Why the obsession with everybody having correct/accurate cognitions?

[quatona]

Only depending on my value system? There is no way that my value system may be mistaken as well?

No, I don´t see how that is possible (or better: I don´t even know what´s that supposed to mean). That was my initial statement.

You responded by asking questions about and giving examples for possible mistakes in the evaluations based on a certain value system. I responded to that, conceding that this process can contain mistakes.

This is immaterial for my initial statement, though.

Now, if you want to argue that a value system itself can be mistaken, you are welcome to present your line of reasoning.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

Does any of this (the sentiment of the OP's author) have to do with the level of hostility shown on the Internet towards people who have make spleling/garmmatiacl msitakes?

No.

The cultures and sub-cultures that I have interacted in (I do not see it as simply differences in individual psychology--it is cultural) seem to be incapable of allowing a person to have an incorrect/inaccurate/false cognition. That is what this thread is about.

 

[Davian]

Voting, educating, etc. are making and acting on decisions.

Making and acting on decisions is not the same thing as having a cognition. One's cognitions play a role in making and acting on a decision, but merely having a cognition is not doing those things.

Exactly. It is our beliefs that influence and determine our actions.

When it is time to make a decision a responsible person will make sure as much as possible that he/she is working with correct/accurate information.

Do you think senators are responsible people?

Mark Pryor (D) Senator, Arkansas. On evolution and not needing to pass an iq test to get into the senate. on Vimeo

However, none of this proves that there is any harm in allowing a person to have an incorrect/inaccurate cognition.

You will need to tell me the specific subject you have in mind that would benefit from this viewpoint.

A person that thinks he is impervious to speeding cars may still be harmed crossing a busy freeway.

I would argue that sociological things like communications technology, social structure, etc. are the key variables in such situations, not the psychology of individuals marginally having incorrect/inaccurate cognitions.

No, if you look up germ theory you will see that where progress was made was all about individuals correctly working out what was happening in reality.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

Exactly. It is our beliefs that influence and determine our actions.

Do you think senators are responsible people?

Mark Pryor (D) Senator, Arkansas. On evolution and not needing to pass an iq test to get into the senate. on Vimeo

You will need to tell me the specific subject you have in mind that would benefit from this viewpoint.

A person that thinks he is impervious to speeding cars may still be harmed crossing a busy freeway.

No, if you look up germ theory you will see that where progress was made was all about individuals correctly working out what was happening in reality.

I do not see how any of this addresses our obsession with correcting everybody.

Just because a person has a cognition does not mean that he/she believes it. And even if a person believes a cognition that does not necessarily mean that he/she believes it very strongly. A person could say that he believes that the Earth's moon is made of marshmallow cream but be uncomfortable with that belief, not sure about it, etc. But if he was to utter that belief with his voice or his pen (or keyboard) then people would immediately pounce on him (on him, no on the belief) and say "You are wrong!". Notice how that is worded. It is not "The belief that the Earth's moon is made of marshmallow cream is false". It is "You are wrong!".

So what if a person is wrong?

On one hand we say that we want optimal outcomes and therefore everybody must have nothing but correct/accurate/true congitions, but on the other hand we undermine optimal outcomes by turning incorrect/inaccurate/false cognitions from an opportunity to teach into a disease that must be eradicated.

Believe it or not, people probably understand and appreciate truth/reality better--and are therefore better able to apply it (you know, better able to produce optimal outcomes)--if it is constructively taught to them and/or modeled to them than if they are treated like they are a threat and are "corrected".

Again, I do not see the harm in allowing somebody to have an incorrect/inaccurate/false cognition and allowing the process of learning to take its course on which that cognition will eventually be replaced with correct/accurate/true cognitions. I do not understand this obession with making sure that every person at all times has only pure, correct thinking.

 

[bhsmte]

I do not see how any of this addresses our obsession with correcting everybody.

Just because a person has a cognition does not mean that he/she believes it. And even if a person believes a cognition that does not necessarily mean that he/she believes it very strongly. A person could say that he believes that the Earth's moon is made of marshmallow cream but be uncomfortable with that belief, not sure about it, etc. But if he was to utter that belief with his voice or his pen (or keyboard) then people would immediately pounce on him (on him, no on the belief) and say "You are wrong!". Notice how that is worded. It is not "The belief that the Earth's moon is made of marshmallow cream is false". It is "You are wrong!".

So what if a person is wrong?

On one hand we say that we want optimal outcomes and therefore everybody must have nothing but correct/accurate/true congitions, but on the other hand we undermine optimal outcomes by turning incorrect/inaccurate/false cognitions from an opportunity to teach into a disease that must be eradicated.

Believe it or not, people probably understand and appreciate truth/reality better--and are therefore better able to apply it (you know, better able to produce optimal outcomes)--if it is constructively taught to them and/or modeled to them than if they are treated like they are a threat and are "corrected".

Again, I do not see the harm in allowing somebody to have an incorrect/inaccurate/false cognition and allowing the process of learning to take its course on which that cognition will eventually be replaced with correct/accurate/true cognitions. I do not understand this obession with making sure that every person at all times has only pure, correct thinking.

I am confused, why would a person be "uncomfortable with a belief" and then still believe in it? If you are uncomfortable with something, wouldn't you have motivation to explore why you are uncomfortable, confirm the belief with additional information, before you actually say you believe in it?

I know you don't want to hear it, but the answer to the above does come down to individual psychology and each persons psychological needs, which are derived from genetics and also can be altered by the environment they are in.

 

[bricklayer]

Good cognition is a process wherein doubt is removed by testing.
Even truth is only proof to the extent that it has been tested and proved.

 

[Eudaimonist]

You seem to discount completely the idea that value can be attributed to anything unless it is in someway related to a human being.

To living beings in general, not just human beings. Plants and animals have values as well, though not of the exact same sort as our consciously chosen values.

The universe has no value unless people decide they value it?

I don't think that value is an intrinsic property of anything, and so the phrase "has no value" for me is not something that has any literal meaning. Value isn't something that hides inside of things, but is rather a relationship between a living entity and the state of affairs that it acts to achieve. When I use that term, I mean it as a shorthand for "does not potentially make a positive contribution toward some living entity's existence". (Has no value for me suggests has no good value.)

I can see the possibility that the very state of being imbues value to that which exists. It has worth because it is.

I'm not sure what "imbue value" is supposed to mean, but I would agree that something is potentially of worth because it exists, e.g., one's own life/existence as a human being.

If we see value in this case as not a function of utility but more in the terms by which value is placed upon certain elements by humans like gold for instance.

Note: I'm not a utilitarian, and utility is your term.

The human valuation of precious metals is a function of their scarcity as well as the desire of humans to possess them.

I'm not using the term value in an economic sense, of course, so the scarcity of gold is irrelevant. Gold's value, in the sense I mean, is in its use in electronics, jewelry, as a backing for currency, etc. In other words, values have to do with human (or any living being's) activity and anything that is involved with that.

No I do not think you are talking about values. I know your postings well enough to know you would not confuse the word value (worth) with value (moral).

There is such a thing as moral worth -- the importance of a value relative to other values or no value.

But I'm not talking about value in the economic sense, so not worth as measured in some monetary unit.



eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Davian]

I do not see how any of this addresses our obsession with correcting everybody.

Just because a person has a cognition does not mean that he/she believes it. And even if a person believes a cognition that does not necessarily mean that he/she believes it very strongly. A person could say that he believes that the Earth's moon is made of marshmallow cream but be uncomfortable with that belief, not sure about it, etc. But if he was to utter that belief with his voice or his pen (or keyboard) then people would immediately pounce on him (on him, no on the belief) and say "You are wrong!". Notice how that is worded. It is not "The belief that the Earth's moon is made of marshmallow cream is false". It is "You are wrong!".

So what if a person is wrong?

On one hand we say that we want optimal outcomes and therefore everybody must have nothing but correct/accurate/true congitions, but on the other hand we undermine optimal outcomes by turning incorrect/inaccurate/false cognitions from an opportunity to teach into a disease that must be eradicated.

Believe it or not, people probably understand and appreciate truth/reality better--and are therefore better able to apply it (you know, better able to produce optimal outcomes)--if it is constructively taught to them and/or modeled to them than if they are treated like they are a threat and are "corrected".

Again, I do not see the harm in allowing somebody to have an incorrect/inaccurate/false cognition and allowing the process of learning to take its course on which that cognition will eventually be replaced with correct/accurate/true cognitions. I do not understand this obession with making sure that every person at all times has only pure, correct thinking.

Perhaps if you were to drop the marshmallow cream analogy, and use something more appropriate, or better yet, the actual subject you would like to discuss, your protestations would appear more coherent.

 

[Received]

This all goes with a sort of meta-argument I made years ago when I getting into philosophy, and what made it easy not to take philosophy and truth in general so white-knuckled seriously:

There have been a million times when we held perspectives we thought were true and we happier for it, only later to realize these perspectives were wrong, even the entire system to which this perspective belongs is wrong. Yet we still remained happy, both with the belief that the content of the perspective was right and also with the thought that we actually had the truth.

Obviously, this same problem applies to us right now, as well as myself in making this very argument. What does this tell us? That it's not about truth but about the perception of truth and how these perceptions are used to create a very real sense of happiness (an experience which obviously transcends cognition). Even this conclusion here falls to this same problem, because this conclusion could be wrong.

So it seems more correct to say that the perception of having a correct cognition, as well as the happiness utility this perspective brings with it, is more important than actually having correct cognition. We never know when in fact we "have" it to begin with, given the imperfect standard of knowledge as true, justified belief: we can never know if our attempted justifications are correct.

 

[Upisoft]

I hope you're not an engineer....

As I said we base our judgement very often on false premises. In this case your false premise was that I use decimal base, when I used octal...

 

[Eudaimonist]

So it seems more correct to say that the perception of having a correct cognition, as well as the happiness utility this perspective brings with it, is more important than actually having correct cognition.

I've created a machine that I can plug you in and you will experience a perfectly happy life. The catch is that none of what you will experience while plugged in is real, and you will be dreadfully low on accurate cognitions.

This machine is guaranteed to give you a greater "happiness utility" than you will ever achieve in your "merely" real life with your many accurate cognitions. You will, of course, forget that you've been plugged in, so you won't be troubled by that.

So, do you accept? If not, why not?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[grasping the after wind]

I've created a machine that I can plug you in and you will experience a perfectly happy life. The catch is that none of what you will experience while plugged in is real, and you will be dreadfully low on accurate cognitions.

This machine is guaranteed to give you a greater "happiness utility" than you will ever achieve in your "merely" real life with your many accurate cognitions. You will, of course, forget that you've been plugged in, so you won't be troubled by that.

So, do you accept? If not, why not?


eudaimonia,


Mark

Though The more likely reaction to your offer would be the suspicion that you are not divulging some detail that would prove very unpleasant, as far as I can tell, if one is sane ,can verify that this machine of yours works exactly as you have described and places more value on happiness than truth one ought to gladly accept your offer. If one places greater value on truth than happiness one ought to respectfully decline and if one believes that truth and happiness are inseparable one must contend that your definition of happiness might not conincide with that one's.

 

[Received]

I've created a machine that I can plug you in and you will experience a perfectly happy life. The catch is that none of what you will experience while plugged in is real, and you will be dreadfully low on accurate cognitions.

This machine is guaranteed to give you a greater "happiness utility" than you will ever achieve in your "merely" real life with your many accurate cognitions. You will, of course, forget that you've been plugged in, so you won't be troubled by that.

So, do you accept? If not, why not?


eudaimonia,

Mark

I think if the machine is able to give us more happiness than a world that's fake, the machine it is. The catch with our value of truth is we think that by having it we'll be happier with it than without it, which is at least a semi-religious ideal (cosmic optimism). The machine analogy reverses this idea.

 

[quatona]

I've created a machine that I can plug you in and you will experience a perfectly happy life. The catch is that none of what you will experience while plugged in is real, and you will be dreadfully low on accurate cognitions.

This machine is guaranteed to give you a greater "happiness utility" than you will ever achieve in your "merely" real life with your many accurate cognitions. You will, of course, forget that you've been plugged in, so you won't be troubled by that.

So, do you accept?


eudaimonia,

Mark

I´d have one or two detail questions about the deal - but apart from that: Yes.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

I am confused, why would a person be "uncomfortable with a belief" and then still believe in it?...

One could emotionally and or intuitively have doubts but intellectually have no reason to reject the belief.

If you are uncomfortable with something, wouldn't you have motivation to explore why you are uncomfortable, confirm the belief with additional information, before you actually say you believe in it?...

I would say that to have a belief and to "believe in" something are two different things.

Having a belief is probably mostly passive. Believing in something sounds more active.

I know you don't want to hear it, but the answer to the above does come down to individual psychology and each persons psychological needs, which are derived from genetics and also can be altered by the environment they are in.

It is not that I do not want to hear anything.

I see a sociological pattern in the interactions that I am a part of (sometimes as a participant; sometimes as an observer): we cannot accept a person being wrong.

It seems to me like people (pundits; think tanks; people in academia; etc.) exploit this and make a living off of magnifying the incorrect thinking (and sometimes, if not often, it is only marginal thinking) of others and saying that something must be done to eradicate such thinking.

 

[grasping the after wind]

One could emotionally and or intuitively have doubts but intellectually have no reason to reject the belief.









I would say that to have a belief and to "believe in" something are two different things.

Having a belief is probably mostly passive. Believing in something sounds more active.









It is not that I do not want to hear anything.

I see a sociological pattern in the interactions that I am a part of (sometimes as a participant; sometimes as an observer): we cannot accept a person being wrong.

It seems to me like people (pundits; think tanks; people in academia; etc.) exploit this and make a living off of magnifying the incorrect thinking (and sometimes, if not often, it is only marginal thinking) of others and saying that something must be done to eradicate such thinking.

If something is absolutely demonstrably incorrect, I think one profits from being corrected. I do see though, that there are a number of people that expect their own assumptions to be regarded as absolute truth. For these people it many times becomes a habit to not only insist that their assumptions are absolute truths but to denegrate and make fun of anyone that challenges those assumptions. Is it that sort of intolerance of opposing opinions that is really distressing you or do you actually think that in matters where a fact can be absolutely verified it is wrong to point out someone's error or at least wrong to do so in a manner that is rude and condescending?

 

[bhsmte]

One could emotionally and or intuitively have doubts but intellectually have no reason to reject the belief.









I would say that to have a belief and to "believe in" something are two different things.

Having a belief is probably mostly passive. Believing in something sounds more active.







It is not that I do not want to hear anything.

I see a sociological pattern in the interactions that I am a part of (sometimes as a participant; sometimes as an observer): we cannot accept a person being wrong.

It seems to me like people (pundits; think tanks; people in academia; etc.) exploit this and make a living off of magnifying the incorrect thinking (and sometimes, if not often, it is only marginal thinking) of others and saying that something must be done to eradicate such thinking.

Well, having emotional or intuitive issues with a belief, yet still believing in for intellectual reasons, sounds like a person who may have been a believer in say; creation, but now has seen enough objective evidence of evolution and simply can not deny it any longer, even though it goes against an "emotional" belief they have held onto for a long time. I would think this is healthy, because the person is recognizing what is true and what isn't true and they are accepting it, even though it may be emotionally troubling. Sort of like when one of your kids is accused of doing something bad and as a parent, you don't want to believe that it is true, but evidence shows that your child did indeed to the bad thing and it can't be denied.

Daniel Dennent has a name for folks who believe in something just for the sake of thinking believing is the most comfortable thing to do. He calls it; a belief in believing and he claims a lot of folks who claim to be religious actually have serious doubts, but believing is the more comfortable choice for them.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

...or do you actually think that in matters where a fact can be absolutely verified it is wrong to point out someone's error or at least wrong to do so in a manner that is rude and condescending?

I think that if the spirit of the act of pointing out someone's error is to encourage that person's intellectual development, help him/her strengthen his/her arguments, facilitate clearer thinking for everybody, etc., etc. then it should be appreciated. I had instructors in college who treated me that way--they let me know that they saw a lot of potential in me and my work and that they wanted to help me be even better.

But if the spirit of the act of pointing out someone's error is to try to put out every flame that one sees because if he/she does not it is going to turn into an inferno, then that is not good.

Other than for profit (see my previous post) I do not know exactly why people do it. Arrogance maybe. Anxiety. Narcissism. The list could go on for a long time probably. I just know that I think that it is counterproductive. If somebody is wrong and you feel that that could have negative consequences for everybody then you are probably 100 times more likely to get them to change if you teach them and model what is right than if you treat them and their thoughts like a threat that must be contained.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I think that if the spirit of the act of pointing out someone's error is to encourage that person's intellectual development, help him/her strengthen his/her arguments, facilitate clearer thinking for everybody, etc., etc. then it should be appreciated. I had instructors in college who treated me that way--they let me know that they saw a lot of potential in me and my work and that they wanted to help me be even better.

But if the spirit of the act of pointing out someone's error is to try to put out every flame that one sees because if he/she does not it is going to turn into an inferno, then that is not good.

Other than for profit (see my previous post) I do not know exactly why people do it. Arrogance maybe. Anxiety. Narcissism. The list could go on for a long time probably. I just know that I think that it is counterproductive. If somebody is wrong and you feel that that could have negative consequences for everybody then you are probably 100 times more likely to get them to change if you teach them and model what is right than if you treat them and their thoughts like a threat that must be contained.

So your issue is not with correcting mistakes it is with people being consumed by the need to do so?

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

So your issue is not with correcting mistakes it is with people being consumed by the need to do so?

We have all heard the phrase live and let live. Well, similarly, the point that I am trying to make could be thought of this way: think and let think.

That means even if the thought that a person is thinking at the moment is incorrect/inaccurate/false.