I think that misunderstandings can occur when one person presents an idea
which possesses some features which resemble features of another idea that
a listener has already considered. If the resemblance is somewhat
superficial, especially if the superficial resemblances lie *at a
shallow underlying level, *a person who is listening to the idea may
feel certain that he was totally familiar with the idea even though he
might not really get what the speaker was saying. The listener may casually
miscategorize the presented idea by thinking that it was the same as the
similar idea he had already considered. Good ideas are often unoriginal or
unsurprising and this vague familiarity can strangely have a
non-intuitive effect to further a misunderstanding.  The reason that this
can occur is that ideas sometimes need to be emphasized or 'formalized' in
some way in order for them to be fully appreciated.

I for one would like to be able to understand why people who should be
interested in something I have said aren't. The answer to this question has
always been somewhat elusive.  A primary characteristic that can produce
this kind of misunderstanding is superficiality in the listener.  (Of
course the new idea may be poorly presented and we all make a variety of
mistakes, but I am often confronted with the experience where I have
repeatedly presented a commonsense idea and I can't find anyone who acts
like they understand what I am talking about).

But is there anyway you can verify (at least for yourself) that someone who
should be reacting intelligently to what you are saying is actually
reacting at a too-superficial level?  I have found that there is a way in
this group because we are constantly talking about artificial means of
creating "personality" traits.  If someone repeatedly emphasizes
superficiality of association as a presumption for the basis of
intelligence then there is a chance that he might unitentionally be
describing a method that commonly underlies his own thought processes.

For example, I have described a process of synthesis where a new idea is
formed from the association of two pre-existing ideas based on a reason.
The reasons can be superficial, like a superficial co-occurrence (of time
or position) or a superficial similarity, but then I also emphasized that
ideas may be related by complimentary conceptual roles.  Furthermore, I
have emphasized the importance of conceptual structure which is a term I
use to stress that there may be a greater complexity to putting ideas
together than just relying on one superficial feature.

So now, if after expressing this and pointing out that the purpose of
combining ideas is to create some semantic or operational structure, I see
someone restating the insight that co-occurrence and similarity are the
basis of correlation and association I will have some substantial evidence
that my ideas were not appreciated by that person because he tends to
be over reliant on superficial methods of thought.  Co-occurrence,
similarity, simple association and analogy are all examples of relations
between ideas that are typically shallow. The superficiality may not be at
the surface level, but it is usually not going to be that deep.  The
declaration of these relations are all ok but I feel that if the presenter
is going to explain how intelligence works then he needs to take it to a
deeper level.

Of course, misunderstanding can also occur when a phrase is taken to refer
to a superficial aspect of thought even though the speaker intended it to
refer to deeper relations as well.  But I think the declaration that the
basis of correlation is co occurrence, similarity and associativity has
just been too over-used to still be considered sufficient as a presentation
of the basis of thinking. Thinking gets a little deeper than that.

Jim Bromer



-------------------------------------------
AGI
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-c97d2393
Modify Your Subscription: 
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-2484a968
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

Reply via email to