Re: Constructor theory paper by David

On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 11:42 PM, Rami Rustom <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 4:59 PM, a b <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 6:52 PM, Rami Rustom <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 8:20 AM, a b <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> > On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 1:04 PM, Rami Rustom <[email protected]>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 3:48 PM, a b <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> > On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 7:11 PM, Rami Rustom <[email protected]>
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 11:50 AM, a b <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> >> > On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Rami Rustom <[email protected]>
> >> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> On Nov 3, 2012 1:17 AM, "a b" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 9:42 PM, Rami Rustom
> >> >> >> >> > <[email protected]>
> >> >> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> >> > > On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 2:43 PM, a b <[email protected]>
> >> >> >> >> > > wrote:
> >> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >> > This isn't necessary
> >> >> > true in more business/middle-class districts...but in poorer
> >> >> > districts
> >> >> > dealers are often pushers...under pressure to get new customers
> >> >> > for
> >> >> > new types of drug. It happens. There will be lots of other,
> >> >> > complicated, social class relaterd, explanations.
> >> >>
> >> >> And in all of that you fail to mention the law.
> >> >
> >> > We've been talking around the idea you had rejected cannabis was a
> >> > gateway drug. If that wasn't the case why didn't you just say so?
> >>
> >> I don't know what you're asking. You asked me questions and I answered
> >> them directly. Are you again saying that I evaded?
> >
> > I don't remember the first time I said you were evading. I'm not aware
> > of feelings like that toward you. Did I introduce that word?
>
> Well, the joke thing you said that I did is a type of evasion.

Rami - I'm sorry for raising the joke thing. The intention was to
illustrate a reflexive response that we all fall into sometimes when
things happen very quickly. I wasn't thinking of 'evasive' because
from my perspective...from looking at myself and others...what happens
in those situations is that we respond - as I say - reflexively and
then we rationalize what we did in keeping with our self-image and
then it's gone. So no evasiveness as I am interpreting you are using
the word. FWIW my personal learning from this discussion will most
definitely include that the way you responded to my raising the joke
thing was very much in keeping with the claims you had earlier made
about yourself (a lot of people - possibly including myself - would
have reacted much more adversely).

However, I feel the joke thing has its own container separate from the
gateway thread. In fact having  just checked you introduced the word
asking me if I was evading providing a response about something.



>
>
> > I'm not sure we're communicating too well....I'm happy to take
> > responsibility for that. Let's give this discussion a bit longer to
> > come to something and then maybe drop it.
> >>
> >> I reject the idea that any choice is a gateway to another choice
> >
> > It looks to me like you are defining 'gateway' in particular ways that
> > I wouldn't and doubt any mainstream discussion would either. If as a
> > consequence of buying grass, someone comes to a decision point about
> > heroin that they would not otherwise have come to, then that would be
> > enough to call buying grass a 'gateway' on some definition of gateway.
> > There's no need to include personal responsibility in the equation
> > unless that is specifically what you want to do.
>
> I don't see any way for a gateway theory to make sense. If you do, tell
> us.

A 'gateway' seems to me more a 'container' word that is given sense or
not by the explanations provided. Like I say, if getting in pot
results in finding oneself at decision points that one would not
otherwise have come to, that is enough to start defining the decision
to get into pot as some sort of 'gateway'.
There's nothing wrong with defining it philosophically in terms of
choices and personal responsibility but that isn't necessary or
implicit unless those are the things you want to examine or refute or
whatever.


>
>
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > Suggesting the gateway theory is that
> >> >> > 100% of people who try cannabis will try heroin is obviously not
> >> >> > plausible at all.
> >> >>
> >> >> That is not a theory. That is a statement of an expected
> >> >> observation.
> >> >> You're saying that the gateway theory *is* of the form: X% of people
> >> >> who do X will do Y. That is not a theory. It doesn't explain why
> >> >> anything is happening. It only *asserts* that something is happening
> >> >> without explaining causality.
> >> >>
> >> >> And the only causality you've explained so far is stuff about drug
> >> >> dealers and you didn't even mention why we have drug dealers.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > I actually don't know what you are talking about at this stage. We
> >> > began a discussion based on the idea you had defined the concept of
> >> > cannabis being a gateway drug as "100% of users will try heroin". If
> >> > that wasn't your position you should have said so.
> >>
> >> I didn't say anything about numbers. You brought that up. All I said
> >> was that the gateway theory says that A causes B. And I'm saying that
> >> A and B are choices. And choices don't cause choices. People make
> >> choices using their ideas.
> >
> >
> > I thought the refutation you brought...along the lines of an example
> > of someone smoking pot and not taking heroin....implied that the
> > conjecture you were perceiving involved an absolute link in each and
> > every instance.
>
> If A causes B, then A *always* causes B. There is no sometimes or in
> some situations.
>
> If the gateway theory doesn't talk about causality, then what is the
> point of the theory?

I don't think the causality is implied by the term 'gateway'. You have
to add in what it is. What I would expect is that in the mainstream
debate, things begin with some statistics and testimony, and a process
of adding causality has been attempted in various ways and remains
incomplete.
My original point was just that, it only makes sense to try to capture
the actual process that has taken place in the mainstream debate,
before attempting to refute it or not.
Another way to refute it in the popperian method would be to
'pre-refute' for violating some other principle regarded as true.

>
> And if its going to talk about causality, how can anyone create a
> theory which explains causality when each person that the theory
> attempts to explain is different. Each person has different ideas, and
> those ideas affect his choices.
>
>
> >> > You are implicitly assuming Popperianism is infallible. I have said I
> >> > have a criticism, one knock-on consequence of which is that
> >> > Popperians
> >> > aren't going to be any better than anyone else at hearing criticism
> >> > they don't want to hear.
> >>
> >> Do you know why people don't want to hear criticism of certain ideas?
> >> It means they have anti-rational memes related to those ideas. Can a
> >> Popperian have anti-rational memes? Of course. I've already said this.
> >> What is infallibilist about it?
> >
> > You haven't heard the criticism because I haven't made the decision to
> > attempt to explain it. So there's no way that I can see that you can
> > attach antirational memes to it.
>
> I brought up anti-rational memes because that is the only thing that
> shields ideas from creativity and criticism. By *shielding* I mean
> that a person *evades* thinking about the (shielded) idea. Feeling
> shame is one type of consequence of a person feeling the effects of an
> anti-rational meme doing its work of shielding an idea.

I hear what you're saying but I do feel there's a certain amount of
circularity going on in how you define the extent someone understands
popperianism...that doesn't seem to keep fallibility enough in the
loop.

 >
>
> >>
> >>
> >> > You are arguing that just to have a criticism
> >> > like that implies not understanding Popperianisn ergo that aspect of
> >> > Popperianism is infallible :O)
> >>
> >> No. I'm saying that you don't criticize people when you think they
> >> evade, and that that fact means you don't understand Popperism. A
> >> Popperian wants to be criticized when he evades. And a Popperian is
> >> willing to criticize someone when he evades.
> >
> >
> > you are assuming that just because popperians want to be criticized
> > when evasive, other people are obliged to produce such a criticism.
>
> I didn't say obliged.
>
>
> > If
> > an obligation like that does exist in the philosophy, then for sure
> > that is an area I didn't know about.
> >
> > Also, as mentioned above, I don't recall thinking or saying that you
> > were being evasivre in this particular thread.
>
> You said that I was evading about not getting the joke. You did use
> the word "evading" but its the same meaning.

I didn't mean anything with the same meaning as evasive as I
understand it to be, but I do acknowledge that would very likely be
the strong impression given. Also...I want to apologize for putting
you on the spot about that. The intention was to illustrate a
reflexive reaction all of us slip into from time to time. I don't
think it's about evading because I don't think it's a very conscious
process. It happens quicklyI and then we rationalize what we did
according to our self image, and it's gone.

Could I suggest we take air on the joke thing below. Personally I
would prefer to draw a line under it. However, with that said, I also
feel it would be correct to continue should you want to. But let's
take air...if you want to come back to it I'll be willing.

>
>
> > As I also mentioned, I
> > can acknowledge I may have given such an impression. I think we're in
> > the kind of discussion where such impressions could start to fly.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> >> >>>>>>>> No, there's 10 types of ideas: those expressed in binary,
> >> >> >>>>>>>> and
> >> >> >>>>>>>> those not.
> >> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>>> Uh. Is that a riddle?
> >> >> >>>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>> it's an old joke (the number we call "two" is written as "10"
> >> >> >>>>>> in
> >> >> >>>>>> binary).
> >> >> >>>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>> but with a point: there are many ways to categorize
> >> >> >>>>>> explanations.
> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>> Ya I got the 1, 0 binary thing but didn't see the point
> >> >> >
> >> >> > You say you got the 1 0 thing .....that's the same as saying you
> >> >> > picked up the joke. The joke was nothing other than word play on
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > 10 thing.
> >> >>
> >> >> And how does that explain that I felt shame and that I evaded?
> >> >
> >> > Because you said you got it after you appeared not to get it and had
> >> > it explained to you.
> >>
> >> No. I said I didn't find it funny. And that I know what binary means.
> >> What is the problem you see in this?
> >
> > The word joke is used but it isn't really about necessarily being
> > funny. The expected process is like this:
> >
> > 1. You read the sentence as normal, so absorb that there are 10 types of
> > ideas.
> > 2. Then only two types of ideas are given, so you go 'whoa?'
> > 3. Then you read the second category again "those who think in binary"
> > 4. Then you realize the 10 must be in binary
> > 5. Then you see how the statement now makes sense and go "ahh!"
> >
> > That 'ahh!' moment is "getting the joke". It doesn't have to be an
> > actual 'ahhh!', that's just a placeholder for realizing the 10 must
> > mean binary. And it doesn't have to be those exact steps.
> >
> > But if there is a moment of assuming decimal, then a moment of
> > wondering why he says just two types of idea after saying 10, then a
> > moment of 'getting it' then there has to be a moment of realizing you
> > were probably wrongfooted deliberately?
> >
> > What you are saying appened only really makes sense if you parsed
> > things in some completely different way that automatically went over
> > to binary.
> >
> > What I'm suggesting is that that appears rather implausible (how often
> > in life does something like that happen for it to be automated?)
>
> I don't know what you're saying.
>
> Either way though, the point doesn't matter. Either I did feel shame,
> and so I evaded, or I didn't.
>
> Note that I commonly don't get jokes. And, *that* I don't get them is
> routine on these lists. Its not uncommon for me to tell people, "I
> didn't get the joke", here and in brick-and-mortar life. So I'm used
> it and I don't imagine feeling shame for something that happens a lot.
>
>
> >>
> >>
> >> > The idea that your response was because you
> >> > didn't get the underlying relevance doesn't seem to work. Because the
> >> > relevance pops out of of the joke. And the joke pops out of the 1 0
> >> > binary thing. So....
> >>
> >> So you're saying that since *you* found the joke funny, that I should
> >> have found the joke funny. Unless I didn't know what binary means. So
> >> you're saying that *all* people that know what binary means will find
> >> that joke funny?
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> And how is this relevant to the main discussion about your theory
> >> >> that
> >> >> Popperians don't like to hear criticism?
> >> >
> >> > Well that part was about shame and admitting mistakes. I think
> >> > Popperians probably find it harder to own up to this sort of thing
> >> > for
> >> > the simple reason they are much more heavily invested than most other
> >> > people, into the idea they have risen above it, and are now among the
> >> > elite thinkers of the world. E.g. a few posts ago you were claiming
> >> > you had moved past all that.
> >>
> >> That doesn't make sense. The stuff I wrote about rationalizing is new.
> >> No one before me wrote about it. I think Elliot wrote some stuff on
> >> psychology, but not in one cohesive article like I did.
> >>
> >> So that means that Popperians before me don't know about subconscious
> >> vs conscious thinking and about why people rationalize and how that is
> >> linked with bad feelings like shame. So why would a Popperian who
> >> doesn't know about his stuff think that he has risen above something
> >> that he's not aware of? Or are you specifically talking about me?
> >>
> >
> > I was talking about you specifically for this example, but I only did
> > so because I think what you had previously said about having moved
> > beyond things like shame, came out of a way of thinking that I regard
> > as fairly typical of popperians..at least that I have interacted with
> > on these lists.
>
> When someone feels shame, they try to evade. Its one of the
> consequences of an anti-rational meme doing its work of trying to
> shield an idea from creativity and criticism.
>
> No Popperian will say that he's absolutely sure that he doesn't have
> any anti-rational memes left. So he's always on the look out for
> finding his anti-rational memes. This is why a Popperian wants
> external criticism. Its so that others can point out that he is
> evading (which helps him discover his anti-rational memes).
>
> I realize that my rationalizing article doesn't say this, but I
> purposefully didn't mention memes so that it wasn't jargony. If you
> understand that I'm saying I (and Popperians) don't have anti-rational
> memes, or that its not possible that I have any memes that could cause
> shame, then I need to rework that article.
>
>
> -- Rami Rustom
> http://ramirustom.blogspot.com
>
> 


------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fabric-of-Reality/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fabric-of-Reality/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    [email protected] 
    Fabric-of-Reality-fullfeatured-hHKSG33TihhbjbujkaE4pw@public.gmane.org

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    Fabric-of-Reality-unsubscribe-hHKSG33TihhbjbujkaE4pw@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/