You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Critique of Critique
Perhaps we understand by intuition two different things. Although I also use it with the meaning that you use it, in this case by the word intuition I mean the knowledge that is perceived directly.
No one is able to intuit the climate change directly, so they use scientific or logical explanations.
I call this, "gnosis" (private, personal, experiential, qualitative) which is functionally indistinguishable from opinion, hypothesis, and pure imagination.
Personal experience =/= reliable (quantifiable, verifiable) scientific data.
An interesting exchange here.
Because it is indistinguishable, doesn't it mean that a statement made by someone is believed one time and not believed another time, that it is ultimately about trust? And can I only establish trust if I am able to reveal an interface on the experiential level that the other person can recognize as similar? In doing so, he must trust that I share this experience in the sense of an approach to understanding with him, not in the sense of overt or covert enmity or aversion.
Eh, but the problem here is that con-artists are masters at this.
The whole (experiential trust) thing is smoke and mirrors and Barnum Statements (Qualia).
There is precious little Quanta (empirical data) to help you keep your bearings.
The Barnum Effect basically shows that humans are very flexible beings who can take on different roles and characteristics in situations of different kinds, which seem appropriate to them. That everyone can identify with the attributions is basically a good sign, because it reflects the adaptability of human beings. We are virtually dependent on people thinking and acting subjectively. If we were to understand ourselves solely in unchangeable, fixed characteristics, this would inevitably lead to disturbances in our interaction with others.
The form in which we see ourselves is coincidental (context dependent). That we are contained in all forms is necessary.
Nevertheless, I see the effect as both strength and weakness, with all shades in one direction or the other, depending on the context.
Your words remind me of Heraclitus, "a man never crosses the same river twice".
And, The Barnum Effect is not "bad", but it can be highly deceptive.
One of my main goals is to try and inoculate people against all forms of deception.
That's a good saying. I heard it somewhere else and find it quite useful.
Does this mean, that you always start from a position of distrust in the first place when you meet someone new? That a person, you interact with does first have to earn your trust?
Isn't it more the other way around? You trust someone until he or she betrays or makes it difficult to maintain the given trust? Isn't at least law pointing in this direction? Someone remains innocent until it's proven otherwise?
What kind of misconduct are you referring to?
We size people up and decide (usually subconsciously) how much faith-trust-time-resources we're willing to risk on them. And then we "roll-the-dice". Just a note here, a good con-artist will give a rube at least 2 solid "wins" (sometimes 3) before pulling the rug out from under them.
Some people are instantly repulsive. Some people are instantly boring. Some people are instantly fascinating. Some people seem like they might be interesting if you get to know them better.
Is this "prejudice" or "guilty until proven innocent"?
You don't have enough time to interact with everyone in the entire world (actually humans have evolved to be able to maintain a maximum of about 150 human relationships at once, which just happens to be the typical size of an ancient village or tribe).
And (I'm trying to put this as gently as possible) "the law" most certainly treats the accused as guilty before trial (and the poorer you are the guiltier it treats you).
I come from a corner of fairness here. Less, of past unfairness. My question is more of a fundamental nature. You meet a woman, fall in love... you get a new colleague at work, you go to a party and meet all sorts of people. and so on. - Do you always distrust them at first? That was the question. You can also understand the more reserved, wait-and-see way as a kind of trust, where you first try to get an unbiased picture.
Please be more specific.
you said:
That sounded as if trusting in the first place is nothing sensible to do. I wanted to know what kind of misconduct (con) you mean.
Click to watch 38 seconds,
I could barely follow. So I cannot give any response to that. My English is quite okay but listening to a heavy tongue I get into trouble. :)
First speaker: "I'm making it out here without a team. This is what you're not understanding. You all keep screaming team, at the end of the day, when I go to sleep by myself, I got me. And these clothes, shoes, anything, support, I get it because I believed in me. You all keep screaming team, I never had a team. It's not going to make any difference, and I've got sixteen years of life, bro, without a team. And I'm going to make it fifty five more! I don't believe in friendship, I don't believe in trust. I don't even trust my own mother, I don't trust my own brothers."
Second speaker: "Can you allow somebody to help build that trust with you though?"
First speaker: "No. My trust was gone when my father and my grandmother died."