As a defense mechanism rationalization is primarily characteristic of adolescence. "I know we're not supposed to climb up here but I don't see how it will hurt anything." But without explicit language (until confronted).
If you want a reference, Glen, see Karen Horney "Neurosis and Human Growth". Frank --- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM On Mon, Jun 29, 2020, 3:33 PM ∄ uǝlƃ <[email protected]> wrote: > I feel like you've asked me to prove a negative with your Eliza-like "Can > you tell me more about ...?" 8^D But because I have no choice but to be the > dork that I am, I also have no choice about whether to have the > conversation. [sigh] > > Maybe it was influenced by this article: > > Rationalization is rational > Cushman 2020 > > https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/behavioral-and-brain-sciences/article/rationalization-is-rational/2A13B99ED09BD802C0924D3681FEC55B > > Or not. I read like 10 things at a time, abandon some, follow through on > others, etc. This one was printed out sitting next to the toilet. In any > case, it states the point well with this paragraph: "In sum, > rationalization approximates a form of rational inference and thus can be > understood as a variety of IRL at Marr’s computational level – its function > is to extract useful information from observed actions. This does not > imply, however, that rationalization always involves Bayesian inference at > a mechanistic level. In some cases, it may, but in other cases relatively > simple cognitive processes, akin to those identified by Heider and > Festinger, may approximate the rational inferences described above." > > Even allowing the idea that *some* mechanisms we might say look like "free > will" might be fully low-order Markovian, there are (likely) *some* other > mechanisms that would not fit that bill. This wouldn't be important if I > thought that set of other mechanisms was *small* in comparison to the > "rational" mechanisms. But because I think people who prioritize for > thought/beliefs/desires and such ... interiority, I guess, are delusional, > my intuition is that those other mechanisms are more prevalent than the > "rational" ones. To be as clear as possible, I think rationality is very > rare, if it exists at all. And that argues against (low order) Markovity. > > And on that note, I'd LOVE it if someone knew of a thorough criticism of > this result: > > THE EFFECT OF SEVERITY OF INITIATION ON LIKING FOR A GROUP > Aaronson & Mills 1959 > > http://faculty.uncfsu.edu/tvancantfort/Syllabi/Gresearch/Readings/A_Aronson.pdf > > I debated changing the subject to indicate a tangent from observability. > But I would lump an [un]willingness to give up *sunk costs* (e.g. severity > of initiation/hazing) as a kind of truncation error. So, it may still be on > topic. > > On 6/24/20 8:55 AM, Jon Zingale wrote: > > Could you tell me more about the lack of relation between river deltas > and > > the proposed mechanism? I remember you calling the theory LOUMFW, but I > am > > not sure if it is an acronym or what. > > -- > ☣ uǝlƃ > > - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC <http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/FRIAM-COMIC> > http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
