 2019 15:18:51 GMT -5
Ah. Careless reading on my part.
|
|
|
Post by TKennedy on Nov 7, 2019 15:41:50 GMT -5
Certainly true for evaluating guitars. Lots of subconscious filters including the name on the headstock. Thinking that you are thinking for yourself is fraught with danger.
Aqua I agree on experience adding validity to a person’s opinion. I have always wondered how someone with limited to no significant experience with the political system, diplomacy, or the workings of government could even be remotely considered for the presidency or a seat in Congress. Those are pretty important jobs.
I think education is typically a filter that turns issues to more of a grayish hue rather than black and white.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Nov 7, 2019 15:58:16 GMT -5
Aqua I agree on experience adding validity to a person’s opinion. I have always wondered how someone with limited to no significant experience with the political system, diplomacy, or the workings of government could even be remotely considered for the presidency or a seat in Congress. Those are pretty important jobs. And I'd respectfully disagree. My experience in government gave me perspective into the problems Trump was discussing that immediately allowed me to evaluate what he was saying and determine that he knew what he was talking about. And he had plans that made sense. And he hasn't deviated from the original trajectory. A standard surface level understanding of the politics without a view to the underlying mechanics really never understood the brilliance of the program leaving it to garden variety partisanship.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Nov 7, 2019 16:34:00 GMT -5
That's one of the things I can't wrap my head around -- how people can believe that a person with no other expertise than parliamentary procedure and law is capable of micromanaging the oil, auto, farming, and pottery systems of the country. And those most trusting of government's capability in that regard even double down on it -- guessing that, as though it was some kind of NCAA tournament in which the best rise to the top via single elimination, somehow the 435 smartest men in the USA share a congress with the 100 smartest men in the 50 states, and are led by (because, Constitution be damned, we ARE a royalty) with a judgeship of 9 omniscients have the final word. On everything.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Nov 7, 2019 16:39:19 GMT -5
That's one of the things I can't wrap my head around -- how people can believe that a person with no other expertise than parliamentary procedure and law is capable of micromanaging the oil, auto, farming, and pottery systems of the country. And those most trusting of government's capability in that regard even double down on it -- guessing that, as though it was some kind of NCAA tournament in which the best rise to the top via single elimination, somehow the 435 smartest men in the USA share a congress with the 100 smartest men in the 50 states, and are led by (because, Constitution be damned, we ARE a royalty) with a judgeship of 9 omniscients have the final word. On everything. Well, there is the AOC brain trust, don't forget.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Nov 7, 2019 16:44:25 GMT -5
If we believed in diversity as an element of strategic problem solving, we would all be federalists, promoting the idea of 50 States acting more independently and thereby exponentially enhancing the probability for problem solutions -- or at the very least, capable of solving the problems idiosyncratic to their regions.
Instead, we want one strong central government making sure that we solve problems by dictate. After all, they wouldn't have made it to Washington if they weren't already the smartest people in the country. Like Trump.
|
|
|
Post by TKennedy on Nov 7, 2019 17:02:02 GMT -5
You guys ever served on the board of directors of any organization that you didn’t know much about and whose operations did not easily dovetail into your prior life experience and education?
I have and it took me at least a couple of years to figure out what the hell was going on and become a real contributor to the job.
At the very least a candidate for higher office should undergo a six month to one year course in government, American history and economics and pass a basic exam before being turned loose. Even a citizenship test would be better than nothing.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Nov 7, 2019 17:08:24 GMT -5
You guys ever served on the board of directors of any organization that you didn’t know much about and whose operations did not easily dovetail into your prior life experience and education? I have and it took me at least a couple of years to figure out what the hell was going on and become a real contributor to the job. At the very least a candidate for higher office should undergo a six month to one year course in government, American history and economics and pass a basic exam before being turned loose. Even a citizenship test would be better than nothing. Exactly. Also a very good argument against term limits. Also, it blew me away -- the one startling thing about the whole "birther" flap: We don't actually have a mechanism in place to make sure that the "natural citizen" thing in the Constitution is enforced. In theory, a person could become president, and unless he is challenged, he could get by with not fitting the Constitutional requirement. I couldn't believe that was so, but it came out when Arizona decided to do something about it by demanding proof of citizenship before someone could get on the ballot for potus. The bill didn't pass -- mostly because it was characterized as an extension of the birther thing, rather than a response to the realization that a loophole had been exposed by it.
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Nov 7, 2019 17:12:46 GMT -5
"You guys ever served on the board of directors of any organization that you didn’t know much about and whose operations did not easily dovetail into your prior life experience and education?
"I have and it took me at least a couple of years to figure out what the hell was going on and become a real contributor to the job."
Yes. I'd say it only took me a year, but maybe my organizations were simpler than yours.
You've described ninety percent of the school board members I've dealt with. The better ones learn quickly AND they remember that their job does not include managing the district. That's what they hire a superintendent for. It helps if board members have had some experience running something EXCEPT when that makes them think they can manage the district or other organization.
A representative democracy can't be entirely run by experts. Like a board, our elected representatives make policy and exercise oversight over the professionals who manage the details. It doesn't bother me if a Senator or Representative has no experience with government. For a presidential candidate, though, I'd consider such inexperience a big minus. The President is the CEO, analogous to a corporate president, school superintendent or governor. That's a managerial position. It shouldn't be an entry-level job.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Nov 7, 2019 18:46:43 GMT -5
"You guys ever served on the board of directors of any organization that you didn’t know much about and whose operations did not easily dovetail into your prior life experience and education? "I have and it took me at least a couple of years to figure out what the hell was going on and become a real contributor to the job." Yes. I'd say it only took me a year, but maybe my organizations were simpler than yours. You've described ninety percent of the school board members I've dealt with. The better ones learn quickly AND they remember that their job does not include managing the district. That's what they hire a superintendent for. It helps if board members have had some experience running something EXCEPT when that makes them think they can manage the district or other organization. A representative democracy can't be entirely run by experts. Like a board, our elected representatives make policy and exercise oversight over the professionals who manage the details. It doesn't bother me if a Senator or Representative has no experience with government. For a presidential candidate, though, I'd consider such inexperience a big minus. The President is the CEO, analogous to a corporate president, school superintendent or governor. That's a managerial position. It shouldn't be an entry-level job. Yeah but where are you going to find a CEO who wants to be President. Oh, wait, we got one.
|
|