The unfortunate part about climbing a mountain is that inevitably you are going to have to come back down. You reach the top, enjoy the view for a while, and then begin the trek downward. Sometimes the journey down is pleasant, the terrain is smooth and gradual, and you arrive at the bottom relaxed and ready for another adventure. Other times the journey down is steep, rocky, and your toes are continually jammed into the front of your boots, causing immense discomfort and a sworn declaration to never go hiking again.
In this “theory,” I will argue that modern man has reached the top of the mountain, and while we may be enjoying the view at the moment, soon we’ll be heading back down. The trek downward will be gradual and seemingly pleasant, but I am afraid we will find ourselves once again at the bottom, exhausted and perhaps even less prepared, or able, to attempt another hike.
End analogy.
THEORY: Modern man, through advances in technology, inter-personal communication, and thought, has reached the pinnacle of its being. Having reached the summit of the mountain, modern man is now beginning a “downward trek” (hereto referred to as “de-evolution”) into a less developed (less-evolved) state of mind and being. Ironically, the very advances that have brought us to the top are now bringing us back down.
First, a note on my terminology:
“De-evolution” – I just like this term. I know it’s not scientifically correct, but this is more of a social theory anyway. Just go with it.
To support my theory, I offer 5 areas of modern development in which our advances are beginning to produce negative effects, and thus cause us to de-evolve. Areas 1 & 2 provided the basis for this theory, and areas 3-5 are supplemental evidence.
#1 Inter-personal Communication
Facebook, AIM, Email, Gmail Chat, Texting, Blogging – what do these technologies have in common? We all use at least one of them (if not all), and they are all means of communication that do not involve actual person-to-person contact. These technologies were designed to easily connect us with those around us. And they do. But at what expense? From my observation and experience, our generation’s growing dependence on technology as a means for inter-personal communication is having a negative effect on our ability to communicate in the “real world” (i.e. in person). Examples:
1. For a sociology project during my freshmen year at college, I stopped using AIM for a month and a half. Aside from feeling withdrawn from the world (how would I know what people are up to if I can’t read their away messages?), I noticed that others felt withdrawn from me. On more than one occasion, someone asked “Where have you been lately?” The reality was that I had physically been around just as much as before, I just wasn’t online. I guess my online presence was more powerful than my physical presence. Interesting.
2. I lead a Bible Study for high schoolers. These kids are addicted to texting. I have had more than one occasion in which they would text me or another leader and have an ENTIRE CONVERSATION via texting, but as soon as you called them or tried to talk to them in person, they went silent. Texting had made them uncomfortable (and dare I say unable?) to communicate outside of technology.
3. I’ve had other experiences where people (usually high school girls) who talk their brains out on AIM won’t talk to you in person. It’s like they’re completely different people.
#2 Freedom of Thought
The ability to think freely, rationally, and independently is a hallmark of a modern, developed society. I don’t have solid evidence for this, but its just common sense (right Andrew?). Look at American society today. Open mindedness has come to be characteristic of those we see as intelligent, socially aware, advanced, etc. We like people who think for themselves and who can respect what others think. But there’s a point where being open minded becomes a problem. The biggest example of this I see is the loosening of what is deemed “right” and “wrong.” We live in an increasingly morally relativistic society in which right and wrong, good and bad, is slowly becoming a thing of the past. If you truly hold to a rigid system of right and wrong, then you are seen as close-minded, and thus looked down upon.
I would argue that a belief in right and wrong, good and bad, is what has helped move mankind onward. Without these systems in place, there would be no structure, no organization, and thus no society.
In the name of independence and freedom of thought, the very things that have made us into a modern and developed society will bring us back to a prehistoric mentality. We’ll all be cavemen again! I recognize that this is an extreme conclusion, but if you think about the logical conclusion of such free thinking and how it will affect our social structure, you may begin to see my point.
#3 Mobility
This falls under the broader category of technological advancement (as does interpersonal communication). Again, I have a couple examples of modern technologies that, while serving a beneficial purpose, also produce negative effects on mankind that will hurt us in the long run.
1. Elevators and escalators. We all use them. They’re an easy way to get to the 30th floor, or the 2nd if you’re that person that everyone on the elevator hates because you were too lazy to take the stairs. Or if you’ve been to an airport or amusement park with the moving walkways. Just get on, stand, and ride along – it’ll take you longer, but hey, its convenient! All of this is useful technology, but at what expense? Physical fitness. Yes, I know that walking up stairs is not the only means of physical activity in ones day, but its that much less than you would be getting. Think WALL-E. All those people floating around in their own personal hovercrafts. What happened to them? They’re all fat (not to mention they don’t know how to communicate with one another due to their dependence on computer screens as a primary form of communication).
2. Cars. Another great invention. Not knocking cars. But we’re getting less exercise. I drive to my gym, which is really only a 15 minute walk from my house. Why? Because I have the convenience and availability of a car.
Cars and elevators aren’t going to bring about the downfall of mankind, but in the long run, as we continue to have similar technological developments, they could end up doing more harm than good. Lets hope we don’t end up like the people in WALL-E.
#4 Dwelling
I live in a townhouse, literally attached to the people who live next to me. Everyone in my neighborhood is attached to someone else. But I’ve noticed something – no one seems to know one another! This is ironic, given that living closer would seem to increase the number of relationships you have with those around you. But on my street, at least, this doesn’t happen. (Or maybe it’s just me?) Could this be a trend in other close communities? Houses and neighborhoods are being built closer and closer to one another – but what about the person-to-person relationships? They seem to be weakening. See #1 above.
#5 Prescription Drugs
There are lots of amazing medical developments happening these days, not the least of which is the development of a drug for absolutely every condition that a human body can possibly develop. Do you breathe at night? There’s a drug to help you breathe better. Do you have pain in your joints? Drug for that. Do you have trouble keeping your legs still? Drug for that. Do you have snot in your nose? Drug for that. Does your CURRENT prescription medication not do enough? Well take another one.
There’s a drug for EVERYTHING, and what is disturbing is an apparent increase in the risk of serious side effects of these drugs. Listen to any prescription medication commercial. Side effects range from drowsiness, heart burn, digestive problems, erectile dysfunction, migraine, dry mouth, restlessness, difficulty breathing, joint pain and even death.
Is it worth it? The human body is already equipped to fight off disease and heal itself. With all the new drugs coming out, we’re not allowing the body to do its work. Yes, there’s a need for medication – but when do we stop and just our evolutionary heritage work for us? I’m afraid the advancements in medical technology and prescription drugs will certainly be adding years to our life, but given the negative effects of many other “developments” (medications included), I wonder what kind of life will be in these years.
I am well aware that I have not outlined the most thorough or convincing argument. I can see how it would be easy to get caught up in my examples and even some of the wording I used. My examples were not scientific and they were in large part from my own (subjective!) experience. I have drawn some extreme conclusions. Many correlations can be drawn, but the fact is that correlation does not imply causality, and there are many other factors that may contribute to some of the negative effects I have discussed.
But there is some truth to what I am saying.
The ability to effectively communicate with others, a system and belief in right and wrong, physical fitness, personal relationships, and good health, among other things – all of these are things that have brought mankind into modernity. I am afraid, however, that the very things that have allowed us to become who we are will eventually bring us back to a point at which we don’t want to be. I fear for the day when people no longer are able (or have a need) to communicate in real person-person contact, hold someone accountable for their actions, get around without their own personal hovercraft (I know, extreme), develop meaningful relationships, or live without the assistance of drugs and medical technologies. What kind of life would we be living?
So here are some questions to ponder:
- Do you believe there is a point where mankind can no longer advance?
- What other advancements in our modern world could potentially produce negative effects on mankind? At what point do the cons outweigh the pros?
- How can we counteract these negative effects, and thus still enjoy the convenience and usefulness of new developments in thought and technology?
- What other factors could be contributing to the negative examples I mentioned?
- When will Jesus come back and finally save us from our own self-destruction?
Discuss, disagree, counter-argue, complain, get angry, agree. Share your thoughts, before we’re unable to do so any more.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Uncommon Sense about Common Sense
At one time or another, you have referred to some idea or behavior as common sense, most likely in reference to an instance in which you personally observed a breach of it. If you haven't done this, you have directly witnessed someone else doing it. Commons sense is a widely accepted and often applied concept to many of the ideas and behaviors we perform and encounter on a daily basis. But have you ever actually thought about the concept of common sense? Who decides what ideas or behaviors fit into this category and on what grounds? Most importantly, if common sense is as common as it claims to be, why are breaches of it so prolific? There are no good answers to these questions because common sense is a concept that is fatally flawed at its most basic level.
What is common sense? Dictionary.com suggests that common sense is a "sound practical judgment that is independent of specialized knowledge, training or the like; normal native intelligence." This definition tells us two important things. 1) Common sense refers to knowledge or behavior that is native and normal. These ideas and behaviors seems to blatantly obvious that it is shocking to see someone act contrary to it. 2) Common sense refers to ideas and behaviors that are not taught, but instinctual. Due to this, the implication is that this set of knowledge and behaviors is obligatory upon any rational being. The universality and absolutivity with which common sense then applies to humanity becomes problematic when we consider how often we see people act contrary to common sense.
I think this problem arises from the fact that the modern understanding of common sense refers to things that are not truly instinctual, but rather to things that we think should be instinctual but actually must be learned. Take breathing for example. Knowing to breath is instinctual whereas knowing not to breath under water must be learned. Breathing does not constitute something that we would believe to be common sense. However, knowing you can't breath under water is placed in the common sense category. Why is this? It is because we create a category of ideas and behaviors based on observations of what ideas work best and what behaviors are the most appropriate reactions to specific stimuli (i.e. "sound practical judgement"). However, the fact that there are breaches of our prerceived common sense categories suggest that there are those who either haven't come to the same conclusion or haven't had the opportunity to react to those stimuli and thus develop a preferred/best response. Therefore, since common sense appears so subjective, can it actually claim true "commonness?"
Two other aspects of common sense further confirm the problematic nature of "common sense":
1 - It is practically impossible to measure how "common"various tenants of common sense actually are. People don't want to appear devoid of common sense themselves. Therefore, when they are questioned as to whether something is common sense, they will reply (both vocally and mentally) "of course it is" unless the matter at hand is so blatantly not common sensicle that they do not risk ridicule for disagreeing. Even thought they may have not previously considered a certain matter common sense, they will now amend their personal "common sense" category to include this matter in order to appear as being in compliance with widespread common sense.
2) Common sense is culturally and chronologically contextualized, suggesting it is more often based on subjective than objective substance. Take hand washing for example. In 21st century America, it is common sense to wash one's hands after using the restroom and before eating. 200 years ago, this was not necessarily the case. Today while it is common sense in America, it is not so in many disease plaugued areas of Africa and Asia. This, once again, begs the question of how "common" common sense actually is.
In conclusion, common sense is a fatally flawed concept because it is not true to what it claims to be. Both the name and the general understanding of common sense suggests that it pertains to ideas and behaviors that everyone should know. The fact that the ideas and behaviors that we classify as "common sense" must be learned demonstrates that they cannot tuely be considered "common." Rather, common sense entities are simply a set of ideas and behaviors that provide a disguised opportunity for condescension by those who are privileged to have learned about those entities against those who haven't. Common sense thrives on relativity and social contextualization and thus cannot claim to be common at all. In all honesty, the only things actually worthy to fit into a category claiming commonness go by another name - instinct.
What is common sense? Dictionary.com suggests that common sense is a "sound practical judgment that is independent of specialized knowledge, training or the like; normal native intelligence." This definition tells us two important things. 1) Common sense refers to knowledge or behavior that is native and normal. These ideas and behaviors seems to blatantly obvious that it is shocking to see someone act contrary to it. 2) Common sense refers to ideas and behaviors that are not taught, but instinctual. Due to this, the implication is that this set of knowledge and behaviors is obligatory upon any rational being. The universality and absolutivity with which common sense then applies to humanity becomes problematic when we consider how often we see people act contrary to common sense.I think this problem arises from the fact that the modern understanding of common sense refers to things that are not truly instinctual, but rather to things that we think should be instinctual but actually must be learned. Take breathing for example. Knowing to breath is instinctual whereas knowing not to breath under water must be learned. Breathing does not constitute something that we would believe to be common sense. However, knowing you can't breath under water is placed in the common sense category. Why is this? It is because we create a category of ideas and behaviors based on observations of what ideas work best and what behaviors are the most appropriate reactions to specific stimuli (i.e. "sound practical judgement"). However, the fact that there are breaches of our prerceived common sense categories suggest that there are those who either haven't come to the same conclusion or haven't had the opportunity to react to those stimuli and thus develop a preferred/best response. Therefore, since common sense appears so subjective, can it actually claim true "commonness?"
Two other aspects of common sense further confirm the problematic nature of "common sense":
1 - It is practically impossible to measure how "common"various tenants of common sense actually are. People don't want to appear devoid of common sense themselves. Therefore, when they are questioned as to whether something is common sense, they will reply (both vocally and mentally) "of course it is" unless the matter at hand is so blatantly not common sensicle that they do not risk ridicule for disagreeing. Even thought they may have not previously considered a certain matter common sense, they will now amend their personal "common sense" category to include this matter in order to appear as being in compliance with widespread common sense.
2) Common sense is culturally and chronologically contextualized, suggesting it is more often based on subjective than objective substance. Take hand washing for example. In 21st century America, it is common sense to wash one's hands after using the restroom and before eating. 200 years ago, this was not necessarily the case. Today while it is common sense in America, it is not so in many disease plaugued areas of Africa and Asia. This, once again, begs the question of how "common" common sense actually is.
In conclusion, common sense is a fatally flawed concept because it is not true to what it claims to be. Both the name and the general understanding of common sense suggests that it pertains to ideas and behaviors that everyone should know. The fact that the ideas and behaviors that we classify as "common sense" must be learned demonstrates that they cannot tuely be considered "common." Rather, common sense entities are simply a set of ideas and behaviors that provide a disguised opportunity for condescension by those who are privileged to have learned about those entities against those who haven't. Common sense thrives on relativity and social contextualization and thus cannot claim to be common at all. In all honesty, the only things actually worthy to fit into a category claiming commonness go by another name - instinct.
Final Anecdote.
One final thought and then some conclusions.
I would like to take this moment to stress that personal experiences and anecdotal evidence have truth in them. Your life, and your stories actually occurred. That is as real as it comes and when handled appropriately that leads to discovery of truth.
Of course, an example. Yesterday I bought tomato plants to plant in the Patagonia garden. When making this purchase in Tabor City, Mr. Fonville explained to me what I was supposed to do with the fertilizer and vegetables I had purchased. He was telling me “how I do it in my garden is…”. From years of experience growing his own crops he knew just how to tend, prepare, protect, and yield a great crop. Truly he got most of his information from trial and error, which led to his claims of how this plants will grow the best. Certainly scientist have done research to support his suggestions but his confidence and success year after year is supported most heavily by the outcome of his garden and the flavors that are laid on his table. Just as in this farming situation, the outcomes and evidence of real life experience are the confirmation of scientific, logical reasoning previously termed “online processing”. What happens in real life is the final determiner as to what is true.
Unfortunately, as we saw earlier, our experiences can often be misunderstood which could lead to false assumptions and beliefs about our world.
In review.
1. Personal experiences (anecdotal evidence) weigh more heavily into our conclusions than we give credit for.
2. Life stories give evidence that has in it the power of confirmation of truth.
3. Our interpretation of this real life evidence can be applied incorrectly and lead us to inaccurate theories and beliefs.
So where does this leave us?
This changes how we treat those who have different beliefs than us.
If you set of ideas, beliefs, and theories are partially biased and based of what your personal experiences have taught you then everyone’s thoughts are skewed in the same way. With this understanding we become much more charitable to others in terms of their views and thoughts about the world. This means in order to understand each other, in order to find common ground we have to put effort into grasping the effect each persons anecdotal evidence is having on their conclusions.
However, if we all live in the same world and we are all humans their must be truth than transcends our personal stories, a truth that remains even in our individual context. If only there were some truth that fit this mold. A truth that was able to satisfy, answer, and fulfill all the theories, faiths, and questions we have about life and how we should live it.
Tim Keller in his book The Reason For God he suggest attempting to prove things in life using our anecdotal evidence/personal experiences with reality to measure our theories about life by. He says… “A theory is considered verified if it organizes the evidence and explains phenomena (experiences) better than any conceivable alternative theory. That is, if, through testing, it (a theory) leads us to expect with accuracy many and varied events better than any other rival account of the same data, then it is accepted…” In other words, if your theory explains your circumstances and experiences and no other theory can explain it with any more clarity then you should accept that theory.
Tim Keller shows how the Gospel of Jesus is this truth that transcends and fulfills each persons anecdotal evidence about what life is. The Gospel of Jesus does this and he explains it well as Contextualization of the Gospel.
What does this mean for anecdotal evidence. Weigh your experiences and humbly consider the alternative theories other people offer to explain what your personal stories reveal. Keep searching for truth.
Sorry for the confusing discourse this week. I look forward to the day when I can more clearly dictate my thoughts. I hope Andrew Brown can provide a theory that provokes greater discussion. Please help me welcome our 5th theorist, Andrew Brown.
I would like to take this moment to stress that personal experiences and anecdotal evidence have truth in them. Your life, and your stories actually occurred. That is as real as it comes and when handled appropriately that leads to discovery of truth.
Of course, an example. Yesterday I bought tomato plants to plant in the Patagonia garden. When making this purchase in Tabor City, Mr. Fonville explained to me what I was supposed to do with the fertilizer and vegetables I had purchased. He was telling me “how I do it in my garden is…”. From years of experience growing his own crops he knew just how to tend, prepare, protect, and yield a great crop. Truly he got most of his information from trial and error, which led to his claims of how this plants will grow the best. Certainly scientist have done research to support his suggestions but his confidence and success year after year is supported most heavily by the outcome of his garden and the flavors that are laid on his table. Just as in this farming situation, the outcomes and evidence of real life experience are the confirmation of scientific, logical reasoning previously termed “online processing”. What happens in real life is the final determiner as to what is true.
Unfortunately, as we saw earlier, our experiences can often be misunderstood which could lead to false assumptions and beliefs about our world.
In review.
1. Personal experiences (anecdotal evidence) weigh more heavily into our conclusions than we give credit for.
2. Life stories give evidence that has in it the power of confirmation of truth.
3. Our interpretation of this real life evidence can be applied incorrectly and lead us to inaccurate theories and beliefs.
So where does this leave us?
This changes how we treat those who have different beliefs than us.
If you set of ideas, beliefs, and theories are partially biased and based of what your personal experiences have taught you then everyone’s thoughts are skewed in the same way. With this understanding we become much more charitable to others in terms of their views and thoughts about the world. This means in order to understand each other, in order to find common ground we have to put effort into grasping the effect each persons anecdotal evidence is having on their conclusions.
However, if we all live in the same world and we are all humans their must be truth than transcends our personal stories, a truth that remains even in our individual context. If only there were some truth that fit this mold. A truth that was able to satisfy, answer, and fulfill all the theories, faiths, and questions we have about life and how we should live it.
Tim Keller in his book The Reason For God he suggest attempting to prove things in life using our anecdotal evidence/personal experiences with reality to measure our theories about life by. He says… “A theory is considered verified if it organizes the evidence and explains phenomena (experiences) better than any conceivable alternative theory. That is, if, through testing, it (a theory) leads us to expect with accuracy many and varied events better than any other rival account of the same data, then it is accepted…” In other words, if your theory explains your circumstances and experiences and no other theory can explain it with any more clarity then you should accept that theory.
Tim Keller shows how the Gospel of Jesus is this truth that transcends and fulfills each persons anecdotal evidence about what life is. The Gospel of Jesus does this and he explains it well as Contextualization of the Gospel.
What does this mean for anecdotal evidence. Weigh your experiences and humbly consider the alternative theories other people offer to explain what your personal stories reveal. Keep searching for truth.
Sorry for the confusing discourse this week. I look forward to the day when I can more clearly dictate my thoughts. I hope Andrew Brown can provide a theory that provokes greater discussion. Please help me welcome our 5th theorist, Andrew Brown.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
What You See Is What You Believe .
I'll address Jerry's thought first. I do think that both positive and negative experiences weigh in on our beliefs and thoughts. To give an example of how negative anecdotal evidence could effect a belief I will turn to the health care system.
Say your aunt gets some version of cancer. The doctors say she has a good chance of recovering. Maybe they even gave a percentage chance of recovering that was encouraging. They say 75% of people survive. But sadly your aunt was not fortunate to be part of that 75%. The next time you hear of someone you know who gets that particular version of cancer, will you believe the doctors prognosis? Even though the doctors are basing their expected outcomes on tons of research and countless databases with information regarding the outcomes of patients with this particular cancer, your mind set will remain pessimistic. Your mind can not be modified with other forms of evidence, your anecdotal evidence of your aunt’s experience is exerting its dominance on your belief. Again, I'm not trying to say that this is wrong, I'm just pointing out that our personal experiences weigh heavily onto what we believe whether they are positive or negative.
I loved Glenn's comment. That is what I needed to hear to test and challenge my thoughts in regards to this theory. I understand "online processing" as he explained it. To clarify, I didn't say that all decisions and beliefs were solely based on anecdotal evidence, I only wish to suggest that personal experiences weigh heavily, and much more heavily than we give credit for.
I see and support this idea of "online processing" being ONE means to determining truth but I think that critical thinking, reasoning, and logical analysis are easily pushed and pulled around by our experiences. Those experiences are the strong hold that anchors your thoughts. If you had a different set of personal experiences you would have a tendency/desire to confirm or reject the conclusions that your online processing brings. A tendency that is based on anecdotal evidence.
Let me allow C.S. Lewis eloquently speak on the idea that singularly, "online processing" doesn't become permanent in our minds in a way that can only be removed by another well placed cognitive argument.
On reasoning he used to depend on which he now sees is wrong he says…“I was assuming that if the human mind once accepts a thing as true it will automatically go on regarding it as true, until some real reason for reconsidering it turns up. In fact, I was assuming that the human mind is completely ruled by reason. But that is not so."...
“We have to be continually reminded of what we believe. Neither this belief (Christian) nor any other will automatically remain alive in the mind. It must be fed…”...
“As a matter of fact, if you examined a hundred people who had lost their faith in Christianity, I wonder how many of them would turn out to have reasoned out of it by honest argument?
A final example is one familiar to many UNC grads (specifically those in religious circles)...Bart Ehrman.
Dr. Ehrman was formerly a devout Christian. In his class he explains his loss of the faith. He reports that in studying scripture the discrepancies and inconsistencies in the Bible led him to question its validity and ultimately led him away from Christianity. (This is where I attempt to see deep into the heart of this man without ever meeting him) I have heard report from a few friends that although he credits his loss of faith to these things, his real issue and gut wrenched problem with Christianity seems to lie in his disapproval of its followers, not in his concerns with the text. He just seems to be the most passionately angry about Christians and how they live their lives. I'm not saying that his reasoning and textual arguments don't also substantiate his dismissal of Christianity but I do think his disenchanting personal experiences strongly persuade him to believe a certain way.
So maybe the better title would have been. What You See Is What You Want To Believe. I reiterate, I think personal experiences weigh heavily into determining what theories and conclusions we have.
The proposed question is... Where does this anecdotal evidence belong? and how should we consider it?
Say your aunt gets some version of cancer. The doctors say she has a good chance of recovering. Maybe they even gave a percentage chance of recovering that was encouraging. They say 75% of people survive. But sadly your aunt was not fortunate to be part of that 75%. The next time you hear of someone you know who gets that particular version of cancer, will you believe the doctors prognosis? Even though the doctors are basing their expected outcomes on tons of research and countless databases with information regarding the outcomes of patients with this particular cancer, your mind set will remain pessimistic. Your mind can not be modified with other forms of evidence, your anecdotal evidence of your aunt’s experience is exerting its dominance on your belief. Again, I'm not trying to say that this is wrong, I'm just pointing out that our personal experiences weigh heavily onto what we believe whether they are positive or negative.
I loved Glenn's comment. That is what I needed to hear to test and challenge my thoughts in regards to this theory. I understand "online processing" as he explained it. To clarify, I didn't say that all decisions and beliefs were solely based on anecdotal evidence, I only wish to suggest that personal experiences weigh heavily, and much more heavily than we give credit for.
I see and support this idea of "online processing" being ONE means to determining truth but I think that critical thinking, reasoning, and logical analysis are easily pushed and pulled around by our experiences. Those experiences are the strong hold that anchors your thoughts. If you had a different set of personal experiences you would have a tendency/desire to confirm or reject the conclusions that your online processing brings. A tendency that is based on anecdotal evidence.
Let me allow C.S. Lewis eloquently speak on the idea that singularly, "online processing" doesn't become permanent in our minds in a way that can only be removed by another well placed cognitive argument.
On reasoning he used to depend on which he now sees is wrong he says…“I was assuming that if the human mind once accepts a thing as true it will automatically go on regarding it as true, until some real reason for reconsidering it turns up. In fact, I was assuming that the human mind is completely ruled by reason. But that is not so."...
“We have to be continually reminded of what we believe. Neither this belief (Christian) nor any other will automatically remain alive in the mind. It must be fed…”...
“As a matter of fact, if you examined a hundred people who had lost their faith in Christianity, I wonder how many of them would turn out to have reasoned out of it by honest argument?
A final example is one familiar to many UNC grads (specifically those in religious circles)...Bart Ehrman.
Dr. Ehrman was formerly a devout Christian. In his class he explains his loss of the faith. He reports that in studying scripture the discrepancies and inconsistencies in the Bible led him to question its validity and ultimately led him away from Christianity. (This is where I attempt to see deep into the heart of this man without ever meeting him) I have heard report from a few friends that although he credits his loss of faith to these things, his real issue and gut wrenched problem with Christianity seems to lie in his disapproval of its followers, not in his concerns with the text. He just seems to be the most passionately angry about Christians and how they live their lives. I'm not saying that his reasoning and textual arguments don't also substantiate his dismissal of Christianity but I do think his disenchanting personal experiences strongly persuade him to believe a certain way.
So maybe the better title would have been. What You See Is What You Want To Believe. I reiterate, I think personal experiences weigh heavily into determining what theories and conclusions we have.
The proposed question is... Where does this anecdotal evidence belong? and how should we consider it?
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Feed Forward Cousin Predictors
In the past few weeks there has been mention of evidence and personal experience and where these two converge. I think that provides a very welcome podium for the presentation of this theory.
The idea here is… In the general population (non-experts) anecdotal evidence from a relatively close source is the strongest version of support for a theory. At this point in the week I don’t intend to address whether or not this is appropriate, I will let the conversation of the involved commenters mold and shape the outcome of that discussion.
Wikipedia says that anecdotal evidence has two distinct meanings. When I mention anecdotal evidence I mean something like this.
""Evidence, which may itself be true and verifiable, used to deduce a conclusion which does not follow from it, usually by generalizing from an insufficient amount of evidence. For example "my grandfather smoked like a chimney and died healthy in a car crash at the age of 99" does not disprove the proposition that "smoking markedly increases the probability of cancer and heart disease at a relatively early age". In this case, the evidence may itself be true, but does not warrant the conclusion.""
In this situation and will most anecdotal evidence the situation may not be untrue, it probably did actually happen, but the conclusion is not always directly related or directly supported by the evidence. Often the “evidence” is applied without considering the other possible causative factors involved and so the anecdote is considered the only possible cause for the effect seen.
Again, using the great source for all things reliable, Wikipedia, they further shed light on what I consider the great confirmatory source of all things true, the anecdote.
""An anecdote is a short tale narrating an interesting or amusing biographical incident….An anecdote is always based on real life, an incident involving actual persons, whether famous or not, in real places.""
Appropriately, the best way I see to expose this idea is with an example. The example I will use involves the many wives tales that surround the declaration of an unborn babies gender like the ones seen here.
My own anecdotal evidence involves my recently born niece. After 2 ultrasounds and no confirmation of the babies sex the speculation and predictions began. My cousin Shannon provided this anecdotal evidence. All we have to do is get Molly (her daughter) to come over and play with Shawna (sister-in-law/mother-to-be). If Molly wants to play with her then the baby will be a girl. If Molly is not interested in her then it will be a boy. Then confusion ensued.
...“Wait… is that right? No… if Molly goes to her that means it is a boy because that means she is attracted to the opposite sex. Wait… No… Okay, I remember. Molly loved Amber when she was pregnant and Amber had a girl. That must be it.
And so we solved the mystery. With anecdotal evidence. I didn’t mention that even before Amber got pregnant Molly already loved her? This made no sense to me. There is no evidence or support for why this would work and I refuse to believe it. But Shannon (a nurse) stands by her predictor.
How about this?
You have to lose a game late in the season in order to be able to win the national championship in college basketball. This may have some truth to it and a lot of people could explain WHY this is good, but the reason people believe is because this happened to their team. Prime example is UNC 2005. UNC lost to Georgia Tech in the ACC tournament and then went on to beat Illinois in the championship. How about this year? We lost in the ACC tournament and finished with the championship. Because it happened again this will reinforce the theory. This is the feedforward part. If your personal anecdote supports an idea, and then you see another anecdote that agrees with your original theory the confirmation is accelerated precisely because “anecdotal evidence from a relatively close source is the strongest version of support for a theory.” Even if a great basketball coach like Roy Williams himself says that losing a game does not help a team you will adamantly disagree because at this point the anecdotal evidence has gained control of your critical thinking and will override any expert opinion or reliable evidence. My point with this example is not whether or not this predictor is valid, the issue is that the strongest reason people believe theories is because they have their own personal anecdotal support.
So what does this mean?
Here on this blog we are trying to find themes, theories, and formulas to help us understand people and the lives they live. Where does anecdotal evidence weigh in? Is it welcomed like strong support or is it looked down on as subjective personal experience that lacks reasoning in order to sustain an argument?
I don’t know. Do you?
I also would encourage you to post other feedforward cousin predictors that I have not mentioned here.
The idea here is… In the general population (non-experts) anecdotal evidence from a relatively close source is the strongest version of support for a theory. At this point in the week I don’t intend to address whether or not this is appropriate, I will let the conversation of the involved commenters mold and shape the outcome of that discussion.
Wikipedia says that anecdotal evidence has two distinct meanings. When I mention anecdotal evidence I mean something like this.
""Evidence, which may itself be true and verifiable, used to deduce a conclusion which does not follow from it, usually by generalizing from an insufficient amount of evidence. For example "my grandfather smoked like a chimney and died healthy in a car crash at the age of 99" does not disprove the proposition that "smoking markedly increases the probability of cancer and heart disease at a relatively early age". In this case, the evidence may itself be true, but does not warrant the conclusion.""
In this situation and will most anecdotal evidence the situation may not be untrue, it probably did actually happen, but the conclusion is not always directly related or directly supported by the evidence. Often the “evidence” is applied without considering the other possible causative factors involved and so the anecdote is considered the only possible cause for the effect seen.
Again, using the great source for all things reliable, Wikipedia, they further shed light on what I consider the great confirmatory source of all things true, the anecdote.
""An anecdote is a short tale narrating an interesting or amusing biographical incident….An anecdote is always based on real life, an incident involving actual persons, whether famous or not, in real places.""
Appropriately, the best way I see to expose this idea is with an example. The example I will use involves the many wives tales that surround the declaration of an unborn babies gender like the ones seen here.
My own anecdotal evidence involves my recently born niece. After 2 ultrasounds and no confirmation of the babies sex the speculation and predictions began. My cousin Shannon provided this anecdotal evidence. All we have to do is get Molly (her daughter) to come over and play with Shawna (sister-in-law/mother-to-be). If Molly wants to play with her then the baby will be a girl. If Molly is not interested in her then it will be a boy. Then confusion ensued.
...“Wait… is that right? No… if Molly goes to her that means it is a boy because that means she is attracted to the opposite sex. Wait… No… Okay, I remember. Molly loved Amber when she was pregnant and Amber had a girl. That must be it.
And so we solved the mystery. With anecdotal evidence. I didn’t mention that even before Amber got pregnant Molly already loved her? This made no sense to me. There is no evidence or support for why this would work and I refuse to believe it. But Shannon (a nurse) stands by her predictor.
How about this?
You have to lose a game late in the season in order to be able to win the national championship in college basketball. This may have some truth to it and a lot of people could explain WHY this is good, but the reason people believe is because this happened to their team. Prime example is UNC 2005. UNC lost to Georgia Tech in the ACC tournament and then went on to beat Illinois in the championship. How about this year? We lost in the ACC tournament and finished with the championship. Because it happened again this will reinforce the theory. This is the feedforward part. If your personal anecdote supports an idea, and then you see another anecdote that agrees with your original theory the confirmation is accelerated precisely because “anecdotal evidence from a relatively close source is the strongest version of support for a theory.” Even if a great basketball coach like Roy Williams himself says that losing a game does not help a team you will adamantly disagree because at this point the anecdotal evidence has gained control of your critical thinking and will override any expert opinion or reliable evidence. My point with this example is not whether or not this predictor is valid, the issue is that the strongest reason people believe theories is because they have their own personal anecdotal support.
So what does this mean?
Here on this blog we are trying to find themes, theories, and formulas to help us understand people and the lives they live. Where does anecdotal evidence weigh in? Is it welcomed like strong support or is it looked down on as subjective personal experience that lacks reasoning in order to sustain an argument?
I don’t know. Do you?
I also would encourage you to post other feedforward cousin predictors that I have not mentioned here.
Friday, April 10, 2009
Love it OR Hate it.
Great comments that I want to adapt and include in this revision.
Andrew mentions in order to be a Root Beer item you must…
“1) Give off such a strong first impression that people are so turned off as to not give it a chance to prove itself.
OR
2) Be so insignificant, that people don't care enough to give it a second chance.”
I never meant to say that the feelings about a root beer item could never change after the first encounter. I think this feeling arises from this line in the first post in regards to the characteristics of root beer. I said it… “doesn’t sit back and allow you the opportunity to take a few sips to decide if you like it”. In saying this I was attempting to stress the idea that the bold and distinct characteristics provide a “decide now” situation. This strong initial impression is usually an outcome of the bold and distinctiveness of an item. Particularly it’s boldness. The definitions that I come across say bold is “standing out prominently”. In other words, distinct qualities in combination with boldness, quickly exposes character that is uniquely identifying. This means the distinct character of an item is easily noticed because of its boldness.
However, although it does stand out initially that does not weigh into the ability of feelings and judgments to be altered as the distinct flavor is further revealed and experienced over time. An item can still be root beer if in the beginning it you hate it and after understanding and participating with it, you love it. You just can’t be indifferent about it.
To use the previous examples. I have heard a hundred times that you have to see Napoleon Dynamite twice to love it. Because the feeling could change after the second viewing does not put its qualification as a Root Beer Item into question, it only strengthens it. That movie doesn’t give you an option to be indifferent because it is so distinct in its character (humor/style/acting). Even the second time you watch it, in the end, you have a very polarized opinion about the movie.
The interesting next step for me, is to understand what leads you to love or hate a Root Beer Item. I would suggest that the determining factor is what that item does for you. This may sound like a John Madden comment (stating the obvious) but I think this allows us to understand people and their interactions with Root Beer like items.
1: Consider great athletes and the people they represent. I will use Tyler Hansbrough as an example. UNC fanatics love him! Many others in this world hate him! He is a great basketball player that played for the 2009 National Champions. For those who call themselves Tar Heels, Tyler is a gentleman and a scholar who never gets any calls to go his way. To those against UNC he is consider a flopper, who has no skill and only gets lucky because “the refs want UNC to win.”
Bold and Distinct: He is one of the best players for UNC; that alone makes him uniquely identifiable.
The reason UNC fans love him and embrace his bold distinct qualities is because his success betters their name as a Carolina fan. The reason others hate him and reject him as a Carolina player is because his characteristics and success make their team look worse.
2: Root Beer itself. People who love it have a desire for a dark rich flavor; A thirst that is quenched by the beverage. It gives their taste buds satisfaction. It fulfils something for the drinker.
3: Napoleon Dynamite. People who love it, think being able to quote the movie makes them funnier and that people will like them more.
4: Bully Jock / Prom Queen. These people are usually bold, distinctive and polarizing in their character. Agreed? If you are one of the chosen ones to be in the bully’s leather jacket wearing club you love that guy because he gives you social status and power. If you are one of the pretty skinny bitches that ride on the side of the Gucci bag hanging on the prom queen’s shoulder you are infatuated with her because she makes you one of the “it girls”. But all those other people who are pushed down and pushed around by those Root Beer type leaders talk about how they are so mean and about how they hate them.
Okay. See this. Root Beer items could move from love to hate in your life but which way you swing depends on what those items give you. These items just don’t give you the opportunity to be indifferent.
Andrew mentions in order to be a Root Beer item you must…
“1) Give off such a strong first impression that people are so turned off as to not give it a chance to prove itself.
OR
2) Be so insignificant, that people don't care enough to give it a second chance.”
I never meant to say that the feelings about a root beer item could never change after the first encounter. I think this feeling arises from this line in the first post in regards to the characteristics of root beer. I said it… “doesn’t sit back and allow you the opportunity to take a few sips to decide if you like it”. In saying this I was attempting to stress the idea that the bold and distinct characteristics provide a “decide now” situation. This strong initial impression is usually an outcome of the bold and distinctiveness of an item. Particularly it’s boldness. The definitions that I come across say bold is “standing out prominently”. In other words, distinct qualities in combination with boldness, quickly exposes character that is uniquely identifying. This means the distinct character of an item is easily noticed because of its boldness.
However, although it does stand out initially that does not weigh into the ability of feelings and judgments to be altered as the distinct flavor is further revealed and experienced over time. An item can still be root beer if in the beginning it you hate it and after understanding and participating with it, you love it. You just can’t be indifferent about it.
To use the previous examples. I have heard a hundred times that you have to see Napoleon Dynamite twice to love it. Because the feeling could change after the second viewing does not put its qualification as a Root Beer Item into question, it only strengthens it. That movie doesn’t give you an option to be indifferent because it is so distinct in its character (humor/style/acting). Even the second time you watch it, in the end, you have a very polarized opinion about the movie.
The interesting next step for me, is to understand what leads you to love or hate a Root Beer Item. I would suggest that the determining factor is what that item does for you. This may sound like a John Madden comment (stating the obvious) but I think this allows us to understand people and their interactions with Root Beer like items.
1: Consider great athletes and the people they represent. I will use Tyler Hansbrough as an example. UNC fanatics love him! Many others in this world hate him! He is a great basketball player that played for the 2009 National Champions. For those who call themselves Tar Heels, Tyler is a gentleman and a scholar who never gets any calls to go his way. To those against UNC he is consider a flopper, who has no skill and only gets lucky because “the refs want UNC to win.”
Bold and Distinct: He is one of the best players for UNC; that alone makes him uniquely identifiable.
The reason UNC fans love him and embrace his bold distinct qualities is because his success betters their name as a Carolina fan. The reason others hate him and reject him as a Carolina player is because his characteristics and success make their team look worse.
2: Root Beer itself. People who love it have a desire for a dark rich flavor; A thirst that is quenched by the beverage. It gives their taste buds satisfaction. It fulfils something for the drinker.
3: Napoleon Dynamite. People who love it, think being able to quote the movie makes them funnier and that people will like them more.
4: Bully Jock / Prom Queen. These people are usually bold, distinctive and polarizing in their character. Agreed? If you are one of the chosen ones to be in the bully’s leather jacket wearing club you love that guy because he gives you social status and power. If you are one of the pretty skinny bitches that ride on the side of the Gucci bag hanging on the prom queen’s shoulder you are infatuated with her because she makes you one of the “it girls”. But all those other people who are pushed down and pushed around by those Root Beer type leaders talk about how they are so mean and about how they hate them.
Okay. See this. Root Beer items could move from love to hate in your life but which way you swing depends on what those items give you. These items just don’t give you the opportunity to be indifferent.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
The Root Beer Theory
I would consider this theory as the one that was born at the feet of the Twix Theory. I knew that if the Twix Theory was to live on that it would need partners, brothers at its side further reaching into the depths of human lives to reveal tendencies and patterns that exist like the tide of the ocean. This is that second theory.
Let’s face it. Root Beer is polarizing. You either love it or you hate. You will be hard pressed to find someone who is luke warm about this beverage. I suggest that you poll your friends and see if anyone feels anything but strong passion about Root Beer either positive or negative. In my time researching this theory I have found the answer to be surprisingly consistent. Almost 100% agree with this idea of Root Beer’s polarizing tendency in relation to their palette.
Why oh Why is Root Beer this way?
I think it has to do with the sharp, distinct, and bold flavor. Root Beer doesn’t sit back and allow you the opportunity to take a few sips to decide if you like it; it is out there, smacking you in the face with audacious levels of tongue sensation. It forces you to make a choice, and make a definite choice. No second chances.
Let’s start the fire where people were so passionate with regards to application of the Twix Theory. People. You hate them, or you think they are the best person ever. But there aren’t many people who are passive about them. I think this happens because these people are sharp, bold, and distinct in their personalities, and often don’t leave you much choice but to be for them or against them.
Let me suggest a movie. Napoleon Dynamite. Some people can quote the whole movie and love it like it is their first born child’s foot print art work. But others, like Kristen, claim they hate it so much that when they are on their death beds they are going to will themselves to live 2 more hours to make up for the lost time watching that mess of a movie. I challenge you to find me someone who would like to sit down and watch Napoleon Dynamite again just because “well there’s nothing else to do”. It’s either a must have, or a must not have.
Help me find other Root Beer items.
Am I correct in my reasoning that the qualities of bold and distinct make someone or something a Root Beer item?
I think there is more to this theory. Help me tease it out.
Let’s face it. Root Beer is polarizing. You either love it or you hate. You will be hard pressed to find someone who is luke warm about this beverage. I suggest that you poll your friends and see if anyone feels anything but strong passion about Root Beer either positive or negative. In my time researching this theory I have found the answer to be surprisingly consistent. Almost 100% agree with this idea of Root Beer’s polarizing tendency in relation to their palette.
Why oh Why is Root Beer this way?
I think it has to do with the sharp, distinct, and bold flavor. Root Beer doesn’t sit back and allow you the opportunity to take a few sips to decide if you like it; it is out there, smacking you in the face with audacious levels of tongue sensation. It forces you to make a choice, and make a definite choice. No second chances.
Let’s start the fire where people were so passionate with regards to application of the Twix Theory. People. You hate them, or you think they are the best person ever. But there aren’t many people who are passive about them. I think this happens because these people are sharp, bold, and distinct in their personalities, and often don’t leave you much choice but to be for them or against them.
Let me suggest a movie. Napoleon Dynamite. Some people can quote the whole movie and love it like it is their first born child’s foot print art work. But others, like Kristen, claim they hate it so much that when they are on their death beds they are going to will themselves to live 2 more hours to make up for the lost time watching that mess of a movie. I challenge you to find me someone who would like to sit down and watch Napoleon Dynamite again just because “well there’s nothing else to do”. It’s either a must have, or a must not have.
Help me find other Root Beer items.
Am I correct in my reasoning that the qualities of bold and distinct make someone or something a Root Beer item?
I think there is more to this theory. Help me tease it out.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Go Heels
With focus, determination, and a strong desire to win the UNC Tar Heels have reach the Championship Game. For this reason Discourse and Jargon will be delaying this week's theory until Tuesday afternoon. Look forward to a return to the roots where D&J started, food and its application to real life.
All day Monday I would love to see predictions, sentimental thoughts, and love poems about the Tar Heels in the comment section.
I'll start.
Wayne, oh Wayne your jumper is devine,
I love how your shot hits nothing but twine.
Once more shoot a Three to push the score higher,
Then we will paint the streets blue and set Chapel Hill on Fire!
All day Monday I would love to see predictions, sentimental thoughts, and love poems about the Tar Heels in the comment section.
I'll start.
Wayne, oh Wayne your jumper is devine,
I love how your shot hits nothing but twine.
Once more shoot a Three to push the score higher,
Then we will paint the streets blue and set Chapel Hill on Fire!
Saturday, April 4, 2009
Well I Guess We're all Just Friends
I was going to apologize that work got in the way of my midweek post, but I see I didn't miss much.
Clayton never responded to my questions.
To Brent, I can only this. I understood your theory. I never suggested that should rather that can was your theory. I instead suggested that the people agreeing with you were really agreeing because they believed that you shouldn't be friends with Opposites.
I had to come up with sometime because the can't theory was already refuted. As far as can't, I will again point to interfamily relationships as proof that you can be just friends with a member of the opposite sex if you have a reason to prevent romantic feelings from developing (ie they are your family member). The problem with the "can" aspect of relationships outside of family, is that many people don't think that being in a relationship with a significant other is a good enough reason to keep them from developing romantic feelings for another Opposite. That is the real problem that you theory addresses. People who are in relationships are by and large not strong enough to approach a friendship with another from a purely friend perspective. (Just like some family members aren't strong enough to do it.)
Brian my theory would be. 1) We can be friends with Opposites. Proven and reproven.
2) We should be friends with Opposites. The additional experiences and knowledge are not something we should lightly throw away. I am unwilling to accept that I can't control myself around Opposites and therefore should avoid friendships with them.
3) People in a committed romantic relationship should take precautions to avoid letting friendships with Opposites from becoming romantic. These precautions should usually be developed together by the two people in the relationship and can vary. There is no perfect way to do it.
4) If you have an occassional romantic thought about an Opposite, that is ok. But you cannot act on the thought if you are already in a romantic relationship and you need to take extra precautions with the Opposite that you have had a romantic thought about.
Clayton never responded to my questions.
To Brent, I can only this. I understood your theory. I never suggested that should rather that can was your theory. I instead suggested that the people agreeing with you were really agreeing because they believed that you shouldn't be friends with Opposites.
I had to come up with sometime because the can't theory was already refuted. As far as can't, I will again point to interfamily relationships as proof that you can be just friends with a member of the opposite sex if you have a reason to prevent romantic feelings from developing (ie they are your family member). The problem with the "can" aspect of relationships outside of family, is that many people don't think that being in a relationship with a significant other is a good enough reason to keep them from developing romantic feelings for another Opposite. That is the real problem that you theory addresses. People who are in relationships are by and large not strong enough to approach a friendship with another from a purely friend perspective. (Just like some family members aren't strong enough to do it.)
Brian my theory would be. 1) We can be friends with Opposites. Proven and reproven.
2) We should be friends with Opposites. The additional experiences and knowledge are not something we should lightly throw away. I am unwilling to accept that I can't control myself around Opposites and therefore should avoid friendships with them.
3) People in a committed romantic relationship should take precautions to avoid letting friendships with Opposites from becoming romantic. These precautions should usually be developed together by the two people in the relationship and can vary. There is no perfect way to do it.
4) If you have an occassional romantic thought about an Opposite, that is ok. But you cannot act on the thought if you are already in a romantic relationship and you need to take extra precautions with the Opposite that you have had a romantic thought about.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)