News:

Look at the world emptily, and it will gladly return the favor.

Main Menu

Unvarnished Truth #3: Filters and preconceptions

Started by Doktor Howl, March 30, 2010, 06:44:23 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Doktor Howl

We've all got 'em.  Each and every one of us tends to impose our own ideas on top of other peoples' ideas, because it's easier than listening.  Problem is, when this goes to far - and what consists of too far may vary - communication becomes impossible.  It's an easy trap to fall into.  Humans are by nature a pattern-seeking species, and we are conditioned from birth into a win-lose mentality..."I must prove your idea wrong for mine to be right". 

This tends to reach religious levels, when it comes to certain topics.  We have seen this demonstrated on PD in multiple discussions, particularly on the subjects of drugs and politics.  In one thread, the question was asked "WHY do people do drugs", and within a page, the discussion became "Drugs are MAGIC!" (no shit) to "Drugs will KILL YOU the FIRST TIME you even think about using them (hyperbole mine, but you get the point).  Likewise, when a new political idea was brought up, but not yet explained, three people lined up to explain what it was, and why it wouldn't work.

This is because we all wear filters, through which we have chosen to view the world.  Sometimes this is a good thing.  I expect that a filter that says "there is no excuse for torture" will fly with most of us, for example.  However, when those filters become so thick that you can't accept ANY view if it doesn't fit into a predetermined set of responses, then the filters have rendered you incapable of processing anything new.

I am willing to bet, for example, that at least one person - having read this - will read about half (or less) of #2, and assign the idea to "privilege" or "rational anarchy" or what have you, because their filters have become so ingrained that they have to pound everything into a round hole, no matter how square it is.

Is that any way for a human to act?  Basically, you are willingly allowing yourself to act on programming as if you were a computer.  And since you act on this programming, can you see an idea or the world you live in as it actually is?  Obviously not.

One shocking truth (all the more shocking because it came from Robert Anton Wilson) is "The universe was not set up for the convenience of domesticated primates".  Humans being what they are, this truth is unacceptable, so humans run out and invent religions, and wind up burning at the stake anyone who insists that this truth is actually self-evident.

As much as we all enjoy a good sneer at people who do that, we ourselves do it all the time.  The universe presents us with facts...But we're so comfortable and in love with our preconceived notions and programming that we warp our own perceptions until we can't see the facts that blow holes in our lovely theories.  Good examples of this are supply side economics, the free market, communism, anarchy, any engineering issues, and people who bet like fans in the playoff series.

The universe, of course, punishes you for this sort of thing.  Not like an angry God would, but simply by allowing yourself to stick your own neck in a noose.  The consequences of betting like a fan involve a light bank account and humiliation by your peers, people who believe in "the free market" tend to lose their arses to people who know better, and communists, libertarians, and anarchists always find themselves alone at parties, because they tend to be hopeless evangelizers, and who the hell wants THAT when you're fucked up on rum and looking for some dirtyfun?  The penalties for ignoring engineering realities tend to be brutally self-evident, and occur much faster...just google "The Tacoma Bridge Failure" (Rumors that this was simply the inherent evil of Northwestern bridges notwithstanding.).

A few facts that might help break this conditioning:

1.  Humans are not efficient.  This is immutable.  Ask yourself, "When was the last time someone dealt with me efficiently?"  How did it make you feel?  Humans are social creatures, and "social" is the enemy of efficiency.  If your system or idea requires humans to be efficient, it will fail.  This rules out communism, the free market, and libertarianism.

2.  Humans automatically form "tribes".  This is hardwired right into the backs of our brains.  When there are 8 or more humans involved, they will form cliques, which lead to factions, which lead to tribes, which lead to governments.  This is as sure as the fact that the sun will rise.  This rules out anarchism.

3.  Humans do NOT do what's in their best interests.  Anyone who has ever seen Murphy's Law in action - in it's original form - knows this (the original version was "If there's more than one way to do a job, and one of those ways will result in disaster, then somebody will do it that way.").  Another good truth to consider is Finagle's Law:  Perversity (the tendency to do what is patently NOT in your best interest) tends to a maximum.  Consider, for example, the schmoe making $20K/year screaming for a flat tax.  It's going to bankrupt him, but he's been taught that a progressive tax is "unfair" to the wealthy.  This truth prohibits a free market, libertarianism, and rational anarchy.

4.  Humans do NOT do what's best for the group.  Anyone who has worked for the government or a large corporation knows this.  People tend to be petty and inefficient, and will make short-sighted decisions 999 times out of a thousand.  Consider the subprime mortgage clusterfuck...Which required monumental fuckups of truly titanic proportions, which of course both the government and corporations fell all over themselves to commit.  I propose that neither corporations nor governments are any more capable than each other, and anyone who knee-jerks to the contrary need only compare the American car companies' failures to the failure of our government to simply balance a budget.  This rule prohibits communism and libertarianism.

5.  Teenagers ARE going to fuck.  This rule can't be changed without neutering the entire teenage population.  This probits silly shit like "Abstinence Only Birth Control", which deserves a mention.  What I mean by this rule is that people ARE going to follow biological imperatives before religious or social imperatives, and can explain a lot more behavior than Palin's daughter and kids like her.

These are only five examples, and by themselves trash the cherished beliefs of about 45% of the population.  That 45%, of course, will continue to believe and in fact act on those beliefs, just as another 54% will continue to act on equally silly beliefs.

The question is, do you plan to be part of that 99%, or can you train yourself to be part of the 1% that is willing to take the bull by the tail and stare the unpleasant facts in the face?  Do you have the GUTS to toss your pet theories when the universe demonstrates that they are wrong?  Can you bring yourself to think of something NEW, or at least LOOK at something new?  My idea may also be wrong, and I'm willing to see if it can be logically disproven, but before you can apply logic to that idea or anything else, you're going to have to take the blinders off.

Can you do that?

Okay for now,
Dok
Molon Lube


ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞

:mittens:



Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 30, 2010, 06:44:23 PM

Do you have the GUTS to toss your pet theories when the universe demonstrates that they are wrong?


It would seem that people need to be interested in actively looking to disprove their pet theories even before the universe throttles them.

Many people don't formulate theories in falsifiable ways so they're resistant to change from the get go.

Great piece Dok.
P E R   A S P E R A   A D   A S T R A

Freeky

It's very true. Filters are hard to get rid of. A lot of times, people may not even realize that they have those filters, they're so ingrained into the way a person thinks.

Also, if a person throws off one filter, who's to say they won't pick up another and cling to it just as tightly? Like a person who's a hardcore christian for most of his life, and then suddenly decides that since God hasn't granted all his prayers, there is no God, and becomes a hardcore atheist. Is it possible that some people just can't live without their blinders?

Also, this was awesome to read.

Doktor Howl

Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on March 30, 2010, 07:10:07 PM
:mittens:



Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 30, 2010, 06:44:23 PM

Do you have the GUTS to toss your pet theories when the universe demonstrates that they are wrong?


It would seem that people need to be interested in actively looking to disprove their pet theories even before the universe throttles them.

Many people don't formulate theories in falsifiable ways so they're resistant to change from the get go.

Great piece Dok.

Thanks.

And you've hit the nail on the head.  An untestable theory isn't a theory, it's a belief...and beliefs are fine, as long as they concur with reality.  An example of this is the belief of many mainstream religions that we have to produce more people, as fast as we possibly can.

That particular belief is why a good chunk of world is turning into a desert.  The universe will be along shortly to demonstrate why this is not a survivable belief.

An Englishman once wrote a poem describing the basic premise of my OP...

Quote from: Rudyard Kipling
The Gods of the Copybook Headings

AS I PASS through my incarnations in every age and race,
I make my proper prostrations to the Gods of the Market Place.
Peering through reverent fingers I watch them flourish and fall,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings, I notice, outlast them all.

We were living in trees when they met us. They showed us each in turn
That Water would certainly wet us, as Fire would certainly burn:
But we found them lacking in Uplift, Vision and Breadth of Mind,
So we left them to teach the Gorillas while we followed the March of Mankind.

We moved as the Spirit listed. They never altered their pace,
Being neither cloud nor wind-borne like the Gods of the Market Place,
But they always caught up with our progress, and presently word would come
That a tribe had been wiped off its icefield, or the lights had gone out in Rome.

With the Hopes that our World is built on they were utterly out of touch,
They denied that the Moon was Stilton; they denied she was even Dutch;
They denied that Wishes were Horses; they denied that a Pig had Wings;
So we worshipped the Gods of the Market Who promised these beautiful things.

When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace.
They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "Stick to the Devil you know."

On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life
(Which started by loving our neighbour and ended by loving his wife)
Till our women had no more children and the men lost reason and faith,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "The Wages of Sin is Death."

In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all,
By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul;
But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "If you don't work you die."

Then the Gods of the Market tumbled, and their smooth-tongued wizards withdrew
And the hearts of the meanest were humbled and began to believe it was true
That All is not Gold that Glitters, and Two and Two make Four
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more.

As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;

And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!

Molon Lube

hooplala

Wonderful piece, and I'm glad you wrote it... it deals with a lot of stuff I've been mulling over for the last couple weeks.

A question though, and this is for my own edification, not an attempt to argue.  My ignorance is limitless, so please bear with me for a moment...

But, what aspect of anarchism denies tribes or people working together?  Why does anarchism have this "everyone for themselves" reputation when no dictionary definition of it I have read claims this?  

Here's the first one I could grab:

anarchism |ˈanərˌkizəm|
noun
belief in the abolition of all government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion.


"cooperative" would suggest working together, would it not?
"Soon all of us will have special names" — Professor Brian O'Blivion

"Now's not the time to get silly, so wear your big boots and jump on the garbage clowns." — Bob Dylan?

"Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)"
— Walt Whitman

Doktor Howl

Quote from: Professor Freeky on March 30, 2010, 07:14:21 PM
It's very true. Filters are hard to get rid of. A lot of times, people may not even realize that they have those filters, they're so ingrained into the way a person thinks.

Also, if a person throws off one filter, who's to say they won't pick up another and cling to it just as tightly? Like a person who's a hardcore christian for most of his life, and then suddenly decides that since God hasn't granted all his prayers, there is no God, and becomes a hardcore atheist. Is it possible that some people just can't live without their blinders?

Also, this was awesome to read.

1.  True.  If they hadn't forced themselves into believing these things to be the way things actually work, they wouldn't be so obstinate in the face of facts.

2.  Everyone has filters.  It is absolutely impossible to function without them.  However, the trick is to keep the filters light, so you can change them to fit changing conditions or new data.
Molon Lube

Doktor Howl

Quote from: Hoopla on March 30, 2010, 07:15:32 PM
Wonderful piece, and I'm glad you wrote it... it deals with a lot of stuff I've been mulling over for the last couple weeks.

A question though, and this is for my own edification, not an attempt to argue.  My ignorance is limitless, so please bear with me for a moment...

But, what aspect of anarchism denies tribes or people working together?  Why does anarchism have this "everyone for themselves" reputation when no dictionary definition of it I have read claims this?  

Here's the first one I could grab:

anarchism |ˈanərˌkizəm|
noun
belief in the abolition of all government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion.


"cooperative" would suggest working together, would it not?

Sure.  Now try it with more than 7 people.  Compulsion at some level becomes necessary, according to the 5 facts above, particularly numbers 1, 3, and 4.  Hell, try running a maintenance crew for a week without any supervision.  Even if they all know their part in the project, and they all want to make things work, if there's more than 7 people, it is going to drop in the pooper.

Humans are primates, and primates require at least one alpha in any sizeable group.  The alpha is by definition a compelling influence.  It's hardwired right into our brain.  You MIGHT, should you comb the population thoroughly, find 8 people that can work together without an alpha (outliers exist in everything), but outliers are basis for a society...even a society inside a larger society.
Molon Lube

hooplala

Mm, you make an excellent point.

The cynicism depresses me somewhat, but at least cynicism is realistic.
"Soon all of us will have special names" — Professor Brian O'Blivion

"Now's not the time to get silly, so wear your big boots and jump on the garbage clowns." — Bob Dylan?

"Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)"
— Walt Whitman

LMNO

Great piece, Dok.

I was just pondering such things myself, to wit: There are people who think they have an idea, and there are people who think they have the right idea.  The former want to wake people up and have new ideas that break them out of a rut, and the latter want to wake people up and have their idea that breaks them out of the rut.

The latter rarely can be convinced of the former.


Interestingly, revolutionaries and neophytes often fall into both camps, and both types are prevelant at PD.com.

Doktor Howl

Quote from: Hoopla on March 30, 2010, 07:22:59 PM
Mm, you make an excellent point.

The cynicism depresses me somewhat, but at least cynicism is realistic.

Idealism is fine when it works.  For everything else, there's cynicism...Or as I prefer to call it, "realism".

If you're running in the wrong direction, it doesn't really matter how fast you are.
Molon Lube

Cramulus

I wonder if humans are capable of breaking their programming. Is it possible for a group of humans to be efficient, to do what's in their best interests, and to properly serve the group they join? It takes a conscious effort to overcome the monkeymind, and it's not something you can have turned on all the time. If humans can overcome their own mind's habits, I believe it's only for a short amount of time.

Which still gives me hope.


I love your point on efficiency. The other day I was at a fast food joint, and this 16 year old girl was working the counter and she looked like she hated it. She screwed up something minor and her manager came over and barked at her in front of me, which only made her turn a deeper shade of red.

I was thinking to myself, shit, this poor girl needs to learn to  d e t a c h. She needs to put her ego in her coat pocket and hang it up when she comes in. She'll enjoy this job so much more if she just sheds her pride, her shame, and works like a well oiled cog.

Meanwhile, as I was typing this post, my new boss came by. I've only known her for a day, but IMO she doesn't seem to be playing with a full deck of cards. She gave me this monotonous task to do, didn't explain how to do it, and then walked away. THREE TIMES now she's come back to me to tell me that I made mistakes. But she never gave me proper instructions to begin with, so I'm getting a little frustrated at being told I screwed up. And the parable of the pissed off teenager comes to mind. I can accept that this system is either inefficient or antisocial, but I wish it could pick one or the other!

Doktor Howl

Quote from: LMNO on March 30, 2010, 07:27:59 PM
Great piece, Dok.

I was just pondering such things myself, to wit: There are people who think they have an idea, and there are people who think they have the right idea.  The former want to wake people up and have new ideas that break them out of a rut, and the latter want to wake people up and have their idea that breaks them out of the rut.

The latter rarely can be convinced of the former.


Interestingly, revolutionaries and neophytes often fall into both camps, and both types are prevelant at PD.com.

Well, this is the whole reason for this post...or, more accurately, for this whole series.  If we're going to survive in the Age of Dumb, we're going to need to be more clever than the monkeys.  This will require learning to see things the way they really are, not the way your hopes and dreams would like them to be.

It's not easy, and it sure as fuck isn't pleasant...But eventually reality always wins, and that can be really ugly if you're mired in flawed suppositions and therefore operating from bad data.

There are, of course, more facts that impact us.  Poor managers, for example, do not or can not understand that (RAW, again) communication is only possible in a non-punishing environment.  The results of this are pretty self-evident, especially (again) if you work for a large company or the government.
Molon Lube

Doktor Howl

Quote from: Cramulus on March 30, 2010, 07:33:15 PM
I wonder if humans are capable of breaking their programming.

No.  A human can, but humans can't.

Quote from: Cramulus on March 30, 2010, 07:33:15 PM
Is it possible for a group of humans to be efficient, to do what's in their best interests, and to properly serve the group they join? It takes a conscious effort to overcome the monkeymind, and it's not something you can have turned on all the time. If humans can overcome their own mind's habits, I believe it's only for a short amount of time.

For a very small group, and for a very small time, multiple humans can violate the above facts.  Sort of like the fact that (according to a Rand Corporation study) you only get about 5.5 hours of productive work out of people in a day.  You CAN, for a short time, ramp that up as far as you please.  But after a while, people get tired, discouraged, and angry, and then you're keeping them for 12 hours, but only getting that 5.5 hours of work out of them.  In the same fashion, you can get people to cooperate for a short period of time (in a small group), but sooner rather than later, they start the normal monkey business. 


Quote from: Cramulus on March 30, 2010, 07:33:15 PMI love your point on efficiency. The other day I was at a fast food joint, and this 16 year old girl was working the counter and she looked like she hated it. She screwed up something minor and her manager came over and barked at her in front of me, which only made her turn a deeper shade of red.

She'll work her ass off for an hour, and then hate her job.  The results will be predictable.

Quote from: Cramulus on March 30, 2010, 07:33:15 PM
I was thinking to myself, shit, this poor girl needs to learn to  d e t a c h. She needs to put her ego in her coat pocket and hang it up when she comes in. She'll enjoy this job so much more if she just sheds her pride, her shame, and works like a well oiled cog.

Or the manager could stop being a dick.  That would be more productive.  Or she could look for another job.

Quote from: Cramulus on March 30, 2010, 07:33:15 PM
Meanwhile, as I was typing this post, my new boss came by. I've only known her for a day, but IMO she doesn't seem to be playing with a full deck of cards. She gave me this monotonous task to do, didn't explain how to do it, and then walked away. THREE TIMES now she's come back to me to tell me that I made mistakes. But she never gave me proper instructions to begin with, so I'm getting a little frustrated at being told I screwed up. And the parable of the pissed off teenager comes to mind. I can accept that this system is either inefficient or antisocial, but I wish it could pick one or the other!

Inefficiency can be social or antisocial.  Efficiency is always anti-social.
Molon Lube

Nast

If people's basic tendency is to stratify, much like salad dressing, then is even the interaction between two people built around a hierarchy? Is it possible to have true equality between individuals?

"If I owned Goodwill, no charity worker would feel safe.  I would sit in my office behind a massive pile of cocaine, racking my pistol's slide every time the cleaning lady came near.  Auditors, I'd just shoot."