On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 2:29 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy < > multiplecit...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 1:32 PM, Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy < >>> multiplecit...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 4:44 PM, Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I think this is a quite interesting read: >>>>> >>>>> http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/ >>>>> >>>>> It made me think of the everything list. We clearly have members of >>>>> the conventional tribes (red, blue and gray), with all the predictable >>>>> frictions. >>>>> >>>> >>>> There are thousands of social, psychological models that group people >>>> into categories. The difference between quality and mush here, is that I >>>> can see where an author is going ("what kind of people/world/proposition >>>> does this suggest; how would that look like with varying degrees of >>>> truth/implementation: relaxed to radical"), given that I put on his red, >>>> blue, grey glasses or whatever. >>>> >>> >>> I think the big question in this article is why do people criticise in >>> blank statements groups that they conspicuously appear to belong to. I also >>> observed an increase in this behaviour recently. E.g. men saying: "I'm a >>> feminist, all men are pigs". Or white people saying that white people are >>> to blame for everything, or americans saying that americans are dumb an so >>> on. This is perplexing given what we know about human behaviour. I would >>> say that the ontological status of such categories is beside the point. >>> >>> What I find convincing in the article is that implied categories are >>> being sneaked into the discourse. So "americans" really means "the red >>> tribe", gays really means "the blue tribe" and so on. Then I like the idea >>> that real tolerance makes you sweat. If it doesn't cause you pain, it's >>> fake tolerance. >>> >> >> That's the basic working hypothesis of much discourse analysis in >> linguistics. For the last few decades, where the "blanketness" is >> significantly curtailed, due to what it is. You catch bigotry and elitism >> in NYtimes in concrete phrases or assumptions implied by them. >> > > Isn't look for elitism in the NYtimes a bit like looking for holy water in > the vatican? > You just want to provoke, but ok: Well, it's the quality stuff most discourse analysis is after. Not the easy "he's red and he's blue and their both hypocrites." Psychiatry as a whole faces the problem: imperative to categorize but don't want to discriminate after their abandoning the asylum model, which leads to interesting twist in countries that can afford it! These would never dream of unconditional basic income... But abandoning asylum for all but most dangerous patient, leads them to models of autonomy (daily affairs stuff, pursuit of some goal) with such basic income as necessary to not have to permanently monitor them, switching to needs based "when rupture episodes" call for it kind of model. Of course still controversial... as is the field. But what I read in Europe shows some aversion to authoritarian approach to psychiatry. > > >> >> The emotional aspect is misleading perhaps; I can tolerate things I don't >> understand, i.e. some fancy astrology stuff or bizarre sexual fetish I >> don't share, because I do not know, even though on the surface, it appears >> to make no sense to me and people spend a lot of time and resources on >> them. Here my choice to decline is not in jeopardy. But where other >> people's decision making power is curtailed/abused by some agenda beyond >> their view and ability to not be a part of it, like molesting, hurting, >> raping, "blanketizingly" being forced into outgroups, theft/killing without >> some tangible goal or evidence for betterment (like killing of some >> dictator say...) etc. just is mindless harm without direction. >> > > Right, but this is precisely the point. You easily forgive what doesn't > offend you to begin with. I'm the same. > So one could argue that "tolerance" is hypocrisy. > Here you expose that I should forgive and judge with respect to tolerance. That's a very Christian god's eye approach, if you don't mind me saying + it's still off: a lot of musicians, given economic difficulties, are charging hundreds of bucks for elite workshops of shamanic musical therapy. I have had students of mine stolen, because these hacks make people believe that "just being with music" changes your energy in ways that they can control, to the alleged benefit of the listeners... this instead of learning and sharing music for ourselves. Offend? I don't know. Stolen? I'm almost sure of it, but since I'm not, I tolerate it without bad mouthing it or marketing similarly. Jeez, it's of course the guys with no profile on the performance circuits that sell this stuff and have never seen a real shaman/mystical experience if it kicked them in the face. I wouldn't overrate consistency, as you seem to either, though. You can't tolerate that which won't tolerate. Again, you're idea that genuine suffering must be somehow involved for one not to be hypocrite is suspiciously Christian; like we're at confession or something + it doesn't make the category/discrimination problem decidable. It just hands out a "we're all hypocrites"- club, which isn't a great surprise as who is totally consistent on all matters? > > >> >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> A model has to refer to something. And even then, even when we do our >>>> best, I feel Gödel's incompleteness is such a double edged sword, it will >>>> devour (thankfully), any set of categories in some theory about "all kinds >>>> of people". >>>> >>> >>> But there is indeed a lot of empirical evidence for memeplexes in >>> political affiliation, so I do think the color tribes refer to something. >>> If you ask a random person their position on gay marriage, you can infer >>> with a lot of certainty their position on gun ownership and climate change, >>> even though these three topics are completely unrelated. Of course some >>> people analyse each issue separately by themselves, but that is quite rare. >>> Even more rare (perhaps with N=0) to be able to do it free of bias. >>> >> >> Free of bias towards what? >> > > Free of bias from your upbringing, social environment and so on. > > >> >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> At the base of things, I see therefore no in- or out-group, but people >>>> who cling to their categories radically (doesn't matter if they are >>>> moderate or freaks) >>>> >>> >>> But the entire point of clinging to a category is to be accepted in some >>> group, >>> >> >> I have no idea, which is why I find such models worth taking too huge >> grain of salt to entertain. It might boil down to some Freudian parent >> trauma, a desire and whatnot. How would they know? >> > > You must have attended some unusually enlightened high schools. > No, I just steered clear of the groups that were too rigidly serious. Still do. With all the ups and downs. > Were I come from, people would go to great lengths to belong to the > ingroups. Then there's sports, political parties, fashions, music > preferences, "I don't understand how anyone could eat at McDonald's" and so > on and so on. No need too invoke Freud's dubious ideas... > Thousands of models like this in psychology, linguistics etc. Freud doesn't matter; what I'm saying is being sold here are just pairs of new glasses. Yes, you see the world differently: what before was x is now... wow! => I don't care about the colors and labels of the thing; I care about where people that wear those; where they go with them, if anywhere. > > >> >> >>> and a group can only exist in relation to an out-group. The group >>> "atheists" exists because religious people exist. If everyone was an >>> atheist, nobody would use such a label anymore. There is no "pro-breathing" >>> group. >>> >>> >>>> and people who at least aspire to and can point to histories where they >>>> minimize harm + share joy doing so, intuiting Gödel a bit. >>>> >>> >>> I suspect everyone thinks they are doing that... >>> >> >> Then you live in a joyous world without authoritatively forcing influence >> and abuse, which people denounce right, left, and center. Good for you. >> > > No, what I'm saying is that the authoritarians think they are acting for > the benefit of everyone. I truly believe that fascist dictators think like > this. > Have you asked one? Or is that from bedtime story? > > >> >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> The racism/religion bigot stuff are just tasteless, low examples of the >>>> former. >>>> >>> >>> True believers think they are sharing joy and reducing harm by spreading >>> religious "truth". >>> >> >> That is falling into theological trap, because clearly a theology >> approached by personal reflection/introspection, if it has to have a taste >> of consistency, cannot negate others' personal reflection. It is theft; >> robbing what you would grant yourself from others by force. >> > > I agree, as you know. But here we are talking about models that try to > explain why people act they way they do, not if they are right or wrong in > doing so. > > Of course, we might also agree that democrats, republicans, feminists, > libertarians, anarchists, atheists, science fanboys and so on can fall for > this trap just as easily as the traditionally religious? > Yup, anybody. Spotting it doesn't make people immune. > > >> >> >>> Even the true believers in racism think that everything would be better >>> with more racial segregation. I would even say that, by showing some belief >>> in the fundamental evilness of these people, you are already betraying who >>> your out-group is. :) >>> >> >> Not fundamental evilness. Just lack of a goal and minimum of consistency >> leading to flat hypocrisy. Shooting yourself and others in the foot. >> > > Don't underestimate the role of hypocrisy in shaping civilisation. I > sometimes wonder if it could work without it (a dark hypothesis, I know). > Of course, my point is you might overestimate it as outlined above. This is the fodder of all comedians craft, including Stanhope. > > >> >> >>> >>> >>>> Of course there is truth to such assertions, nobody doubts this. But >>>> where such reasoning leads, the self-fulfilling prophecy scenarios that it >>>> sets whole cultures into (Terror as a global threat, when it was just >>>> isolated gangsters years ago; the West brought in the modern weapons to >>>> fertilize tensions centuries old, that had been suppressed by violent >>>> dictatorship recently) is brainwashing ourselves into truth of increasingly >>>> violent spirals of politics. >>>> >>>> Cui bono, and what are proposed solutions? >>>> >>> >>> I see this more as an effort toward clarity about what is really going >>> on more than an attempt at solving any social issue. But I do think that >>> clarity tends to entail the solution. >>> >> >> You can clearly state and reason quite eloquently why some group that >> isn't harming people should be acted against. Doesn't stop you from falling >> into basic theological trap though. >> > > Indeed. > > >> >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Spud said "nothing", which is consistent with the rhetoric that since >>>> we can't achieve cultural, economic advances, we should invest more into >>>> military action. As if this will solve it. >>>> >>> >>> And this is the crux of the mystery to me. Spud is in your out-group >>> (and mine). Yet, this list doesn't collapse. >>> >> >> Why should it? >> > > Because there must be some reason we stay here, and I'm not sure it's an > uninteresting one :) > Pleasant distraction. Crossword puzzles with verbal component and performance pride. That's obvious from my screen name. Why all of you are here, whether you are bots and zombies, that is a mystery to me, yes. > > >> >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Sure you have to put out fires, but without more freedom to search for >>>> solutions + dumb media sensational feedback loop, that security gained by >>>> temporary military measure will not provide the durable stability to move >>>> forward towards common goals of higher living standard attainment etc., the >>>> implementation of which should be at least as clear, convincing and >>>> accurate as the weapons/people we send to fight. Otherwise, what are they >>>> fighting for, other than downward infinite spiral? >>>> >>>> So am I red, blue, grey, or pink or what now? PGC >>>> >>> >>> You're blue, >>> >> >> I use firearms in certain situations, lay my love for environment aside >> when it comes to rockets, I have no problem with basic religious practice >> (more disagreement with "blue" atheism, again that theological trap) and am >> fiscally conservative. I play the blues, but I think his colors are to >> coarsely grained. >> > > Ok, so my visceral reaction: "of course he thinks such things, he's a > smart guy". See how easy one can fall for the trap... Maybe I'm projecting > my own flaws, who knows. > I just Gödel sentenced those tabloid categories set up in the page, which admits to doing so itself with "there's something to it with my approach though perhaps" and there he forgets the sword is double edged, which is why the argument falls apart for me, not only in providing interesting new category, but internally from structural viewpoint as well. Opinion level, and not sophisticated or simple enough at that. But this is taste. > > >> >> >>> I'm grey and spud is red. I'm not sure if grey is a real thing because >>> most of my friends are blue, so maybe grey is just a type of blue. Of >>> course, if you make enough distinctions you end up with individuals. And of >>> course the categories don't _really_ exist exist :) >>> >> >> My point is: if you want to set that up, I have to see what for. This >> isn't given, so I file that writing under "opinion without discernible >> direction". Cute home brewed try for what discourse analysts in >> linguistics, especially political ones, are doing for years, without the >> cheap/provocative self-referential "admission" shots. PGC >> > > My interest here is scientific in a rather pure sense: what's going on? An > interest in serious social science maybe. > Good luck with that, lol. You old science fanboy hypocrite! ;-) PGC > > Cheers, > Telmo. > > >> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org. >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to email@example.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.