You are conditioned to believe that 2 + 2 = 4. You are afraid to say that 2 + 2 = 5 or anything else for fear of looking like an idiot, so you are mentally forced to say 4 <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Well, you've taken what was meant to be a joke as a serious comment <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> (or at least more seriously than I intended it to be taken!)
Anyway, back to the discussion... *leaves*
<comes back and causes a time paradox>
Actually I'm editing this in so as not to fill this thread with needless posts.
1) I don't drink (well, rarely) 2) I hate being the centre of attention (generally) ^_^
*leaves again*
*comes back again*
*Props up a mop against a chair and puts some glasses on it, and staples the script to the handle*
GrendelAll that is fear...Join Date: 2002-07-19Member: 970Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, NS2 Playtester
edited March 2005
Mathematics and similar disciplines are not areas where opinon has any say. Like the systems used for clinical analysis, mathematics, physics et al. are rulesets where personal interpretation has been obviated.
Sadly (or happily, dending on your opinion <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->) much of life cannot be readily quantified in a meaningful way. Certainly, on an individual level, it would serve no purpose to even attempt to quantify much of what we do. Even when we bring numbers into an equation, the conclusions they push us towards can be (and are) frequently ignored. An excellent example of this is when someone purchases something.
If a person looks at a graphics card, then theoretically all we should be looking for is the specification of the card, relative to the price. In theory it should be a relatively simple thing to make an informed decision.
In practice, other intangible aspects start coming into play. How well have other cards performed by the same manufacturer? What cards do my friends have? Have I ever had a problem with a card made by the manufacturer? Is the advert for it retarded? The list goes on.
From my perspective, as someone who has bought and sold second hand hardware, many of the emotive aspects have gone. I look at hardware somewhat more dispassionately. I know that past performance of products by a manufacturer has little or no bearing on the current generations performance. The average purchaser, however, does not have that depth of experience nor do they have the professional ennui that I enjoy. The decision for them, due to its relative significance, carries a much greater investment of judgement and is thus a much more emotive experience.
But my purchases are always still governed by my feelings, my "intuition". It's just in my case that apart from not being as subject to certain irrelevant emotional weighting as others, I also have a broader base of useful experience to draw on. This means that the emotive weightings I have are more likely to lead towards an accurate decision.
The drawback with this is that the more familiar one becomes with something, the harder it is to admit when one has made a mistake. Even though the insubstantially based emotional responses tend to fall away over time as one builds up knowledge, at the same time a new and powerful emotional weighting develops, that of expertise. The more I <i>ought</i> to be able to make the right decision, the more of my self-esteem becomes attached to me actually making the right decision. Thus I develop a strong negative emotional response towards the idea that I may have made an error.
This is one of the biggest dangers and drawbacks of our decision making processes. It's also why religious or political debates rarely make any progress and usually lead towards conflict and anger. In these debates we have people attacking our core beliefs that help to define who we are. The emotional investment in being right is huge.
So we can't remove emotion from the decision making process. So I guess that means it's not even worth trying? No. It's always worth keeping the emotive aspect of decision making in mind, if simply to minimise it and so that we may learn to recognise when it stops nudging us and starts making us do things that are totally irrational.
Besides which, there are always quantifiable aspects of a process we can look at, which at least helps us to narrow the scope of our decisions. A good example of this would be in mapping (this one's for you Merk <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->). It's not possible to define what makes a map "fun". But one can utilise certain methodologies (node based pathing, time between hives and MS, numbers of nodes available per side, times to nodes from MS/each hive) in order to ensure that basic elements are in place.
In a similar way, it's not possible to look at a situation and say "capital punishment is wrong". In that particular case, it might be the correct solution, given the quantifiable facts. However we can look at numerous cases thoughout a period of time and over a geographical area and thus evaluate the statisical efficacy of a particular solution, in order to get an overall picture of whether a particular methodology yields positive or negative results. Naturally, a lot of this is still subject to who is deciding what defines positive or negative, so the science of psychology/sociology is a complex one, still in it's infancy.
From personal experience, I've found it to be an extremely useful way of looking at my life and my motivations. I've started to displace and project my anger and inadequacies less. The knowledge of what drives my decisions allows me to question them with less fear.
I've finally come to terms with the fact I'm only human.
The irony of debate is that the people it concerns least are those involved in it - debate as you said, won't convince any of the arguing partys, because they're emotionally entrenched already. It usually serves as a lure for those whose oppinions are not rigid yet to take up your cause - because while argumentation may not convince, growing numbers always do sooner or later.
TheAdjHe demanded a cool forum title of some type.Join Date: 2004-05-03Member: 28436Members, NS1 Playtester, Constellation
<!--QuoteBegin-Nadagast+Mar 16 2005, 01:27 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nadagast @ Mar 16 2005, 01:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I agree sorta but I also think that you can train yourself to think logically... I mean I was converted from a Christian to atheist, and conservative (politically, although this is more because of my parents beliefs than my own thinking) to moderate/liberal from internet discussions. I mean its not like any of my real friends are going to have a religious discussion with me. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> It's just not cool enough. It's too bad too, I think it's a real shame the average joe can't really talk about anything considered 'geeky' or whatever. How many times have you heard someone say: "MAN I SUCK AT MATH!" Like they are proud of it? Lots <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
It's not cool to be smart, it's cool to sell snake oil, be 'spiritual', and believe in tons of nonsense that doesn't hold up in the real world.
Sorry for the tangent <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Garrett you can think logically, that doesn't mean you make decisions based on logic. Grendel and I talked about this particular topic a while ago, and it hit me like a ton of bricks because I immediately agreed with it due to past experiences, and I myself was unconsciously aware of it due to my own decision making process. I often give an answer because of my personal feelings, then immediately begin to find a logical way of backing up that answer. This is a major problem in my current situation, because some of the answers I give are actually orders to lower ranking soldiers that have to be done by that soldier. Often I give the answer that gives the soldier more comfort, but doesn't accomplish the mission. I've had to really focus on getting the job done despite realizing that the people doing the job definitely don't enjoy it and understanding that it could quite possibly kill them.
still, it would seem to me that while the results of this study are likely, they are also just as likely misinterpreted.
An EKG showing that the emotional center of the brain is stimulated with opinion based questions tells me that these questions evoke an emotional response and that emotions have a longer lasting influence on the brain. This doesn't necessarily say that emotions are the source of the answer.
edit: does this study account for reserved judgement? Obviously I haven't made my final decision because I want to see the actual results of the study first.
GrendelAll that is fear...Join Date: 2002-07-19Member: 970Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, NS2 Playtester
I just posted a couple of examples. Google some of the studies Gwahir. Or read pretty much any book on decision making, management, sales or anything else that describes how human's make decisions.
to be honest Grendel, many of your paragraphs mainly concluded that you are less susceptible to emotional influence, while it still there.
edit: this is the guy who's work most interests me <a href='http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?tid=9147&ttype=2' target='_blank'>The organization of Learning</a> by <a href='http://ruccs.rutgers.edu/faculty/GnG/gallistel.html' target='_blank'>Gallistel</a>. He also wrote "The Organization of Action"
GrendelAll that is fear...Join Date: 2002-07-19Member: 970Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, NS2 Playtester
Not at all. I'm still just as susceptible as anyone else, it's just in my case, at least I'm aware that the bias is there. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Grendel+Mar 26 2005, 05:17 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Grendel @ Mar 26 2005, 05:17 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I look at hardware somewhat more dispassionately. I know that past performance of products by a manufacturer has little or no bearing on the current generations performance.
It's just in my case that apart from not being as subject to certain irrelevant emotional weighting as others, I also have a broader base of useful experience to draw on. This means that the emotive weightings I have are more likely to lead towards an accurate decision.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> main two examples.
/me grins and chuckles at Grendel's intitial post <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
as a matter of fact I like it so much that I think I'll:...
I am late to this thread and I have only read the first post. It is late and I am a bit giddy
I must say it is indeed absolutely true
I am not about to write an eloquent and amazing exposition here
but let us imagine a person who is quite frankly, too stupid to easily grasp why an argument is true. instead of getting drawn into an attempted logical debate on equal grounds, simply assume the superior position and charm them. of course you can charm them bit by bit into seeing the logical way but it is quite easier simply to hoodwink them, fleece them
by superior position I mean one that will work, not one that won't. I am tired and it is unclear, however consider someone insecure trying to prove themself versus someone who really does know it all (yeah right). The superior position must be one that, if true, the other person will have no choice but to follow along with. I do not pretend to extrapolate to all existence, and here vague terms are used for convenience. Simply slap on a disclaimer: I am only responsible for the application of these words to the previously described situation
WOW I am tired
A perhaps (a cynical perhaps) easier to grasp situation is this: Why are nerds, in the stereotypical archetype sense of the word, not cool? Do they not have pretense of being capable? yes but they are not capable in ways that demonstrate themselves to the judges, who by the way are the common people, for better and for worse. I must admit I have a strong inkling to insult nerds (and the common people) right now, but I must stop the urge to rant. What makes some people cool and not others? Is it always godly abilities? There's nothing strictly inherent about being capable of excelling in "nerdly" things undermining coolness; cool things and nerd things are not absolutely mutually exclusive
How do people determine social status?
Ok I am drifting off into rhetorical questions and my mind is unravelling. Well, tommorrow then. Hahaha
Comments
Take a previously unseen and unworked mathematical equation. The decision of the final answer is based on what?
I want to see the data.
Anyway, back to the discussion... *leaves*
<comes back and causes a time paradox>
Actually I'm editing this in so as not to fill this thread with needless posts.
1) I don't drink (well, rarely)
2) I hate being the centre of attention (generally) ^_^
*leaves again*
*comes back again*
*Props up a mop against a chair and puts some glasses on it, and staples the script to the handle*
*leaves for good*
come back and drink like a man!
Sadly (or happily, dending on your opinion <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->) much of life cannot be readily quantified in a meaningful way. Certainly, on an individual level, it would serve no purpose to even attempt to quantify much of what we do. Even when we bring numbers into an equation, the conclusions they push us towards can be (and are) frequently ignored. An excellent example of this is when someone purchases something.
If a person looks at a graphics card, then theoretically all we should be looking for is the specification of the card, relative to the price. In theory it should be a relatively simple thing to make an informed decision.
In practice, other intangible aspects start coming into play. How well have other cards performed by the same manufacturer? What cards do my friends have? Have I ever had a problem with a card made by the manufacturer? Is the advert for it retarded? The list goes on.
From my perspective, as someone who has bought and sold second hand hardware, many of the emotive aspects have gone. I look at hardware somewhat more dispassionately. I know that past performance of products by a manufacturer has little or no bearing on the current generations performance. The average purchaser, however, does not have that depth of experience nor do they have the professional ennui that I enjoy. The decision for them, due to its relative significance, carries a much greater investment of judgement and is thus a much more emotive experience.
But my purchases are always still governed by my feelings, my "intuition". It's just in my case that apart from not being as subject to certain irrelevant emotional weighting as others, I also have a broader base of useful experience to draw on. This means that the emotive weightings I have are more likely to lead towards an accurate decision.
The drawback with this is that the more familiar one becomes with something, the harder it is to admit when one has made a mistake. Even though the insubstantially based emotional responses tend to fall away over time as one builds up knowledge, at the same time a new and powerful emotional weighting develops, that of expertise. The more I <i>ought</i> to be able to make the right decision, the more of my self-esteem becomes attached to me actually making the right decision. Thus I develop a strong negative emotional response towards the idea that I may have made an error.
This is one of the biggest dangers and drawbacks of our decision making processes. It's also why religious or political debates rarely make any progress and usually lead towards conflict and anger. In these debates we have people attacking our core beliefs that help to define who we are. The emotional investment in being right is huge.
So we can't remove emotion from the decision making process. So I guess that means it's not even worth trying? No. It's always worth keeping the emotive aspect of decision making in mind, if simply to minimise it and so that we may learn to recognise when it stops nudging us and starts making us do things that are totally irrational.
Besides which, there are always quantifiable aspects of a process we can look at, which at least helps us to narrow the scope of our decisions. A good example of this would be in mapping (this one's for you Merk <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->). It's not possible to define what makes a map "fun". But one can utilise certain methodologies (node based pathing, time between hives and MS, numbers of nodes available per side, times to nodes from MS/each hive) in order to ensure that basic elements are in place.
In a similar way, it's not possible to look at a situation and say "capital punishment is wrong". In that particular case, it might be the correct solution, given the quantifiable facts. However we can look at numerous cases thoughout a period of time and over a geographical area and thus evaluate the statisical efficacy of a particular solution, in order to get an overall picture of whether a particular methodology yields positive or negative results. Naturally, a lot of this is still subject to who is deciding what defines positive or negative, so the science of psychology/sociology is a complex one, still in it's infancy.
From personal experience, I've found it to be an extremely useful way of looking at my life and my motivations. I've started to displace and project my anger and inadequacies less. The knowledge of what drives my decisions allows me to question them with less fear.
I've finally come to terms with the fact I'm only human.
I mean I was converted from a Christian to atheist, and conservative (politically, although this is more because of my parents beliefs than my own thinking) to moderate/liberal from internet discussions. I mean its not like any of my real friends are going to have a religious discussion with me. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> It's just not cool enough. It's too bad too, I think it's a real shame the average joe can't really talk about anything considered 'geeky' or whatever.
How many times have you heard someone say: "MAN I SUCK AT MATH!"
Like they are proud of it? Lots <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
It's not cool to be smart, it's cool to sell snake oil, be 'spiritual', and believe in tons of nonsense that doesn't hold up in the real world.
Sorry for the tangent <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Garrett you can think logically, that doesn't mean you make decisions based on logic. Grendel and I talked about this particular topic a while ago, and it hit me like a ton of bricks because I immediately agreed with it due to past experiences, and I myself was unconsciously aware of it due to my own decision making process. I often give an answer because of my personal feelings, then immediately begin to find a logical way of backing up that answer. This is a major problem in my current situation, because some of the answers I give are actually orders to lower ranking soldiers that have to be done by that soldier. Often I give the answer that gives the soldier more comfort, but doesn't accomplish the mission. I've had to really focus on getting the job done despite realizing that the people doing the job definitely don't enjoy it and understanding that it could quite possibly kill them.
An EKG showing that the emotional center of the brain is stimulated with opinion based questions tells me that these questions evoke an emotional response and that emotions have a longer lasting influence on the brain. This doesn't necessarily say that emotions are the source of the answer.
edit: does this study account for reserved judgement? Obviously I haven't made my final decision because I want to see the actual results of the study first.
edit: this is the guy who's work most interests me <a href='http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?tid=9147&ttype=2' target='_blank'>The organization of Learning</a> by <a href='http://ruccs.rutgers.edu/faculty/GnG/gallistel.html' target='_blank'>Gallistel</a>. He also wrote "The Organization of Action"
It's just in my case that apart from not being as subject to certain irrelevant emotional weighting as others, I also have a broader base of useful experience to draw on. This means that the emotive weightings I have are more likely to lead towards an accurate decision.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
main two examples.
as a matter of fact I like it so much that I think I'll:...
vote <span style='color:blue'>request topic webbing</span>
*thumbs up*
I must say it is indeed absolutely true
I am not about to write an eloquent and amazing exposition here
but let us imagine a person who is quite frankly, too stupid to easily grasp why an argument is true. instead of getting drawn into an attempted logical debate on equal grounds, simply assume the superior position and charm them. of course you can charm them bit by bit into seeing the logical way but it is quite easier simply to hoodwink them, fleece them
by superior position I mean one that will work, not one that won't. I am tired and it is unclear, however consider someone insecure trying to prove themself versus someone who really does know it all (yeah right). The superior position must be one that, if true, the other person will have no choice but to follow along with. I do not pretend to extrapolate to all existence, and here vague terms are used for convenience. Simply slap on a disclaimer: I am only responsible for the application of these words to the previously described situation
WOW I am tired
A perhaps (a cynical perhaps) easier to grasp situation is this: Why are nerds, in the stereotypical archetype sense of the word, not cool? Do they not have pretense of being capable? yes but they are not capable in ways that demonstrate themselves to the judges, who by the way are the common people, for better and for worse. I must admit I have a strong inkling to insult nerds (and the common people) right now, but I must stop the urge to rant. What makes some people cool and not others? Is it always godly abilities? There's nothing strictly inherent about being capable of excelling in "nerdly" things undermining coolness; cool things and nerd things are not absolutely mutually exclusive
How do people determine social status?
Ok I am drifting off into rhetorical questions and my mind is unravelling. Well, tommorrow then. Hahaha