Re: Parenting (was: God, Education, Epistemology)

On Oct 22, 2012 4:16 PM, "Bruno Marchal" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> On 21 Oct 2012, at 14:38, Rami Rustom wrote:
>
> > On Oct 21, 2012 4:47 AM, "Bruno Marchal" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On 19 Oct 2012, at 22:31, Rami Rustom wrote:
> > >
> > > > That has nothing to do with love. If a parent doesn't help a child
> > > > solve his problems, love won't matter.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I disagree. Intelligence is an emotional state. I think.
> >
> > Intelligence is not a state. And its not emotional either. Emotion
> > includes a physiological component.
> >
> Intelligence too.
>
>
>
> >
> > Take for example a situation where a child is trying to solve a
> > problem. He's riding his tricycle and it just started to veer right
> > heavily. His attempts to just turning the steering wheel left fail.
> > Lets say he gets frustrated. At this point, there is still no emotion.
> >
> ?
> Frustration is an emotional state.
>
>
>
> > This is a psychological state without any physiological component.
> >
> There is always a physiological components, in most plausible theories
> of the mind, and certainly with comp.

I guess you mean neuronal firing. I'm talking about hormone secretion,
increase heart rate, etc.


>
>
> > Now
> > lets say no one is around to help him. He might get angry, especially
> > if he has seen his parent get angry after getting frustrated. The
> > anger is an emotion. There are physiological changes like increased
> > heartbeat, some hormones are secreted more, etc.
> >
> perhaos I am using the word "state" in a more large sense. This is
> vocabulary. What I meant is that intelligence is something you can get
> in one second, and that you can lost in one second. It is quite
> different from competence, which can ask for years of work.

I don't see a difference bewteen intelligence and competence.

I see intelligence as a function of one's epistemic ideas. More
intelligence means better epistemic ideas. The results is increased
ability to solve problems. It means better creativity and better
criticism. It means better error-correction methods in one's thinking.


> > > Is Nature not a bit authoritative when It imposes you your genomes,
> > > right at birth?
> >
> > For humans no, for others yes.
> >
> ?

Our genes don't affect our ideas. Our genes produce our inborn
softcoding, and then we change that softcode afterwards.


>
>
> > Human minds are 100% softcoded.
> >
> Human minds are Lôbian (they are universal and knows that they are
> universal), but I think this begin with spider and octopi. The
> difference between human and spider is a matter of degree. there is
> always a level where everything is hard coded, but once you have a
> universal soft program, you get "infinite freedom" in principle. Some
> spiders have that.

Are you saying that some spiders are 100% softcoded?


> > > I disagree. The teacher is supposed to have learned the subject
> > > matter, and he evaluates the student's work according to his beliefs
> > > and knowledge.
> > >
> > > Bad teacher uses authoritative arguments. Not all teachers are bad.
> >
> > I said "choice". I said that when a teacher makes the choice of
> > setting a grade, he is exercising his authority over the student.
> >
> His authority in the field taught.

But sometimes the student is right and the teacher wrong even within
the teacher's field. And in these situations, the teacher will decide
whether the student is right or the teacher is right. At this point,
the teacher is exercising his authority to decide who is right.


> > We criticize our gut feelings and emotions like we criticize theories.
> >
> I don't think so. It is different.

We guess and we criticize. Right?


>
>
> > Why am I having this gut feeling? It is a theory.
> >
> Not at all. It is more close to a sensation or a feeling. You can't
> control it in the same way than your thought process. Some "yoga"
> technic can be needed, or some drugs.

Why are you talking about control?


>
>
> > One that conflicts
> > with the theory that I am currently thinking about (consciously). With
> > some thinking, I can figure out what the subconscious theory is and
> > make it conscious and explicit.
> >
> Partially, and most of the time, for most humans, very partially.

Can you give an example and an explanation of why it must be partial?


>
>
> > Then I can properly criticize both
> > rival theories in order to judge which one is right (the one that is
> > left uncriticized).
> >
> > So the point is that we are never left only with gut feelings and
> > emotions. We should dig deeper. There is no limit to figuring out the
> > reasons why one is having a gut feeling or an emotion.
> >
> You live the emotion, you reason on a theory. I can explain that the
> machines have both, and they obey to very different logic.

K. Explain.


> > You might have a different understanding of what a gut feeling is than
> > I do. A gut feeling means that you have a (conscious) idea that you
> > are currently thinking about and it "feels" wrong. That "feeling" is a
> > result of the fact that you have a subconscious and inexplicit idea
> > that conflicts with the conscious idea you're thinking about.
> >
> There is always a conflict, or a dialog, between the heart and reason.

The heart is a mechanical pump and nothing more.


> They can be both right, and yet cannot always see that. My opinion is
> that in case of doubt, reason has to be the servant of the heart.

What is the heart? You mean gut feelings and emotions? What causes gut
feelings? What causes emotions?


>
>
> > And that
> > conflict is what is producing the gut feeling.
> >
> No. the conflict is only when the gut feelings is in opposition with
> the theory, but most people will follow their guts even before
> thinking to a theory.
> Why?
> Because our emotions are rooted in billions of years of evolution.

How do you think emotions work? What is happening in a person that
causes emotions?


> Our
> theories are far more recent.
> I guess we are more hard or soft, but precoded than you think. We
> cannot change our gut feeling by reason. We can learn to act against
> them in some circumstance, but we have no control on our deep emotion
> and even beliefs.

That doesn't make any sense to me. I believe the theories that I have
no criticisms of. What do you mean that I don't have control over
this? I actively create and seek out criticisms of my currently
unrefuted theories. Sometimes I create (or am provided) with a
criticism that I can't refute, in which case my previously unrefuted
theory is now refuted, and rendered false, in which case it is no
longer a belief of mine. I was responsible for actively thinking about
my theories. I was responsible for criticizing them, and for posting
them publicly so that I can get external criticism. I was responsible
for actively thinking about the criticisms, which means actively
trying not to rationalize (i.e. shield my theories from criticism).
You are saying that I am not responsible. How does that make sense? Or
did I misunderstand you?


>
> > It is not
> > counter-productive. Quitting is counter-productive. Not thinking about
> > why one is having a gut feeling is counter-productive and irrational.
> > Note that by rational approach I mean an approach that invokes
> > truth-seeking methods. And seeking the subconscious ideas that are the
> > cause of gut feelings *is* a truth-seeking method.
> >
> But this is what we do when introducing laws, and teaching. We just
> cannot do that "in real time".

I do it in real time plenty. My sales manager had a gut feeling about
a potential sales person. I didn't have that gut feeling. I asked him
to try to explain it. It was hard for him. Some time later, because of
some of my questions and guesses and criticism, we discovered what it
was that his gut feeling was telling him. It was something he
subconsciously picked up on in the interviewer's body language and
responses. That new thing we learned we were able to apply to future
interviews, this time without relying on the gut feeling, and instead
relying on the objective facts about the interviewer's actions. And
the point is that I was able to learn this idea too, even though I
never had the gut feeling.


> No animals can do that.
> This is an overuse of reason, and I can explain why, even for the
> ideally correct machine, this is already NOT rational. It is rational
> to be irrational on those matter.
>
> In the present case, the father took a long time before punishing the
> kid, because he was acting rationally. But this was probably what
> makes the child even more and more angry against his father. The point
> was made by the child. Everyine was relieved when finally the father
> get angry and did what everyone felt to be the correct, and loving,
> attitude. Fair punishment can make sense, and are taken by children as
> mark of genuine love.
> This is part of our condition today.
> I kind of agree with you "in theory", but imposing such a theory would
> lead to the contrary of the intended effect.

You mean onto newborns?


> > > It was not a criticism. It your opinion.
> >
> > It was an explanation. A theory about why the guy thinks it was good
> > for his father to punish him. My theory conflicts with your theory.
> > Therefore my theory is a criticism of your theory.
> >
> I am not sure to see what you theory is, at this point. That
> punishment is bad?
> I agree with that theory, but only ideally, meaning that I cannot
> judge someone who does not follow it. I can only try to apply it
> myself, and in all human affair, I know that I can expect situation
> where it will not work. All generalization are wrong on the human
> affairs (and more generally on the universal machine affair).

False. For example, stealing is bad, all the time. Agreed?


>
>
>
>
> > A criticism is an
> > explanation of a flaw in a theory. You can call it an opinion also,
> > but that label doesn't change that fact that it is a criticism.
> >
>
> We can have different opinions, and we can be both partially right and
> partially false.

Right.


> > Complained about what? Is complaining bad?
> >
> Complaining is not bad, but points on something which is bad and needs
> to be fixed.

It points to the idea that the father's parenting is bad, and needs fixed.


> > > > Why does child have goal of non-cooperation?
> > > >
> > > There are billions of reasons. The "non-future" state of mind, the
> > > part of adolescense where you can easily made them kills themselves
> > > legally (war) or illegally (gang). The passage from child to adult,
> > > makes them dumband vulnerable, and there are many crisis before.
> > > The causes, might terribly multiple.
> >
> > Are you saying that those things are inevitable?
> >
> Well, if that damned Eve did not eat that damed apple, may be things
> would have been avoided.
> You seem to think that we can reason in theory, like in practice. But
> the application of a theory to a concrete siutation is itself
> something complex.

So what? Are you saying that the complexity of the situation prevents
us from applying reason?


>
>
> > That children cannot
> > do better?
> >
> The fact is that he did not get better until the punishment.

Who defined what "better" means? How do you know the father or even
the child was right about that?


>
>
> > That they aren't rational enough to do better?
> >
> Reason is not synonymous with better, although it can help a lot. But
> it is counterproductive on the irrational, like the "reason" why we
> are living. That's why theology is a very complex field, full of
> traps, and delusion.

I use reason for that too. Why do you think its off limits?


>
> > If so, do
> > you believe that *all* children are like that? If not, what do you
> > believe is the difference between the children that are like that and
> > the children that aren't like that?
> >
>
> Some dogs barks, others don't. We, the animals, are very similar, and
> very different. It is a bit like the shape of the clouds, or of the
> parts of the Mandelbrot set. With comp such difference are related to
> the infinite richness of arithmetic. It is full of chaos, life, and
> surprises. We can only scratch the surface, and we know already that
> the more we will know about that, the more we will realize that we are
> ignorant about that. When embedded in real relative time and space,
> most our decision are irrational.

What do you mean by irrational? Do you mean wrong? Or without use of
reason? Or without use of one's error-correcting methods of guesses
and criticism?


> > No. Most lie to themselves and make themselves believe that they are
> > doing their best.
> >
> Some lie to themselves. Not most. You seem to have a negative view of
> the humans. I agree they lie more easily than animals, but they are
> not so bad with their children, in majority. Imo.

Animals don't lie. Lying is deception. Animals don't attempt to
deceive other animals nor themselves. Only humans do that.


> > Actually that *is* coercion. But that coercion is moral. It is
> > analogous to (coercive) self-defense and police (coercively)
> > restraining a person intending to commit violence.
> >
> OK. Then I will just put the act of the punishing father in that
> category. It helps a lot the family. I will not tell you what the
> child did, I don't even know myself, but I can guess easily that it
> was way worst than throwing dishes.

Ah so he was using violence against another family member. Any idea
why he would do that? Bad parenting. Coercion. Parent not helping
child learn conflict resolution methods so that their kids know how to
do it instead of fight.


>
>
> >
> > > If you ask the child what problem he is trying to solve by throwing
> > > dishes, you take the risk to get the fork and the knife on you.
> >
> > You're describing a father-son relationship where the son distrusts
> > the father. That is not a "human nature" thing.
> >
> ?

I'm saying if the son distrust the father, it means that the father
acted in such a way for the son to distrust him.


>
> > It is a result of the
> > father's behavior towards the son. It is 100% the parent's fault.
> >
> How can you know that?
> If you can imagine a bad father-adult, why can't you imagine a bad son-
> kid?

Because all evil is due to ideas, or lack thereof. The father passed
on some of his anti-rational memes. And he didn't do well helping his
child learn how to resolve conflicts.


> May be it was the fault of the grandfather?

If the grandparent was involved in the parenting, sure.


> Oh, wait, it is was 100% the fault of Eve! or of the Snake.

They weren't involved in the parenting.


>
>
>
> >
> > For one thing, having a 2nd child is the father fault. He betrayed the
> > 1st child when he did that. He forced the 1st child to share stuff
> > with the 2nd child (like a bed room, toys, parent time, etc.). So for
> > example, if 1st child gets jealous of 2nd child, should the parent
> > blame the 1st child for "being" jealous? No. But that is what your
> > argument says to do. The reality is that the parent caused a situation
> > where the 1st child feels that way. The parent could have done
> > differently such that the 1st child wouldn't feel that way. And the
> > parent can do these even after making the first mistake of having a
> > 2nd child.
> >
> ??? It is a mistake to do a second child? I believe the complete
> contrary, and would say it is a mistake to do only one child. But,
> anyway, those are not "mistakes". Those are current facts of current
> life.

Having two children, and then failing to help them learn conflict
resolution, is a recipe for disaster.


>
>
>
> >
> > > All
> > > parents knows that some child can have difficult moment, which are
> > > hard to reason about at times.
> >
> > And most parents resort to punishment instead of truth-seeking.
> >
> Truth seeking is way more complex. You just can't do it in most
> situation for the human affairs. It is too much complex. People have
> very different theories about this.

Why does it matter that most people have different theories about it?
What problem does that position solve?


> > The
> > truth that should be sought after is *why* does the kid want to hurt
> > his family. What is the underlying problem that is causing the obvious
> > problem (that the kid wants to hurt his family)?
> >
> That the child was believing his father did not notice him, or taking
> him seriously. The child was wrong. He failed to see the positive
> contribution of his father? He noticed it after the negative
> contribution (punishment).
> Everyone was happy after. Is that not the main thing.

No. You're saying that ends justify the means. Its evil.

For one thing, they say they are happier, and could be rationalizing,
i.e. deceiving themselves.

Another thing is that they have nothing to compare their situation to.
Say the parent did something different, other than punishment. Say
that produced better results, i.e. they are happier.


>
>
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > And you're saying that in this situation
> > > > parent should do more of his badness and that will somehow work? No.
> > > > Parent should stop coercion and start persuasion and start to
> > > > eventually child will learn to not distrust parent.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I agree in principle, and we must tend toward that. But you can
> > > advertize on this only by examples, and you cannot judge the parents
> > > in concrete situation, as there is no way for you to think and judge
> > > from their perspective. There is no theory to follow, even if you
> > > follow mostly your reason.
> >
> > You're saying that there might be relevant details about the situation
> > that are crucial to understanding the morality of the situation. I
> > agree. But, for example, one of the situations you described didn't
> > have missing relevant details. You said that father punished son in
> > order for him to study.
> >
> ? I don't remember saying this. If I say this, it was another case.
>
>
>
> > This is immoral. It is anti-freedom. It is
> > also counter-productive in that what can be expected is that the son
> > can learn to hate studying.
> >
>
> But I still disagree. I am happy to have studied, but I was against
> going to school when young. I am happy my parent coerce on me for
> doing that.

You might have been against school because school is coercive. You
might have been *for* a better situation. One where you got to learn
whatever you wanted to learn. And your parents or other people helped
you in your learning. And each thing you were interested in, is the
thing you would go learn. Its a problem for you. And by learning it,
you solve your problem. And that reveals new problems for you, new
things you're interested in. And you solve those problems. And repeat.

The point is that learning works best when a person is interested. So
that what people should learn, stuff they are interested in.


> My opinion is that people should mind their own business, and stop
> judging others as bad or good, as far as they don't feel their liberty
> and souls threatened in some immediate way.

By that logic, nobody is evil.

-- Rami