That's a great test to apply to see if you understand opposing viewpoints. I've always thought of that as standing in their concept space, adopting their assumptions, and then judging its merits. So many people can't do that, drop their own assumptions when judging someone else's viewpoint.
If I can't see how their position makes sense or hangs together, I probably don't understand it. And if I don't understand opposing viewpoints, then my position isn't reasonable.
I love this. I’m reminded by this of Chesterton’s fence, the parable that that if you see a fence blocking a road, and you don’t know why it’s even there, you should hold off on tearing it down until you can figure out why it was placed there. Maybe those reasons no longer apply—in which case, demolish away—but if you literally cannot imagine a legit reason why the fence was constructed, you don’t know enough about the situation to act.
That's a great connection. Makes a lot of sense -- and rings especially true to me having recently moved into a very old house with lots of odd to explain quirks 😅
Very relatable. My husband and I moved into a house a few years back that we were going to improve. And we did—a lot of things are nicer than they were before. But there have been so many times where we’ve been like, “and then we’ll change that stupid wiring, so that you don’t have to flip two switches to turn on a light” to learn, no, actually you won’t, because there’s a real good reason why no previous owner had ever had your brilliant insight to fix that problem. It’s that your fix will not work.
A very interesting read. Of course you are right. It just makes sense. I marvel at the US National News that comes on at 6:30 each night. Half an hour of wham bam. Uber sharpened, uber-leveled. I feel like I'm being force fed an agenda. Why do people look back at the days of Walter Cronkite with misty eyes? I mean I was young back then. Too young to remember clearly, but news stories seemed to be delivered in some sort of fundamentally different way. Was news primarily meant to inform rather than entertain back then, in the so called good old days? Was there something different about Cronkite's delivery? Their research, their writing? I don't know. Modern news seems almost entirely useless. Like adult pablum. I prefer to get individual stories about individual things from individuals like those expressed here on Substack and then make my own mind up about their stories. Perhaps that leads to more vacuum worship, but it seems more honest somehow.
Yeah, that's the thing about stories: there's always a storyteller. Even our own consciousness is a storyteller to ourselves. We perceive the world through the filter of our own biases and perceptions.
Absolutely! There are all kinds of "top-down" processes that affect how we perceived the world, out of necessity or the world would be a blooming, buzzing confusion
"If two people are in a disagreement, and one can explain where the other is coming from, that person probably has a better handle on the points of disagreement."
I'm always interested in the ways reality is lossy. A person dies and after a while, only their skeleton remains. A battle occurs and the victors are the only ones alive to tell the tale. The roads and houses of an ancient city crumble or are replaced but the enormous monument remains. Different selection pressures for every kind of thing.
Sharpening and leveling is just putting the finishing touches on a story you’ve already constructed out of parts: action and event sequences that you’ve individuated just so, pre-consciously. Every story is a fabrication, but there’s conscious and unconscious fabricating, and sharpening and leveling, perhaps, are in the former camp. In any case, I really enjoyed your essay. To me it seems to point to a radically skeptical conclusion. It makes me wonder how communication ever manages to be useful at all.
Fascinating and well put together. Thank you! (And agree entirely that most people are reasonable and there’s most often a different side to a story that you never see - a lesson I’m trying to teach my kids daily).
I must take issue. Indeed, most people possess an innate predilection for reason. But they frequently force it into a subservient role to their beliefs. The deeper the belief, the less reasonable they are in their consideration of contrary information.
The primary concern for any animal is to survive and thrive. That is true from bacteria to humans. Being "right" is of comparatively little importance. More complex animals collect an immense amount of information about their environment that will be the foundation of their belief systems long before any capacity for reason is operative. These beliefs are relatively easy to change early in their lives but more difficult to change as they age. The most basic, important ones are nearly impossible to change except when imperative to immediate survival. It becomes increasingly more difficult to change in the face of intelligence. Mao Zedong (and nearly every other tyrant in history) understood this and simply killed off most intellectuals and dissenters.
I discovered a basic problem with gravity and formed a simple, elegant alternative. It disproves Einstein's curvature of manifold space time in five minutes on one sheet of paper with no math. It is intuitive, robust, and irrefutable. It is an alethic logical necessity. But not one PhD. physicist has the capacity to challenge their belief system concerning gravity despite such a simple truth. I could not have found it were I a little smarter.
That's a great test to apply to see if you understand opposing viewpoints. I've always thought of that as standing in their concept space, adopting their assumptions, and then judging its merits. So many people can't do that, drop their own assumptions when judging someone else's viewpoint.
If I can't see how their position makes sense or hangs together, I probably don't understand it. And if I don't understand opposing viewpoints, then my position isn't reasonable.
I love that. It's a hard standard to hold yourself to, but it's a core component of both empathy and wisdom in my opinion
I love this. I’m reminded by this of Chesterton’s fence, the parable that that if you see a fence blocking a road, and you don’t know why it’s even there, you should hold off on tearing it down until you can figure out why it was placed there. Maybe those reasons no longer apply—in which case, demolish away—but if you literally cannot imagine a legit reason why the fence was constructed, you don’t know enough about the situation to act.
That's a great connection. Makes a lot of sense -- and rings especially true to me having recently moved into a very old house with lots of odd to explain quirks 😅
Very relatable. My husband and I moved into a house a few years back that we were going to improve. And we did—a lot of things are nicer than they were before. But there have been so many times where we’ve been like, “and then we’ll change that stupid wiring, so that you don’t have to flip two switches to turn on a light” to learn, no, actually you won’t, because there’s a real good reason why no previous owner had ever had your brilliant insight to fix that problem. It’s that your fix will not work.
Anyway, best wishes on the old home project!
A very interesting read. Of course you are right. It just makes sense. I marvel at the US National News that comes on at 6:30 each night. Half an hour of wham bam. Uber sharpened, uber-leveled. I feel like I'm being force fed an agenda. Why do people look back at the days of Walter Cronkite with misty eyes? I mean I was young back then. Too young to remember clearly, but news stories seemed to be delivered in some sort of fundamentally different way. Was news primarily meant to inform rather than entertain back then, in the so called good old days? Was there something different about Cronkite's delivery? Their research, their writing? I don't know. Modern news seems almost entirely useless. Like adult pablum. I prefer to get individual stories about individual things from individuals like those expressed here on Substack and then make my own mind up about their stories. Perhaps that leads to more vacuum worship, but it seems more honest somehow.
Luckily you can trust everything you read completely and without reservation here on Cognitive Wonderland 😁
I don't trust anybody completely and without reservation. But I'm open to a variety of opinions. I like hearing different voices.
Yeah, that's the thing about stories: there's always a storyteller. Even our own consciousness is a storyteller to ourselves. We perceive the world through the filter of our own biases and perceptions.
Absolutely! There are all kinds of "top-down" processes that affect how we perceived the world, out of necessity or the world would be a blooming, buzzing confusion
"If two people are in a disagreement, and one can explain where the other is coming from, that person probably has a better handle on the points of disagreement."
Absolutely.
I'm always interested in the ways reality is lossy. A person dies and after a while, only their skeleton remains. A battle occurs and the victors are the only ones alive to tell the tale. The roads and houses of an ancient city crumble or are replaced but the enormous monument remains. Different selection pressures for every kind of thing.
I like that, calling reality "lossy".
Some things are lost to the sands of time, like details in a jpeg
Sharpening and leveling is just putting the finishing touches on a story you’ve already constructed out of parts: action and event sequences that you’ve individuated just so, pre-consciously. Every story is a fabrication, but there’s conscious and unconscious fabricating, and sharpening and leveling, perhaps, are in the former camp. In any case, I really enjoyed your essay. To me it seems to point to a radically skeptical conclusion. It makes me wonder how communication ever manages to be useful at all.
Glad you enjoyed it--hopefully the radical skepticism doesn't extend to my future Substack posts!
Fascinating and well put together. Thank you! (And agree entirely that most people are reasonable and there’s most often a different side to a story that you never see - a lesson I’m trying to teach my kids daily).
Thanks! I'm mostly trying to teach my kids not to paint on the walls 🙃
.. as an astonishing artist I know tended to say .. when film was running low .. ‘keep shooting.. it’ll be in RAM at least - & so re Oral Culture
I must take issue. Indeed, most people possess an innate predilection for reason. But they frequently force it into a subservient role to their beliefs. The deeper the belief, the less reasonable they are in their consideration of contrary information.
The primary concern for any animal is to survive and thrive. That is true from bacteria to humans. Being "right" is of comparatively little importance. More complex animals collect an immense amount of information about their environment that will be the foundation of their belief systems long before any capacity for reason is operative. These beliefs are relatively easy to change early in their lives but more difficult to change as they age. The most basic, important ones are nearly impossible to change except when imperative to immediate survival. It becomes increasingly more difficult to change in the face of intelligence. Mao Zedong (and nearly every other tyrant in history) understood this and simply killed off most intellectuals and dissenters.
I discovered a basic problem with gravity and formed a simple, elegant alternative. It disproves Einstein's curvature of manifold space time in five minutes on one sheet of paper with no math. It is intuitive, robust, and irrefutable. It is an alethic logical necessity. But not one PhD. physicist has the capacity to challenge their belief system concerning gravity despite such a simple truth. I could not have found it were I a little smarter.