Tragedy of defaults

[MARAB0D]

This is just a thought on a common feature we often notice here (and elsewhere). Some poster reveals their conceptual outlook, and this outlook in many cases starts with something like "We are born sinners, hence..." or "We all need God hence...". This is not restricted to the religious posters at all, a couple of times I was stepping on my own tongue as well, noticing I am about to write "We, humans...". Where does this come from, the urge to speak of the entire Mankind?

My guess is that most of us most likely liaise with some certain limited number of people, automatically choosing those who understands us and whom we understand, i.e. those who think similar way as we ourselves think. We reject those strangers, whom we cannot see as resonating to our own thoughts and feelings. So the communication circles are not very wide after all, but with the years of being among similar way thinking people one may acquire a feeling that this particularly way of thinking is a norm to follow. Such feeling creates the default. When encountering a new, unknown person the default is applied to them first of all, as a predominant expectation of the way they think. A street gang member would think the new person has a mentality of a street gangster (as it is seen as a norm, as a default), a religious person would expect a stranger to think similar way as their own religious community thinks, etc...

When someone's living experience is vast, such person realizes there are multiple other ways of thinking, and this makes this person to analyse oneself and others without applying the defaults for start, to approach a stranger with no bias and investigate this stranger first, how do they think. But this requires wide horizons and a degree of freedom of thinking, which includes first of all the inability to absolutize own outlook and be allowing the other opinions to exist as also valid, at least to a degree, in their own space and time period. Such wide horizons, alas, seem to be hard to discover for oneself, and it becomes easier to fill the unknown area in the mentality of a stranger with assumed default thinking pattern. Hence "we, Mankind..." Am I right or not?

[Leonardo]

We all project our own experiences onto another, and this leads to the assumption of like when interacting with another.

However, there is no reason to presume that different perspectives, brought about through the different life experiences each of us encounters through our development to adulthood, are 'unknowable' to each other. Whatever 'mentality' we each exhibit, it is a mentality of a human being, projected through the lens of one's experiences. A simple imagining of those experiences of another, applied to oneself, can lead to an approximation of how the other 'thinks'. It is not ideal, but it can somewhat bridge the gap brought about by our singular nature.

Edited April 15, 2010 by Leonardo

[MARAB0D]

We all project our own experiences onto another, and this leads to the assumption of like when interacting with another.

However, there is no reason to presume that different perspectives, brought about through the different life experiences each of us encounters through our development to adulthood, are 'unknowable' to each other. Whatever 'mentality' we each exhibit, it is a mentality of a human being, projected through the lens of one's experiences. A simple imagining of those experiences of another, applied to oneself, can lead to an approximation of how the other 'thinks'. It is not ideal, but it can somewhat bridge the gap brought about by our singular nature.

Hmmm... Lets imagine you are speaking totally for Yourself...

I project my own experiences onto another, and this leads to the assumption of like when interacting with another.

However, there is no reason to presume that different perspectives, brought about through the different life experiences I encounter through my development to adulthood, are 'unknowable' to others. Whatever 'mentality' I exhibit, it is a mentality of a human being, projected through the lens of my experiences. A simple imagining of those experiences of another, applied to myself, can lead to an approximation of how the other 'thinks'. It is not ideal, but it can somewhat bridge the gap brought about by my singular nature.

Now, if instead of the "other" person you put the real Leonardo, Mozart, Gauguin, Spinosa, Casanova etc... Anyone who was immeasurably higher than you (or me) in something, what sort of service your projecting your own experiences on them would do to them? You cannot compose 8th Symphony G-moll (I presume as I never heard it or about it, I project on you my experiences!) and you cannot paint "Peasant Women of Breton" (same) - so you do not have "enough" experiences to project on such person, and your projection would only downgrade them down to your own level. Any of the other 6 billion people knows something you do not know and can do something you cannot do (this follows from them all specialising in millions of other jobs than yours one), and your projection would downgrade them too. The wise person, Socrates, said "I know that I know nothing" - so what would HIS projection on you be? And what, imagine, if someone with Down syndrome is projecting themselves onto You!

Edited April 15, 2010 by MARAB0D

[Alien Being]

This is just a thought on a common feature we often notice here (and elsewhere). Some poster reveals their conceptual outlook, and this outlook in many cases starts with something like "We are born sinners, hence..." or "We all need God hence...". This is not restricted to the religious posters at all, a couple of times I was stepping on my own tongue as well, noticing I am about to write "We, humans...". Where does this come from, the urge to speak of the entire Mankind?

My guess is that most of us most likely liaise with some certain limited number of people, automatically choosing those who understands us and whom we understand, i.e. those who think similar way as we ourselves think. We reject those strangers, whom we cannot see as resonating to our own thoughts and feelings. So the communication circles are not very wide after all, but with the years of being among similar way thinking people one may acquire a feeling that this particularly way of thinking is a norm to follow. Such feeling creates the default. When encountering a new, unknown person the default is applied to them first of all, as a predominant expectation of the way they think. A street gang member would think the new person has a mentality of a street gangster (as it is seen as a norm, as a default), a religious person would expect a stranger to think similar way as their own religious community thinks, etc...

When someone's living experience is vast, such person realizes there are multiple other ways of thinking, and this makes this person to analyse oneself and others without applying the defaults for start, to approach a stranger with no bias and investigate this stranger first, how do they think. But this requires wide horizons and a degree of freedom of thinking, which includes first of all the inability to absolutize own outlook and be allowing the other opinions to exist as also valid, at least to a degree, in their own space and time period. Such wide horizons, alas, seem to be hard to discover for oneself, and it becomes easier to fill the unknown area in the mentality of a stranger with assumed default thinking pattern. Hence "we, Mankind..." Am I right or not?

The idea we are all born sinners is religious indocturnation. I believe in God yet I dont and have never done anything evil so why do I start off a sinner?

Differant people have differant view points on life (Charles Manson as an example). Most people dont question anything but if you do you realise a lot of people are a joke. They are all set in their minds like they totally have brought what they believe in and dont allow themselves to continplate anything else.

[Leonardo]

Hmmm... Lets imagine you are speaking totally for Yourself...

Now, if instead of the "other" person you put the real Leonardo, Mozart, Gauguin, Spinosa, Casanova etc... Anyone who was immeasurably higher than you (or me) in something, what sort of service your projecting your own experiences on them would do to them? You cannot compose 8th Symphony G-moll (I presume as I never heard it or about it, I project on you my experiences!) and you cannot paint "Peasant Women of Breton" (same) - so you do not have "enough" experiences to project on such person, and your projection would only downgrade them down to your own level. Any of the other 6 billion people knows something you do not know and can do something you cannot do (this follows from them all specialising in millions of other jobs than yours one), and your projection would downgrade them too. The wise person, Socrates, said "I know that I know nothing" - so what would HIS projection on you be? And what, imagine, if someone with Down syndrome is projecting themselves onto You!

Considering your OP was reflecting on mentality (i.e. point of view, perspective, world-view) and not ability I don't see why you are bringing composing music, or painting art, into the discussion?

Of course, I can project your dislike of me into my own realisation of why you wrote what you did, and then accept that you don't like that I had an answer to your enquiry, so you chose to respond with aggression. However, that is an example of what I discussed in my first post, and you seem to think such a practice cannot even approximate another's 'mentality'.

Edited April 15, 2010 by Leonardo

[+Sherapy]

This is just a thought on a common feature we often notice here (and elsewhere). Some poster reveals their conceptual outlook, and this outlook in many cases starts with something like "We are born sinners, hence..." or "We all need God hence...". This is not restricted to the religious posters at all, a couple of times I was stepping on my own tongue as well, noticing I am about to write "We, humans...". Where does this come from, the urge to speak of the entire Mankind?

My guess is that most of us most likely liaise with some certain limited number of people, automatically choosing those who understands us and whom we understand, i.e. those who think similar way as we ourselves think. We reject those strangers, whom we cannot see as resonating to our own thoughts and feelings. So the communication circles are not very wide after all, but with the years of being among similar way thinking people one may acquire a feeling that this particularly way of thinking is a norm to follow. Such feeling creates the default. When encountering a new, unknown person the default is applied to them first of all, as a predominant expectation of the way they think. A street gang member would think the new person has a mentality of a street gangster (as it is seen as a norm, as a default), a religious person would expect a stranger to think similar way as their own religious community thinks, etc...

When someone's living experience is vast, such person realizes there are multiple other ways of thinking, and this makes this person to analyse oneself and others without applying the defaults for start, to approach a stranger with no bias and investigate this stranger first, how do they think. But this requires wide horizons and a degree of freedom of thinking, which includes first of all the inability to absolutize own outlook and be allowing the other opinions to exist as also valid, at least to a degree, in their own space and time period. Such wide horizons, alas, seem to be hard to discover for oneself, and it becomes easier to fill the unknown area in the mentality of a stranger with assumed default thinking pattern. Hence "we, Mankind..." Am I right or not?

Hmmm, We could mean as the common human condition, couldn't it? We could be uses as the plural for I as you have addressed, We can be used as all inclusive. We can be the aspect of open minded that reminds us that 'we' have to account for our bias..It's not that we don't have one but how do we account for it. etc etc.

Now, IMO in your case specifically, I think it means the humanity we(culture, , mankind the all inclusive "we'" ).

Geez Ant, IMO this goes without saying.

You put a lot of care into a checks and balances system on a personal level, based on my extensive dealings with you for whatever it's worth.

[MARAB0D]

Considering your OP was reflecting on mentality (i.e. point of view, perspective, world-view) and not ability I don't see why you are bringing composing music, or painting art, into the discussion?

Of course, I can project your dislike of me into my own realisation of why you wrote what you did, and then accept that you don't like that I had an answer to your enquiry, so you chose to respond with aggression. However, that is an example of what I discussed in my first post, and you seem to think such a practice cannot even approximate another's 'mentality'.

The abilities are the major factors, forming the mentality! One does not expect a math professor to have a mentality of a plumber, or vice versa. The prosperity of our society is based on human diversity in mentalities and abilities, this is why we all contribute to it what we can and want to contribute. In your philosophical outlook you are simply suggesting a plumber to treat a Math professor as yet another plumber. But I can suggest the professor would not appreciate such treatment, while if a professor starts treating the plumber as yet another professor, the plumber would not be able to understand him.

[MARAB0D]

Hmmm, We could mean as the common human condition, couldn't it? We could be uses as the plural for I as you have addressed, We can be used as all inclusive. We can be the aspect of open minded that reminds us that 'we' have to account for our bias..It's not that we don't have one but how do we account for it. etc etc.

Now, IMO in your case specifically, I think it means the humanity we(culture, , mankind the all inclusive "we'" ).

Geez Ant, IMO this goes without saying.

You put a lot of care into a checks and balances system on a personal level, based on my extensive dealings with you for whatever it's worth.

Sheri, and what is this "common human condition"? That we are all alive and periodically need to eat? You are a female - I guess it is hard for you to project yourself on me because I am a male. Leo presumes all around are similar Leos - but is it valid to presume this?

[+Sherapy]

Sheri, and what is this "common human condition"? That we are all alive and periodically need to eat? You are a female - I guess it is hard for you to project yourself on me because I am a male. Leo presumes all around are similar Leos - but is it valid to presume this? 1

A mode of being or form of existence for humans. Yes, we live and die, reproduce, live within a physical system that has certain laws, we share a common characteristics. etc.

1 IMO No, it isn't valid to presume this, It's interesting Ant, I think one of the most valuable tidbits of wisdom I ever got when I inquired years ago on how to be open minded, inclusive. Learn to listen actively, that means the first bias we have is for ourselves.

I have account for them too in all fairness, so a check's and balances is put into place..

IMO if 'we' humans do this 'we' can create environments that nurture inclusiveness.

Edited April 16, 2010 by Sherizzle

[Sthenno]

We presume we are similar because we are, in the grand scheme of things. What we see as huge differences in our thinking and attitudes are just quirks really... generally speaking, humans will react the same to any given stimuli.

[+Sherapy]

We presume we are similar because we are, in the grand scheme of things. What we see as huge differences in our thinking and attitudes are just quirks really... generally speaking, humans will react the same to any given stimuli.

Similar how?

[+Sherapy]

We all project our own experiences onto another, and this leads to the assumption of like when interacting with another.

However, there is no reason to presume that different perspectives, brought about through the different life experiences each of us encounters through our development to adulthood, are 'unknowable' to each other. Whatever 'mentality' we each exhibit, it is a mentality of a human being, projected through the lens of one's experiences. A simple imagining of those experiences of another, applied to oneself, can lead to an approximation of how the other 'thinks'. It is not ideal, but it can somewhat bridge the gap brought about by our singular nature.

What's my experience of being a women, Leo?

[MARAB0D]

We are only similar enough to recognize each other as one specie. And even this was not an universal rule till the complete destruction of racial segregation laws and major racial/cultural prejudices, which was when? 1990s? Or was not yet done? Why is it Michael Jackson was singing "black or white"? But the dogs ALSO admit each other as one specie, and the flies do too! So this recognition is not a human feature at all, its Nature.

In all other respects (on top of behavioural and social features which are specie-specific) all representatives of each specie are highly individual, and differ from each other. To say "this is a dog" does not describe the animal at all, as it has also character, breed, age, experience, gender etc etc of its own and these all form a unique combination. What is in common between chihuahua and a pit-bull except they are both dogs? How can a pit-bull project of chihuahua and vice versa? Just practically, how?

We are a bit more complex than he dogs, but yet say "we, Mankind"... "We, Canines" makes no sense at all - why "we, Mankind" does?

[Leonardo]

What's my experience of being a women, Leo?

What situation are you applying that mentality to, Sheri? What are the reasons you would want someone to think as you do, "as a woman does"?

You see, what is proposed in the OP is not solely a personal 'mentality' issue, but also a situational one. What a person does (i.e. their vocation) is largely irrelevant except that it might affect the development of the person's base mentality through social conditioning, etc, i.e. someone who is a professor of art history is unlikely to have achieved that distinction, decided art history was their 'vocation', through being part of a gang culture - it is not impossible, just much more unlikely.

So, this professor of art history makes an acquaintance with a gang member, how does this professor communicate effectively with that person? By talking to him/her as if they were a member of his/her social world, or by imagining what it is like to be a member of theirs?

So, situational, not vocational. Your question, "What is my experience of being a woman?" has no situational context, therefore I cannot answer it except with what it is like to physically be a woman, not mentally/emotionally.

Edited April 16, 2010 by Leonardo

[MARAB0D]

What situation are you applying that mentality to, Sheri? What are the reasons you would want someone to think as you do, "as a woman does"?

You see, what is proposed in the OP is not solely a personal 'mentality' issue, but also a situational one. What a person does (i.e. their vocation) is largely irrelevant except that it might affect the development of the person's base mentality through social conditioning, etc, i.e. someone who is a professor of art history is unlikely to have achieved that distinction, decided art history was their 'vocation', through being part of a gang culture - it is not impossible, just much more unlikely.

So, this professor of art history makes an acquaintance with a gang member, how does this professor communicate effectively with that person? By talking to him/her as if they were a member of his/her social world, or by imagining what it is like to be a member of theirs?

So, situational, not vocational. Your question, "What is my experience of being a woman?" has no situational context, therefore I cannot answer it except with what it is like to physically be a woman, not mentally/emotionally.

You have slightly confused me. Did not you just state:

there is no reason to presume that different perspectives, brought about through the different life experiences each of us encounters through our development to adulthood, are 'unknowable' to each other

Sheri just asked you to demonstrate such your alleged capacity to know other person's experiences. Of course, if when [situationally and vocationally] talking about this, you were talking of your own capacity to be so extra-sensitive to the experiences of the others, not alleging such capacity in each other member of Mankind! I think Sheri was applying her question to a really existing current situation - a person de-facto claims them being able to actually know the experiences of the others, so she (as any female) is naturally curious, and wills to try these magic abilities on her own example. You have intrigued her, Leo, how do you do this to women?

[zoombie]

I think you are reading too much to it. When people write 'we, humans' etc... they are trying to convey the message of largeness to support the idea that they are presenting. It make it sound as if that idea is universal so their argument look stronger.

Of course, that is my personal view, I do not claim to represent mankind

[+Sherapy]

What situation are you applying that mentality to, Sheri? What are the reasons you would want someone to think as you do, "as a woman does"?

You see, what is proposed in the OP is not solely a personal 'mentality' issue, but also a situational one. What a person does (i.e. their vocation) is largely irrelevant except that it might affect the development of the person's base mentality through social conditioning, etc, i.e. someone who is a professor of art history is unlikely to have achieved that distinction, decided art history was their 'vocation', through being part of a gang culture - it is not impossible, just much more unlikely.

So, this professor of art history makes an acquaintance with a gang member, how does this professor communicate effectively with that person? By talking to him/her as if they were a member of his/her social world, or by imagining what it is like to be a member of theirs?

So, situational, not vocational. Your question, "What is my experience of being a woman?" has no situational context, therefore I cannot answer it except with what it is like to physically be a woman, not mentally/emotionally.

A simple imagining of those experiences of another, applied to oneself, can lead to an approximation of how the other 'thinks'. It is not ideal, but it can somewhat bridge the gap brought about by our singular nature.

What are some simple imaginings of my experience as being a women, that you can approximate how I am and call it good enough?

What do you mean by good enough?

Edited April 16, 2010 by Sherizzle

[+Sherapy]

We are only similar enough to recognize each other as one specie. And even this was not an universal rule till the complete destruction of racial segregation laws and major racial/cultural prejudices, which was when? 1990s? Or was not yet done? Why is it Michael Jackson was singing "black or white"? But the dogs ALSO admit each other as one specie, and the flies do too! So this recognition is not a human feature at all, its Nature.

In all other respects (on top of behavioural and social features which are specie-specific) all representatives of each specie are highly individual, and differ from each other. To say "this is a dog" does not describe the animal at all, as it has also character, breed, age, experience, gender etc etc of its own and these all form a unique combination. What is in common between chihuahua and a pit-bull except they are both dogs? How can a pit-bull project of chihuahua and vice versa? Just practically, how?

We are a bit more complex than he dogs, but yet say "we, Mankind"... "We, Canines" makes no sense at all - why "we, Mankind" does?

Well said, Ant!

(The distinction between token identity and type identity.)

Dog is type identity( the abstract generalization / what properties have in common)and the token identity is the concrete physical instance of the phenomenon (dog in this case).

Edited April 16, 2010 by Sherizzle

[MARAB0D]

Well said, Ant!

(The distinction between token identity and type identity.)

Dog is type identity( the abstract generalization / what properties have in common)and the token identity is the concrete physical instance of the phenomenon (dog in this case).

Does this mean that speaking "we, Mankind" is addressed to the Type identity and completely ignores Token Identity? If so, one can imagine someone, attacked by an assertive dog, responding by addressing the canine type identity with a long speech...You, canines, stop chewing me!

[+Sherapy]

Does this mean that speaking "we, Mankind" is addressed to the Type identity and completely ignores Token Identity? If so, one can imagine someone, attacked by an assertive dog, responding by addressing the canine type identity with a long speech...You, canines, stop chewing me!

Good pull, (giggles at awesome example) No, 'we' would be very foolish if we did. I worked for the post office for a while and a 8 hour training day was devoted to token identity as the practical aspect of type identity> dog.

For ex: How many think a little dog is harmless, because they are little ? When in fact they do serious damage. Or how about 'my dog won't hurt you' and then the dog bites the heck out of a mail carrier. In front of a stunned home owner.

Happens all the time.

One of our Mail carriers who had been on the same route for 20 years , and knew the dogs that damn near mauled him to death. If it hadn't been for some random guy driving by to give this mail carrier a car to get on top of the dogs would of killed him...He was in rehabilitation for a year, in spite of the fact that he won millions in a law suit , he no longer has the use of one arm.

Tragedy of defaults eh Ant?

Edited April 16, 2010 by Sherizzle

[MARAB0D]

Yeah... "We, humans are born in sin"..."We, canines are born sinless..." etc etc. 6 billion of only human projections on Mankind, non-human I hesitate to count. But why no one says "We, mammals..."? Say, we, mammals need God

[+Sherapy]

Yeah... "We, humans are born in sin"..."We, canines are born sinless..." etc etc. 6 billion of only human projections on Mankind, non-human I hesitate to count. But why no one says "We, mammals..."? Say, we, mammals need God

Which brings in a great question in these "defaults' .

Edited April 16, 2010 by Sherizzle

[Leonardo]

A simple imagining of those experiences of another, applied to oneself, can lead to an approximation of how the other 'thinks'. It is not ideal, but it can somewhat bridge the gap brought about by our singular nature.

What are some simple imaginings of my experience as being a women, that you can approximate how I am and call it good enough?

What do you mean by good enough?

You didn't answer my question, Sheri, and so I cannot answer yours.

What situation do you wish to be taken into account for the purpose of 'imagining' how you, as a woman, would be (as in react/behave/think/etc)?

As I said, simply asking "What is my experience of being a woman?" is without context. If the question had been "What is my experience of being a Hell's Angel?" - then that question has context. A Hell's Angel is a person in a particular situation - a biker gang member.

Of course, my approximation would be still quite generalised, but I could use what knowledge I have of the various activities gangs take part in (and any I might have of Hell's Angels in particular), and approximate what sort of person I am encountering (or, at least, a facet of that person). I might still be wrong of course, I never said using approximations through imagining a generalised characterisation (in effect, a stereotype) is foolproof, in fact I said it was not ideal but it can lead to a measure of initial understanding.

[+Sherapy]

You didn't answer my question, Sheri, and so I cannot answer yours.

What situation do you wish to be taken into account for the purpose of 'imagining' how you, as a woman, would be (as in react/behave/think/etc)?

As I said, simply asking "What is my experience of being a woman?" is without context. If the question had been "What is my experience of being a Hell's Angel?" - then that question has context. A Hell's Angel is a person in a particular situation - a biker gang member.

Of course, my approximation would be still quite generalised, but I could use what knowledge I have of the various activities gangs take part in (and any I might have of Hell's Angels in particular), and approximate what sort of person I am encountering (or, at least, a facet of that person). I might still be wrong of course, I never said using approximations through imagining a generalised characterisation (in effect, a stereotype) is foolproof, in fact I said it was not ideal but it can lead to a measure of initial understanding.

My experience of being a women , the basic experience Leo.

[Leonardo]

My experience of being a women , the basic experience Leo.

Sheri,

There is no "basic experience of being a woman", without there being a situation in which that experience is got. Do you understand?