The Secret Shame of Middle Class Americans

[GandK]

What does it even mean to take in information through instincts? It looks like nonsense to me, so hopefully somebody can explain it to me. I postulate things that I have no evidence for (I think all religions work that way.) but I don't think it's intuition to do so.

Intuition in this context means gathering information based on prior references rather than on the 5 senses. It's a hunch that's not about what to do or what to conclude, but about what IS. It also means that the sum of these stored images constitutes reality for Intuitives, AND, therefore, that our mental life is more "real" to us than the physical. It's less about instinct, as your test would imply, and more to do with initial perception.

An example common to all Intuitives:

There is a coffee table in my living room. Rather than notice it every time I walk by it, I refer to a memory I made of it previously. This approach has both a strength and a weakness. Strength: I don't have to waste energy noticing it more than once, and this leaves my mind free to focus on processing other things when I walk by it (usually ideas; in my case ideas relating to people and society (NF)). Weakness: if something important about the coffee table has changed, I won't notice the difference... if it has moved, I may walk right into it and hurt myself. Also, I am unlikely to realize if someone other than myself has placed something upon it. Unless the item is neon green or is in some other way attention-grabbing, I literally will not see it. It could sit there for days unnoticed.

Now, I don't know if we Intuitives choose not to use our senses whenever possible because they are weak compared to our memory and processing abilities, or because they are sensitive and easily overloaded, or because focusing on the external world is an unwelcome distraction from our thoughts. It could be any or all of those. What I do know is that this happens so quickly, and at an unconscious level, that it takes Herculean effort for many Intuitives to "be fully present" in the physical world and to turn off our brain and our referential processing. Some of us can't ever do it. I would call this a character weakness if I didn't know a &%$#-ton of Sensates who can't seem to turn theirs on, LOL. In the end I think we need each other.

[IlliniDave]

There is a coffee table in my living room. Rather than notice it every time I walk by it, I refer to a memory I made of it previously. This approach has both a strength and a weakness. Strength: I don't have to waste energy noticing it more than once, and this leaves my mind free to focus on processing other things when I walk by it (usually ideas; in my case ideas relating to people and society (NF)). Weakness: if something important about the coffee table has changed, I won't notice the difference... if it has moved, I may walk right into it and hurt myself. Also, I am unlikely to realize if someone other than myself has placed something upon it. Unless the item is neon green or is in some other way attention-grabbing, I literally will not see it. It could sit there for days unnoticed.

I got a chuckle from this. My tendency not to notice things in my environment caused me a lot of trouble back in my ill-fated married life. In part it was self-preservation There was always a lot of what to me was clutter and being able to tune it out went a long way to preserving my sanity. The other part is that I've always had strong mental focus and a tendency to get absorbed by thought

My attempts at mindfulness have sort of reconnected me with my senses. I find the extra "input" enjoyable, and it rejuvenates my thinking. Nonetheless I still hate clutter.

[jacob]

S: details and rules --- think amazing memory for data so as not to need theory
N: patterns and principles --- think amazing propensity for theory so as not to need data

[Ego]

@Ego - I think philosophical disagreements are best solved by a nerf gun duel.

At risk of tempting death by nerf, Daniel Kahneman and Joshua Knobe released a LongNow Edge Talk today. Knobe is an experimental philosopher. They talked a lot about what is going on in our heads with regard to free-will. Apparently the trouble comes down to a conflict between our abstract and concrete thoughts, and the struggle for coherence.

https://www.edge.org/conversation/joshu ... difference

Free Will starts about 12:40

[Dragline]

I'll have a look at that. After I crank up the Rush: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Cgm9ZoXdrA

Those Canadians have a way with words.

[Dragline]

@Ego - I think philosophical disagreements are best solved by a nerf gun duel.

At risk of tempting death by nerf, Daniel Kahneman and Joshua Knobe released a LongNow Edge Talk today. Knobe is an experimental philosopher. They talked a lot about what is going on in our heads with regard to free-will. Apparently the trouble comes down to a conflict between our abstract and concrete thoughts, and the struggle for coherence.

https://www.edge.org/conversation/joshu ... difference

Free Will starts about 12:40

Kahneman does a great analysis by attacking the underlying assumptions, which are problematic. Philosophical questions are often very mushy and dependent on an understanding that might be different from person to person, which almost necessarily leads to incoherence. E.g., a question like "Is the number 6 or 8 better?", which is subject to many interpretations as to what "better" might mean -- it might mean "greater" to one person and "more aesthetically pleasing" to another. The concept of "free will" suffers from this quality of vagueness.

Knobe sounds like one of those people that likes to make things over-complicated because he is biased towards the idea that complexity and intelligence are necessarily related. It seems like kind of an "Ivory Tower" thing.

I was amused by Kahneman's comment about psychologists being attracted to this kind of discussion on the basis of intellectual flattery.

I found Knobe to be rather ignorant when discussing "intent" as to individuals in the criminal context and corporations generally. There are hundreds if not thousands of years of law that deal with these concepts in a very practical way as to when we hold people/companies liable and what level of intent is required.


The heuristics that Kahneman is talking about are called "Substitution" and "Affect":

SUBSTITUTION. When confronted with a perplexing problem, question, or decision, we make life easier for ourselves by answering a substitute, simpler question. Instead of estimating the probability of a certain complex outcome we rely on an estimate of another, less complex outcome. Instead of grappling with the mind-bending philosophical question, “What is happiness?” we answer the easier question, “What is my mood right now?” (page 98 of TF&S). Even though highly anxious people activate System 2 often, obsessing and second guessing every decision, fear, or risk, it is surprising how often System 1 works just fine for them. Even chronic worriers function effortlessly in many areas of life while System 1 is running in the background. They walk, eat, sleep, breath, make choices, make judgments, trust, and engage in enterprises without fear, worry, or anxiety. Why? They replace vexing problems with easier problems. Potential for error? We never get around to answering the harder question.

AFFECT. Emotions influence judgment. “People let their likes and dislikes determine their beliefs about the world,” (page 103). Potential for error? We can let our emotional preferences cloud our judgment.

[Ego]

Philosophical questions are often very mushy and dependent on an understanding that might be different from person to person, which almost necessarily leads to incoherence.

They do. I think part of Knobe's motivation ( ) is to confront the rather recent dismissals of philosophy by hard-scientists across the board.

The concept of "free will" suffers from this quality of vagueness.

Yeah, probably the grand-daddy of vagueness.

I was amused by Kahneman's comment about psychologists being attracted to this kind of discussion on the basis of intellectual flattery.

I liked the long pause where you could see him thinking, "How can I say this in a way that won't hurt the guy's feelings."

[Dragline]

Kahneman's "intellectual kindness" and tolerance of others views is one of the things I admire about him the most, and aspire to emulate. I think the way you treat others in this context is just as important as kindness or generosity in other areas.

Part of it is a "Silent Generation" trait (valuing compromise and consensus), but most of it is just him. There is a marked and funny contrast between him and Taleb in a video we looked at some time ago. Even though they were essentially agreeing on everything, Taleb likes to try to turn every intellectual idea into some kind of ethical or moral imperative involving good guys and bad guys. But that's a Baby Boomer for you.

[Ego]

Intellectual kindness be damned!

There’s No Such Thing as Free Will, But we’re better off believing in it anyway.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arc ... ll/480750/

Good stuff for those interested in the subject.

[BRUTE]

brute hasn't read the article, but if free will does not exist, how could humans choose to believe in it?

[Ego]

Brute should read the article.

[Spartan_Warrior]

brute hasn't read the article, but if free will does not exist, how could humans choose to believe in it?

Because the "choice" is the necessary outcome of a causal chain governed--like our brains and brain states--by immutable laws of physics over which no human has influence. In other words, it's not really a choice, just like every other choice.

Spartan_Warrior also hasn't read the article or most of this thread yet (but he may because it seems relevant to his interests). But he must say it warms his heart to see Ego making arguments for determinism. In this I believe I can point to myself as a causal influence in the chain of physical events that led Ego to make such arguments? I believe he was not so inclined when I first came here.

Indeed, it does not appear possible for free will (and therefore responsibility, blame, etc) to be anything but an illusion as long as reality is comprised only of physical events, which are governed by causality and physical laws by which one event necessarily entails another.

The illusion of free will is probably related to the consciousness/ego ( ) which evolved to allow humans (and possibly/probably other creatures) to evaluate potential outcomes of different actions and imagine potential futures. Doing so necessarily leads to the illusion that these other outcomes are actually possible--that is, that there are alternate timelines in which we can and do take these alternate actions. In actuality, there is only one possible outcome that has been predetermined by the experiences, events, and previous brain states that led to the present decision.

"Free will" IMO has quite a clear definition in the public conscience--that a person can "choose" his behaviors, thoughts, et cetera in a way that is essentially free of any coercion or predestination.

For a person to make a choice, there must be some "choosing mechanism" within that person that allows him to make those choices. Where is that "choosing mechanism"? It can be either physical or non-physical.

If the "choosing mechanism" is non-physical--e.g. spiritual, etc.--then how does causality work between that non-physical substance and the physical world of your brain, body, and surroundings? Moreover, how do you scientifically justify this? What evidence is there for non-physical material interacting with physical material?

If the mechanism by which we make choices is indeed physical, e.g. our brain, how is it not governed by predictable causal chains like every other physical substance? If it is, then where does free will exist in this causal chain?

Even if there is a break in physical causality (for instance, quantum chance appears to permit non-deterministic outcomes), can humans be said to exert a "choice" on the outcome of those non-causal events? The examples we have of non-deterministic systems and non-causal relations imply that the opposite of determinism is not freedom or choice, but randomness. If your brain is a stochastic model rather than deterministic, that merely means it is "unpredictable due to the influence of a random variable". How do you exert freedom over a random system/variable any more than over a deterministic one? How do random variables entail freedom?

Yes, the lack of free will is an uncomfortable truth. The fact that we humans are essentially no different from all the other particles swirling around us is an uncomfortable truth. That the lack of free will makes concepts like responsibility and blame essentially incoherent (at least objectively) is something we should confront and deal with. (IMO, doing so would benefit the human race and the world. IMO, such a realization may well be some phase of evolution that will occur as we divest the vestigial portions of the ego that were necessary in our tribal/individualistic past.)

But the fact that it's uncomfortable and leads to cognitive dissonance with many of our other instinctive and cultural beliefs is hardly a sufficient argument against the reality of determinism.


(ETA: Okay, now I read The Atlantic article. It is good. Doesn't change anything I said, but perhaps says it better. FTR, I agree with Harris about the benefits of accepting determinism for society and individuals, particularly with regard to its limiting of anger/hatred. I've used my understanding of determinism as a cognitive tool to help me forgive myself and others. On the other hand, the negative outcomes Vohs found are interesting. I feel less qualified saying whether I've exhibited any of those, but probably I do to some extent--certainly I match the whole apathy toward one's job aspect, but I don't know if I'd blame determinism for that! )

[Ego]

Spartan_Warrior also hasn't read the article or most of this thread yet (but he may because it seems relevant to his interests). But he must say it warms his heart to see Ego making arguments for determinism. In this I believe I can point to myself as a causal influence in the chain of physical events that led Ego to make such arguments? I believe he was not so inclined when I first came here.

Yes! 100% yes! You earned that warm heart.

[bryan]

Nice post @Spartan_Warrior.

Although I am a practising believer of determinism and cause and effect (and hidden variables), practically from a single point of view you do have randomness (and thus free will?). As far as I know the uncertainty principle (from quantum mechanics) still holds. Additionally, many of the systems are non-linear (or chaotic) with the inputs being countless numbers of these tiny unknowns, so good luck sussing anything useful out. (Of course it stands to reason we can continue to improve our predictions as we continue to learn and observe more, though there are physical limits to this).

Humans are pattern recognizing beasts and it is also certain patterns that make us who we are. It's reasonable that our complex-self-pattern allows for feedback and could be part of what gives us "free will". We could have evolved into free will, our divergent actions causing new patterns and actions and natural selection favouring those with freedom?

Or possibly it is just ego, as you say. Maybe it is only God that has free will and is omnipotent. Or to put it another way, from my perspective I have free will even if God knows I don't, but he knows that I do too (wat).

edit, read the article:

Would differences in abstract philosophical beliefs influence people’s decisions? Yes, indeed. When asked to take a math test, with cheating made easy, the group primed to see free will as illusory proved more likely to take an illicit peek at the answers. When given an opportunity to steal—to take more money than they were due from an envelope of $1 coins—those whose belief in free will had been undermined pilfered more.
...
If everyone accepts that there is no free will, then I’ll know that people will say, ‘Whatever he did, he had no choice—we can’t blame him.’ So I know I’m not going to be condemned for taking the selfish option.”

So if someone consciously believes they can't control themselves, they act differently than those who think they can control themselves. To me it seems we should just call whatever this mechanism is as part of "free will" and keep things simple (and let the philosophers and scientists continue to dig).

Consequently, they act less responsibly and give in to their baser instincts.

Baser instincts before we evolved "free will" or rather evolved some understanding of society and patterns that allow you to have some success in such a society?

The list goes on: Believing that free will is an illusion has been shown to make people less creative, more likely to conform, less willing to learn from their mistakes, and less grateful toward one another. In every regard, it seems, when we embrace determinism, we indulge our dark side.

Of course "dark side" is subjective. Maybe it is time for free will, independence, individualism, self-reliance, however you want to call it, to die away (among stupid people) and thus human population culling? Then again, religion has been dying for a while but it does not seem to have hurt population growth too much (I guess some other structure replaced the "purpose" of religion)..

No one has caused himself: No one chose his genes or the environment into which he was born. Therefore no one bears ultimate responsibility for who he is and what he does.

Well.. yes and no.. the moment you are born you are part of the system (I/O) which defines who you are.

[Dragline]

Of course "dark side" is subjective. Maybe it is time for free will, independence, individualism, self-reliance, however you want to call it, to die away (among stupid people) and thus human population culling? Then again, religion has been dying for a while but it does not seem to have hurt population growth too much (I guess some other structure replaced the "purpose" of religion)..

Religion was replaced with ideologies based largely on perversions of science and social science, beginning with Rousseau, then Marxism/Communism, then Fascism. In developed countries that escaped and/or survived those, we are left with beliefs in Progress (Futurism and modern Scientism) and the big one -- Consumerism.

In Consumerism, we worship a god called "Scarcity" and the high priests and priestesses are the Famous -- they are the most "Scarce", who dictate the preferred modalities of consumptive behaviors, and even get paid to do so. Occasionally, one or more of them is ritually sacrificed through public shaming and humiliation. There are also ritual shame and humiliation sacrifices of those who are "trying to be famous", like the failed contestants on reality-tv performance shows. In effect, we have resurrected very ancient ritual/sacrificial practices, but made them a little tamer. Still, we do shame and humiliate people until they commit suicide now and again.

BTW, population is not growing in most countries, except through immigration. This is still a popular yet false assumption that I hear people repeat constantly because they are thinking of predictions from 20 or 30 years ago. Most (and especially developed countries) have fertility rates that are below the replacement rate or will be there soon. This is true for all areas of the world except Africa and some of the countries in Southern Asia. What was predicted in the 1960s/1970s in "The Population Bomb" and other popular books from that era simply did not happen in most places. In addition, the main correlated factor in lowering fertility rates has to do with the emancipation and education of women, regardless of the religiosity or non-religiosity of the society. Strikingly, it has even fallen in places like Saudi Arabia, although not as much as elsewhere.

Watch this -- for a fertility/population tour around what is going on in the world, start around 15:00: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXC1SjDm8WY

[jacob]

@Dragline - You should write a book.

[Dragline]

It may have already been written by an Italian dude name Luca Luchesini. But I discuss it in more detail here:

http://www.prospectingmimeticfractals.c ... metic-mind

"Then he discusses the interesting phenomenon that Haidt also observed, which is that over time, most Western churches dropped many of their "sacred" rituals in favor of teaching that the scapegoats of society are innocent victims, and the religious idea of "sacred" was transposed into the secular concept of "scarcity." Scarcity is the modern substitute for "sacred" and reflects the modern trend towards deifying markets and consumerism."

[BRUTE]

@Dragline:
brute recommends The Coming Population Crash by Fred Pearce. the theme is basically that there are no exponential functions in reality, because most real systems, including biological ones, are self-regulating. since human females are also self-regulating, they stop having 16 offspring once they are reasonable sure that at least one of them will survive. they instead have 1-3 offspring, which is more comfortable for them.

thus, reduction in infant mortality led to reduction in birth rates led to Malthus being wrong.

@Spartan_Warrior:
well said. brute is also fiercly convinced of determinism. and since determinism is true, he doesn't have to choose that conviction.

[Spartan_Warrior]

@BRUTE: Actually, maybe I should walk back some of my post, because I don't know if I'd agree with your statement. Importantly, you are perfectly capable of making choices, including choosing what you believe*. It's just that the choosing itself is determined (or at least not free, if you want to include for the possibility of random factors/quantum chance/etc).

*Generally speaking; of course, people who do less critical thinking probably choose their own beliefs less than others, and vice versa.

So it would be more accurate to say that since determinism is true, it is predetermined which conviction you will choose, but you are still physically able to make that choice. Of course you are; just not "freely" in the sense that you are free of "coercive influences", namely, physical laws combined with previous states of events leading up to this point.

I think this is an important distinction to which Harris alludes in the article--that there is a difference between determinism (all outcomes are necessitated by previous physical events combined with physical laws) and fatalism (certain outcomes are unavoidable no matter what physical events--including choices--precede them; when you think about it deeply enough, this would almost be non-deterministic/non-causal in the sense that choice X or choice Y would both be expected to yield outcome Z). Basically, determinism emphasizes causal necessity while fatalism emphasizes some inescapable future/outcome.

(Fatalism may be true as well, but I am not arguing for it.)

IMO "I believe in determinism, therefore I cannot choose not to believe in determinism" veers more toward fatalism. It's not that you have no choices, it's just that your choosing (and even the choices you are aware of, etc) isn't as "free" as humans intuitively believe. In this sense it's "not really a choice" because the outcome is predictable based on the inputs, but on the other hand, by the dictionary definition, you ARE making a choice any time you select or make a decision when faced with two or more possibilities.

Note that some arguments against determinism use a "weaker" definition of free will to argue that we do in fact have free will in the only sense that matters, which is the ability to make a choice in the moment free of "obvious" external coercions (like a gun to your head). Personally, I disagree with that definition of free will, perhaps because my imagination makes it too easy to envision the causal chains reaching into the past just as easily as I can visualize a gun to my head--so it's hard to ignore these as coercive factors as well.

TL;DR: It's not so much that we have no choices--because obviously we make choices constantly--but that we have no apparent freedom, in a meaningful sense, over what we end up choosing.

Sorry, these are the types of discussion that actually necessitate semantic quibbling!

@Ego:

So, should I have kept my knowledge to myself in my ivory tower? Do you think you've been negatively affected by taking the red pill? To be honest, I wouldn't have considered the potential for the negative personal outcomes that Vohs found in those with a belief in determinism, but I seem to recall you were concerned about what anyone "got" out of such a theory, e.g. how it helped versus hindered an individual's actualization. Just curious if you think the belief has changed you in any way. Basically, should I apologize for ripping away your kiddie steering wheel of free will?

[BRUTE]

you are still physically able to make that choice. Of course you are; just not "freely" in the sense that you are free of "coercive influences", namely, physical laws combined with previous states of events leading up to this point.

what. this seems to brute like some serious spinning and suspension of disbelief. if "choice" is being redefined as "following a pre-set pattern without any ability to influence it", then that's giving up the word "choice". brute will call it by the word humans already have for that, "programmed".

this is typical of Harris, who likes to make up for flaws in his logic and science by using his "eloquence", i.e. muddling the words. see: all his discussions on determinism with dennett.

if determinism is true, then brute had to arrive at the belief that he currently holds, e.g. that determinism is true.

brute has never heard an argument against determinism that had any weight behind it. the arguments seem to fall into these categories:
1) "determinism can't be true because it clashes with my views on individualism/free will"
2) "determinism can't be true because I am redefining the words "choice" and "free" and "will" to be meaningless, and arbitrarily giving importance to the gun to my head, but not all the other factors that cause 'my' choice" (probably because 1)

brute believes (and had to believe ) that "free will" or "choice" are a bit like value, they're not inherent in beings, they're in the eye of the beholder.

humans are pattern matching machines, and they are pretty good at detecting simple patterns like "random" or "always follows the exact same rules". but there's of course a lot of grey in between, especially when it comes to complex biological beings like other humans - and even the observing human.

rather than admitting that there are deterministic patterns, influenced by random and predetermined factors, yet whose rules are so complex humans cannot understand them, humans like to come up with ideas such as "free will" and "choice", mystifying the process. even though this idea is clearly false scientifically, and extremely trivial do disprove to anyone who believes in science at all.

yet even educated, science-loving humans convince themselves of these absurd schemes like "the choice to follow a predetermined course of action" (wtf). this leads brute to believe that this insight is simply clashing with other deeply held beliefs many humans have, such as free will and individualism and personal responsibility.