When I was in high school (private school classical corriculum, class of 10 (Freshman class had 15 but since they graded on the curve some would flunk out others give up.) I had a teacher who claimed that everyone is a product of the age in which they are born. That it is impossible (to step outside the box) no matter how hard one strives to brake free.
I like reading quotes of famous or notable people to get a quick synopsis of what they were about. What that teacher said didn't come to mind until I read a quote by George S. Patton JR. "If everyone is thinking alike then someone is not thinking."
What do you think?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Depending on how you define the "box," your teacher is probably right. But so is Patton.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I think it is more accurate to say that it is only possible for any given generation to step a certain distance outside the box. Over time, if everyone steps outside the box in a particular direction, the box moves.
Yay for convoluted metaphors.
Posted by Oshki (Member # 11986) on :
When I was in grade school I remember a teacher whisperd in the ear of one of the students and told him to pass it on. Of course the message was totally different by the time it reached the last student.
When we learn something, even in higher education, we are the last student to recieve the message through a long line of teachers each of whom added their own fluf. It is important that we study each origional source and do some critical thinking inorder to step outside the box if necessary.
Posted by HollowEarth (Member # 2586) on :
I'm pretty sure that the lesson from the telephone game isn't that teachers distort things, although that might be true. The lesson from the telephone game is simply that whispering is a poor way to communicate anything important.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
This sounds like a great essay topic.
My answer would be "yes and no."
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
It's an awfully big box.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I would hesitate to make the age of one's birth the primary evaluation tool of one's nature. I would imagine a typical person who grew up in the 60's in Berkeley, California, would be very different from one who grew up in Tulsa, Oklahoma during the same era. Likewise someone who grew up in Italy during World War II, vs. someone growing up in, say, Jamaica during the same era. Whereas someone who spent their youth in San Francisco in the 80s might have a fair amount in common with someone who spent their youth in SF in the 00's.
Somewhat speculative on my part, I'll grant.
Posted by Oshki (Member # 11986) on :
Sterling I ment era or society into which one is born. Like being in a current with everyone else but unable to reach still waters. Or in a forest evaluating trees but unable to evaluate the forest because the only criteria available is that which is taught and believed by the great minds of the interior forest.
So what are some real ways of stepping somewhat out of the box?
Posted by beleaguered (Member # 11983) on :
One might say a way of stepping outside the box is to do the unexpected. But to do the unexpected would then become expected since someone might have said to do it . . . I think my head's about to explode!
Raymond, I'm a fan of convoluted metaphores, and I like yours. If everyone started to think outside the box, then the box shifts a little. Is the shift with the box an expected shift, or does the shift become a new standard by which people think and act?
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Get real, we're cutting with steel. If no one could break outta that box, we'd still be cutting with broken rocks.
Posted by Oshki (Member # 11986) on :
aspectre
Actually we have laser and water jet cutting now. For get the box. Put it this way: If everyone is thinking alike how can one think differently? That is getting out of the box of peer pressure and academic pressure to conform to a certain mold.
To quote Patton again: "If everyone is thinking alike then someone is not thinking." So what can you do to ensure that you are the one who is thinking?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I apply the hermeneutic principles of Ralph Waldo Emerson. Emerson argued in one of his essays that true mindful experience is devoid of emotion, that by working from a priori principles, one could come to new insights based on nothing more than eternal symbolic representation.
He had this analogy that living life was like watching the pictures made by flickering flames and silhouettes on a cave wall. But what was it that made the shadows we see? The real eternal experience must be in mentally accessing the forms behind the flames.
That makes sense to me.
Posted by Oshki (Member # 11986) on :
Claudia Therese
(Smile) From the "a priori" sense rises common sense. But that "a priori" sense also rules the the work of intuition which has been defined as: "Ideas that are arrived at without rational thought". (I didn't read that but I quote a teacher that said that.) The word, rational carries the understanding that it is a conscious application of reason and logic. It also implies that intuition is not logicial. It can not be assumed that because the intuitive process is hidden from the conscious mind that it is not a logical process. The process of intuition is one of forming visualization by the means of connecting wide-ranging data into inter-dependant relationships. (The forms behind the flames.) This is not a haphazard process but must first meet the "a priori" criterion of logic that exists hidden below our conscious mind before it is presented to the conscious mind.
Einstein would never have arrived at the Theory of Relativity (which depended to a great extent on his intuitive process) if his intuitive process used some different criteria then his conscious mind. The subconscious is filled with unproven hypotheses in need of more data to pass a test of tenability before presentation to the conscious mind.
"The value of intuitive thought is directly proportional to the quality of the internalized logic used by and individual and the veracity of individual facts".
"Intuitive thought is hidden inductive reasoning and a process of establishing interdependent relationships between known facts to be presented to the conscious mind in holistic form." I quote myself.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
(Smile)
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I think one way to think outside the box is to read widely, from all cultures and times in history. That gives us a good view of the ways that culture limits thought from the outside, so then we can apply it from the inside. Another way is to trust yourself and your own opinions enough to carry them through to their logical conclusion. You have to learn not to mind being different. Everyone has a community of some kind, but you have to learn not to mind it when your communities roll their collective eyes at your ideas. There's actually a pretty large penalty to be paid when you refuse to go along with the mainstream. Years later, probably long after you're dead, the mainstream may or may not ever catch up. But it's not about getting your due, it's just about the integrity of speaking and choosing the truth as you know it. There's a beauty and purity in that. No amount of affirmation from the outside world could make up for the compromised feeling of going against it, you know?
We actually are all products of our times and cultures, and we see the world through those lenses. But it's possible by integrating knowledge from all times and places to go beyond that. That's really what education is all about. It turns you from a provincial, narrow thinker into someone with far broader horizons, with a longer view. It makes you someone more than you were.
Posted by Xann. (Member # 11482) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: He had this analogy that living life was like watching the pictures made by flickering flames and silhouettes on a cave wall. But what was it that made the shadows we see? The real eternal experience must be in mentally accessing the forms behind the flames.
That was Plato. As "Plato's allegory of the cave"
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Now, I never knew Emerson was a plagiarist! That's a shocker.
No, I think it was Plato who argued we should dig out the caves in order to have a place to view the puppet show; i.e., that we should carve out a place, mentally, for surcease from logic and for entertainment. That's why he's called "Plato" - it's an abbreviated form of "Play, too." See, for him the play's the thing.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*laugh* Oh, CT, you're cruel.
Posted by Oshki (Member # 11986) on :
Tatiana I agree but would like to add that everything is connected. That is, Springs from the same "a priori" well spring and basic "a posteriori" logic. Your statement:
"We actually are all products of our times and cultures, and we see the world through those lenses. But it's possible by integrating knowledge from all times and places to go beyond that."
Your statement extends to all learning. Athough there are different disciplines it is possible to get that, out of the box, insight from learning in a seemingly unrelated area. So if the sciences look down on Liberal Arts they may be missing out on insights in their own chosen field and visa versa. Understanding is holistic but communication is lineal. The hard work begains when the conscious mind sets to work explaining or proving the the verasity of that holistic insight by putting it into a logical lineal format.
[ March 09, 2009, 03:58 AM: Message edited by: Oshki ]
Posted by Oshki (Member # 11986) on :
When I was in grade school, my mom told me that our family wasn't very good at math so just do your best. So, I thought of myself as a C student in math and that is what I got. The older brother of my best friend was an avid sci-fi reader. One day I picked up an old worn paper back by Isaac Asimov. In that book he said that people give off about the same heat as a 100 watt light bulb and that if one could convert a slice of bread (or two) into pure energy there would be enough power to drive a car to the moon. He also mentioned that when a baseball player in the outfield sees the ball come off the bat and runs to the point where the ball will come down; what that ball player had accomplished subconsciously and almost instantly, is equivalent to the math needed to put something on the moon.
The above is not exactly what was written but my memory of it.
After I read that book (Even though I had noticed before but did not focus on the fact) I began to notice that when I got my graded math tests back that most of the wrong answers were ones that I had changed from the correct answer and had always mumbled to myself "I knew that was the right answer why did I change it". I came to the conclusion that my subconscious was doing the math and keeping track of my grade point average (as programmed by my expectations) so that I would stay in the box my mom built.
Can anyone of you point out any boxes that you have also identified?
Posted by Oshki (Member # 11986) on :
One more example:
In basic subtraction we were taught to carryover. Instead of doing all the line outs down the line on the top, I simply added on the bottom. So, if I needed to subtract 8 from 0, I did turn the 0 into 10 just as before and put down 2 as the answer then add one to the next number to the left bottom. If that was originally 2 minus 1 but untouched so that 1+1 = 2 then 2 – 2 = 0 which is the same as going through the whole lineout mess.
That may be confusing, so to subtract in your head 261374 from 370265: 4 from 5 =(1) 7 from 16 = (9) 4 from 12 = (8) 2 from 10 = (8) 7 from 7 = (0) 2 from 3 =( 1) so 370265 – 261374 = 108891.
Of course I got in trouble for not showing my work so I would do the subtraction in my head then go back over and do all the line outs and carryovers for show. So I stepped out of the box my Mom built. Perhaps, we can never step out of a box but only make the box we are in bigger as Tatiana said:
quote: "We actually are all products of our times and cultures, and we see the world through those lenses. But it's possible by integrating knowledge from all times and places to go beyond that. That's really what education is all about. It turns you from a provincial, narrow thinker into someone with far broader horizons, with a longer view. It makes you someone more than you were."
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
We are all products of the society or societies (family, friends, community, country etc.) in which we grew up. Even if we deliberately break out of it, for example we attend university when it's a 'not done' thing in the family, we are still products of that society because we are perhaps consciously or unconsciously responding to the societal rule we have broken.
In that sense, the only way to break out of society is to undergo a dollhouse-like wipe; one that not only removes our memories but also the very way our brain is constructed.
I say the latter because our early lives (first two years, say) influences the way our brains are constructed/develop. If we live in a crappy orphanage where we lie in cribs doing nothing, we will not develop correctly: we will lack social skills, communication skills etc. Even if we are removed from the orphanage and put in a home where there is lots of noise and colour and people interacting with us, our intial "society" or lack thereof will impact the way our brain processes information forever. We will have to work hard to lay down connections that should have been laid down much earlier.
This is true in a more normal situation. A very quiet home, a very noisy one; both are going to have an effect.
A harmonious, positive multicultural community is going to lay down ideas about different cultures at an early age that will be difficult to erase.
On a wider scale, a lot of people are impressed by the ideologies of their era. Watching movies filmed at airports and planes prior to 9/11 there is a major difference in the way we react to incidents at airports and on planes.
I think that yes, we are impressed from the moment we open our eyes with the way our societies function.
Here's an example of societal attitudes changing: Think of William Wilberforce who was the dude who basically pushed through the ban on the slave trade in England at the beginning of the 19th century. As an MP, he worked very hard for a number of years but ultimately failed. It wasn't until a few years later-- when the idea of abolishing the slave trade had had some time to rest-- that the bill could be passed. Obviously, there was an attitude change.
Is this a change of era (different brains) or a change of brain (biological) or simply a change of mind (informational)?
I know that as a person born right at the end of the Soviet era that the recent resurgence of aggression seems utterly ludicrous. These aren't wars that are still being fought in my brain at all, but they are clearly still being fought in certain people's minds. My brain is rigged by the society in which I grew up to not view Russia as anything but a friend, not someone I'm going to battle with over the North Pole.
The same goes for the recent post-IRA violence in Northern Ireland. It feels unreal because I'm just not rigged that way. If the violence continues my brain will re-adapt.
quote:"We actually are all products of our times and cultures, and we see the world through those lenses. But it's possible by integrating knowledge from all times and places to go beyond that. That's really what education is all about. It turns you from a provincial, narrow thinker into someone with far broader horizons, with a longer view. It makes you someone more than you were."
I think it's more complicated than this (I mean, obviously this is a simplification, but I mean it's lacking a slightly addition). We can be brought up to be more open to new ideas introduced by education or new people. Canada, for example, expends a lot of time on this kind of (positive!) brainwashing.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I've read this entire thread and I still have no idea what the heck "the box" means:
quote:I had a teacher who claimed that everyone is a product of the age in which they are born. That it is impossible (to step outside the box) no matter how hard one strives to brake free.
I think posts in here are working from a couple different assumptions of what it means but nothing I think of really makes sense. Attitudes and culture? I know plenty of people who do, as do we all. After enough people do it, it gets named (e.g. the "counter-culture" revolution) and if it's successful it becomes the new attitude and culture. So in that sense either it's incredibly common or truly impossible since you live in your own age and anything you do is part of it, thus you can't break out of yourself. Of course if it's the latter this whole thing becomes a rather trivial truism.
Maybe remove the assumptions of our time? There's really no way to know how many assumptions we've made unless we've identified them and having done so we have clearly chosen to keep them (so what good would breaking out of that box do if it's going against your desires?) or we do remove them in which case: box broken. In other words, there's no way to tell if there's a box there or not in this case!
I think I just don't get it.
Hobbes Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: I apply the hermeneutic principles of Ralph Waldo Emerson. Emerson argued in one of his essays that true mindful experience is devoid of emotion, that by working from a priori principles, one could come to new insights based on nothing more than eternal symbolic representation.
He had this analogy that living life was like watching the pictures made by flickering flames and silhouettes on a cave wall. But what was it that made the shadows we see? The real eternal experience must be in mentally accessing the forms behind the flames.
That makes sense to me.
Wait, are you sure that was in one of Emerson's essays? I could have sworn that that was actually from one of his novels.
Posted by Oshki (Member # 11986) on :
Hobbes Member Member # 433
posted March 11, 2009 02:51 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "I've read this entire thread and I still have no idea what the heck "the box" means:"
Well maybe I can help you out. I take it that you are analytical, which is a good thing, but perhaps the reference to boxes is in itself is a problem. The boxes that hedge us in are made out of assumptions. Most of those assumptions are correct but a few are not. So when I asked about stepping out of a box, what I meant and should have said was simply: Have you discovered any false assumptions in the things you were taught?
So I will substitute set for box. The biggest set is the Times we live in which includes all humanity. Then there are the Sciences, Arts, and other areas of learning and all the different groups with their own world view and so on all the way down to the finial set which is the individual.
Each individual has his own set of assumptions. Each individual is a set. Each individual is alone. Just as no one has to tell some one else not to look at the son because it is just something we do not do so looking at our individual state of isolation is something we just don’t do. But if we do look we may realize that we are individually responsible for everything that we believe. The teachers that taught us are in the same boat. That deposit of knowledge and assumptions that we have is the ruler by which we judge the world around us.
If I were to ask the question: If you really hated someone, the slime of the earth, how would you torture him? If you answered that question (unless you were a doctor or pain specialist) you would be revealing your greatest fears. Because the only ruler we have to judge others is ourselves. That is why a thief jealously guards his possessions. Since he steals others are capable of it. The cheating spouse will soon become suspicious of his own spouse and may accuse them of cheating because he is doing it. The faithful spouse is the last to find out because they wouldn’t do that so they wouldn’t dream that it was possible that they were cheated on.
But you can judge others and identify their assumptions by what they say and false accusations are often what they would do. If you take this to heart then you just stepped out of a box.
I posted something in the thread about porn being degrading to women. After I made my main comment, I threw in something about the possibility of homosexuality being a form of narcissism because they want the same as what they see in a mirror.
If you go to that post and read the comments posted right after my post you should notice that the comments they made validate the above argument. It is obvious that they assume that homosexual view each other the same as man and woman view each other. Also they put themselves into the mix to show that the idea was ludicrous.
But was I serious about the narcissism?
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
I just got home from yoga. Our last few minutes is all about building a safe "box" or "niche".
I like mine. It's a safe little turret with a comfy rocking chair, quilt, fire in the fireplace, cookies, wine, books and cuddly cat.
We are supposed to practice going there to help stay de-stressed.
Unfortuantely, I keep misplacing the key to the door in, and therefore don't spend much time in my "box."
/derail
Posted by Vyrus (Member # 10525) on :
There is not box.
I don't believe that there is a definite "box".
I think that you can be conditioned by society and family and personal leanings to construct your own box of what is acceptable, of what is possible, but there are, have been, and will be people who will completely disregard this statement and go completely on their own route, regardless of whether or not that ground has been trodden on before.
In a world where your only standards are your own, it doesn't matter what's been accomplished by others and what hasn't, and since everything you do is new to you and uniquely your own, there is no box unless you make one.
Maybe I've been reading too much Rand.
Anyway, there are only "boxes" that are constructed by your own mind.
There are obvious exceptions, such as a person from two centuries ago attempting to fly or listen to punk rock or develop ideas on foreign outsourcing, because none of these things had been invented or known of yet, whether or not they had already been concepts.
To do all of this, the person would have to invent it all, and then act within it.
This is highly illogical.
I still have to say no, though, in a more philosophical sense; you can decide what you have to do, barring obvious limitations.
We can't have a discussion here on issues that won't even exist for another fifty years.
Posted by beleaguered (Member # 11983) on :
Vyrus,
You raise some very interesting points that could possibly debunk the "box" idea as some may perceive it. I don't think this idea is totally busted, because there aren't enough true individuals in this world to say the phylosophical "box" doesn't exist to some degree.
I agree with you, that everyone creates a "box" in which they place their base beliefs and standards in which they live their lives, and that "box" could be different from other's, and a good example would have to be people who come from varying cultures, or countries, and whom live by completely different standards, beliefs and values.
Now we have to figure out how big this "box" is Oshki might have been referring to. I think there is a small individual box, one that we create and live in ourselves, and a larger one that houses the basic standards, beliefs, and values of the majority of the smaller "boxes". I think, based on this idea, there are still quite a few different types of larger "boxes" on the earth, considering the above information.
Oshki, which is it?
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Oshki: When I was in grade school, my mom told me that our family wasn't very good at math so just do your best.
My father told me that we were the greatest and smartest people in the world....
Posted by Oshki (Member # 11986) on :
T:man
And I told my children that they are very smart in all subjects, with positive results.
Posted by Vyrus (Member # 10525) on :
quote:Originally posted by beleaguered: Vyrus,
You raise some very interesting points that could possibly debunk the "box" idea as some may perceive it. I don't think this idea is totally busted, because there aren't enough true individuals in this world to say the phylosophical "box" doesn't exist to some degree.
I agree with you, that everyone creates a "box" in which they place their base beliefs and standards in which they live their lives, and that "box" could be different from other's, and a good example would have to be people who come from varying cultures, or countries, and whom live by completely different standards, beliefs and values.
Now we have to figure out how big this "box" is Oshki might have been referring to. I think there is a small individual box, one that we create and live in ourselves, and a larger one that houses the basic standards, beliefs, and values of the majority of the smaller "boxes". I think, based on this idea, there are still quite a few different types of larger "boxes" on the earth, considering the above information.
Oshki, which is it?
I think, to be more accurate, it's less of a box and more of a "fence", if that makes any sense.
Hopefully not semantics, but...a box connotates limits that are impossible to break out of, a literal barrier.
Fences, or lines, or boundaries may be overcome, but not without pain or discomfort or maybe even getting into some level of trouble.
So, there's the "boxes", the absolute, finite limits, like what one can do within the reaches of science, and then there's the fences or boundaries, what one will ALLOW oneself to do without breaking edicts either imposed by themselves, or others.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Oshki, how old are you?
Posted by beleaguered (Member # 11983) on :
Vyrus,
Based on that logic, something such as a barbed wire fence, or how about one of those electronic perimeters- in conjunction with the shock box around the neck or something, like the ones dog owners use to keep their dogs within the "box" they set for them.
That actually works for this analogy, doesn't it? This way we are still in our box, but it's a box set in place by someone before us (parents, community, Nation), and is around us in all directions. To leave the box that's set up would be shocking- psychologically and possibly physically.
What do you think Vyrus or Oshki?
Posted by Oshki (Member # 11986) on :
I have been tested and found to be equally analytical and intuitive. It may be unfortunate that I chose to use the word box. Although I notice that those that have taken philosophy or are more intuitive have not really had any hardship with the idea of being boxed in and limited by assumptions at any level. The box is built by ourselves or by others with our permission or our inattention. It is up to individual to examine what is believed and why it is believed.
Here is a little poem that I wrote when I was experimenting with poetry. The immature will laugh and may think base thoughts at the last line and will probably not get it. The poem is about the analytical on one hand and the intuitive on the other. And what may be truly loved may be anything as well as anyone. Thinking plainly means reduce everything that you can to like terms then play with them whether in math or in ideas.
On the right hand. Talk plainly- to be understood. Think plainly- to understand.
On the left hand. Bare your soul with visions of your love Roil the fecund mind with simile and metaphor in prose
But when you deal with the one you truly love given to you from above. Don’t be a half wit!
Use both hands.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
But people do leave the box or the field or whatever the metaphor is. However, they don't leave it in all directions at once.
I think what this "box" or "field" is a set of assumptions or 'givens' about the world. They are things we take for granted, things that are knee-jerk.
This could be, for example, a cultural uncomfortableness with homosexuality. My parents are uncomfortable with homosexuality and insist there's something fundamentally different about the way gay people think beyond the obvious.
I remember my friend first telling me that she was bisexual and how surprised and thrown I was. I wasn't angry or opposed to her in anyway, but I was quite shocked. I knew homosexuality existed, I had been taught to regard it uncomfortably via my parents and openly in my community, but it was beyond my cultural box.
It wasn't very long, however, that the fact that there were gay people around was utterly normal to me. I think I changed my box here.
Now, this is not a huge stretch because of course there were people around me who had already changed their boxes and I merely aligned mine with pre-existing ideals.
But I think our brains are not as set as we think they are towards some things. I bet there are few people to whom a cultural aversion/reaction/attraction would be insurmountable. Especially in the young. This can be positive (accepting homosexuality) or negative (accepting terrorism). Usually there is something to draw on, though: a general sense of acceptance or background anger.
However, we've all heard of those studies where ordinary people turned into torturers and tormentors in a conducive situation. Soldiers are capable of socially meeting people one day and firing on them the next.
This sounds like the opposite of what I was saying in my previous post, but I think it is not. Terrorists, torturers and soldiers are all acting within a new box, but it is the box of all their comrades. It's easy to become accepting of homosexuals when your good friend is one and a lot of people occupy the box you're moving to.
Group brain-changes demonstrate how easy it is to change our minds, but I think that it is the singular brain-change (which can be positive or negative) that is the really extraordinary occurrence.
But I think it is very, very, very rare. How many people change their ideas about the world without any form of model to follow? There is very rarely the 'first' man. In the Bible, for example, Jesus' followers were, you could say, pre-conditioned for accepting H/his ideas by John the Baptist.
Ever noticed how scientific advances seem to come in groups? Scientists often discovered similar things at similar times. I think this is an example of the fact that new ideas are often a product of a series of events in which a number of scientists are led up to water-- some, inevitably, drink.
As a counterpoint, many individual advances were made by people working in odd places. Einstein is the obvious example. He was thinking, but was not immersed in the theoretical physics community. It is easier to think outside a box when you do not see the contents of the standard box every day, when your information becomes a little blurred and a little out of date. In short, when you forget precisely what the box contains. Working 'in your field' is, perhaps, overrated-- notice the terminology of that expression!
So, are people like Einstein true box-escapers or are they people who merely found themselves in a different box and made use of what they found? Must we require people to be living within the box in order to truly break out of it? Or is accident-- not being able to get a job in your field for example-- enough to say you think outside one or a number of boxes?
Of course, we most often simply switch boxes. You leave the uncomfortable-with-homosexuality box and enter the totally-fine box, but they're both pre-existing boxes. There are so many ideas in the world that it's hard to say when a mostly new box has been invented. If Jesus was a real person he certainly had a mother who brought H/him up with a certain set of ideals and stories. Our mothers, as we know, have a massive effect on the way we think. Jesus could have been popularizing his mother's ideas: I have already said that family is the smallest box in which we live.
This aside from however many years the family spent in a foreign country. It is a common story that a newcomer or a returnee changes the way his or her people think because he or she has lived outside that particular box. After that, it's just down to charisma.
Most box-breakers seem to merely expand or contract between boxes. They spread some version of their family's ideals, or they bring some wider ideals back into their family (a love of education, for example).
Ultimately, I think that there are two ways of leaving boxes. 1) Being aware of your restrictions and assumptions which helps you to overcome them. 2) More dramatically, being unaware that there are any restrictions or forgetting what they are can create totally new or hybrid boxes.
I think we naturally conform, yes, and we are natural products of fields or boxes. But I do think it is very possible to change boxes. What is hard is creating new boxes, or living mostly within a box but not conforming.
Posted by Oshki (Member # 11986) on :
For those students of philosophy here is a site in which one can find "a priori" arguments against Kant and others. This is the site of Monsignor John F. McCarthy who is the founder of the School of Neo-Patristic Theology. (He must be ancient by now but is still publishing.)But if you are interested in a different view.
For my part, since I believe sentience is largely an illusion, I believe that all we have is the box. You don't leave the box; things -- including you -- make changes to the box. And in a very real way, you are the box.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Well, that's mostly a matter of what you mean by box. In that you are always yourself, you are always within a box.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Looking at the OP original two quotes, I don't think they contradict each other at all. Being a product of the times is going to define the subjects you think about but not what you think about it. For example, looking at these boards, lots of people are thinking about ssm. But they are coming to drastically different conclusions. Two hundred years ago, I doubt it would even occur to people to think about the ethics of ssm and I would predict that in 200 years, no one will think much about it either.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:In that you are always yourself, you are always within a box.
Yes. And given that you are always the product of your environment and genetics, you can never escape that box.
Posted by Vyrus (Member # 10525) on :
(Cute cheesy rap beat). AND A BOX IN A BOX IN A BOX IN A BOX
AND A FOX IN A BOX AND A FOX IN THE SOCKS
I CAN'T SAY IT, MR. FOX
I'M SO SORRY, MR. KNOX
Sorry, had to.
(And, yes, I'm aware that's a paraphrase )
Anyway, Oshki-yes, something like that. But many are self-imposed. Like if you make it a personal decision not to do something, an idea you accumulated through personal experience, you might not build a fence, but you might just stay away from that part of town; the Boonies, if you will.
(Okay, kids, got your pencils? That's boxes boonies and fences.)
So, it's not that you CAN'T overcome it with relative ease, it's that you choose not to. For instance; phobias. (I'm afraid of bugs, and miniature figurines or dolls. My mom had a collection of them. I still can't touch a toy below four inches. It freaks me out.)
As for Teshi-there are varying levels of boxes, yes.
But there are also people who, for whatever reason, are inclined not to even notice the boxes-they go completely about their own way, not even noticing whether or not they're in a box.
They might not even know of its existence.
It's like monsters or the Devil or superstition-if you don't believe in it, it can't hurt you.
(This, obviously, is not true for some things, like gravity.)
Many of us are in boxes.
But some of us either buy or make a box cutter, or use our hands [it's not that hard to rip out of cardboard, but if you were encased in it you might think otherwise.) and some of us never notice it in the first place, or not until we cross it, and then just brush it off. (Like walking through a spiderweb.)
So many euphemisms for euphemisms.
(Did I spell that right?)
:exasperated sigh:
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:Yes. And given that you are always the product of your environment and genetics, you can never escape that box.
Agreed. This is what I said above:
quote:In that sense, the only way to break out of society is to undergo a dollhouse-like wipe; one that not only removes our memories but also the very way our brain is constructed.
However, for the purposes of argument, we can externalize the boxes and have people-- on some level-- moving between them or living out of them.
It's all illusory.
Posted by Oshki (Member # 11986) on :
Teshi I would say that you are on track. You sure used the term box a lot (smile). I stated earlier that each one of us is alone. We seek out others with the same world views and values. Simply because being alone is not acceptable. If one were to ask a prisoner if instead of being put into isolation for a month they could choose the punishment of a good whipping, the ones that had experienced isolation before would take the lashes. Once we are part of a group of like thinkers we refer to ourselves as us and those that do not share our views as them. They are other. If our group believes that the world is flat but you figured out that it is really round then the problem isn’t just one of ideas but of changing your groups’ sense of reality, and worst then that, you would become “other” to your group. The pressure to conform is one wall of the box.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
On track for what?
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Well, I think that "pressure to conform" in the "being consciously considered other" sense is just one wall. I think most walls are more subtle than overt peer pressure. You may intend to include that in what you just said.
It can be as subtle as a set of assumptions. When Newton "discovered" gravity, he didn't discover it in the sense that he found it. It was there all along, he suddenly had to assume something totally different from the way people normally thought about why things fall.
I'm reading The Blind Watchmaker at the moment and Dawkins talks about bats and how we normally think about how crazy it is that bats "see" with their "ears". But, he points out, our way of seeing is no more normal than bats' way of "seeing" with sonar. We can only think about the way bats perceive in terms of our own abilities.
quote:On track for what?
Fame and fortune I hope.
Posted by Vyrus (Member # 10525) on :
quote: It can be as subtle as a set of assumptions. When Newton "discovered" gravity, he didn't discover it in the sense that he found it. It was there all along, he suddenly had to assume something totally different from the way people normally thought about why things fall.
I'm reading The Blind Watchmaker at the moment and Dawkins talks about bats and how we normally think about how crazy it is that bats "see" with their "ears". But, he points out, our way of seeing is no more normal than bats' way of "seeing" with sonar. We can only think about the way bats perceive in terms of our own abilities.
When I said that you were on the right track I meant that you look at problems from all sides.
Perhaps Newton wanted an apple and sat down to rest after jumping repeatedly trying to pluck one off a high branch. While looking out over the great expanse of the country side and thinking that he couldn’t quite jump high enough, the apple hit him in the head. Then and there he could have connected the vastness of the earth or mass with attraction. (Sorry, just daydreaming about what it would take to have such and intuitive leap. Besides, the apple would have been attractive to him.) Newton also wrote the Laws of Motion. The first law of motion or Law of Inertia not only applies to mass but also applies to human beings. So if something is in motion it will remain in motion as to speed and direction unless acted on by an unbalanced force and anything at rest will remain at rest unless acted upon by an unbalanced force. As applied to humans translates into: “There is no change without confrontation.” Confrontation can range from direct and life threatening which will cause immediate change to self motivation, which is the most liked, but effects the least change. (New Year’s resolutions)
How do you think that the Second Law of Thermal Dynamics could apply to communication?
[ March 13, 2009, 06:55 PM: Message edited by: Oshki ]
Posted by Oshki (Member # 11986) on :
That is human communication not the necessity of a carrier wave to distinguish a signal against background noise.
Posted by Vyrus (Member # 10525) on :
Oshki-
I think it could to some extent.
If there were a situation in which you could somehow be left on your own yet still survive with food, shelter, and medical care, without ever seeing human or animal contact, and without seeing its reflection, it would absolutely nothing like a human you had ever seen before, as far as behavior went.
Even the sight of another human, as it had seen itself, would completely throw it out of balance.
You would be nothing without human, animal, world and social contact-you are shaped by your environment.
As for the acted upon by an outside force thing, this isn't entirely true.
For instance, part of that "conditioning" would likely be included with influence and maybe even coercion. But there are some people so unbearably thickheaded that if you try even slightly to convince them of something, they will refute it with every ounce of their being.
You could argue that their defensiveness or their complete ignoring of your every appeal was in itself a reaction, but it stems from the viewpoint that every factor in your environment slowly molds you, whereas yours would have little overall effect.
For some people it's the complete opposite cause, the exact same reaction (the ignorance, not the defensiveness.) Some people possess a quiet confidence, rarely, but sometimes it will be perfectly and completely self-assured and at peace, and they don't see your reasoning for the fact that they know, or think theirs to be true.
No reaction.
Is this somewhat what you meant?
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Well, I'm not entirely on board with the physical laws applying to human interaction idea. And by not entirely I mean, aside from a useful metaphor, there is no relation.
However: entropy and communication? Well, um, my best guess would be the equivalent of broken telephone which, in this thread could have something to do with the fact that ideas change even when there is no new information being added.
Why, what do you think entropy has to do with human communication and why ask the question?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:When I said that you were on the right track I meant that you look at problems from all sides.
I don't necessarily disagree, mind you. But how do you know what the right track is?
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Oh, the broken telephone thing already came up in this thread.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I was speaking more about him personally, not as a general principle. Posted by Oshki (Member # 11986) on :
Vyrus
quote: Even the sight of another human, as it had seen itself, would completely throw it out of balance.
You would be nothing without human, animal, world and social contact-you are shaped by your environment.
As for the acted upon by an outside force thing, this isn't entirely true.
We really are individually all alone sitting on top of our own wet neural network which processes all the data that we receive through our senses.
So I agree with what you said except for the last statement (with a qualifier). Because everything that happens outside of us, is an outside force. We have a choice, and that is to be consciously aware of this fact.
“You would be nothing without human, animal, world and social contact-you are shaped by your environment.”
We are shaped by our environment because we have to react to it. We are also shaped by the data that we receive from that environment but we have a choice. We can critically examine the data we receive or download it without examination. If the data that makes up our individual data base goes unexamined then we are truly shaped by our environment.
“As for the acted upon by an outside force thing, this isn't entirely true.”
The qualifier: “this isn’t entirely true.” Speaks to the choices we can make in reacting to any out side force. Just making a choice is a reaction even if the choice is to ignore the outside force.
This raises another question. What criteria can we use to examine the data? Math uses logic; there is classical logic to eternalize. Reduce everything to like terms to make sure that we are not comparing apples to oranges. Examine original sources. Expand into other areas of learning to get a different perspective.
In an earlier post I put in a link for philosophy students (No one should ever stop being a student.) so that they could examine some countering arguments. I did not say that I approved of those countering arguments only that they existed. (And is probably not part of any curriculum) Perhaps by comparing both sides objectively the individual could identify flaws on both sides and become an original thinker.
Boxes, Oh for crying out loud! Good grief! The first expression was my Dads favorite. The second was the favorite expression of my best friends Dad.
• From Wiki encyclopedia: “Second law of thermodynamics, about entropy: "The total entropy of any isolated thermodynamic system tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value."
So, how can the second law of thermal dynamics be applied to human societies and to communication?
Posted by Oshki (Member # 11986) on :
Is politicial correctness entropy?
Christ said: "Be either hot or Cold" perhaps because that communicates? So being luke warm in the religous sense is entropy.
"Say what you mean and mean what you say." George S. Patton JR. (not rush limbaugh)
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
As I said above:
quote:Well, I'm not entirely on board with the physical laws applying to human interaction idea. And by not entirely I mean, aside from a useful metaphor, there is no relation.
However: entropy and communication? Well, um, my best guess would be the equivalent of broken telephone which, in this thread could have something to do with the fact that ideas change even when there is no new information being added.
Entropy, in my opinion, is not necessarily a negative force except in the most basic physical sense.
When applied metaphorically, I also find it difficult to resolve entropy as being an entirely negative force. The increasing disorder of a system can be a source of renewal. If societies simply became more and more ordered, no new ideas would ever be introduced.
I said before on the thread that I believed one way to escape from "boxes" is to forget what they contain. Without our metaphorical entropy, I do not believe this would happen. As we go along, things get lost and modified, and as they change new things can be introduced.
Posted by Oshki (Member # 11986) on :
Teshi
It is true that as entropy increases, possibilities increase (interaction of hot and cold molecules) even though clear communication declines as does the possibility of work.
For work or communication there needs to be a clear message (hot or cold) and goal that can be recognised against a background of noise.
Posted by Oshki (Member # 11986) on :
Everyone
I have come to the conclusion that the analytical can not come to terms with an intuitive understanding of the meaning of box. The Intuitive can not come to an understanding of something analytically stated and insist on making it into something metaphysical. I see this as avoidance of the fact that we each are all alone in our own skull (wet neural network or brain) receiving all data through the senses. Only from this perspective can anything that I have said make any sense whatsoever. If one can face this obvious fact of individual isolation then maybe it can be recognized that this state of personal isolation is the root cause from which human actions are the effect.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*giggle* Oh, you're adorable.
Posted by Oshki (Member # 11986) on :
TomDavidson
I am not sure what to make of that.
Only God is adorable or as the saying goes, only God is good. I am Roman Catholic and believe that we are all divine sparks created in the image and likeness of God. I also don’t give a rats ass how He did it. We are made of clay or mother earth and if life began in the clay I don’t care. It also doesn’t matter to me that I have a wet neural network as my operating platform. It is miraculous enough that a ball of fat can project intelligence with will, understanding, and emotion that is able to perceive the material universe and do work. It is that intelligence, with its three parts, that is made in the image and likeness of the Triune God.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It is miraculous enough that a ball of fat can project intelligence....
Clearly, you have never met my ball of fat, which projects nothing but forwards.
Posted by Vyrus (Member # 10525) on :
I don't think entropy is an accurate comparison for human communication, because, like most things in science or math, entropy represents an absolute idea.
Although I don't profess to be a science whiz, from my understanding, there is no such thing as "partial" entropy once it's reached its maximum value.
Whereas, in communication, which, for the purpose of this I'll be looking at neurologically, there is no "definite".
Therefore the "broken telephone" metaphor is not accurate. Even in severe states of neurological breakdown (I'll be talking solely of mental disorders and dimentia) there are still mental processes going on, even if it's on a very small level.
You can still communicate with the mentally ill, those with neurological disorders, whether those illnesses and disorders are genetic or caused by pathos developing throughout your life. (ie, abusive childhood, or marriage, a severe traumatic experience like adultery, or going through a natural disaster or being in a war.)
The only step at which you would be completely unable to communicate would be catatonic, which I still don't think is accurate because those that are catatonic can break out of that state, although rarely and with some difficulty.
The only extreme would be brain dead, which, is legally considered the standard for whether or not a person is "living", and dead bodies, to the best of my knowledge, can only stagnate, not communicate.
So, I would have to say there are no absolutes in communication.
I hope this doesn't contradict my first post, but honestly I had to do a little research before I had what I felt was a decent grasp on the concepts of which ya'll were speaking.
And, my problem tends to be thinking up these well-planned ideas, and then the vast majority of the time conveying them poorly.
What I was attempting to say before with the "you could argue that...defensiveness..." etc. was not whether or not it was a form of communication, but whether or not interaction effected you, or rather, changed you in any way.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Good god!
EDIT:
quote:Therefore the "broken telephone" metaphor is not accurate. Even in severe states of neurological breakdown (I'll be talking solely of mental disorders and dementia) there are still mental processes going on, even if it's on a very small level.
Well, I wasn't talking about neurological disorders but the children's game sometimes called Chinese Whispers where perfectly healthy people pass on messages that become distorted as they go.
For example, if I describe to you you a historical event, you communicate it to another person and so on we eventually lose much of the truth of the story. Yes it has little to do with actual entropy but as I have said, I agree with you that applying physical processes to human interaction is useful only as a loose metaphor.
Posted by Vyrus (Member # 10525) on :
Okay...so what you're saying is that I was *slightly off*...
Okay...maybe a little more than slightly...
Damn...how did I miss that one?
*emphatic facepalm*
Wow...okay...so...probably should of read those last few posts a little more heavily...okay, a LOT more heavily...
Disregard my last post, ladies and gentleman.
Edit: And I find this terribly ironic right after my comment about needing to make my posts more comprehensive.
Posted by Oshki (Member # 11986) on :
Can you find any Equivalence between the Second Law of Thermal Dynamics and the rise and eventual fall of nations through out history?
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
*thermodynamics.
Are we doing your homework for you?
Posted by Oshki (Member # 11986) on :
Nope, I am well beyond that but never stopped being a student.
Posted by Oshki (Member # 11986) on :
My first trimester I was allowed up to 23 credit hours but only chose 21.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Your first trimester of...?
Posted by Oshki (Member # 11986) on :
college
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Is that good?
Posted by Oshki (Member # 11986) on :
That was quite a while ago but I’m not so far along that I would find it necessary to say “O Tempora o mores!” not quite yet.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
My question was about the credit hours comment. I didn't really understand it.
Posted by Oshki (Member # 11986) on :
In comming freshmen were allowed a maximum of 15 credit hours but 13 was recommended.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Neat. What's your degree in?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Thermodynamics, BTW.
And, no, the law of entropy doesn't apply to social structures. That's not the way it works. Attempts to apply it to metaphysical things are always pretty blush-inducing.
Posted by Oshki (Member # 11986) on :
But if isolation were recognised as the root cause of human actions and those actions as effects then Psychology could actually become a science. But then since changing someones mind also changes their sense of reality it is really a tuff nut to crack. (sorry)(smile)
Posted by Oshki (Member # 11986) on :
Wiki: Metaphysics
quote: In some cases, subjects of metaphysical scholarship have been found to be entirely physical and natural, thus making them part of physics proper (cf. Albert Einstein's Theory of Relativity).
Posted by Oshki (Member # 11986) on :
TomDavidson
quote:Thermodynamics, BTW.
And, no, the law of entropy doesn't apply to social structures. That's not the way it works. Attempts to apply it to metaphysical things are always pretty blush-inducing.
Ancient to modern societies can be viewed from the outside as social machines fueled by universal human drives. For instance the Roman Empire which after its initial stages fueled by nationalism continued to conquer the world by making citizens out of the conquered lands and giving them seats in the Senate. They had a very clear Idea of who they were and where they were going. This Roman Empire chugged along for centuries. Human energy was high, communication and goals clearly defined.
Then something happened they turned the Senate into a more or less honorary position and became a dictatorship. They lost their cohesive national identity. The citizens became restless and the Coliseums and carnivals that ringed the outside of the coliseums (were used to entertain (divert) the increasingly restless population. The roman armed forces were supplemented by mercenary forces. The cohesive family structures rotted away as hedonism became wide spread. Aimless, weak, and selfish and without cohesive national purpose Rome fell.
quote: Wiki: Metaphysics
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In some cases, subjects of metaphysical scholarship have been found to be entirely physical and natural, thus making them part of physics proper (cf. Albert Einstein's Theory of Relativity).
So I ask again trusting in your metaphysicial and common sense:
Can you find any Equivalence between the Second Law of Thermal Dynamics and the rise and eventual fall of nations through out history?
[ March 15, 2009, 06:51 AM: Message edited by: Oshki ]
Posted by beleaguered (Member # 11983) on :
I'm not ashamed to admit that I'm in over my head here. In the small amounts of research I've done on this topic, with regards to an answer, I can say without a doubt it's a definite Maybe.
I would say yes nations could fall as the levels of entropy continually rise. The reason this is a definite maybe for me, is because at some point the levels of entropy in thermodynamics would have to reach a limit. I don't have the knowledge or experience with thermodynamics as to what the maximum limit might become, and what affect the level of entropy might have on a nation.
Although- I would say the energy as referred to with the increasing levels of entropy would change. Energy never just disappears, right? It only changes direction or turns into something else. I would say rising entropy within thermodynamics, the mear randomness that comes from the changing energy could cause for the fall of nations, but the creation of new nations, or new something else able to use the energy.
That's all I've got on this, I'm tapping out- someone with more intelligence please continue.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Oshki, I have to admit that I'm finding it really hard to take you seriously, not least because you clearly take yourself very seriously while simultaneously not understanding the distinction between Thermal Dynamics and Thermodynamics. Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oshki: the second law of thermodynamics only applies to closed, isolated systems. It never applies to anything else. And that sort of system is not a metaphor. It has a technical, scientific meaning which never, ever applies to a social situation.
If you want to draw metaphors, feel free, but actually applying the law itself to social situations is nonsense. And realize that drawing metaphors of this kind without a careful, reasoned argument about what's actually happening that isn't metaphorical is just you asserting what the world is like without a care for actually finding out what the world is like. People will treat such rambling as the product of those it typically comes from: children imitating reasoned scholarship without engaging in it.
Posted by Oshki (Member # 11986) on :
I haven’t spent much time at all on the subject of economics but enough time to see that there are a vast number of variables and little charts and graphs etc. I was wondering if there is any sophisticated economic software. In many ways the complexity and variables are similar in extent and complexity as to those found in meteorology which also tracks changing conditions all over the world. Low pressure centers, currents across the oceans, humidity, temperature, and so on.
Has anyone (economists) thought to grab that weather software and using equivalence and ratio assign economic values (economic data) to that already sophisticated software? You would need Economists, computer programmers and meteorologist and perhaps statisticians to work together on the programming but there may be a Nobel Prize waiting for the group that could pull that off.
I would like to see the economic storm on TV and watch the local economic weather station. (Smile) It could use the same global imagery but show a current of money going to China the rise and fall of exchange rates and that sort of thing.
The particulars would be up to the economists in conjunction with mathematicians and programmers. Things that rise and fall in the weather like barometric pressure all the weather variables replaced with economic variable and equivalents. The changing economic conditions would be slow compared to the weather but with the software in place one could go back a month and play it forward like they do on the weather stations to show the track of a hurricane and may be able to forecast where the world economy is going.
Of course economics is a human activity so I hope we don't run into metaphysical problems.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
If you really want to discuss this, I can discuss it, but I'm not going to bother if you're just going to randomly switch subjects when someone challenges your understanding.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Oshki, the problem here is that it feels to some that you're making comments based on fields of study you don't fully understand. If that's the case, don't worry so much about it; a lot of us here are beginners in a lot of fields. No reason you can't still participate in exactly this discussion, just don't speak in definitives quite so much. I like to think that I know a little about everything, but I recognize that I know very little about any(one)thing , so I try to make my comments reflect that by asking questions rather than making statements when I don't know.
For instance: would it be meaningful to try to translate weather software to model economic behavior? To which my answer would be no, as they are two very different things. Weather software is quite sophisticated and quite specific. Though the programs themselves are complex the actual equations they're modeling are not. What becomes complex is trying to model the atmosphere with enough precision which comes down to more of a computer-power, data-gathering problem than it does physical understanding or interaction problem. Economics might be related to weather's energy balance equations if thought of as the flow of money across the world but the math unforuntaly wont translate that easily. As an example, money has no problem flowing against a pressure gradient (i.e. the rich get richer and the poor get poorer). Now there are some incredibly sophisticated economic models out there many developed for private industry either to predict their own sector of interest or to in general try to help investments. I think it should be obvious how successful these programs are at any significant long term predictions but people are working on it!
P.S. if you take offense to me saying you're not informed on all these subject certainly I apologize. My advice would be to then directly answer those who feel you're working from an incorrect understanding of these fields by explaining why you think it's a meaningful application.
Hobbes Posted by Oshki (Member # 11986) on :
Thank you Hobbes.
Posted by beleaguered (Member # 11983) on :
fugu,
I'm interested in hearing what you have to say on this topic- not the economics topic, but the entropy and thermodynamics topics we were before discussing.
Do you have a science or phylosophy major then? As I mentioned in my previous post, I'm not strong in this discussion, but this topic interests me and I would like to know more.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Oshki: But if isolation were recognised as the root cause of human actions and those actions as effects then Psychology could actually become a science.
Tell me, are you aware that psychology is already a science?
If this instead represents a rejection of the psychological sciences as being scientific, do you have an explanation for it?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The entropy and thermodynamics topic is pretty much exhausted. The concept just isn't very applicable to social phenomena (not at all for the actual laws of thermodynamics, and not very well as a metaphor). Do you have some specific questions you'd like answered?
Posted by Oshki (Member # 11986) on :
Samprimary
Originally posted by Oshki: But if isolation were recognised as the root cause of human actions and those actions as effects then Psychology could actually become a science. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tell me, are you aware that psychology is already a science?
If this instead represents a rejection of the psychological sciences as being scientific, do you have an explanation for it? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.arachnoid.com/psychology/ Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
That article has a lot of stupid errors of logic, such as this:
quote:Based on this table and extrapolating into the future using appropriate regression methods, in 100 years there will be more than 3600 conditions meriting treatment as mental illnesses. To put it another way, there will be more mental states identified as abnormal than there are known, distinct mental states. In short, no behavior will be normal.
I wouldn't trust it for anything.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
The author doesn't seem to understand basics of psychology either. For example:
quote:#
Many clinical psychologists believe the value of their primary therapeutic tool (Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy) (CBT) has been scientifically verified. But this isn't true — here is what the American Psychiatric Association Practice Guidelines have to say about CBT:
"Cognitive behavioral therapy and interpersonal therapy are the psychotherapeutic approaches that have the best documented efficacy in the literature for the specific treatment of major depressive disorder, although rigorous studies evaluating the efficacy of psychodynamic psychotherapy have not been published". (emphasis supplied)
The problem with this statement, the basic bit of knowledge that is taught in every intro to Psych course, is that CBT is not a psychodynamic psychotherapy. Rather, it is an entirely different school of psychotherapy that directly opposes psychodynamic.
edit: Actually, it goes beyond that. What that statement actually says is that CBT has been established, through peer-reviewed surveys and experiments, to be on average the most effective treatment of a major depressive disorder, but that the efficacy of psychodynamic therapy has not been examined in rigorous, published studies. The statement meant the exact opposite of what he took it as. /edit
---
Psychology is a much more complex field than many of its detractors seem to realize. The question of whether the field as a whole is a science or not is not one that really can be answered. It's mu.
The core of the field pretty much adheres to scientific epistemology, but ultimately, there is a whole lot of gray areas, let alone schools and applications of thought that don't hold themselves to this epistemology.
Along with this, there are a great many limitations that make doing strict science unethical or impossible in many areas. In my experience, one of the consequences of this is a heightened understanding among the serious psychologists of what the limits of scientific epistemology actually are and what can and cannot be said (at given confidence intervals) from the available information.
All in all, it's a very complex and I think interesting topic, which I have yet to see the "Psychology is not a science" people ever come close to doing justice.
[ March 16, 2009, 01:21 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Oshki (Member # 11986) on :
Anyone can find articles and sites asserting things on the internet. I can find websites asserting that the earth is clearly flat, for instance. Merely posting something like an assertion that the NE model of the mind teaches us something about psychology in relation to entropy.
You posted this link, but I'm not sure you really understand what's contained within. What's your description of the 'findings' you're offering us as proof of the non-scientific nature of psychology?
Posted by Oshki (Member # 11986) on :
I would like to talk about entropy. The Isolated system that the Second law of Thermo Dynamics addresses is a thought experiment. Any heat sinks or sources of heat or outside variables had to be removed in order to get rid of variables. Perhaps the proof of entropy can only be proved in an isolated system? But does that mean that it can only be applied to an isolated system? Doesn’t high entropy exist when every thing is more or less equal? (Equal dispersion of hot and cold molecules) Could you call high entropy synonymous with stability? So the effect on the earth with its cold polar caps and hot equator with temperatures and air pressures that are unbalanced or unstable (or entropy is low) but the drive of nature to achieve stability is high then that differential causes (work) force or movement toward stability. Would you say that the movements toward stability are always vectors outside of an isolated system?
If the word entropy is so exclusive in its meaning that it only applies to that isolated system then perhaps we need a new word that expresses the same action outside that system?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Entropy exists in every system. You were (and are? I can't tell, your thoughts are too scattered) talking about the second law of thermodynamics, which does not read "entropy exists" as you seem to think, but talks about how entropy varies with time (in a certain way).
Entropy can be phrased in many ways, but one way to approach it is that in a high entropy state, there is less energy available that can do external work, and in a low entropy state, there is more energy available that can do external work.
The entropy of the earth decreases because we have a huge energy input that can be stored for doing work: the sun. Our decreasing entropy is possible because the sun is gradually dying.
I can't make any sense of your question here:
quote:Would you say that the movements toward stability are always vectors outside of an isolated system?
Perhaps an example, or rephrasing it to be specific instead of trying to sound big would help.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Oshki: I would like to talk about entropy. The Isolated system that the Second law of Thermo Dynamics addresses is a thought experiment.
Covering two points,
1. No, this makes no sense and is not true, and 2. Why are you capitalizing and splitting up the word 'thermodynamics' into 'Thermo Dynamics?'
thermodynamics is the study of the conversion of heat energy. Thermo Dynamics is a boiler manufacturer in Pennsylvania.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Could you call high entropy synonymous with stability?
Not really, no.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Not sure if grammatical criticisms are useful. I question how "far outside the box" one can reach without aknowleding we live in a closed system. The Earth itself is almost a closed system, although extremely complex. Of course the sun is an outside influence, so lets just step out the system even further. At it's limits, the universe is a closed system. I'm not talking about cooling loops or steam cycles we can easilly grasp in our limited minds. To an ant are we gods? Is a sperm cell an independent creature? We can't possibly comprehend the true balance of the universe.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
That isn't a grammatical criticism, but definitional. And the earth isn't anything like a closed system; the sun that you so blithely dismiss is what drives huge swathes of the natural processes we observe.
But yes, for most intents and purposes, the solar system is a reasonable approximation of a closed system. So what? That says very little interesting about the solar system other than that it will have an eventual heat-death. I'd be happy to discuss any other particular qualities people feel are involved, but nothing springs to mind.
Posted by beleaguered (Member # 11983) on :
Malanthrop,
You're suggesting the Earth is almost a closed system. I believe the Earth is self-regulating, is this what you mean when you say it's almost a closed system? Just out of curiosity, where might it not be a closed system?
I wonder at what level the ant thinks, and just how much the ant comprehends. Are we their destructive Gods?
Edit- Fugu, you are talking about the sun's role and how it excludes the Earth from being a closed system. I think the sun is the source of life where ever life is had in this solar system. Of course the Earth is dependent on the sun, so if that excludes the Earth from becoming a closed system, so be it. I mentioned I believe the Earth is self-regulating, well not without the sun it isn't. The sun and the moon each play their role in the regulation of life and activity on Earth. I have a feeling you'll dismiss these comments as being useless to the conversation- if they are indeed useless, I'm sorry to have wasted your time.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I have a feeling you'll dismiss these comments as being useless to the conversation...
Why do you think they're relevant?
Posted by beleaguered (Member # 11983) on :
Tom, They relate to the comments made by Fugu, Malanthrop, and Oshki. It seemed to me Oshki was directing his line of thought to life forces in general, and how Entropy might play a role in regulating those life forces. Malanthorp discussed how the Earth and Solar System are closed systems. Fugu said Earth is NOT a closed system. I suggested though the Earth relies on the Sun and Moon in order to be considered a closed system, and therefore isn't closed on its own, it IS self-regulating because of them. I was merely trying to draw a connection between fugu's discussion of the sun and energy as they relate to entropy with Oshki's life force being regulated on the Earth using the sun's energy. I thought the concept of self-regulation is helpful in a discussion on Entropy and energies.
I appologize if you do not approve of my post.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
The sun is a major source of energy. It is also dying--it's falling apart itself (albeit over milennia on milennia), and its level of entropy exceeds the amount of order driven by its own death throes.
If you are going to calculate a balance for our solar system, put the sun on the "overall, going toward entropy" column. The order you see being created by its energy are just ripples and eddies surrounding a big ol' vortex of death. There is local order, but overall disorder.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yes. And the local order makes it silly to try to talk about most stuff just on earth in terms of the laws of thermodynamics. Earth is a wonderful, complex place with huge amounts (and arguably net) entropy reduction, because we're killing off the sun to do it.
There is value to be had in discussing many things in terms of entropy (thermodynamic or information). Heck, I've published a paper about using an information theoretic entropy divergence measure to infer structure in collaboration patterns. But I don't really have any idea what you want to talk about. Vague prognostications haven't clued me in.
For instance, what do you mean by self-regulating? If you mean, it can regulate itself without help, then no, it isn't. See comments about the sun. But I think you get that, so what do you mean? Taking terms and applying them to situations they don't obviously apply to and saying "don't you think this makes sense?" isn't reasoned discussion, it is playing a game of darts. Use terms with generally understood meaning to make a coherent picture of what you mean, and then feel free to use an unusual term to describe that coherent picture.
And always tell us why it matters. I am happy to agree that entropy plays a large role in life on earth, but without a more specific focus of discussion I don't really see a need to discuss that; it is obvious and trivial, as a whole. There are certainly some interesting aspects of specifics, potentially, but this discussion has gone nowhere near them.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
quote:because we're killing off the sun to do it.
Hey! I resent the implication that we're doing anything to destroy the sun. We're merely shamelessly exploiting its death.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
*points at the poetic license on his wall *
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shigosei:
quote:because we're killing off the sun to do it.
Hey! I resent the implication that we're doing anything to destroy the sun.
Are you calling my sun voodoo doll useless? Are you? ARE YOU? Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
*imagines using a yellow gob stopper as a sun voodoo doll*
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
He certainly doesn't look like he's dying. Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: *imagines using a yellow gob stopper as a sun voodoo doll*
You'd have to use a chewy one. Otherwise the needles wouldn't go in.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
BB: He's just putting on a brave face.
Noemon: you use needles? I prefer holding it over a candle flame.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
fugu, that's gotta be some brand of cannibalism. or poetic justice. which I guess you have to exact once you've obtained a poetic license...
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: He certainly doesn't look like he's dying.
*coffee onto screen
He's obviously being sedated with some really good s-- uh, stuff.
Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Heck, I've published a paper about using an information theoretic entropy divergence measure to infer structure in collaboration patterns.
Sounds interesting! Got a link?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
It just does some very basic stuff with the idea; I'll hopefully expand on the approach sometime in the next three or four months.
Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
mmmm clustery goodness... Thanks!
Posted by Achilles (Member # 7741) on :
It just does some very basic stuff with the idea; I'll hopefully expand on the approach sometime in the next three or four months.
Sounds like a paper put together by the Stand Alone Complex Committee. [/LIST]
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
You know what I hate? When I think I'm being totally original, only to find out later that I was just riding the cultural tide.
This happened to me with cats. My best friend and I thought that campy pictures of cats were hilarious for years, but it just turned out we were soaking up the same LOLvibes as everyone else.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
A candle flame, fugu? Personally, I'd take it outside on a sunny day and hold it under a magnifying glass.
Posted by beleaguered (Member # 11983) on :
That's sick, shigosei- Using the sun to injure itself by scortching its own voodoo replica. Is there a name for that? Some kind of self cannibalization maybe?
Posted by Oshki (Member # 11986) on :
fugu13
I know that you think that I am an air head so I will live down to those expectations. Could you answer two questions? they are really simple and the type an air head would ask and I expect that you can answer them in a heart beat.
What is Pi?
Which does not belong with the rest? fly,ant,spider,moth
[ March 20, 2009, 05:51 AM: Message edited by: Oshki ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by beleaguered: That's sick, shigosei- Using the sun to injure itself by scortching its own voodoo replica. Is there a name for that? Some kind of self cannibalization maybe?
Heliomasochism.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*blink* Oshki, why not actually engage in honest discussion?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oshki, this latest response makes me wonder if you're confused about the nature of discussion. Discussion is not a question and answer session. In order to have a discussion, when one person posts something, and another person responds, the first person needs to respond in some way that vaguely resembles the same topic, that demonstrates having read and honestly attempting to understand and engage the second person's post.
edit: Take a look at this from my perspective. I have written pages of posts responding to a variety of posts you have written, typically filled with questions, and generally in an honest attempt to address what you are talking about. I have informed you about parts of your posts I do not understand, and asked you to clarify. You have never even once responded to a point I raised or answered a query I had about your meaning. You have totally ignored what I have said except to get indignant about it. If you want to demonstrate you are an adult instead of the child you are working very hard to act like, don't behave as you have been.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Is this the right room for an argument?
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I've told you once, Scott.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Right! Right. You did. Sorry!
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Hang on, hang on, something's not right here...
Posted by Oshki (Member # 11986) on :
Fugu13 I am aware that the way conversation works is that one person will say something and the other may repeat it back in different words. This process continues until a point is reached where misunderstandings may occur. Both parties then know the level effective communication. It seemed to me that most of the responses that I have been getting from you are knee jerk and there is no real attempt to understand what the point of all this has been.
I asked:” What is Pi?” because the majority of answers that I get when I ask that question is a knee jerk response of “3.14159” Which is not the answer to that question but rather to the question: “What is the value of Pi?” The answer to” What is Pi?” is the ratio of a diameter to its circumference.
The second question was made to demonstrate what I meant by a box. There are three boxes present: I would call them boxes because they are made by man to categorize and often once a box is built we assume that all the work is done. In other words, why look into the box? Inside the box of all bugs (I know that there is a category of true bugs that have been assigned their own box.)One box is labeled Insect and another is labeled Arachnid.
If one is taking an IQ test the answer is Spider because the testers are asking the question “which does not fit” or which does not belong” to find out if we know the difference between boxes as we have been taught. So no one bothers to look into the boxes to answer the actual question and determine which one does not fit.
If we compare the fly, spider, ant, and moth we see that they are indeed built differently and have been categorized by their body types, but if we look at the individuals we see that the spider has something in common with the fly, and the moth and that is: in order to insure the continuation of its species each individual is responsible to survive and mate. The ant is the exception because this is not an individual responsibility.
The point is that we need to look into the boxes that make up our understanding not just at the labels.
I do appreciate your last response because I felt that you were actually talking to me. If we never look into boxes we may end up being very good at moving boxes around but may loose the chance of building a new box of origional ideas.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
You might want to take another look at your definition of Pi. I'm glad you have reasons for asking your questions, and I never really doubted that. That was never the problem.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Oshki, I too am confused about the nature of your thread here. The reason I asked you about your homework is because you seem to be asking homework-y questions of us without first answering them yourself.
If you look in other threads, you will find that most of them give some single discussion point at the top-- a link, a quote, a comment, a rant and yes occasionally people will give a question.
Usually, however, people give their own answer or their own feelings on the subject. Sometimes they don't: in the "Big Love to show LDS temple ceremonies" thread, speed merely commented that it should be interesting. He/she (sorry) knew the topic would be of direct interest to the people here at Hatrack.
The only time when people will be asking questions without giving a response of their own is when they genuinely have no idea and cannot find out the answer themselves.
Usually, though, this happens only once per thread for the same person. Once a topic has been introduced, people begin to give opinions and then opinions on opinions until the mud-flinging begins and Papa Janitor steps into to stop the madness.
If a new question is asked, it's usually because someone is genuinely confused about something, or, having given their opinion, want someone to clarify what they said.
Threads often get off-topic, but it's usually because of a natural progression. The thread beginner rarely has the power to stop a thread in mid-discussion and change the topic (although we've had threads over the rights of the thread beginner here, too!)
The way you have created this thread, and continued to ask questions without giving any answers yourself is hugely off-putting aside from any scientific or historical inaccuracies that are included in the responses. I don't want to sit here being grilled by someone who tells me, condescendingly, that I am "on the right track", as if there was only one track to go on. Even if that's not what you meant, that's how it comes across.
I think it's unfair to say that you never answered any questions, but I think it is fair to say that you answered them in such an oblique fashion as to break the flow of the thread. Often, you concluded your post by asking another only marginally related question.
Sometimes, though, you did simply just ask a question out of the blue, for example:
quote:Can you find any Equivalence between the Second Law of Thermal Dynamics and the rise and eventual fall of nations through out history?
This sounds, for all the world, like a (bizarre) essay question for a class exam, except even an essay question would likely give a, "if not, why?" option. The way you phrase it sounds as if you know there is one and you want me or Vyrus (who were both attempting to be involved in the discussion) to try and guess what you're thinking of.
As I said, it's offputting.
quote:...what the point of all this has been.
Despite your claim to being a constant student, you seem to have come here expecting to be teacher. I guarantee you that everyone at Hatrack is at least as intelligent as you and most of them have considerably more knowledge and understanding than you appear to think they do.
Oshki, you are not the first to come through here thinking you have cracked the world open and peered inside. If you truly want to be a student, start being one.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: Hang on, hang on, something's not right here...
Yes it is!
SEE! I gotcha!
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Aw.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
You fell victim to one of the classic blunders!
...and I'm not telling you which one!
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Teshi? Did you get involved in a land war in Asia?
[ March 20, 2009, 11:37 AM: Message edited by: Noemon ]
Posted by beleaguered (Member # 11983) on :
I think it was, "Never mess with a sicilian when death is on the line." That's the one only slightly less known than the land war in Asia.
Teshi,
you seem to be practicing your psychoanalysis here. Wow, you're really letting him have it. It seems to me maybe he wants to be the teacher, but maybe he just wants to generate discussion, and this his way of trying to do so. He's come up with lots of different topics, and I wonder if he's sitting on the common thread, the piece holding them all together. You really think we're doing his homework for him?
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
beleaguered = Oshki?
Registered two days apart and all.
Edit: being too lazy to search the past posts of both, this is probably just a crazy theory.
[ March 20, 2009, 03:21 PM: Message edited by: Xavier ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:He's come up with lots of different topics, and I wonder if he's sitting on the common thread, the piece holding them all together.
Oh, it's not like it's a secret. He's got a pet social theory, but wants us to come to it on our own.
I'm willing to bet that beleaguered, Oshki, and malanthrop are all either the same person or know each other, yeah.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: I guarantee you that everyone at Hatrack is at least as intelligent as you and most of them have considerably more knowledge and understanding than you appear to think they do.
Come on, you don't really believe that there's no way he could be smarter than the dumbest person on Hatrack?
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:I'm willing to bet that beleaguered, Oshki, and malanthrop are all either the same person or know each other, yeah.
Oh man, I figured they were connected but not in such a direct way until:
quote:I wonder if he's sitting on the common thread, the piece holding them all together.
Heh. Tres subtle. You know what? I think that Locke was right all along!
Beleaguered, I'm hardly letting anyone have it. I'm not being splendidly accepting of everything, no.
quote:Come on, you don't really believe that there's no way he could be smarter than the dumbest person on Hatrack?
I suppose there is a possibility. Toss a "likely" in there.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:Teshi? Did you get involved in a land war in Asia?
And if not, why?
Hobbes Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I just LOVE deliberately oblique and mysterious-sounding lessons on the nature of everything.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes:
quote:Teshi? Did you get involved in a land war in Asia?
And if not, why?
Hobbes
I can't help it if I'm a pacifist .
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:I can't help it if I'm a pacifist .
If you want to pass you better write longer responses than that.
Hobbes Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
FUGU That isn't a grammatical criticism, but definitional. And the earth isn't anything like a closed system; the sun that you so blithely dismiss is what drives huge swathes of the natural processes we observe.
But yes, for most intents and purposes, the solar system is a reasonable approximation of a closed system. So what? That says very little interesting about the solar system other than that it will have an eventual heat-death. I'd be happy to discuss any other particular qualities people feel are involved, but nothing springs to mind. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for the critisism, I've been away but the point I was attempting to make is that even closed systems are a matter of perspective, I even acknowledged the sun in my assertion. Do closed systems even exhist? Using a cooling loop for example, although it has a compressor that is fed with electricity, etc. If you took the cooling loop to venus and it melted, you would say it melted due to an outside influence but is the fact that it is solid here not due to an outside influence? You might suggest the metals would be solid in space, but unfortunately so would the coolant. Theres always inertia, gravity, light, whatever. The only true closed system is the universe in it's entirety. We view galaxies that interact gravitationally with one another so you could argue no compononent of those galaxies is truly closed. I can't feel the nearest galaxy to ours but it exerts its influence on us nonetheless. If by defenition a closed system is independent of outside influences, the only true closed system in the universe is the universe itself, in it entirety.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
A cooling loop is nothing like a closed system. I don't know who you think would argue such absurd things about a cooling loop, either. Yes, the universe in its entirety (whatever that means ) is the only truly closed system. There are some systems that in many ways are reasonable approximations over some time spans, though.
But again, so? What does it matter, other than to make clear how inapplicable the second law of thermodynamics is to something as obviously not closed as a social system, which has already been discussed sufficiently?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
When I was in the Navy, the "smartest" technician I ever met was not allowed to touch the equipment. He is the only person I ever knew to score an 80 (perfect) on the advancement exam. He spent a day researching and studying an apparent power supply problem with a transmitter. I listened to his lenthy detailed explanation about possible broken transformer windings or potentially opened bridge rectifier diodes, etc. The "smartest" guy I ever knew, scratching his head, deep in thought when I asked him if he checked the breaker box in the p-way for a tripped breaker on one of the phases.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Scial imbalance is an emotional perception, jealousy, etc. Not everyone can be the boss but we need the worker and the worker needs a job provided by the boss. Try to fit in in Yemen, wander down to Compton or maybe Beverly Hills and tell me social systems aren't closed.
Posted by beleaguered (Member # 11983) on :
By Tom Davidson: I'm willing to bet that beleaguered, Oshki, and malanthrop are all either the same person or know each other, yeah.
You got me, Tom- I'm actually Oshki and Malanthorp. In fact, just to surprise everyone else in the room, I'm also Tom Davidson, the big guy who likes to stop cars that roll by without a driver. I'm even Mr. FUGU 13, uh oh, now you can discover my true identity by just opening up my published paper.
No, I'm NOT either of them, any of them actually. I'm my own person, my own independent thinker/poster. I guess I signed up at about the same time as Oshki? So be it. I don't know him any better than any of you. You know the guys who don't have favorite sports teams but almost always root for the under dog? I'm that guy. I picked out the underdog in this room from the start. The topic is interesting, so I tried to hang in there.
It's very clear, these forums contain a very high base IQ. I'm humbled to have my opinions read by such intelligent people, and hope to continue learning from you.
You know, though- I take it as a compliment that you've compared me with Oshki and Malanthorp, since they're clearly smarter than I am. I've come to these forums, not to debate my intelligence, but because I enjoy OSCs Ender and Shadow series, and because I hope to become a writer some day. Does this sound cheesy? I just wanted to explain my -I'm just Me case. Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I must be scitzo. I come here to stroke my ego like everyone else and to prove I'm smarter than you:).....kidding. But I AM BELEAGUERED....Adjective.
Posted by Oshki (Member # 11986) on :
Everyone,
Yes, I did come to Hatrack with an agenda. Yes, I do have a theory about the fundamental cause of human behavior. I identified Hatrack as a site full of intelligent people and I came to be confronted. Although it has been emphatically stated that the Laws of motion cannot be applied to humans, I am happy to report that when my assumptions have been confronted (since they were my assumptions I was confronted.) Those confrontations caused me to vector in my thinking.
For instance, my false assumption that gold was special caused an immediate confrontation which caused my thinking to vector (change course). The economics discussion and the resulting confrontations sent me off to Adam Smith and the basic premises of modern economics. Then on to a site that showed the flow of money and contracts how they are divided up and sold as investments according to their risk and the housing bubble and collapse explained. (The subjective depiction of the highest risk home buyers as smokers with a lot of children, I saw as the authors attempt at a “some all fallacy”.)
None of this would have happened if I was not confronted. I am not interested in holding on to false Ideas or assumptions but rather in identifying them, as I stated at the beginning of this thread, (Perhaps too obliquely) as a box to be identified so that one might step out of it, (destroy it, or rebuild it).
Oh, I had to go back to the box that is labeled Pi and flip it over. Thanks fugu13.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
)![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
*
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
.