Foil As Meme Delivery Vehicle
by rsbakker
Aphorism of the Day: The louder a person points, the more they become the show.
Theo’s back with a wonderful thrashing of my work, character, and psychological deterioration – or straw approximations of them. I had no idea he was so relevant and well-connected. I was surprised he didn’t post his college transcripts, or at least his Stanford-Binet.
He has lot’s and lot’s of theories about me, but for some reason, he keeps seizing on the ephemera and refuses to give an answer to the one question I keep asking over and over: What makes him think he’s won the Magical Belief and Identity Lottery? His reluctance or evasion or whatever it is must be obvious to at least some of his readers by now.
[Turns to Theo]: By the terms of your own argument, I’m irrelevant, so why all the wasted e-ink? Why not write an essay answering this one simple question? I’m just saying that this list applies to you as much as anyone else, that you’re just another fool with lot’s of guesses like me and everyone else. But you seem to think otherwise. Why?
Post-Script: I inserted a link to some of David Dunning’s work for the people popping over from Vox Day to the previous post, the stuff he received a ‘noble Ig Nobel’ for. (The organizers also give awards to publicize works that justify their critical and satiric mission. I’m curious how many comments will simply seize on it as confirmation of their views).
Three Pound Brain 
Why all the wasted e-ink? I imagine he is galled by your bookscan numbers, which doubtless outstrip his. His bloviation and self-congratulatory posturing are likely attempts to reassert his position in the tribe.
*sigh* Maybe I am not as zen as you are Bakker, but I avoided reading the last link you posted to that blog, and it seems I was right to do so. It is depressing, and I have to assume that they are always like that.
Or maybe you aren’t all that disinterested. I find it hard to put myself in your shoes in this case and not end up at “defensive”.
Also, maybe there is no way to prove to people the value of doubt. I am smart enough to value it myself, but not smart enough to figure out how to slam the message through the reinforced concrete bunker that is certainty.
In the interests of not confirming your biases… clearly Theo is immensely pleased with himself. But perhaps he is writing at such length because he doesn’t consider you irrelevant and hasn’t, I don’t think, said so. He is engaging with you slightly more than you are with him – he is paying you that much respect, despite his snideness. To make “why do you think you’ve won the belief lottery?” the limit of the response is not that great. It’s almost getting close to, “Yeah, that’s what you think.” In fact, I would say the paragraph beginning with “Two days ago”, once you get past the (surely self parodying) bragging, contains his version of his answer to your question, along with his last paragraph.
I hope that if you do get round to tackling a left-winger, you will ask them more than the lottery question, which is, in a sense, contentless. You need to pick a specific point that you can shake their faith in. Theo’s views do seem pretty horrible so it wouldn’t be interesting to see them refuted but, to the extent you have criticised them, I applaud you for bothering.
I was having an interesting conversation with a friend the other day and he stated that once people build entire worldviews upon certain assumptions, it is extremely difficult to get them to question those assumptions. They have built an entire philosophical edifice on these assumptions (God exists, I am free, the soul exists and is eternal, etc.) You would need to stepwise work backwards from the most derived conclusions to the fundamental assumptions because there’s no way you can make a 3 Pound Brain reorganize itself from the ground up.
Asking him why he won the belief lottery is therefore nearly pointless since the things he has made assumptions about are obvious and self-evident to any intelligent person (from his perspective).
You cannot slap a person in the face with your Philosophy Dick and hope that they will wake up.
My suggestion is to engage in a polite dialogue about science. Start by asking why it is that the materialistic discipline is SO GOOD at everything when its core principles are basically skepticism and doubt.
This is Murphy’s point as well. You could be right… But I have had quite some success with this approach in face-to-face encounters. And the degree to which he avoids any sustained consideration of the question makes me think that it does prick… I’m heartened enough to keep tinkering along these lines. If you want to push in different directions, I will follow with avid interest! The abuse actually becomes entertaining after a while!
I love how he goes on and on about what a diverse character he is, and _so much_ more diverse than that institutionalized loser Bakker. He sounds like such a prat I thought it was parody at first… but no, he means it. It’s like a playground pissing contest, when the patholigical liar of the bunch brags long and hard about his ten foot cock but refuses to unzip when it comes down to bladder pressure.
The glib answer is then that you aught to meet face to face?
[he keeps seizing on the ephemera and refuses to give an answer to the one question I keep asking over and over: What makes him think he’s won the Magical Belief and Identity Lottery? His reluctance or evasion or whatever it is must be obvious to at least some of his readers by now.]
This is some interesting verbiage. Let me ask you… Do you think you’re creating a more, or less, objective atmosphere for the conversation by using words like “magical” and “lottery”? While you might reply that there is no such thing as “objective”, I’m sure you’re not foolish enough to believe that there aren’t varying levels of subjectivity and bias, so why would someone who continually points out the “subjective” nature of human thought frame an argument in such a way as to *increase* its subjective, cognitive-bias-inducing content from the outset?
Also, the post you linked to answers your question, so no, I doubt that any reluctance or evasion is “obvious” to his readers.
Full disclosure: I am one. Not that you couldn’t figure that out from the less-than-agreeable content of my reply.
P.S. I’m neither “offended” nor “outraged”….. I just wanted to make that clear right off the bat, so you don’t get confused should you choose to reply. :o)
WATYF
I think your question is entirely fair. I’m not a relativist at all. I don’t think all claims are equal. I use ‘magical’ to point out that people generally think they just ARE right, and lottery to reference the irony that everyone thinks they’re right and that everyone who disagrees with them is wrong – just because… or they feel it in their heart, they were blessed with revelation, they are dispositionally smarter than everyone else, they are more educated, and so on.
The pejorative nature of the terms isn’t meant to refer only to other people: the point is to remind everyone (I cannot but think I’ve won the lottery as well) of how inclined they are to dupe themselves, and as a result systematically overlook that, all things being equal, they are likely wrong about the bulk of their non-scientific theoretical commitments. The point is to encourage more epistemic humility, and a more pragmatic approach to solving problems – to eschew fixed ideological commitments.
But I’m open to alternatives. What would a better, less loaded phrase to capture this?
Sorry for posting too much and bit a bit off topic, but (always a but)…
I’m not a relativist at all. I don’t think all claims are equal.
and
The point is to encourage more epistemic humility, and a more pragmatic approach to solving problems – to eschew fixed ideological commitments.
Man, it must be hard to contain both of these things at the same time!?
[I think your question is entirely fair. I’m not a relativist at all. I don’t think all claims are equal. I use ‘magical’ to point out that people generally think they just ARE right]
Of course some people just think they ARE right. But the fact that this is true does not logically exclude the possibility that some people actually have looked into their beliefs and found through logic and philosophy and physical evidence (or what have you) that their existing beliefs are true (or, more likely, they have amended their beliefs to fit the logic or evidence).
But what reason do you have to think this of Theo? Has he not provided any reasoning for his views? Has he said that he just IS right?
The irony is, your belief seems to be predicated on the idea that people simply aren’t smart enough (or objective enough or whatever) to evaluate their worldviews, and therefore, are just dupes. This just so happens to be one of Theo’s common observations (MPAI = Most People Are Idiots). I think the difference is, you seem to take this view (correct me if I’m wrong) to an all-encompassing level (i.e. ALL people must be dupes because I observe people who are dupes). I’d hazard to guess that most people don’t actually evaluate their views at a deep level ever in their entire lives (you might be included in that, I don’t know), but this does not mean that NO people do, nor does it mean that you can assume when someone is addressing you about a view that they haven’t bothered to actually evaluate it.
I believe that is what Theo is pointing out when he demonstrates the extent of his different experiences and perspectives as well as his track record of changing his views on major topics when new data and understanding is found. He’s pointing out that your theory doesn’t fit the data (at least, as it pertains to him).
[and lottery to reference the irony that everyone thinks they’re right and that everyone who disagrees with them is wrong – just because… or they feel it in their heart, they were blessed with revelation, they are dispositionally smarter than everyone else, they are more educated, and so on. The pejorative nature of the terms isn’t meant to refer only to other people: the point is to remind everyone (I cannot but think I’ve won the lottery as well) of how inclined they are to dupe themselves, and as a result systematically overlook that, all things being equal, they are likely wrong about the bulk of their non-scientific theoretical commitments.]
The problem with phrasing it the way you have is that you immediately skew the argument in your favor by asking people to either agree or disagree with a completely ridiculous assertion. Of course no one is going to argue that they’ve won the “Magical Lottery of Belief”, so you shouldn’t be surprised when people don’t directly answer the question as you pose it.
If you’re really looking for their reasoning it’s best to avoid any pejorative terms and just ask, “Why do you believe that your view is correct”.
[The point is to encourage more epistemic humility, and a more pragmatic approach to solving problems – to eschew fixed ideological commitments.]
That may be your intended point (or the point you’ve duped yourself into thinking you intend), but in practical application all iy does is serve to delay the actual information you’re looking to acquire (i.e. “Why do you believe that’s true?”), while cementing in yourself the assumption that, “This guy hasn’t bothered to evaluate his views” before you’ve even bothered to ask if he has, in fact, bothered to evaluate his views.
This was demonstrated by your several misstatements about Theo’s views and emotions when the debate began (i.e. “conservative”, “offended”, “fascist”, “outraged”, etc). It starts to look like you’re simply projecting when you claim other people have no basis for their views while simultaneously espousing views about the other interlocutor that have no basis.
WATYF
You misunderstand. It’s not a first order question about beliefs about the world, it’s a second order question regarding assumptions about your beliefs. This is something we’ve been learning quite abit about of late.
The Question is leading, no doubt about it, insofar as it assumes the picture of human cognition emerging from cognitive psychology and neuroscience. This is what separates it from the ancient versions used by the Skeptics.
What other picture of human cognition should I assume? Should I ignore the science? Is that what we do when we consider issues in, say, economics? Just go with our gut?
Of course some people just think they ARE right. But the fact that this is true does not logically exclude the possibility that some people actually have looked into their beliefs and found through logic and philosophy and physical evidence (or what have you) that their existing beliefs are true (or, more likely, they have amended their beliefs to fit the logic or evidence).
Your describing them looking into their beliefs and finding through logic and physical evidence that their existing beliefs are true.
And since there is no more to the description of that, this precludes that they ever look into those beliefs again. And with it, the unstated practice of the principle there is no chance that some new evidence might turn up in the future and show that existing belief was actually false.
The whole issue might largely pivot around such a small, technical hiccup.
Well, good on you for giving posting here a shot, WATYF. I got kind of put off posting at Vox’s side after ‘faggot sex’ and pedophilia were treated as equivalent by Taylor and…no one said anything about it, like it was normal there. Does Taylor fit into your ideas, or is he “Oh yeah, that guy…”?
haha… Taylor is probably the most abrasive commenter there. And a “she”, not a “he”.
Also, they aren’t being treated as equivalent. You may have misunderstood the argument. Regardless, not everyone there agrees with every other commenter (or Vox, for that matter), nor does their lack of a rebuttal to every statement made by a commenter translate to tacit approval.
And I’m sure each of the Ilk have their own perspective on the matter, but there are several commenters that I see as, “Oh yeah… THAT guy”. 🙂 However, I just so happen to derive entertainment from extreme views as opposed to revulsion.
WATYF
WATYF,
nor does their lack of a rebuttal to every statement made by a commenter translate to tacit approval.
Well, no, in terms of your own approval, it’s simply that your not taking responsibility for people broadcasting their attempts to convince others.
Nor can I, for one, see any reason why you have to take such responsibility, either.
But your wrong in stating it as a fact of reality, like physics, that “their lack of a rebuttal to every statement made by a commenter translate to tacit approval.”
Or atleast I’m not aware of any such galactic rule, anyway? How do you know?
Also, they aren’t being treated as equivalent. You may have misunderstood the argument.
Or you might have. I’m not sure weve engaged, with each other, the idea ‘faggot sex’ and pedophilia were being treated as equivalent in terms of things ‘we are to accept’. I don’t think we talked, but I’m not about to try and force talking on it either. Up to you.
However, I just so happen to derive entertainment from extreme views as opposed to revulsion.
If I didn’t think such people affected the world I live in and I simply came for entertainment, I too would be entertained by such extreme views. I think I get you on that.
But I just can’t slip into the ‘It’s just a game’ mode from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_disinhibition_effect
Well, I’ve been a wuss not to post on Theo’s side, but it’s been nice that some of that side came over and put in that effort, which is important in my book. 🙂
Off topic, but of potential interest:
http://news.discovery.com/human/brain-electricity-math.html
Oh man – and how long until it’s not an option, but what you have to do to keep up with the rat race and keep yourself fed…
See his updated response. The key to understanding Theo is that he isn’t actually talking to you, he’s talking to his “clan.” White trash tendencies die hard. He doesn’t actually care what you think or in begin objectively correctness on any point. Like the “ambassador to a large south american country,” he wants to hang you on the wall as another prize foil that he was important enough to interact with.
This is the first I’ve read of Theo, and I actually thought he raised some interesting points… Then I started reading the comments and some guy started talking about how he was certain that “faggot sex” was bad amongst other things. Then people began agreeing with him and championing his views and that’s when I realized I was somewhere I never want to be again.
Bakker, I love your books, you seem like kind of an ass on this blog, and I absolutely agree with your thoughts on certainty vs. uncertainty. Keep up the good work. Quit feeding the chimpanzees.
Bakker my favourite people to listen to are stand up comedians, particularly Stewart Lee (wrote Jerry Springer the opera) and Stephen Munnery, they actually actively “refine their audience”, in fact one of their ilk of comedians overheard some of his fans at a show talking about some crappy band and thought “I need to find a way so these idiots stop coming to my shows” so he just made his material even more complex and less audience friendly.
They put the worst reviews on their fliers, make sure it’s crap posters with cliched puns for the title of the show, basically cause they don’t want someone at the show who isn’t prepared to think past all the superficial stuff and think stand up is about “jokes”.
It comes into my head cause i can just imagine how Lee would react to all this stuff, and he wouldn’t be as open as you.
Type “vomiting into the gaping anus of christ” into whatever video stealing site you want for a portion of his stand up, he almost got charged for Blasphemy in England over his part in Jerry springer the opera this was him dealing with it.
Okay, so Theo actually answers your question:
“”What makes him think he’s won the Magical Belief and Identity Lottery?”
Oh, I don’t know. Out of nearly 7 billion people, I’m fortunate to be in the top 1% in the planet with regards to health, wealth, looks, brains, athleticism, and nationality. My wife is slender, beautiful, lovable, loyal, fertile, and funny. I meet good people who seem to enjoy my company everywhere I go. That all seems pretty lucky to me, considering that my entire contribution to the situation was choosing my parents well. I am grateful and I thank God every day for the ticket He has dealt me.”
So there, this is why he isn’t prone to any of the biases in that list of Biases.
Am I missing something? Is he really that duped by his own narcissism? Does he really believe that his looks and nationality, along with the loyalty and fertility of his wife, make him immune to cognitive bias? Or does he just not understand what you are actually saying when you ask him the question he attempts to answer above?
Maybe he’s saying that God only blesses people who deserve it, and like Calvin before him, he has evidence that he deserves it. So to hell with your secular biases.
In his eyes, Bakker is biased towards thinking everyone has biases. Theo, CLEARLY, doesn’t have any biases. Right?
Right?
It’s pretty clear he doesn’t have the slightest idea what the question actually means, and in order to ever get it would require much remedial review. In other words, it’s hopeless.
[Am I missing something?]
Yes. The first section was in relation to “Identity”, not “Belief”. His identity is purely a matter of chance and came about through no doing of his own.
[Is he really that duped by his own narcissism?]
Most narcissists don’t attribute all of their personal blessings to “choosing their parents” and “God”. You may want to rethink your conclusion.
He’s responding to precisely what Bakker asked, “Do you think you’ve won the lottery”. His answer was, “Yes”, and he gave multiple reasons to support that claim.
[Does he really believe that his looks and nationality, along with the loyalty and fertility of his wife, make him immune to cognitive bias?]
Read the next section about “Belief”. That’s where “cognitive bias” would be addressed, and it reads much differently than the section about “looks and nationality”.
[Or does he just not understand what you are actually saying when you ask him the question he attempts to answer above?]
It appears that he understands the question better than you do.
[Maybe he’s saying that God only blesses people who deserve it, and like Calvin before him, he has evidence that he deserves it. So to hell with your secular biases.]
haha… this assumption is particularly amusing to those who are familiar with Theo’s blog. He is staunchly anti-Calvinist. 🙂
And not to go way off-topic here, but Calvin never believed that he (or any other human) “deserved” it.
WATYF
Bakker doesn’t realize that what he decries as “certainty” is actually nothing more than experience-informed probability calculation and pattern recognition. There is no reason one cannot take a logically sound position with confidence without having to assume the total impossibility of error in doing so.
You know, this repeated some of my own wording for how I navigate life, in terms of working from probables – which creeped me out a bit.
UPDATE – Sweet Friedrich Nietzsche, but R. Scott Bakker really can be a wangsty little girl. Now he’s whining that I have “lot’s and lot’s of theories” about him, which is ironic considering the amount of erroneous psychobabble he has been directing in my direction from the start. I have no theories, I have merely read his books and observed his behavior.
Except does he practice it? He has no theories? Yet to say something isn’t a theory is to assume the total impossiblity of error in doing so?
I mean, the wording above is actually quite subtle – “There is no reason one cannot take a logically sound position with confidence without having to assume the total impossibility of error in doing so.”
Yes, so he says there’s not reason you can’t do that. He’s not actually saying he does it, in saying so, though.
But lets read it charitably, for a moment. What does it mean when he says he simply acts as if he knows?
Does that fire off a belief instinct in others to believe him? Does it fire it off inside himself?
Can you say “Everything I say might be wrong” then go on for six years speaking only as if your right, relying on one disclaimer utterance from years prior? Does this work?
And because everyone else prudently avoided bringing it up…
Dr. Evil: You know, I have one simple request. And that is to have sharks with frickin’ laser beams attached to their heads!
Is he just having us on? Everyone did read the sharks with lasers bit, didn’t they?
Oh, and I forgot…
The primary difference between Bakker and me is that he insists on operating in relative ignorance while avoiding the use of objective metrics that can be verified by third parties.
This isn’t any method used in the practice of science? Which third parties? The ones of his choosing?
If you ask a thousand people to measure something by using a certain metric and they all report the same result, you probably have an objective metric.
The pornography observation about the first book would also be reported by every single person over a sample of a thousand or more people? This is obviously not the case?
[The pornography observation about the first book would also be reported by every single person over a sample of a thousand or more people? This is obviously not the case?]
I wouldn’t really use this analogy. Measuring a physical attribute (like weight or height) can’t really be paralleled to observing art and literature. Not only is everyone going to have their own perspective regarding the content, but many people aren’t reading in order to “measure” anything, but rather to simply “be entertained”. A good portion of people are ignorant of even the *intentional* sub-text contained in literature. Saying, “Well, most people didn’t notice it” doesn’t really matter if the author did, in fact, include subtext in the work.
Of course, I believe the quote you referenced wasn’t in relation to the topic of pornography in the book, but rather to Bakker’s “uncertainty” worldview.
I suppose I should point out that this “uncertainty” view (like many modern philosophical views) is self-refuting.
WATYF
The fact that you guys keep coming up with this self-refutation argument puzzles me. If I was a relativist, then maybe. Belief isn’t all or nothing. Realizing you’re likely wrong, doesn’t make it impossible to argue possibilies and probabilities, and remain open to evidence. Is the scientific method self-refuting?
WATYF,
Well, it wasn’t an analogy, it was a scientific method of testing a sample. But straight off the bat it’s an analogy to you. okay, so you stick with Theo’s third parties to confirm things. And he never picks the third parties which would confirm the result he wants.
At the very least, given I certainly don’t share the esteem you have for Theo, you’d say that if I refered to third parties to confirm a claim of pornography, I’d end up choosing the third parties that give me the result I want.
Because that is true. If I decided to use that method, I would rig the deck. Either conciously/deliberately or unconciously.
Am I the only one in the world. Or just a member of ‘those guys’? Okay, atleast you can acknowledge it can happen in some humans, if not the humans you esteem.
Not only is everyone going to have their own perspective regarding the content
You seem to be refuting the idea of a fail proof method of determining if something is pornography, yourself?
I visited your blog to check on news about your bookseries which I like a lot.
Then I noticed your rumble and read a bit on that voxworld site. Why are you in a intellectual poo-fight with this person? He’s religious! Talks about Creation (uppercased) and spawns little gems like “I am grateful and I thank God every day for the ticket He has dealt me.” And all this while spawning intellectual accusations.
BAIL! BAIL! BAIL! Self Delusion Status Upgrade Level: Proven. Advice: Ignore. Avoid. Do Not Engage. Run Away.
Really, slanderous talk is annoying but don’t bother, it’s hopeless.
Much to my own surprise, I am starting to get Bakker. He is engaging Theo for exactly the same reason that he wrote his books in the first place.
Believe it or not, Scott is a demented kind of altruist. He is convinced that what the world needs (and has always needed) is more *doubt*, It is not about the specific beliefs of Theo or any other particular person, it is about finding a way to undermine his/their *certainty*. To quote Socrates’ wish for his sons: “when my sons grow up punish them, men, by bothering them on these things as I bothered you”
Theo is just a test case.
[Believe it or not, Scott is a demented kind of altruist. He is convinced that what the world needs (and has always needed) is more *doubt*]
Why is Bakker so certain that the world needs more doubt? Has he evaluated that claim?
WATYF
I’m not certain at all.
I’m relatively certain that certainty plays a powerful motivational role in much of the conflict and oppression we see in the world, but I’m also relatively certain that it plays a powerful motivational role in much of the humanitarian work we see as well. I’m also relatively certain that science is about to deliver a whole host of new ‘tools,’ technologies possessing sweeping, even mind-boggling, social consequences.
Given what I know about human cognition (how error-prone and self-serving it in fact is), my fear is that we may lack the individual and social flexibility required to adapt to the crazy days ahead. Since the interconnected institutions that seem most responsible for the West’s rise – science, democracy, and capitalism – all seem to derive their effectiveness from their ability to self-correct in the face of changing, complicated circumstances, I’m putting my money on flexibility, the ability to abandon epistemic commitments.
The ability to contradict our hardwired tendencies and to doubt.
“Given what I know about human cognition ”
But see, that’s also not something that is ‘known’. It’s what we think, right now. And it’s fairly new as far as our knowledge goes. Why do you think that science has hit the magical belief lottery about human cognition right now?
I mean, your entire argument is based on this set of knowledge about the human brain and the way we’re wired. Have you ever considered that this could be incorrect or shallow, and there is a lot more going on?
Actually, the cognitive psych research has been going on for decades.
Otherwise, the trend is very clear: the list of biases keeps growning, not shrinking. More than enough, I think, to warrant a pessimistic induction.
The fact this happens to correspond to the relatively obvious observation that people rationalize far more than they reason (which is why we generally believe according to self-interest, and so need institutionalized third parties (judges and so forth) to resolve disputes).
Decades is still awfully new as far as scientific basis goes. We’ve been studying the basic tenets of biology for 200 years and physics for 2000. A few decades is really new.
And cognitive psych research has changed massively in that time. 40 years ago lobotomies and ECT were considered standard practices. 20 years ago we were routinely handing out drugs to kids and wondering why the suicide rate was going up.
Regardless, you yourself confirm this: the list of biases is TRENDING up. That doesn’t mean you ‘know’ anything. It’s certainly not something that has a rock-solid foundation. Yet you routinely treat it as if this was a universal truth – that everyone must rationalize more than they reason, that everyone is blind to their own biases. The irony is that, of course, this is your unrecognized bias.
I happen to agree that it’s a much stronger bias to have in general; scientific biases have a stronger, more objective bias than religious ones in general. But they aren’t necessarily right.
I’m not sure I understand your last point, Kal. What would an ‘objective bias’ look like? Or do you mean, a bias for objectivity? I generally use ‘bias’ to refer to cognitive quirks and tactics that short circuit rational and impartial evaluation of claims – as something that prevents ‘objectivity.’
The picture of human cognition will change, certainly, but all we have is the picture we have. Am I misconstruing that picture?
It’s more objective in that science in general is built upon observable, repeatable phenomenon that everyone can experience. Those things are as good as the observations, mind you (and many experiments have shown huge subjective bias in recording simple results!), but they’re better than talking about miracles or faith.
Bias is simply leaning towards one side or another. It doesn’t need to be wrong. You have a bias towards evaluating people through a neural cognitive lens. That isn’t necessarily wrong, but it’s certainly a bias. And it certainly short circuits evaluation of other claims, doesn’t it? You use it constantly to debunk others – talk about their magical belief lottery, talk about their values as rational constructions to affirm their dogma. That’s not an impartial viewpoint.
“The picture of human cognition will change, certainly, but all we have is the picture we have. Am I misconstruing that picture?”
I don’t know. I think what I’d caution you on is taking it for granted and using it as the basis for everything else. I doubt you’re misrepresenting the neuropsych out there, though I suspect that you’re taking an overly simplistic point of view and allowing your biases to distort what you see to fit too often; it reminds me a lot of a first-year psych student who sees his friends and starts labeling them with random horrible diagnoses. From his point of view it’s correct, but I doubt he has all the information.
Neuropsych is still a very early science. Cognitive biases certainly exist, as do rationalities, but that doesn’t mean that that’s all there is out there. You take it as a certainty when in reality all it is is ‘all that we have’, like you said. That makes for a great basis of science fiction and fantasy novel themes (and the best scifi books are written with these kinds of kernels) but it also makes a zealot when approaching the real world.
The cautionary note is well-taken. If you ever catch me misapplying any of this stuff, by all means call me on it. Personally, I find myself extremely skeptical of much of the research I encounter. Small samples. Too interpretative. Too prone to confuse correlation for causation. You know the drill. Trust me, I do not take any of it as a “certainty,” and if you review my posts, you’ll find that I use qualifying terms like ‘suggest,’ ‘seems,’ ‘tendency,’ etc., far more than is typical in the literature. I’m not sure if there is any research domain where you could find more ‘bad science’!
I’m not sure I understand your definition of ‘bias,’ which is generally understood as deviation from established fact or normative consensus.
I also don’t see the critical bite of your “there’s more in the world” assertion. On the one hand, this goes without saying, on the other, the blog is called The Three Pound Brain. Add to that, the fact that cognition plays such a prominent role in so many spheres of life – anywhere claims are made. In a culture hellbent of belief and affirmation, I’m not sure I’m doing anyone any favours by ignoring the science where it appears to be relevant. Is that what you think I should do, ignore the science?
Maybe the issue between us turns on the relevance of this material to various discourses. Where would it be irrelevant?
I don’t think you should ignore the science, but not everything needs to be driven by it. Human relationships, world governments, personal blogs – yes, these all get touched by cognition. But so does genetics, information theory, quantum tunneling and chemistry. All of these things touch everything; what I see is that you only apply the neuropsych.
And yes, you absolutely have a bias. You lean very heavily towards the neuropsych interpretation of brains, and a very specific one at that. For instance, you don’t talk a lot about the argumentative reasoning theory at all, yet that is equally as profound and affecting as Pinker’s thoughts. Heck, even stating these as ‘established’ is showing a bias. They’re not nearly established in the scientific community, at least not yet, any more than Freud is. The normative view based on common belief does not buy this as the correct viewpoint. That doesnt’ mean it’s wrong, but it’s certainly a bias of yours.
Finally, I wouldn’t ask you to ignore the science – but I would ask you to actually look at things from a different viewpoint without the science effecting you. Can you do that? Because if you can’t, you’re falling to the certainty trap and the rationalization system that you decry so much in others. It’s not different at all.
Computer gulped my original, so I’ll be brief.
I used ‘established’ to define bias: how is it you transposed it? I defined bias so we wouldn’t be talking at cross purposes: how is it you interpreted this as me implying that I have no bias?
I actually have mentioned ATR: Sperber’s link is one of three on the blog! I’m actually writing a paper on it for a Nietzsche conference next month…
So the blog is called Three Pound Brain and you’re suggesting I’m being too neurocentric? I post on the BBH because its a going concern, a pet project. But otherwise there’s a lot of stuff that falls outside the cogski nets. I fully expect to have someone show up here an roundly criticize me for not being cogski enough.
I spent decades interpreting all these phenomena with little more than contempt for the science. I haven’t forgotten all that stuff, and I dip into that pool of knowledge constantly. Given that humans genuinely seem to be theoretical incompetents absent science, how would you have me consider these viewpoints?
I can’t help but hear a grindstone in the background here.
Shawn, I think you have nailed Scott’s position. Like Brad Warner, author of “Hardcore Zen”, Scott’s mantra would seem to be “Question everything!”. As I said in an earlier post, a major cause of much suffering in the world is the unconscious assumption that one’s subjective opinions are actually objective facts. This is the blindness that must be challenged. Of course some opinions may be better supported by the available evidence than others if the holder of the opinion has taken the time and effort to examine their underlying assumptions as assumptions. Sadly few people ever realize that they are confusing subjective opinions for objective truths (even when it is pointed out to them that this is what they are doing).
It would seem that Theo may have fallen into what Edward de Bono called ‘the intelligence trap’. This is where intelligent people come to believe that, because they are intelligent and can easily construct convincing/impressive arguments for their assertions, these assertions must be right, or at least more right than lesser people’s opinions. The trouble with the intelligence trap is that it tends to preclude the very kind of penetrating self reflection that any real exploration of the facts requires. Basic premises are rarely even noticed let alone challenged. de Bono suggested an approach that allows debate while respecting the impossibility of certainty. He used the term ‘prototruth’ to refer to a position justified by the available facts but amenable to revision in the presence of new evidence.
Scott’s relentless attacks on the self-satisfied is an attempt to make people aware that their cherished truths are, in fact, prototruths and should be recognized as such when one puts them forth for consideration by others.
Or “Because I’m smart, I don’t deal in those small concepts – I’m smart, so I obviously already know the small things and time for my big brain to move onto big things”
Except where those small concepts, which are the foundation the big thing building is built on, is flawed, of course.