On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 11:53 AM, Steve Richfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jim, > > YES - and I think I have another piece of your puzzle to consider... > > A longtime friend of mine, Dave, went on to become a PhD psychologist, who > subsequently took me on as a sort of "project" - to figure out why most > people who met me then either greatly valued my friendship, or quite the > opposite, would probably kill me if they had the safe opportunity. After > much discussion, interviewing people in both camps, etc., he came up with > what appears to be a key to decision making in general... > > It appears that people "pigeonhole" other people, concepts, situations, > etc., into a very finite number of pigeonholes - probably just tens of > pigeonholes for other people.
Steve: I found that I used a similar method of categorizing people who I talked to on these newsgroups. I wouldn't call it pigeonholing though. (Actually, I wouldn't call anything pigeonholing, but that is just me.) I would rely on a handful of generalizations that I thought were applicable to different people who tended to exhibit some common characteristics. However, when I discovered that an individual who I thought I understood had another facet to his personality or thoughts that I hadn't seen before I often found that I had to apply another categorical generality to my impression of him. I soon built up generalization categories based on different experiences with different kinds of people, and I eventually realized that although I often saw similar kinds of behaviors in different people, each person seemed to be comprised of different sets (or different strengths) of the various component characteristics that I derived to recall my experiences with people in these groups. So I came to similar conclusions that you and your friend came to. An interesting thing about talking to reactive people in these discussion groups. I found that by eliminating more and more affect from my comments, by refraining from personal comments, innuendos or making meta-discussion analyses and by increasingly emphasizing objectivity in my comments I could substantially reduce any hostility directed at me. My problem is that I do not want to remove all affect from my conversation just to placate some unpleasant person. But I guess I should start using that technique again when necessary. Jim Bromer On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 11:53 AM, Steve Richfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jim, > > YES - and I think I have another piece of your puzzle to consider... > > A longtime friend of mine, Dave, went on to become a PhD psychologist, who > subsequently took me on as a sort of "project" - to figure out why most > people who met me then either greatly valued my friendship, or quite the > opposite, would probably kill me if they had the safe opportunity. After > much discussion, interviewing people in both camps, etc., he came up with > what appears to be a key to decision making in general... > > It appears that people "pigeonhole" other people, concepts, situations, > etc., into a very finite number of pigeonholes - probably just tens of > pigeonholes for other people. Along with the pigeonhole, they keep > amendments, like "Steve is like Joe, but with ...". > > Then, there is the pigeonhole labeled "other" that all the mavericks are > thrown into. Not being at all like anyone else that most people have ever > met, I was invariably filed into the "other" pigeonhole, along with > Einstein, Ted Bundy, Jack the Ripper, Stephen Hawking, etc. > > People are "safe" to the extent that they are predictable, and people in the > "other" pigeonhole got that way because they appear to NOT be predictable, > e.g. because of their worldview, etc. Now, does the potential value of the > alternative worldview outweigh the potential danger of perceived > unpredictability? The answer to this question apparently drove my own > personal classification in other people. > > Dave's goal was to devise a way to stop making enemies, but unfortunately, > this model of how people got that way suggested no potential solution. > People who keep themselves safe from others having radically different > worldviews are truly in a mental prison of their own making, and there is no > way that someone whom they distrust could ever release them from that > prison. > > I suspect that recognition, decision making, and all sorts of "intelligent" > processes may be proceeding in much the same way. There may be no > "grandmother" neuron/pidgeonhole, but rather a "kindly old person" with an > amendment that "is related". If on the other hand your other grandmother > flogged you as a child, the filing might be quite different. > > Any thoughts? > > Steve Richfield > ================ > On 11/29/08, Jim Bromer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> One of the problems that comes with the casual use of analytical >> methods is that the user becomes inured to their habitual misuse. When >> a casual familiarity is combined with a habitual ignorance of the >> consequences of a misuse the user can become over-confident or >> unwisely dismissive of criticism regardless of how on the mark it >> might be. >> >> The most proper use of statistical and probabilistic methods is to >> base results on a strong association with the data that they were >> derived from. The problem is that the AI community cannot afford this >> strong a connection to original source because they are trying to >> emulate the mind in some way and it is not reasonable to assume that >> the mind is capable of storing all data that it has used to derive >> insight. >> >> This is a problem any AI method has to deal with, it is not just a >> probability thing. What is wrong with the AI-probability group >> mind-set is that very few of its proponents ever consider the problem >> of statistical ambiguity and its obvious consequences. >> >> All AI programmers have to consider the problem. Most theories about >> the mind posit the use of similar experiences to build up theories >> about the world (or to derive methods to deal effectively with the >> world). So even though the methods to deal with the data environment >> are detached from the original sources of those methods, they can >> still be reconnected by the examination of similar experiences that >> may subsequently occur. >> >> But still it is important to be able to recognize the significance and >> necessity of doing this from time to time. It is important to be able >> to reevaluate parts of your theories about things. We are not just >> making little modifications from our internal theories about things >> when we react to ongoing events, we must be making some sort of >> reevaluation of our insights about the kind of thing that we are >> dealing with as well. >> >> I realize now that most people in these groups probably do not >> understand where I am coming from because their idea of AI programming >> is based on a model of programming that is flat. You have the program >> at one level and the possible reactions to the data that is input as >> the values of the program variables are carefully constrained by that >> level. You can imagine a more complex model of programming by >> appreciating the possibility that the program can react to IO data by >> rearranging subprograms to make new kinds of programs. Although a >> subtle argument can be made that any program that conditionally reacts >> to input data is rearranging the execution of its subprograms, the >> explicit recognition by the programmer that this is useful tool in >> advanced programming is probably highly correlated with its more >> effective use. (I mean of course it is highly correlated with its >> effective use!) I believe that casually constructed learning methods >> (and decision processes) can lead to even more uncontrollable results >> when used with this self-programming aspect of advanced AI programs. >> >> The consequences then of failing to recognize that mushed up decision >> processes that are never compared against the data (or kinds of >> situations) that they were derived from will be the inevitable >> emergence of inherently illogical decision processes that will mush up >> an AI system long before it gets any traction. >> >> Jim Bromer >> >> >> ------------------------------------------- >> agi >> Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now >> RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ >> Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; >> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > > ________________________________ > agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=120640061-aded06 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
