Radwaste
New Blood
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2005
- Messages
- 14
I had the privilege of attending Jeff Wagg's presentation of the Million Dollar Challenge at Dragoncon 2007. Several questions from the audience focused on what an individual can do when friends, acquaintances or co-workers endorse irrational notions.
Generally, these people lacked the background to explain the fundamental properties of nature, and the method by which what we see is incorporated into a view of the world that will let us function in it.
I brought this up to Jeff, and he suggested that I post something to this effect here - so I shall address first the concept, "The Formation of Belief". I expect everyone to chime right in - it's not like you're a bashful bunch, and I don't have all the answers - just a way of pointing at them. Anyway:
Although beliefs come in different "sizes" as perceived to individuals and groups - there are "big" ones like one's faith, and "small" ones like the worth of a motorcycle helmet - they are all collections of ideas arranged with respect to each other and to one's ego according to an individual's judgment of their worth.
Ideas are acquired by observation. The individual can seek out data, or it can be thrust upon them. It is in the acquisition of this data that individuals fail, and frequently.
All of us tend to accept ideas readily from what we have determined is a trustworthy source. This is especially true when we are young; so much of what we are told is correct-enough to get by, and it carries authority. Of course, it is only with great effort, and later in life, that we can realize that the value of any statement does not stem from the identity of the source.
When you research an idea, you are limited by time and ability as to the amount of consideration you can devote to the task. Family and other distractions take time; sometimes, investigation requires special tools unavailable to you; the mental acuity and agility you can bring to bear may be insufficient to the task. At some point, the perceived return on investment - effort expended vs. gain achieved - reaches a zero, and investigation stops. At this point, the belief is "filed" as a mental "base" upon which future decisions can be made.
I think our perceptions have two major factors acting to distort them: prejudice, which includes everything a person thinks he or she knows, and acumen, the physical means with which we can investigate something brought to our attention.
So: because of physical limitations and the innate process of judgment, your investigation cannot be complete. This means that whatever the belief, it cannot be the "whole story".
Fortunately for us, it doesn't have to be. Community provides a buffer against fatal mistake, in that 1) not all members of a community may be victims of a mistake, or 2) the belief held by the individual is diluted by incongruence with the beliefs of others, and social interaction acts as a buffer if an urge to act grows from belief.
In a representative democracy, activism appears as interested groups seek the backing of government. Activists can use their knowledge of how beliefs are formed in order to manipulate voting and thus legislation. When activists buy ink by the barrel, as for newspapers, they can accent things they know will appear positive and ignore or minimize negatives, knowing the above limitations of individuals in determining fact from fiction.
Magicians know what we expect as well as our limitations, and delight in showing us harmless, new ways to display our gullibility and their ingenuity; in the process, they show us how clever we could be if we worked at it as long and hard as they.
But some stop looking for how things work.
That brings me to two excellent questions for those who have endorsed a charlatan:
"How do you determine the difference between fact and fiction?"
"How you you decide when to stop questioning an issue you have engaged?"
When you ask such questions, you should be generally aware of the state of the investigative arts. I don't mean you should memorize The Handbook of Chemistry and Physics (although I'm sure there are some here who know a great deal of the contents). You should be aware of some of the fundamental things represented in it and other publications, though. Some examples and short statements to begin:
1) "Statistics" and "probability" is not what people commonly think they are. For any event, there is an "event universe". For a coin toss, the "universe" is "heads, tails, edge". For the universe itself, at least four fundamental forces compel matter and energy to act in certain ways: magnetism, gravity, and the strong and weak nuclear forces. This means that events in the universe are NOT truly random - they just occur in an unimaginably large number of combinations/permutations.
2) "Certainty", like "safety", does not exist in nature, despite anguished longing for them. This is confused constantly by our own perceptions. We do not realize that what we are looking at today, this hour, this moment, is the current status of an on-going process. We don't connect being shown wrong by a magician that our perceptions are fooled about the nature of life itself. Our eyes tell us lies all the time, but we let them tell us that something is "certain".
3) Mankind, as an investigative team, has the ability to produce things which you yourself will never learn to build. This is the key insult technology utters to those who wish for a simpler time: they cannot understand it. Therefore, a product of technology must be false for people so insulted, and every measure will be used to devalue or disregard it.
I stand in awe of the professional achievements of scientists, magicians, authors and others who attain the practical rank of "artist" in their field. I find that so delightful that I cannot imagine taking anything for granted; I dwell on things a while. I attempt to "grok".
I have some favorites I use to point out absurdities like the "Flood" myth. What resources do you suggest for people who have to deal with workplace gossip?
Generally, these people lacked the background to explain the fundamental properties of nature, and the method by which what we see is incorporated into a view of the world that will let us function in it.
I brought this up to Jeff, and he suggested that I post something to this effect here - so I shall address first the concept, "The Formation of Belief". I expect everyone to chime right in - it's not like you're a bashful bunch, and I don't have all the answers - just a way of pointing at them. Anyway:
Although beliefs come in different "sizes" as perceived to individuals and groups - there are "big" ones like one's faith, and "small" ones like the worth of a motorcycle helmet - they are all collections of ideas arranged with respect to each other and to one's ego according to an individual's judgment of their worth.
Ideas are acquired by observation. The individual can seek out data, or it can be thrust upon them. It is in the acquisition of this data that individuals fail, and frequently.
All of us tend to accept ideas readily from what we have determined is a trustworthy source. This is especially true when we are young; so much of what we are told is correct-enough to get by, and it carries authority. Of course, it is only with great effort, and later in life, that we can realize that the value of any statement does not stem from the identity of the source.
When you research an idea, you are limited by time and ability as to the amount of consideration you can devote to the task. Family and other distractions take time; sometimes, investigation requires special tools unavailable to you; the mental acuity and agility you can bring to bear may be insufficient to the task. At some point, the perceived return on investment - effort expended vs. gain achieved - reaches a zero, and investigation stops. At this point, the belief is "filed" as a mental "base" upon which future decisions can be made.
I think our perceptions have two major factors acting to distort them: prejudice, which includes everything a person thinks he or she knows, and acumen, the physical means with which we can investigate something brought to our attention.
So: because of physical limitations and the innate process of judgment, your investigation cannot be complete. This means that whatever the belief, it cannot be the "whole story".
Fortunately for us, it doesn't have to be. Community provides a buffer against fatal mistake, in that 1) not all members of a community may be victims of a mistake, or 2) the belief held by the individual is diluted by incongruence with the beliefs of others, and social interaction acts as a buffer if an urge to act grows from belief.
In a representative democracy, activism appears as interested groups seek the backing of government. Activists can use their knowledge of how beliefs are formed in order to manipulate voting and thus legislation. When activists buy ink by the barrel, as for newspapers, they can accent things they know will appear positive and ignore or minimize negatives, knowing the above limitations of individuals in determining fact from fiction.
Magicians know what we expect as well as our limitations, and delight in showing us harmless, new ways to display our gullibility and their ingenuity; in the process, they show us how clever we could be if we worked at it as long and hard as they.
But some stop looking for how things work.
That brings me to two excellent questions for those who have endorsed a charlatan:
"How do you determine the difference between fact and fiction?"
"How you you decide when to stop questioning an issue you have engaged?"
When you ask such questions, you should be generally aware of the state of the investigative arts. I don't mean you should memorize The Handbook of Chemistry and Physics (although I'm sure there are some here who know a great deal of the contents). You should be aware of some of the fundamental things represented in it and other publications, though. Some examples and short statements to begin:
1) "Statistics" and "probability" is not what people commonly think they are. For any event, there is an "event universe". For a coin toss, the "universe" is "heads, tails, edge". For the universe itself, at least four fundamental forces compel matter and energy to act in certain ways: magnetism, gravity, and the strong and weak nuclear forces. This means that events in the universe are NOT truly random - they just occur in an unimaginably large number of combinations/permutations.
2) "Certainty", like "safety", does not exist in nature, despite anguished longing for them. This is confused constantly by our own perceptions. We do not realize that what we are looking at today, this hour, this moment, is the current status of an on-going process. We don't connect being shown wrong by a magician that our perceptions are fooled about the nature of life itself. Our eyes tell us lies all the time, but we let them tell us that something is "certain".
3) Mankind, as an investigative team, has the ability to produce things which you yourself will never learn to build. This is the key insult technology utters to those who wish for a simpler time: they cannot understand it. Therefore, a product of technology must be false for people so insulted, and every measure will be used to devalue or disregard it.
I stand in awe of the professional achievements of scientists, magicians, authors and others who attain the practical rank of "artist" in their field. I find that so delightful that I cannot imagine taking anything for granted; I dwell on things a while. I attempt to "grok".
I have some favorites I use to point out absurdities like the "Flood" myth. What resources do you suggest for people who have to deal with workplace gossip?
