Smugness

george · Post by **george** » Fri Dec 16, 2011 8:58 pm

My mother has lived an incredibly frugal life, and thanks to her we (her 8 children) have learnt many skills and had many opportunities. But she always reminds us that there are people who have it tougher than us.
I just want to remind us that there are people out there who through no fault of their own are in trouble this christmas.
Yes ERE is a huge help, but some people are suffering because they have never had an opportunity or they've suffered from a natural disaster or have lost money in this financial crisis.
guess I just want to warn against an attitude of smugness, everyone is vulnerable

Ego · Post by **Ego** » Fri Dec 16, 2011 11:16 pm

I have to admit, I suffer from smugness. It has to do with "through no fault of their own...".
Most people here believe, one way or another, in some form of self-sufficiency. That's the ethos that permits early retirement, right? We believe we can rely on ourselves.
Self-sufficient people have a high locus-of-control. That is, we believe that we have a great deal of control over our own lives. Consequently, sometimes we are tempted to act smug toward those who cultivate the opposite belief. We look down on those who promote the idea that life happens TO them. We scoff at that idea and are tempted to hold ourselves up as examples of why it is not true.
A truly ugly characteristic. Thanks for the reminder.

aussierogue · Post by **aussierogue** » Fri Dec 16, 2011 11:45 pm

yep - something i gotta work on..thanks reminder

Maus · Post by **Maus** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 12:08 am

@George

I think I understand where you're going with your admonition. I, like many NTs, don't have a lot of sympathy for irrationality or learned helplessness; but I hope that I'd never take pleasure in another person's misfortune, no matter the proximate cause. Sometimes the situation calls for an offer of my help. But some times the situation calls for a blunt reminder that the common good requires people to help themselves as well, or at least to make some effort in that regard. Those who nuture nothing but the expectation that they are entitled to help, especially from the government or charity or "the 1%" or someone else, do not inspire me to endorse their viewpoint.
When I first started working as a prosecutor, it was shocking for me to learn that many crime victims are not innocents oppressed and persecuted by unknown perpetrators. In the majority of situations, it was a case of playing with fire and getting burned. I don't think it's smug to tell someone "don't play with fire;" but they may hear it that way. In the end, the only person's feelings that I can control with any appreciable degree of success are my own.

HSpencer · Post by **HSpencer** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 12:33 am

@Maus
Seems to me the legal system consists of a non-swallowing, seemingly irritated lawyer who is skilled in brow-beating whomever is on the stand, innocent, or guilty, into making that witness look brilliant or stupid, depending on what the lawyer needs at the moment.
I have a good friend who is an attorney (also was in the Army with me) and I have seen him go "180" in personality when he gets someone in a court room. Outside of that he is a great guy to everyone. I guess the judge is of the same demeanor towards attorneys who don't dance properly in "his/her" court.

Post by **jacob** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:01 am

On a semi-related note, I observe that the contended "living below your means"-lifestyle which used to be seen as miserly and "not living" during the boom times is now seen as smug and self-satisfied during the recession times.
smug, adj. Being happier about your situation than other people think you should be.
There's just no way you can win unless you do the same thing that everybody else does.

JasonR · Post by **JasonR** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:29 am

Ego · Post by **Ego** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 3:02 am

@jacob "There's just no way you can win unless you do the same thing that everybody else does."
A Strange Game

The only winning move is

not to play
How about a nice game of chess?

george · Post by **george** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 3:56 am

Wow, I'm impressed by the compassion, I thought the post might be ignored or get lots of criticism.
It's nice to know there are people out there who understand.
I'm at a bit of a loss as to how i can help people who have lost their land, their home etc.
All I can do is talk to them, I'm not as badly off, but I'm going through the same process.
When you talk to someone and lean against their house and part of the wall collapses, or you talk to a man who has lived in the same house for 46 years, he knows his home will have to be demolished and today his neighbour (they have been friends since he moved in) is leaving his large home to move into a 2 bedroom flat, it is truly humbling. So many stories.
I guess I just wanted to reassure myself, as much as making sure everyone is aware that life will have it's surprises.

Spartan_Warrior · Post by **Spartan_Warrior** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 5:11 am

Re: ERErs believing in a "self-determined life"...
Au contraire, I ascribe to the philosophy of determinism. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism) It's highly compelling to me. The basic gist is that all matter in the universe is physical, and therefore one state of the universe arises from the preceding state by predictable physical laws. In other words, since all physical matter behaves predictably at some theoretical level of observation, and only physical matter exists, there is no "locus of control" for human beings to actually exert will-power. The mind and states of consciousness arise from corresponding brain states that are entirely physical. Every event since the beginning of time is linked in a causal chain of physical laws. So our thoughts and actions can ONLY be products of our environment. We make what seem to be choices, but it's really just a new brain state in a long chain of brain states determined by predictable laws of physics. In essence, "free will" is a myth, or at least a misnomer.
(Anyone read Slaughterhouse Five?

I personally find it a comforting theory as it explains my essential oddness, lol. It also helps me to understand, relate to and empathize with others. Under this philosophy, naturally, there can be no real moral praise or blame. (Not to say there's no purpose for punishment and reward in human society, quite the contrary--these are what condition appropriate human behavior--merely that these can't be tied to any sense of responsibility for one's actions.)

george · Post by **george** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 5:20 am

Just want to say, I wasn't being sarcastic, I really meant what i said above, you are more compassionate than I expected

HSpencer · Post by **HSpencer** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 5:23 am

@Jacob
"On a semi-related note, I observe that the contended "living below your means"-lifestyle which used to be seen as miserly and "not living" during the boom times is now seen as smug and self-satisfied during the recession times."
Sure, why not? "If your debt free, you don't have to participate in the recession". ---Dave Ramsey

Grandmother · Post by **Grandmother** » Sun Dec 18, 2011 7:27 am

I used to be one of those to whom life would happen. I was poor, sick and miserable. The reason I was poor was because of my beliefs and my spending. I had to change both. We (husband & I) had to change both.
Now I know there are people worse off than me and probably millions who never had a chance. I'm grateful I'm not one of those. But there are also many, many who choose to stay a victim, who rail against the rich and yet eat expensive takeaways and run round in a car when they could take a free bus. (Yes, David, I'm writing about you! Though he won't be reading this.) I am not going to waste my sympathy on those who continue to spend up large when they don't need to and then complain about being poor.

dot_com_vet · Post by **dot_com_vet** » Sun Dec 18, 2011 7:32 am

Great point, you can live very responsibly and still have the world change around you. (Industry moves overseas, Wal-Mart comes to town, illness, etc.)

Ego · Post by **Ego** » Mon Dec 19, 2011 4:00 am

@Spartan quote: "The mind and states of consciousness arise from corresponding brain states that are entirely physical. Every event since the beginning of time is linked in a causal chain of physical laws. So our thoughts and actions can ONLY be products of our environment."
Each of our human characteristics have an evolutionary purpose. If determinism is true - if our choices are purely an illusions - then why does consciousness exist? What is its evolutionary purpose and why do we have it?

Spartan_Warrior · Post by **Spartan_Warrior** » Mon Dec 19, 2011 5:13 am

@bigato: What do you mean by biology? Organism phenotype? My understanding is it's already possible to predict certain traits from genetic (chemical) makeup. With a sophisticated enough understanding (100%) of the causal links governing events, a 100% prediction rate would likewise be possible, in theory.
@Ego: I think of consciousness this way: A particular state of consciousness, A, corresponds to and arises from a concurrent brain state, B, in the sense that mental state A is "what it feels like" to be in physical state B. In other words, when we experience the internal state of "making a decision" ("I want to raise my hand")--that mental experience is simply how it feels for a human being while in the corresponding physical/brain state (raising hand). This is perhaps most easily demonstrated with the mental state of "pain". Pain has both an obvious mental/experiential component and a physical/biological component. The body can actually react to pain stimuli (like touching a hot surface) long before the conscious awareness of pain. The physical component is causally effective, while the actual "experience" of pain that we feel just sort of "rides" on top of that physical component of the event. (I think this idea is called "dualism"? As in the physical and mental parts of the event are just "dual" components of the same event. Been a while since I've studied philosophy of mind.)
What we think of as consciousness could be a completely different experience for a different organism (like a space alien). The question of the purpose of consciousness brings up the thought experiment of the "philosophical zombie"--a being that looks, behaves, responds exactly like a human being, yet experiences no consciousness. Could it exist? It's difficult to disprove that it could. How would we ever know?
In terms of a purpose for why we "experience" our brain states the way we do, it's a great question. I certainly don't have an answer for "why" we have conscious experiences. But I don't think that alone counters determinism. I guess it's important to distinguish that "choice" isn't an illusion under determinism. We certainly make choices, constantly. It's just that we have no locus of control over the mechanisms by which we make those choices--e.g., the circumstances of our own psychology and environment that cause us to choose the way we do. We are, in a sense, held hostage by factors (causal physical laws) beyond our control. That "freedom to choose" without coercion is the core component in common-sense notions of free will.
The most serious challenge to determinism seems to be the existence of non-probabilistic events at a sub-atomic level (quantam mechanics). I'm no physicist myself, my interest being from the philosophical side, but my understanding is that in fact, not all events are predictable. This begs the question, again, of whether mankind/science is simply not sophisticated enough to decipher patterns from what appears to be randomness. Regardless, "randomness in physics at a sub-atomic level" would not entail "freedom to choose" for humans.
I just haven't encountered a credible argument for the existance of a human will or causal efficacy of human consciousness. If consciousness is a physical material (or some type of byproduct of physical material), it is causally determined in a probabilistic (or random) way. If consciousness is a non-physical material, how does it interact with physical material?

Ego · Post by **Ego** » Mon Dec 19, 2011 6:30 am

If - as you say - we have no control over the mechanisms by which we make choices, then what is the purpose of our capacity to believe that we do?
While I cannot prove that others are not philosophical zombies as you define them, I know that I am not. Why wouldn't we simply operate entirely on the autonomic nervous system?
In my mind, these question present a similar conundrum for determinism as the problem-of-evil presents for the religious.
Sam Harris has a new book coming out on just this issue. I otherwise enjoy his writing so it should be interesting.

Chad · Post by **Chad** » Mon Dec 19, 2011 3:48 pm

Agreed on the logic fallacy.
On a side note, I know a consultant who does a ton of work for NASA (which is now, just basically a research entity) and she says they could be far far more accurate with weather predictions if money was invested in newer more advanced equipment. However, no one wants to spend the money for it, so they continue to use half century old tech for weather prediction.

Spartan_Warrior · Post by **Spartan_Warrior** » Mon Dec 19, 2011 4:56 pm

@Ego: In simple terms, you may have already answered that. Perhaps we experience consciousness the way we do because it's evolutionarily adaptive for life in our world. I started to allude to this: there could exist alien worlds with very different environments, very different forms of life, etc, that would experience consciousness in a completely different way, one that is more adaptive to their particular environment. (I like to use the Tralfamadores from Vonnegut's "Slaughterhouse-Five" as examples: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tralfamadore).
In terms of WHAT the purpose is for our experience of consciousness here on Earth, again, I don't have a ready answer; but I can offer that intuitively, it would seem that a rabbit facing a predator and aware of life in terms of "I am master of my own destiny and I need to run away now" has a better survival chance than a rabbit whose awareness is more in terms of "I am nothing more than rabbit-skin, rabbit-bones, and rabbit-brains, all of which are physical matter bound by causal physical chains therefore entailing a predetermined chain of events from the beginning of existence to its end and therefore whether I will escape now is ultimately already decided-- *CHOMP*" (as philoso-rabbit is devoured). The "illusion of choice" seems advantageous in a world structured like ours.
I don't really like this explanation any more than you will, but it does seem intuitive. Beyond that--I like the explanation that the sensation of what we think of as consciousness is simply the qualia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia) or "how it feels" to be in corresponding brain states, but I agree this only reveals "how" we feel consciousness and does little to address the "purpose" for feeling consciousness the way we do. (Of course, your argument is also based on the premise that there is a "purpose" for every feature of an organism. I'm no biologist and can't think of any counter-examples--the human appendix sprang to mind, but apparently it served an evolutionary purpose once--so I'm inclined to accept the premise.)
That said, I still disagree that not knowing the purpose of the "illusion of free will" is a serious problem for the theory of determinism. I guess when it comes to unanswerable questions, I'm more comfortable with "what is the evolutionary purpose of the illusion of an efficacious consciousness" than I am with "how could non-physical events like mental states interact in a causally efficacious way with physical events?" It just doesn't fit in with our understanding of causation.
To play Devil's advocate, let's suppose that free will exists and we are able to choose between our actions. Where do you propose that choice is made? Is it a physical event or a non-physical event?
(As far as the problem of evil, it's been a while, but I seem to recall that's something like how does evil exist if God is benevolent? I never understood why that was a problem. The Bible and other faiths seem to have this covered already--God is not always benevolent (see: Sodom and Gomorrah), and/or God creates evil to test mankind.)
@bigato: LOL, I agree with you. Though philosophers prefer the term "thought experiments" to "imagination".

Theoretical understandings do tend to fall apart in practice and are probably annoying to more pragmatic thinkers--could explain why philosophers have something of a history of being fed hemlock. Still, I find it enjoyable to debate, even if human knowledge may never be able to prove or disprove a theoretical understanding.
As far as weather, there are more factors than water evaporation that go into creating weather--wind, atmospheric pressures, a butterfly flapping its wings in China

. Again, I fully agree that humankind may never know all those factors to the extent required for a 100% prediction rate. Then again, maybe we will? Either way, theoretically it holds true that if you did know every causal factor involved you could predict the outcome.
@Chad: What logical fallacy?
I'll probably have to start reading up on theories of consciousness now. Thanks guys, I'm finding this discussion quite stimulating. We should make a philosophy thread. That or I should go drink hemlock.

Chad · Post by **Chad** » Mon Dec 19, 2011 5:57 pm

@Spartan

I was seconding Bigato's argument:
"Just because you can't prove that something does not exist it does not mean that it does exist nor that it could exist. You still have to prove that it does exist. If you don't, that's only imagination."
The burden of proof is not on the person challenging something that does not exist. The burden of proof lies with the person saying that what does not exist is valid/real.