Speaking of shoddy reasoning, I wish somebody would give an example of shoddy reasoning by a Right Winger that was NOT an example of reasoning from false premises.
n Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ -----Original Message----- From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Steve Smith Sent: Monday, January 06, 2014 9:28 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] "rational" Glen sed, responding to what REC sed about what Bob Altemeyer sed: >> Bob Altemeyer's research on right-wing authoritarian (RWA) >> personalities >> -- pdf at http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/ >> <http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/%7Ealtemey/> -- finds that high scoring >> RWAs suffer from severe cognitive disabilities which essentially >> render them immune to reason. (Note that "right-wing" here is a >> technical term meaning "adherent of the status quo".) >> >> But research reveals that authoritarian followers drive through life >> under the influence >> of impaired thinking a lot more than most people do, exhibiting >> sloppy reasoning, >> highly compartmentalized beliefs, double standards, hypocrisy, >> self-blindness, a >> profound ethnocentrism, and--to top it all off--a ferocious >> dogmatism that makes it >> unlikely anyone could ever change their minds with evidence or logic. > Excellent! I do have a strong sympathy for this description, though I don't fully defer it to "Right Wing" only... after a year in Berkeley, a bastion of Left Wing thinking, I can say that both wings can fumble their way to an extremism. For example, try to get anything done that requires either city council or citizen referendum, and you will get a *real* taste of "Authoritarianism". In Berkeley (to their credit) there was an annual celebration/parade entitled "How Berkeley can you be?" which allowed the populace to lampoon themselves (or actually, one another) in a semi-self-aware way that I could only hope for the far Right. I have to admit that I can't even imagine what that would look like. > This helps refine "reasoning about reasoning" in the way that > worries me. The idea being that a "brain in a vat" might still be > rational in some technical/strict sense of the word. But that's not > what normal people mean when they _use_ the word "rational." What > normal people mean is a combination of the ability to "think well" and > be open to multiple options. It seems like the "openness" is the > fulcrum of the concept. I think that people who I find familiar, comfortable, easy to converse with do roughly hold that connotation of the term. And I'm thankful for that. That said, I present that *most* people (normal or not) mean "rational thought" to be thought and descriptions of said thought which is familiar and aligned with their own thinking. In that sense, I feel most people conflate "rational thought" with the colloquial "common sense". > One of the aspects that worries me most is the _surety_ with which > most people go about their daily thinking. But I find this in lots of > people who would normally be considered quite rational. To me, it > doesn't much matter how intelligent one is, or how many facts they may > claim to have at their fingertips. What matters is the confidence > with which they hold their own beliefs. The more confident you are, > the _less_ rational you are. And I go about my daily activities with as much of this form of _irrationality_ (confidence?) as possible. Not because I think it is more defensible or will lead to a better outcome in the moment, than a more open and thought through ("well thought") set of responses, but because A) I can be hyper self-conscious which can lead to overthinking and getting "stuck" and B) because I am aware that my _best self_, my _best problem solver_ is my self (body/brain/sensorium + extended phenotype (technology mostly) ) when it is highly trained as roughly a "learning classifier system"... which requires lots of variation and testing. My best self _satisfices_ for the immediate problem (good enough for GubMent work) while _optimizing_ against the long haul. I know that by being _confident_ in my actions, I reduce the noise in the _execution_ of my intent and leave room for natural selection (making and recognizing mistakes?) to do it's work. I think this particular aspect of any extremist is what makes up for their propensity for trying to conjure, enforce and often even *follow* rules. In their (often misplaced) confidence... they have the opportunity to make mistakes that a more _thoughtful_ and _open_ (_rational_?) person might be. Otherwise they would be more regular winners of the Darwin Award than they seem to be. >> Just because there is a reason to be a lynch mob doesn't make a lynch >> mob reasonable. I think you're confounding the rationality of >> explanation with the rationality of the explained. I like this statement (REC)... this is one of my biggest battles with my strongest "liberal" friends... that the idea that their _righteousness_ when forming their lynch mob makes up for the _wrongness_ of lynching in the first place. My _conservative_ friends of course, don't bother with either question... they know they are right, whether they are truly _righteous_ or not, and they have no doubt that a lynch mob is the first/best solution for anything and everything (stand your ground, hawk up mutherf*kker, etc.) as long as they lead it. > I don't know what you mean, here, which probably means you're right > about my conflation. ;-) The use of "reason" to mean _cause_ seems > like an abuse of the word. So, I read what you write as "Just because > there is cause to be a lynch mob doesn't make a lynch mob reasonable." > And, I fully agree with that rewriting. But I don't know that's what you meant. I don't know what anyone means... but when I read your rewriting, I want to rewrite it one unit of base-26 hamming distance away "Just because there is *a* cause to be a lynch mob doesn't make a lynch mob reasonable." Or in greater divergence lexicographically, "Just because, your lynch mob was formed in response to one of your "causes", doesn't make the fact of lynching reasonable." I probably just caused a fork in the discussion which only you (Glen) and I can fully enjoy... but... I think this is all a very important if subtle point we are working over here. - Steve PS... Happy New Year to one and all (Left, Right, Centrist, Fascist, Anarchist, Green, Progressive, Conservative, Whig, Tory, Rational, and even Wankers and @ssh0l3s)! ============================================================ 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 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
