Good article. Good quote from Patton - it is very distressing to see unanimity across large bodies of politicians on certain issues. Agree that the hostility expressed on Twitter and now Substack isn't pleasant, anonymity partly breeds this. And there really are bad faith actors out there.
Culture is an essential part of conflict and conflict resolution. Cultures are like underground rivers that run through our lives and relationships, giving us messages that shape our perceptions, attributions, judgments, and ideas of self and other.
Dear Dan, how do you convince yourself that there truly is an objective reality “out there” not merely what our brains generate based apparently on what our senses detect? Old philosophical conundrum I guess!
Interesting, thanks! I agree with the prescription but I'm surprised you present this in terms of "naive realism". The possibility of illusion seems much less important than the broader point you make about contextual inference:
"...even though the sensory input she gets is exactly the same as the sensory input I got, her sense of what she sees will be different. Because she and I have different experiences and different beliefs. Because she and I are using different mental models."
Even if naive realism were true (and it still is mostly a going concern in philosophy at least - see https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/perception-problem/#NaiReaPro), the point that we all bring different prior experiences to the perceptual party is surely much more important?
One can probably add to this fascinating discussion other assumptions we make similar to the movement in grass must be a snake. I am thinking about how difficult it is for each of us to look at issues in detail or go back to original sources. Thus, we come to discussion confident in our views because we were told which way the wind of blowing by a politician, journalist or friend whose views we trust. And even if we are certain that our trusted person has almost always been correct, it doesn’t mean they are correct now. Moreover, our trusted person may in fact be basing their decision on their own trusted person and no real knowledge of the issue in question.
Also, I am often also struck by how easy it seems to be for the framing of an issue to be solidified by the first person out of the gate or the one who is the most confident or extreme in their exposition.
Good article. Good quote from Patton - it is very distressing to see unanimity across large bodies of politicians on certain issues. Agree that the hostility expressed on Twitter and now Substack isn't pleasant, anonymity partly breeds this. And there really are bad faith actors out there.
Great post, Dan!
https://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/culture_conflict#:~:text=Culture%20is%20an%20essential%20part,ideas%20of%20self%20and%20other.
Culture is an essential part of conflict and conflict resolution. Cultures are like underground rivers that run through our lives and relationships, giving us messages that shape our perceptions, attributions, judgments, and ideas of self and other.
Dear Dan, how do you convince yourself that there truly is an objective reality “out there” not merely what our brains generate based apparently on what our senses detect? Old philosophical conundrum I guess!
Thanks. This life is not the time to listen to your own inner voices. It is the time to listen to others external voices.
Interesting, thanks! I agree with the prescription but I'm surprised you present this in terms of "naive realism". The possibility of illusion seems much less important than the broader point you make about contextual inference:
"...even though the sensory input she gets is exactly the same as the sensory input I got, her sense of what she sees will be different. Because she and I have different experiences and different beliefs. Because she and I are using different mental models."
Even if naive realism were true (and it still is mostly a going concern in philosophy at least - see https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/perception-problem/#NaiReaPro), the point that we all bring different prior experiences to the perceptual party is surely much more important?
One can probably add to this fascinating discussion other assumptions we make similar to the movement in grass must be a snake. I am thinking about how difficult it is for each of us to look at issues in detail or go back to original sources. Thus, we come to discussion confident in our views because we were told which way the wind of blowing by a politician, journalist or friend whose views we trust. And even if we are certain that our trusted person has almost always been correct, it doesn’t mean they are correct now. Moreover, our trusted person may in fact be basing their decision on their own trusted person and no real knowledge of the issue in question.
Also, I am often also struck by how easy it seems to be for the framing of an issue to be solidified by the first person out of the gate or the one who is the most confident or extreme in their exposition.
Does OpenAI know that Lincoln was a foot taller than Douglas?
"Philosophical Investigations" - Ludwig Wittgenstein.
But if you 'end an argument with a shrug and a smile', is it really over? Or, just hitting the snooze button...for now?
Is there an 'executive summary' version of this post? ;-)