Today, I think I discovered I'm mildly prejudiced.
We're auditioning bassists, and I get an email from this 21-year old kid, who sounds just about perfect: Learned to play bass listening to the Minutemen, Gang of Four, etc.
So, his email address is enc.edu; being curious, I entered it as a URL: http://enc.edu/ .
It's a Christian college. Not like Boston College, which is Christian in name only. Christian like, "WE BEIEVE IN CHRIST THE SAVIOR" Christian.
As soon as I saw that, I was thinking, "No way is this kid gonna play Subhumans' 'Religious Wars'. No way do I want to be in a band with one of those.
Yeah, I pre-judged him without even knowing him, just because of where he goes to college.
We are not as noble and free-thinking as we seem.
Quote from: LMNO on April 01, 2008, 02:58:10 PM
Today, I think I discovered I'm mildly prejudiced.
We're auditioning bassists, and I get an email from this 21-year old kid, who sounds just about perfect: Learned to play bass listening to the Minutemen, Gang of Four, etc.
So, his email address is enc.edu; being curious, I entered it as a URL: http://enc.edu/ .
It's a Christian college. Not like Boston College, which is Christian in name only. Christian like, "WE BEIEVE IN CHRIST THE SAVIOR" Christian.
As soon as I saw that, I was thinking, "No way is this kid gonna play Subhumans' 'Religious Wars'. No way do I want to be in a band with one of those.
Yeah, I pre-judged him without even knowing him, just because of where he goes to college.
We are not as noble and free-thinking as we seem.
Ah, but you are... YOU NOTICED IT.
That's the full import of the Cosmic Schmuck principle. We all make assumptions, we all pre-judge from time to time... its how the monkey brain is hardwired (or something)... but IF we recognize it, if we are self-observant enough to realize when we pre-judge... then we're less likely to blindly pre-judge.
I think its sort of like the Law Of Fives, the more you think about it, the more you notice (or 23 or quarters). If you notice pre-judging... then you can consider if you want to go with it or tell it to fuck off.
"We"?, white man?
Apologies...
"Sombunall of us are not as noble and free-thinking as sombunall of us seem."
Right.
Anyway, is it prejudice as much as evaluating on the information presented? I mean, he does go to a college where you need to profess faith in the life and teachings of Jesus Christ to get in, and institutional Christianity within the US has a bad rap. Sure, it doesn't mean automatic exclusion, but it does make it very unlikely that he is going to fit in at all, as far as you can tell.
Yeah, but... I went to Berklee College of Music, and I can't stand 90% of the assholes who went there (TOG is one of the 10%).
And if he learned the bass by listening to post-punk Marxists, that does count for something...
But you have a point. For every Johnny Cash Xtian, there seem to be 10 Swaggarts.
I think a little from column A and a little from column B. And I know I'm guilty of the same thing. Chuck is a devout Christian and HE was the one that turned me on to this Discordianism thing. I think Christians do tend to be portrayed in a certain way in the media and society, and granted, some of it is probably appropriate. However, it really on scratches the surface and there are Christians who are laid back about their faith and not so rabid an in your face about it.
But I know this thread isn't supposed to be about that specifically, but yeah, I think many probably do fall into this sort of thing from time to time without realizing or recognizing it. I think Rat's right though, that it is recognized is key.
I say audition him anyway. Who knows he may turn out to be the new Cash christian but, even if not, it's gotta be good for the lulz :lulz:
Quote from: LMNO on April 01, 2008, 02:58:10 PM
Today, I think I discovered I'm mildly prejudiced.
To stop caring about about whether you are "prejudiced" or not is the first step towards stopping prejudice.
Yes, because self-analysis of one's own behavior is the quickest way to develop a prejudice.
:retard:
No, because when you* think you're* prejudiced, you* over-compensate.
*I
Oh. Well, then don't (overcompensate).
Not this old argument again.
LMNO (and others) is right, finding you have a predjudice before you actually take any actions on it (or while you can reverse any actions taken on it) is key.
I seem to recall seeing somewhere that we are all predjduced to some degree (on average, we find people of the same race to be more ttractive than people of other races, while this doesn't mean we are all "insert race" supremicists, it does say we may all be predjudiced on a subconscious level, to some degree).
The only way to effectively counter act it is to recognise when an action may be taken becuse of that predjudice.
Taking action on a "predjudice against predjudice" is still predjudice. (kinda like how denying the possibility of a god is still a religious position).
All it takes is a bit of common sense and thought (you've heard of that, right?) to avoid the pit falls of discrimination, positive or negative, and hypocrisy.
Quote from: Payne on April 02, 2008, 02:30:04 PM
Not this old argument again.
LMNO (and others) is right, finding you have a predjudice before you actually take any actions on it (or while you can reverse any actions taken on it) is key.
I seem to recall seeing somewhere that we are all predjduced to some degree (on average, we find people of the same race to be more ttractive than people of other races, while this doesn't mean we are all "insert race" supremicists, it does say we may all be predjudiced on a subconscious level, to some degree).
The only way to effectively counter act it is to recognise when an action may be taken becuse of that predjudice.
Taking action on a "predjudice against predjudice" is still predjudice. (kinda like how denying the possibility of a god is still a religious position).
All it takes is a bit of common sense and thought (you've heard of that, right?) to avoid the pit falls of discrimination, positive or negative, and hypocrisy.
You make too much sense, I'm prejudiced against sense-makers. 8)
I have my moments.
Sometimes I need to write a sensible piece to justify my continued presence here.
I'm prejudiced against huge, screaming, hairy people who run toward me waving machettes.
I'm prejudiced against people I find in my car, trying to get the engine started
I'm prejudiced against anyone who has a criminal record for child molesting that I see hanging around outside a school.
And I'm prejudiced against people who wear cult of christ paraphanellia and look like they mean it or, worse still, try to drag a conversation onto the subject then preach complete fucking nonsense at me til I'm forced to render them unconscious.
There is such a thing as too liberal.
Quote from: SillyCybin on April 02, 2008, 03:34:26 PM
I'm prejudiced against huge, screaming, hairy people who run toward me waving machettes.
I'm prejudiced against people I find in my car, trying to get the engine started
I'm prejudiced against anyone who has a criminal record for child molesting that I see hanging around outside a school.
And I'm prejudiced against people who wear cult of christ paraphanellia and look like they mean it or, worse still, try to drag a conversation onto the subject then preach complete fucking nonsense at me til I'm forced to render them unconscious.
There is such a thing as too liberal.
I disagree... in each of these situations, you're basing your decision on the ACTIONS of the individual, not some label of identity.
So if you said "I'm prejudiced against anyone ever convicted of 'sexual crimes'," I could see that as prejudice, because you're assuming that your interactions with ALL people convicted of sexual crimes will be similar. However, you're talking about people in that group that are, through ACTION, providing more information about themselves specifically. You're not judging the person, but rather the action...
Same for "Any Christian" vs. "preachy crazy cultist Christians", or "Inner City Minority" vs, "Dude who is jacking my car".
fair point
I disagree, Rat. One certainly can be prejudiced about certain actions (as opposed to basing it on "identiy label"). For example if I'm hiring someone for a job, I certainly am going to be prejudiced his about education, whether or not he's been to prison, etc. (I guess you could argue that those are actions and not labels?) I might also be racially prejudiced, and that's the same thing.
Everyone has prejudices, otherwise they'd be constantly wracked with indecision. You pre-judge things a zillion times a day. Prejudice isn't a bad thing, it's a survival skill - otherwise you'd have to drink the regular coffee AND the decaf to make a decision about them.
The danger is when you extend pre-judgements onto large groups of people whom the judgements may not fit. That's how you end up thinking that white men are trying to take your land, or that every single black person in Detroit is actively trying to rape you.
by the way,
I have some prejudices about hot girls, especially curvaceous blondes.
Quote from: Professor Cramulus on April 02, 2008, 07:06:06 PM
I disagree, Rat. One certainly can be prejudiced about certain actions (as opposed to basing it on "identiy label"). For example if I'm hiring someone for a job, I certainly am going to be prejudiced his about education, whether or not he's been to prison, etc. (I guess you could argue that those are actions and not labels?) I might also be racially prejudiced, and that's the same thing.
Well, in that case, I think it depends on the job. If you're trying to cast Kente Kunti, you probably should pre-judge the actor on skin color, because a blackface Kente might go over... poorly. If however, you're looking for an employee to run the tin whistle making machine, then pre-judging based on race would appear prejudice. The same for education... if the job requires a degree, then I wouldn't consider it prejudiced to not interview people that don't meet the requirements for the job.
Quote
Everyone has prejudices, otherwise they'd be constantly wracked with indecision. You pre-judge things a zillion times a day. Prejudice isn't a bad thing, it's a survival skill - otherwise you'd have to drink the regular coffee AND the decaf to make a decision about them.
I'm not sure the prejudice and personal preference are the same thing. For example, I drink coffee, specifically because I want the caffeine. Decaf, doesn't meet the requirements for the drink (just as a Anglo actor wouldn't meet the requirements for our friend from Roots).
I would say that prejudice, making a decision before becoming aware of the relevant facts, is different than preference and different still than qualifications.
If preference and qualifications were no created based on any relevant facts... then I would agree that it could be considered prejudice.
So to tie back to the OP... if LMNO's band played "Sympathy For the Devil",. "Kill Jesus", "Please Satan, Come Possess Me", "Let's Kill The Pastor" or other songs that were anti-Christian, then perhaps a qualification for being in the band, would be a dislike of Christianity. The fellows religion would not meet the qualification...
The danger is when you extend pre-judgements onto large groups of people whom the judgements may not fit. That's how you end up thinking that white men are trying to take your land, or that every single black person in Detroit is actively trying to rape you.
by the way,
I have some prejudices about hot girls, especially curvaceous blondes.
[/quote]
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 02, 2008, 07:25:38 PM
That's how you end up thinking that white men are trying to take your land,
Wait, they're not?
I think we're using the word differnetly here, Rat. I think you're using it to mean "bad prejudging", but I'm trying to clarify that not all prejudice is 'bad'. It's typically used to talk about race, gender, ethnic, sexual identity, age, and religion... prejudice relating to these topics is bad, but it would be going too far to say that ALL prejudice is bad.
Just to underscore my point:
Quote from: fuckin wikipediaCognitive Prejudice refers to what people believe is true. An example of cognitive prejudice might be found, for example, adherence to a particular metaphysical or methodological philosophy to the exclusion of other philosophies that may offer a more complete theoretical explanation.
so like - unless you believe everything at the same time, you're prejudiced. Is that bad? Not usually.
The word Discrimination suffers from the same halo effect. We use it to talk about race (or whatever), but it's a totally commonplace and generally neutral thing.
I think we're both in agreement though that the bad stuff comes from rigidity and irrationality in
applying prejudice and discrimination.
Quote from: Nigel on April 02, 2008, 09:00:13 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 02, 2008, 07:25:38 PM
That's how you end up thinking that white men are trying to take your land,
Wait, they're not?
let me clarify:
I'm trying to take your land. Not
all white men are.
Off the top of my head, I can probably think of three or four guys who aren't taking your land.
Quote from: Professor Cramulus on April 02, 2008, 09:29:38 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 02, 2008, 09:00:13 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 02, 2008, 07:25:38 PM
That's how you end up thinking that white men are trying to take your land,
Wait, they're not?
let me clarify:
I'm trying to take your land. Not all white men are.
Off the top of my head, I can probably think of three or four guys who aren't taking your land.
Well, fuck those guys. :sad:
Quote from: Professor Cramulus on April 02, 2008, 09:29:38 PM
I think we're using the word differnetly here, Rat. I think you're using it to mean "bad prejudging", but I'm trying to clarify that not all prejudice is 'bad'. It's typically used to talk about race, gender, ethnic, sexual identity, age, and religion... prejudice relating to these topics is bad, but it would be going too far to say that ALL prejudice is bad.
I thought about that... but the more I think about it, the less I'm inclined to agree. Prejudice, even in a more benign form still, in my opinion, appears to indicate judgment prior to having the facts of a situation. In another metaphor, maybe we could call it belief... and I'm not much a fan of that either ;-)
Quote
Just to underscore my point:
Quote from: fuckin wikipediaCognitive Prejudice refers to what people believe is true. An example of cognitive prejudice might be found, for example, adherence to a particular metaphysical or methodological philosophy to the exclusion of other philosophies that may offer a more complete theoretical explanation.
so like - unless you believe everything at the same time, you're prejudiced. Is that bad? Not usually.
I think you might be reading something that isn't there... Prejudice, as mentioned there... is adherence to a belief to the
exclusion of other philosophies. Dawkins, Falwell and that dumbass gaybashing preacher are all examples of such prejudice.
And again, with the belief. Ick. ;-)
Quote
I think we're both in agreement though that the bad stuff comes from rigidity and irrationality in applying prejudice and discrimination.
Indeed. But, if prejudice is making a decision before having the pertinent facts, how could it
not be irrational?
because sometimes it's not necessary to collect a lot of data before making the decision. You'll never have all the pertinent facts anyway.
alright let's look at it this way. You (the general you, not you Ratatosk) go to the movie rental place and walk around, scanning for anything that catches your interest. You look at the new releases first, then maybe the comedy aisle. You picked a movie and left. You didn't even walk down the horror isle. Is that prejudice?
Quote from: Professor Cramulus on April 02, 2008, 10:43:50 PM
because sometimes it's not necessary to collect a lot of data before making the decision. You'll never have all the pertinent facts anyway.
alright let's look at it this way. You (the general you, not you Ratatosk) go to the movie rental place and walk around, scanning for anything that catches your interest. You look at the new releases first, then maybe the comedy aisle. You picked a movie and left. You didn't even walk down the horror isle. Is that prejudice?
Depends... if the reason you didn't go down the horror aisle was because you think "All horror movies are lame and teh suck", then sure, I'd consider that prejudice. If, however, the reason you didn't go down the horror aisle was because you were in the mood for a comedy, then that seems more like preference, than prejudice. If the reason you picked the comedy was because it was the first thing you saw, then maybe I'd call that being lazy ;-), but not prejudiced.
I guess the question would be Are you judging the horror movies before walking down the aisle, or are you simply not considering them because you found something you liked, or you found something that met your requirements (ie the WOMP HQ gang said either bring back a comedy or we will hang your underpants on the flagpole.)
Making a decision about X doesn't necessarily mean that you're prejudiced against everything that isn't X. It might mean that, but it doesn't necessarily mean that, in my opinion.
I think that there is a significant difference between prejudice and discrimination.
Quote from: Nigel on April 03, 2008, 12:23:06 AM
I think that there is a significant difference between prejudice and discrimination.
I agree, what do you see as the difference?
I have a discriminating taste in alcohol and women, not a prejudiced one.
Heh.
Rat, I think Cram seems to be saying (to me, at least)* that for him, the concept of "prejudice" is similar to the "Reality Grids" of RAW.
That is, in order to function and survive as humans, we have to make assumptions, and employ pre-conceptions when we encounter a new situation.
Some of these are based upon rational thought and experience, and could be considered "good".
Some of these are based upone hearsay, ignorance, and misinformation, and could be considered "bad".
*How's that for E-Priming a motherfucker?
Quote from: LMNO on April 03, 2008, 02:53:14 PM
Heh.
Rat, I think Cram seems to be saying (to me, at least)* that for him, the concept of "prejudice" is similar to the "Reality Grids" of RAW.
That is, in order to function and survive as humans, we have to make assumptions, and employ pre-conceptions when we encounter a new situation.
Some of these are based upon rational thought and experience, and could be considered "good".
Some of these are based upone hearsay, ignorance, and misinformation, and could be considered "bad".
*How's that for E-Priming a motherfucker?
:)
I agree with what you're saying.
The only bit I disagree with, seems to me the concept that assumptions and pre-conceptions are necessarily prejudging (prejudice). It seems to me that I can make an assumption about X without prejudging NotX, or a decision about X without prejudging NotX.
I don't think all prejudice is bad (except, perhaps in the way that I think 'belief' is not good)... but I don't think prejudice is necessary either.
PS: 23 points for the use of E-Prime on that LMNO!
Discrimination is modifying your behavior based on your judgment. Prejudice is a set of assumptions which influences your judgment.
Quote from: Nigel on April 03, 2008, 08:43:07 PM
Discrimination is modifying your behavior based on your judgment. Prejudice is a set of assumptions which influences your judgment.
Those seem like good definitions to me.
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 03, 2008, 08:50:54 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 03, 2008, 08:43:07 PM
Discrimination is modifying your behavior based on your judgment. Prejudice is a set of assumptions which influences your judgment.
Those seem like good definitions to me.
Well then, as Cram pointed out, prejudice must have a presence in every decision.
So it is necessary.
The question I find myself asking is, what are my assumptions and prejudices in a particular situation and do they serve my goals?
Prejudice is judging something before encountering it or having all the relevant information.
Discrimination is choosing or differentiating between two or more things.
A person who tries two wines and notes differences is discriminating. A person who chooses to drink one wine over the other is discriminating. A person who comes to a conclusion about a wine before drinking it is pre-judging. The reasons for his prejudice could be reasonable ("Every other wine I've tasted from that company has been subpar/really good") or not ("Wine from region X is the best/worst.")
So, going back to the OP, of course LMNO is discriminating - he has to. He's selecting the people he thinks would work best in his band, by definition discriminating against the people he does not think would fit and for the ones he does.
The prejudice comes in when (if?) he judges someone as a good or bad band member before the audition or interview. It's true that many traits associated with Christians might make him less attractive as an applicant, but pre-judging that the person in question has those traits solely on the basis of college is unreasonable. Maybe he chose that college because it offered him the best scholarship? Maybe his family pressured him? Maybe he's one of those Reasonable Christians™ who has carefully considered his viewpoints and arrived at his own personal brand of Christianity?
It was either Wilson or Wilson quoting someone else ( just remember it was in Coincidance:a Head Test) who said: One should never ascribe predicates to a people.
Maybe it was Korzybski. An additional Korzybskian note: It's not just our linguistic concepts that affects our decisions, but our sensory/nervous mediations. I may be attracted to dark hair/dark eye girls due to the contingent features of the filters, but ultimately, booooooiiiinngg.
Is this clear? It reminds me of a conversation between David Bohm and J. Krishnamurti about beliefs. When you have a toothache, says K, is that experience a result of your belief that you are in pain? In another conversation, Bohm expresses his intolerance with the spiciness of Indian peppers, and K comments about how much he enjoys the experience of eating something that cleanses the body.
Korzybski developed General Semantics to counter the negative side of prejudice. For me personally, some sort of balance between self-analysis and intuition seems to keep society's brain distortions in check. Reimprinting can help to thwart the deeper prejudices that are harder to recognize. This falls into to the "serving my goals" realm.
Quote from: Netaungrot on April 03, 2008, 09:13:13 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 03, 2008, 08:50:54 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 03, 2008, 08:43:07 PM
Discrimination is modifying your behavior based on your judgment. Prejudice is a set of assumptions which influences your judgment.
Those seem like good definitions to me.
Well then, as Cram pointed out, prejudice must have a presence in every decision.
So it is necessary.
Prejudice must have a presence, but ONLY (I think) if we are making judgments about something based on assumptions (pre judging it). Making a selection for one option, doesn't require that I judge all the other options. That may happen, but it doesn't seem necessary to all decisions.
I make a decision to hang out here, not because I have prejudged all other Discordian sites, but because I like posting here with you spags (so I'm masochistic, so wut?). If, however, I posted here because "All other Discordian sites suck Eris' balls" then I would be basing a decision on pre judging, making assumptions etc.
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on April 03, 2008, 09:25:21 PM
Prejudice is judging something before encountering it or having all the relevant information.
Discrimination is choosing or differentiating between two or more things.
A person who tries two wines and notes differences is discriminating. A person who chooses to drink one wine over the other is discriminating. A person who comes to a conclusion about a wine before drinking it is pre-judging. The reasons for his prejudice could be reasonable ("Every other wine I've tasted from that company has been subpar/really good") or not ("Wine from region X is the best/worst.")
So, going back to the OP, of course LMNO is discriminating - he has to. He's selecting the people he thinks would work best in his band, by definition discriminating against the people he does not think would fit and for the ones he does.
The prejudice comes in when (if?) he judges someone as a good or bad band member before the audition or interview. It's true that many traits associated with Christians might make him less attractive as an applicant, but pre-judging that the person in question has those traits solely on the basis of college is unreasonable. Maybe he chose that college because it offered him the best scholarship? Maybe his family pressured him? Maybe he's one of those Reasonable Christians™ who has carefully considered his viewpoints and arrived at his own personal brand of Christianity?
This Is The Correct Motorcycle, I think.
It is not possible to be free of assumptions (OH HAI BIP).
So you also must be prejudiced, according to the definition you agreed to.
But, this isn't necessarily bad, even though in common usage it is pejorative.
I think people are lumping together two different kinds of prejudice here. You can judge people based on something like skin color, which they cant change about themselves, and which doesnt effect them except in their appearance anyway. You can also judge them based on something someone chooses about themselves, like religion. Now, obviously there are all different kinds of Christians, but if a person goes to a special Christian university, it seems likely that he's closer to the fundie side than to the moderate side. Declaring yourself to be a religion is making a statement of your beliefs to the world. If someone says their a Christian, it says something about them, just like if someone says their a Discordian.
Quote from: Netaungrot on April 03, 2008, 10:41:03 PM
It is not possible to be free of assumptions (OH HAI BIP).
So you also must be prejudiced, according to the definition you agreed to.
Only if those assumptions are
permitted to influence your judgment.
One of main reasons I like RAW's oft expressed point of view, model agnosticism, maybe logic and e-prime directly relates to this discussion. One can make assumptions and allow those assumptions to influence their judgment (prejudice) for good or ill, or one can process available data and hold tentative positions based on the data currently available. I try (don't always succeed) to do the latter.
I also think this very closely relates to the Cosmic Schmuck principle. We are all (at least occasionally) Cosmic Schmucks, basing our decisions on unfounded assumptions (pre-judging)... however, this doesn't seem to me as the only, or even preferable way to make decisions. So maybe I would agree that by default we most humans seem inclined to make assumptions and pre-judge data, but I would also hold that this doesn't appear to be a required nor all that great a way of making decisions.
A Cosmic Schmuck I am, less a Cosmic Schmuck I become...?
How do you know you've made a decision that is entirely free of assumptions?
(Assuming that is possible.)
You don't.
I agree, everyone is prejudiced.
The questions then are:
1.) How reasonable are your prejudices (assumptions?)
and
2.) How much do you examine your prejudices (assumptions?)
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on April 04, 2008, 01:09:43 AM
I agree, everyone is prejudiced.
The questions then are:
1.) How reasonable are your prejudices (assumptions?)
and
2.) How much do you examine your prejudices (assumptions?)
Those are the questions, alright.
E/O/T.
Quote from: Netaungrot on April 03, 2008, 11:30:22 PM
How do you know you've made a decision that is entirely free of assumptions?
(Assuming that is possible.)
Restate the decision in E-Prime... corny, sure... but it helps.
If we base a decision on the data at hand, that doesn't mean that we must make assumptions about the data 'not at hand'. We can make our decisions in a tentative manner, based on 'currently available information' and changeable based on 'new information'. This doesn't require assumption or pre-judgment of anything.
In LMNO's initial example, He can form an opinion based on the current level of information:
- person appears able to play instrument
- person appears to like the sort of music that the band plays
- person identifies as a student of, what LMNO perceives as a 'very christian' college
No prejudging yet.
Then he can form a tentative decision based on the above information:
It appears that this person could perform as we would need him too, but his religion may cause friction in our group.If he interviews the guy and he says "Praise Jesus" every two or three chords... then a more definite decision can be made, based on data, not assumption. If the guy performs well and seems cool, then a more definite decision can be made... if he plays meh, and he's kind of lame, then a more definite decision could be made.
I just meant that you don't "know". You keep thinking.
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 04, 2008, 01:44:38 AM
If he says "Praise Jesus" every two or three chords...
I changed my mind. That would be
awesome.
Quote from: daruko on April 04, 2008, 02:18:36 PM
I just meant that you don't "know". You keep thinking.
Right!
As long as you can accept that you don't "know" and remain willing to accept new data... then I see no reason that pre-judgment or judgment based on assumption would be necessary.
Quote from: LMNO on April 04, 2008, 03:14:58 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 04, 2008, 01:44:38 AM
If he says "Praise Jesus" every two or three chords...
I changed my mind. That would be awesome.
Especially if you were playing Religious Wars in that set.
Yeah, it goes right in line with drinking beer while playing Minor Threat.
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 04, 2008, 03:43:42 PM
Quote from: daruko on April 04, 2008, 02:18:36 PM
I just meant that you don't "know". You keep thinking.
Right!
As long as you can accept that you don't "know" and remain willing to accept new data... then I see no reason that pre-judgment or judgment based on assumption would be necessary.
:wrong:
You're talking about flexibility after you have made decisions.
What I'm talking about is how every decision contains assumptions, due to the nature of language and evolutionary adaptations.
Read this (http://niquette.com/books/sophmag/heurist.htm), spag. And look up Psychology > Heuristics while you're at it.
you're argument is the traditional determinism over "free will" model.
the seperation between assumption, decision, and action may merely be a linguistic one
consider this process to be one thing, seperated from other things, that the assumptions which "cause" the decision, are not only mutually implied by the decision, but are the same, neither arising without the other. however, it sounds absurd to say that we cause our assumptions by our decisions. these are truly caused by previous decisions and environmental factors, internal programming and whatnot. but then consider that all of these are in fact caused by something outside THAT system in a completely random fashion. what if your causality is merely an anomaly of happenstance; monkeys typing shakespeare? as RAW says, "we don't know anything about being and non-being, we only know what we've tuned in"... whether we state that decisions are chained to or free from assumptions, we are playing a linguistic game, and the map has it's limitations.
i'm not satisfied with this explanation, but i'll post it anyway. i think these metaphors might get in the way.
in refutation of quantum physics, einstein said, "god does not play dice." it's always seemed to me that einstein was missing something here, but the words aren't coming out right this morning. :gheyforum:
Quote from: Netaungrot on April 05, 2008, 07:59:28 AM
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 04, 2008, 03:43:42 PM
Quote from: daruko on April 04, 2008, 02:18:36 PM
I just meant that you don't "know". You keep thinking.
Right!
As long as you can accept that you don't "know" and remain willing to accept new data... then I see no reason that pre-judgment or judgment based on assumption would be necessary.
:wrong:
You're talking about flexibility after you have made decisions.
What I'm talking about is how every decision contains assumptions, due to the nature of language and evolutionary adaptations.
Read this (http://niquette.com/books/sophmag/heurist.htm), spag. And look up Psychology > Heuristics while you're at it.
You're still falling victim to semantics...
What I'm talking about are tentative decisions, based only on the available data, with the understanding that there likely will appear more data over time. The, as of yet, unseen data does NOT have to be pre-judged. If your decisions reflect the subjective nature of the speaker's experience/opinion/current level of knowledge... We right back to one of the major functions of E-Prime here, I think.
A decision made in E-Prime does not seem, in my opinion, to require prejudice or assumption about 'as of yet unseen' data.
In the everyday, general view that mosbunal people have, I agree... people are likely to have assumptions and sets of pre-judged data... but if General Semantics, RAW's essays on E-Prime, etc are correct in some sense this doesn't necessarily appear as a requirement to decision making.
Does it?
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 05, 2008, 06:34:32 PM
Quote from: Netaungrot on April 05, 2008, 07:59:28 AM
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 04, 2008, 03:43:42 PM
Quote from: daruko on April 04, 2008, 02:18:36 PM
I just meant that you don't "know". You keep thinking.
Right!
As long as you can accept that you don't "know" and remain willing to accept new data... then I see no reason that pre-judgment or judgment based on assumption would be necessary.
:wrong:
You're talking about flexibility after you have made decisions.
What I'm talking about is how every decision contains assumptions, due to the nature of language and evolutionary adaptations.
Read this (http://niquette.com/books/sophmag/heurist.htm), spag. And look up Psychology > Heuristics while you're at it.
You're still falling victim to semantics...
What I'm talking about are tentative decisions, based only on the available data, with the understanding that there likely will appear more data over time. The, as of yet, unseen data does NOT have to be pre-judged. If your decisions reflect the subjective nature of the speaker's experience/opinion/current level of knowledge... We right back to one of the major functions of E-Prime here, I think.
A decision made in E-Prime does not seem, in my opinion, to require prejudice or assumption about 'as of yet unseen' data.
In the everyday, general view that mosbunal people have, I agree... people are likely to have assumptions and sets of pre-judged data... but if General Semantics, RAW's essays on E-Prime, etc are correct in some sense this doesn't necessarily appear as a requirement to decision making.
Does it?
Well, if you're just going to ignore my entire post, then I guess this conversation is just about over...
You assume that E-Prime leads you to language that has more accuracy, but where's the proof, homie?
Have any studies demonstrated that the use of E-Prime improves people's ability to do anything better?
What about the critiques of E-Prime?
I think you assume that E-Prime has an association with clarity and accuracy even though this probably has more to do with your personal liking of RAW, Korzybski and the influence of selective thinking than any scientific proof.
What makes you exempt from expectancy sets, unconscious heuristics, and prejudgment?
E-Prime?
:roflcake:
And
I'm falling victim to semantics?
You don't want to look at the assumptions you make about language but you will try to shove some stuffy linguistic tool down my throat and everyone else's.
Fuck E-Prime and fuck you.
:fnord: dangerous ideological forces at hand | erase the lines | abandon all symbols :fnord:
Quote from: daruko on April 06, 2008, 07:28:53 AM
:fnord: dangerous ideological forces at hand | erase the lines | abandon all symbols :fnord:
...And stop with the fucking Yodaisms.
Net, I think Rata's just saying using E-Prime for decision making seems to lead to better decision-making.
Which seems to be the whole point.
and i think Net is trying to say that Rat seems to be wrong in that assumption :-P
I'm with Net on this one, there are always going to be pre judgements, existings data in your head etc. The best you can do is acknowledge these and look out for conflicts with new information.
You can't even deomonstrate that 2+2=4 without making assumptions. (And since I know you spags are going to [citation needed] that, go look up the godel incompletness theorom yourselves.)
Quote from: daruko on April 07, 2008, 03:44:35 AM
Net: you're turning e-prime into an ideology, which is why you seemingly do not understand it at all
it is about the LIMITATIONS of language
the tao that can be described is not the tao
it's not about achieving more accuracy, and it does not increase your statistical chances of being right,
but it sure as hell will save you from your arrogance, and i'm not sure that can be proven to you
part of the problem with e-prime is that conceptually you can only see the method. once you have actually experimented with your linguistic programs, more can be understood about the effects
it's sort of like crowley's magick... you can scream all day about how full of shit crowley was, and how his methods do not work, but if you haven't tried them yourself you don't know dick.
Some of the limitations of language that you can't seem to wrap your thick head around consists of assumptions, presuppositions, beliefs, values, and the map never being the fucking territory.
E-PRIME CAN'T EXEMPT YOUR PUNK ASS FROM THESE THINGS.
I know E-Prime inside and out, can kick your ass in NLP, and have been studying hypnosis for about 5 years fucko.
So you can take your bumblefuck smartmouth and choke on a fat load of your mom's gonorrhea infected smegma, chump.
I am prejudiced against everybody, especially assholes.
Quote from: Netaungrot link=topic=15791.msg502738#msg502738
You assume that E-Prime leads you to language that has more accuracy, but where's the proof, homie?
No, I think that E-Prime allows us to provide some explanation in the english language showing how we can make decisions without pre-judging unknown data. That's all.
Quote
Have any studies demonstrated that the use of E-Prime improves people's ability to do anything better?
None that I'm aware of. However, I don't think that's what I'm trying to say here... I'm only saying that I think we can make decisions without necessarily pre-judging unknown data, and I think E-Prime appears as a model by which we can describe this process to each other through the limited medium of the English language.
Quote
What about the critiques of E-Prime?
There are plenty... and a number of them I agree with. Some people forget that its just a model and try to use it all the time. Unfortunately, E-Prime seems like a useful model for some things, but some people appear to use it as the one size fits all... and get their menu and meal all confused.
Quote
I think you assume that E-Prime has an association with clarity and accuracy even though this probably has more to do with your personal liking of RAW, Korzybski and the influence of selective thinking than any scientific proof.
I think you may be assuming a lot.
Quote
What makes you exempt from expectancy sets, unconscious heuristics, and prejudgment?
E-Prime?
You really don't seem to be listening to my argument... you're arguing against E-Prime as a solution and I agree with that E-Prime is not a solution... E-Prime, in my opinion, can be a useful model/tool to A) help you train your brain to make fewer decisions based on assumptions and B) help you train your brain to catch assumptions before you make decisions, aka The Cosmic Schmuck Principle.
I'm not stating that I NEVER make assumptions, or that I am 100% Cosmic Schmuck Free... I am only arguing that assumptions are not Necessary and decisions can be made without assumptions. We can model decisions that are not based on assumptions by using E-Prime when stating the decision.... if it doesn't fit, then we need to rework the decision to remove the assumptions that don't fit. Model Not Solution.
Quote
You don't want to look at the assumptions you make about language but you will try to shove some stuffy linguistic tool down my throat and everyone else's.
Fuck E-Prime and fuck you.
I'm not trying to shove anything down anyone's throat. If you don't like E-Prime, don't use it. I'm not saying that we all should use it, or even that we all Should make decisions free of assumptions. Sometimes assumptions are useful (particularly if its a life threatening situation etc).
(http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a95/discordman/forumspecific/argue.jpg)
Quote from: Professor Cramulus on April 07, 2008, 05:31:50 PM
(http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a95/discordman/forumspecific/argue.jpg)
DO NEVAR ARGUE WITH A CAMEL!
*note from personal experience*
they'll :vom: on you
llamas do that too. I know THAT one from experience.
E-Prime's fundamental assumption is that it is better to use language without the is of identity.
So when you use E-Prime, you are operating under this assumption.
What's so ironic about this is that E-Prime is supposed to help you put your assumptions out on the table, but you morons somehow insist that E-Prime can magically exempt you from them.
It's also quite amusing that Ratatosk completely glossed over the role of heuristics, previous learnings, beliefs, etcetera and how these elements impact every decision we make. Merely changing the structure of your language doesn't make these largely unconscious influences go away. It helps you become more cognizant of them.
Our brains have evolved to make incredibly rapid decisions that are useful or close enough most of the time. Using a stuffy linguistic model can't overcome that.
Since our mind's comprehension of reality is necessarily limited and incomplete, we must make assumptions to function. Explain how a mental model can contain zero assumptions.
(http://img412.imageshack.us/img412/6148/arguewnetnb5.jpg)
Quote from: Netaungrot on April 07, 2008, 10:30:06 PM
E-Prime's fundamental assumption is that it is better to use language without the is of identity.
So when you use E-Prime, you are operating under this assumption.
And is that assumption prejudice (which as I recall was the original discussion point) while assumptions are part of prejudice, they do not appear as simply synonyms, as far as I can tell.
Quote
What's so ironic about this is that E-Prime is supposed to help you put your assumptions out on the table, but you morons somehow insist that E-Prime can magically exempt you from them.
Again, assumptions do not precisely equate to prejudice.
Quote
It's also quite amusing that Ratatosk completely glossed over the role of heuristics, previous learnings, beliefs, etcetera and how these elements impact every decision we make. Merely changing the structure of your language doesn't make these largely unconscious influences go away. It helps you become more cognizant of them.
heuristucs and previous learnings are BASED ON AVAILABLE DATA. They make guesses about future data, they may make assumptions based on past data... but they do not necessaril;y pre-judge unavailable data. You're using assumption and prejudice as identical terms and I disagree that they are.
Quote from: Netaungrot on April 07, 2008, 10:30:06 PMOur brains have evolved to make incredibly rapid decisions that are useful or close enough most of the time. Using a stuffy linguistic model can't overcome that.
TITCM
Quote from: Netaungrot on April 07, 2008, 10:39:12 PM
(http://img412.imageshack.us/img412/6148/arguewnetnb5.jpg)
:lulz:
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 07, 2008, 10:41:29 PM
Quote from: Netaungrot on April 07, 2008, 10:30:06 PM
E-Prime's fundamental assumption is that it is better to use language without the is of identity.
So when you use E-Prime, you are operating under this assumption.
And is that assumption prejudice (which as I recall was the original discussion point) while assumptions are part of prejudice, they do not appear as simply synonyms, as far as I can tell.
Quote
What's so ironic about this is that E-Prime is supposed to help you put your assumptions out on the table, but you morons somehow insist that E-Prime can magically exempt you from them.
Again, assumptions do not precisely equate to prejudice.
Quote
It's also quite amusing that Ratatosk completely glossed over the role of heuristics, previous learnings, beliefs, etcetera and how these elements impact every decision we make. Merely changing the structure of your language doesn't make these largely unconscious influences go away. It helps you become more cognizant of them.
heuristucs and previous learnings are BASED ON AVAILABLE DATA. They make guesses about future data, they may make assumptions based on past data... but they do not necessaril;y pre-judge unavailable data. You're using assumption and prejudice as identical terms and I disagree that they are.
(http://img160.imageshack.us/img160/4503/wrongmotorcyclefatoh5.jpg)
(http://www.lclark.edu/~hesdaile/pictures/baby.jpg)