If one is ignorant and wants to learn if an action can change things, then flip the coin, take the action and take notes. One should also look for a similar situation in which one does not take an action in order to compare and contrast. And repeat both as many times as is feasible to collect statistics.
In the two cases you mention, it is not really feasible to do that. So, one simulates: What if Russia does not see a demonstration of U.S. might? What if the Justice department or my [Comey’s] career takes a hit in credibility in order to save the country from a madman? The right answer is a function of the values of the person in that situation. So, a second order question then is, “What if people find out my values?” There is inherent ambiguity in the information that inform most decisions and it is impossible to really foresee or quantify the consequences of action (e.g. chaos theory), so it is safe to say doubt ought to permeate every decision. It could be that all of these decisions are playing out in the multiverse or that there is precisely one path we are all on that is fully determined and that choice is just a ridiculous illusion anyway. Marcus From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> on behalf of Nick Thompson <nickthomp...@earthlink.net> Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com> Date: Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 9:21 PM To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <friam@redfish.com> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What's so bad about Scientism? Fascinating response, Marcus. Does this mean you cannot imagine ==> rational<== paralyzing doubt? So, imagine yourself in some situation of grave consequence, Truman’s decision to use the bomb or Comey’s decision to restart the investigation (or to announce its conclusion in the first place), or one of those “two track” hypotheticals that utilitarian’s are so fond of*, can you imagine yourself, not anxious, not in need of therapy at all, but unable to act? I suppose one could have a standard rule: in situations of grave consequence, I do nothing, or I flip a coin. In some dire situations animals “freeze”. It’s rational for animals because many predators’ prey- catching systems work on motion. Human decision paralysis might just be an evolutionary hold over. Does that make it neurotic or just ill-suited to modern circumstances. Nick *You are the man in charge of a track switch beyond which tied to the tracks, on one side, four French Poodles and on the other side your beloved Aunt Susie. Incidentally, you should also know that the passenger cars on the train are loaded with a thousand pregnant girl scouts. (So don’t try to jam that switch in the middle, you wise guy!) Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2018 12:10 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What's so bad about Scientism? “By doubt, here, I don't mean entertained doubt. I mean doubt sufficiently profound that one cannot, when one needs to, pursue any course of action. REAL doubt. Paralyzing doubt.” That’s a different thing, anxiety and/or depression. Treatable with exercise, medication, or therapy. Marcus
============================================================ 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 FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
