Steve Smith wrote at 08/19/2013 03:42 PM:
The circularity is critical in my opinion, to understanding how we actually interact with
each other. Our models of stereotypical individuals (e.g. Limbaugh, Penrose, Guerin) do
not invoke this so clearly as our more personal relations. The regression is *damped* so
there is no strong need to fear ringing in the system, though I *do* think that in
intimate relations, people do go into feedback loops, usually near the end of a
relationship (or episode of a relationship for the more complex types). This is
roughly what I think we call "second guessing" each other.
[...]
I will restate my implied claim that trust based on empathy is qualitatively different than other
types of trust. Empathetic trust broken is betrayal, other types of trust broken is just
"bad judgement" or "bad luck"?
Now that you introduced the extra layer of circularity, I completely disagree
that empathic trust is qualitatively different from (the 3) other forms. If I
can take them each in turn:
Trust Type 1) distance from a Truth - Even if we assume Truth exists, we will devolve
into an argument about whether or how well we can measure the distance between a source
(person, newspaper, company, etc.) and that Truth. So, I can say the whole category of
this form of trust reduces to triangulation or parallax. In order to get a sense for how
well some source sticks to the Truth, you have to refer to others who have some opinion
about it. A great example is the lady at our recent party who claimed that "The Tao
of Physics" is a good book and makes a credible case that the (big) ideas in science
are the same as the (big) ideas in (some) religions. She expressed incredulity that
science came up with the same ancient ideas and disdain for the sanctimonious attitudes
of religion-bashing scientists. (It's irrelevant but probably socially responsible to
say that I disagreed with her emphatically... at some cost to our relationship, I'm
sure.) How does one determine whether or not
the similarities presented in "The Tao of Physics" are good, strong
similarities? Can you do it by measuring the distance from the religious ideas and the
Truth? And the scientific ideas and the Truth? Or do you have to resort to asking the
religious and the scientists?
If the latter, then this is also a second-order measure of trust, complete with
the same sort of circularity you get from empathic trust.
TT 2) stability/predictability of an actor's behavior - I'll invoke Shannon's
theorem 10, I suppose. ;-) A regulator must be at least as uncertain as the
regulated. In the case of TT2, we're talking about system_1 estimating the
uncertainty of system_2. If system_1 is less uncertain than system_2, then
system_1 will be unable to accurately estimate the uncertainty of system_2.
(Yeah, I've leaped from control to estimation, but if that's your best
criticism of this part of my argument, then ... well ... we should be having
another conversation.) Hence, system_1 must be at least as uncertain as
system_2. That means we need a 3rd system to help us estimate the bounds of
our estimate. And, *poof*, we now have 2nd order circularity.
TT 3) trust that no matter where we end up, it'll be interesting/useful - This one might
be more subtle, or more obvious, depending on where you start. Basically, we need a way
to judge at least where we are at the beginning and where we are at the ending (if not
the entire path between), in order to judge whether or not the latter is, by some
measure, better than the former. Ultimately, this reduces to TT1, I think. If you
assume we can measure the distance to some Truth, then you can judge the end points by
that measure. That Truth could be purely interoceptive or proprioceptive, but it's still
a Truth. If you don't assume we can measure distance to a Truth, then you need some
sense of "better", and that sense will be derived from social feedback, 2nd
order circularity.
So, there... Pfffft. 8^) Empathic trust is not qualitatively different from
the other 3, at least not because of this 2nd order circularity. If you
continue to assert it's qualitative uniqueness, then you have to give me a
property other than 2nd order circularity.
Many here are someone's ex (lover, spouse, friend) and as a result have
probably noticed the qualitative change that happens when one finally (though
some never go this far) breaks the bond of empathy, they go from an
understanding/caring relationship to something else (often cynical analogs of
the original empathetic feelings?).
That's another interesting point. What you seem to be saying is that the
semantic ground for the feelings is fragile to some context change, despite
many of the physiological processes involved in those feelings staying the
same. E.g. I used to think Renee's reorganizing my stuff was a sign of
affection. Now I think it's a passive-aggressive way of punishing me for not
swapping out the white electrical outlets for black ones before our recent
party. I hate the reorganizing, regardless, but the meaning of it has (seems
to have) changed.
--
⇒⇐ glen e. p. ropella
Looked pretty horny if I do say
============================================================
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
