Posted by
Steve Smith on
Jan 07, 2014; 4:27am
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/11-American-Nations-tp7584250p7584645.html
Glen sed, responding to what REC sed about what Bob Altemeyer sed:
>> Bob Altemeyer's research on right-wing authoritarian (RWA) personalities
>> -- pdf at
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/>> <
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/%7Ealtemey/> -- finds that high scoring
>> RWAs suffer from severe cognitive disabilities which essentially render
>> them immune to reason. (Note that "right-wing" here is a technical term
>> meaning "adherent of the status quo".)
>>
>> But research reveals that authoritarian followers drive through life
>> under the influence
>> of impaired thinking a lot more than most people do, exhibiting
>> sloppy reasoning,
>> highly compartmentalized beliefs, double standards, hypocrisy,
>> self-blindness, a
>> profound ethnocentrism, and--to top it all off--a ferocious
>> dogmatism that makes it
>> unlikely anyone could ever change their minds with evidence or logic.
> Excellent!
I do have a strong sympathy for this description, though I don't fully
defer it to "Right Wing" only... after a year in Berkeley, a bastion of
Left Wing thinking, I can say that both wings can fumble their way to
an extremism. For example, try to get anything done that requires
either city council or citizen referendum, and you will get a *real*
taste of "Authoritarianism". In Berkeley (to their credit) there was
an annual celebration/parade entitled "How Berkeley can you be?" which
allowed the populace to lampoon themselves (or actually, one another) in
a semi-self-aware way that I could only hope for the far Right. I have
to admit that I can't even imagine what that would look like.
> This helps refine "reasoning about reasoning" in the way
> that worries me. The idea being that a "brain in a vat" might still be
> rational in some technical/strict sense of the word. But that's not
> what normal people mean when they _use_ the word "rational." What
> normal people mean is a combination of the ability to "think well" and
> be open to multiple options. It seems like the "openness" is the
> fulcrum of the concept.
I think that people who I find familiar, comfortable, easy to converse
with do roughly hold that connotation of the term. And I'm thankful for
that.
That said, I present that *most* people (normal or not) mean "rational
thought" to be thought and descriptions of said thought which is
familiar and aligned with their own thinking. In that sense, I feel
most people conflate "rational thought" with the colloquial "common sense".
> One of the aspects that worries me most is the _surety_ with which most
> people go about their daily thinking. But I find this in lots of people
> who would normally be considered quite rational. To me, it doesn't much
> matter how intelligent one is, or how many facts they may claim to have
> at their fingertips. What matters is the confidence with which they
> hold their own beliefs. The more confident you are, the _less_ rational
> you are.
And I go about my daily activities with as much of this form of
_irrationality_ (confidence?) as possible. Not because I think it is
more defensible or will lead to a better outcome in the moment, than a
more open and thought through ("well thought") set of responses, but
because A) I can be hyper self-conscious which can lead to overthinking
and getting "stuck" and B) because I am aware that my _best self_, my
_best problem solver_ is my self (body/brain/sensorium + extended
phenotype (technology mostly) ) when it is highly trained as roughly a
"learning classifier system"... which requires lots of variation and
testing. My best self _satisfices_ for the immediate problem (good
enough for GubMent work) while _optimizing_ against the long haul. I
know that by being _confident_ in my actions, I reduce the noise in the
_execution_ of my intent and leave room for natural selection (making
and recognizing mistakes?) to do it's work.
I think this particular aspect of any extremist is what makes up for
their propensity for trying to conjure, enforce and often even *follow*
rules. In their (often misplaced) confidence... they have the
opportunity to make mistakes that a more _thoughtful_ and _open_
(_rational_?) person might be. Otherwise they would be more regular
winners of the Darwin Award than they seem to be.
>> Just because there is a reason to be a lynch mob doesn't make a lynch
>> mob reasonable. I think you're confounding the rationality of
>> explanation with the rationality of the explained.
I like this statement (REC)... this is one of my biggest battles with
my strongest "liberal" friends... that the idea that their
_righteousness_ when forming their lynch mob makes up for the
_wrongness_ of lynching in the first place. My _conservative_ friends
of course, don't bother with either question... they know they are
right, whether they are truly _righteous_ or not, and they have no doubt
that a lynch mob is the first/best solution for anything and everything
(stand your ground, hawk up mutherf*kker, etc.) as long as they lead it.
> I don't know what you mean, here, which probably means you're right
> about my conflation. ;-) The use of "reason" to mean _cause_ seems like
> an abuse of the word. So, I read what you write as "Just because there
> is cause to be a lynch mob doesn't make a lynch mob reasonable." And, I
> fully agree with that rewriting. But I don't know that's what you meant.
I don't know what anyone means... but when I read your rewriting, I want
to rewrite it one unit of base-26 hamming distance away "Just because
there is *a* cause to be a lynch mob doesn't make a lynch mob
reasonable." Or in greater divergence lexicographically, "Just because,
your lynch mob was formed in response to one of your "causes", doesn't
make the fact of lynching reasonable."
I probably just caused a fork in the discussion which only you (Glen)
and I can fully enjoy... but... I think this is all a very important if
subtle point we are working over here.
- Steve
PS... Happy New Year to one and all (Left, Right, Centrist, Fascist,
Anarchist, Green, Progressive, Conservative, Whig, Tory, Rational, and
even Wankers and @ssh0l3s)!
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com