You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Signalling Theory, Radical Transparency, and the death of genuine communication
You can freely quote me, my friend :P ... Self-censorship is very perfidious and crippling. I'd recommend courage. We won't live forever, will we? So, do not seek how to protect yourself - just go forward. Any pathway of propagating hypocrisy is impoverishing.
It's not a matter of courage, more a matter of cost vs benefit. If you're rational yet brave you take calculated risks. This means you've got to have a lot more to gain than to lose. I suppose in my assumptions about Alice and Bob I was going by the fact that they would be at least attempting to be rational agents.
What would Alice or Bob have to gain? If they are trying to be liked, then they only would become increasingly disliked over time if they do not care about reputation. If they do not care about credibility such as if they don't do the signalling (education for example) then their audience might not take them as seriously.
How would Alice and Bob maintain:
Do not seek to protect yourself could be going forward off the cliff. Is that what you recommend?
But, your cost/benefit criterial framework is only as good as you have it now. It is subject of change as anything else. If you constrict yourself to a certain axiomatics, i.e. not brave enough to transcend / transcale ( https://steemit.com/tauchain/@karov/tauchain-transcaling ) your models ... you kinda doom yourself. Cuz the only imaginable mode of survival is to constantly lower the probability of yourself to perish. Capish?
Why wouldn't anyone update their framework if it doesn't work? But cost benefit analysis does work.
Belief is deadly. It is very strong toxin. Cost/benefit is NOT one thing. It is a vast array of tools. Try to define what exactly you refer to and you'll see the infinite regress.
Who brought up belief?
the 'theories'
So is the law. The law exists to restrict or modify our behavior patterns correct? So when you say "you have total freedom of speech" it is like telling a child "you can be anything you want to be when you grow up". It sounds nice to say but the statistics don't match that statement (the statistics tell us the consequences of our actions). Odds tell you your chances of achieving your goal and to be realistic with a child is to say "you can try to be whatever you want to be but you'll have to get past many obstacles and figure out how to beat the odds which will be stacked against you in many cases".
So if in theory you can say anything you want to anyone this is physically true (laws of physics and biology). But what you fail to mention is that the consequences of saying whatever you want may outweigh the benefits. In other words it is for most people prohibitively expensive.
The same could be true about actions. According to the laws of physics and nature you can do whatever your body allows you to do. This doesn't mean it would be worth the consequences to do whatever you want to do. So you police your own behavior to avoid those consequences which you don't want. In other words you don't want to pay the price a certain action would cost.
You could say "YOLO" which means you only live once, so do whatever the |||| you want to anyone at any time. But then is that a smart way to live? What happens to people statistically who have no filter for their speech or behavior? It's one thing to be brave but it's another to be stupid.
My question for you is this, should people only follow the laws when they feel like it? Or should people take a risk based approach to following the law? How do you determine whether or not to follow the law (if you're courageous enough to break any law)?
Absolutization of your current state of mind, incl. on law etc. is procrustic ( https://steemit.com/tauchain/@karov/tauchain-trumps-procrustics ). No matter how comprehensive looking are your constructs ( ''Compression is comprehension ... Decompression is experience. '' ) The very fact that we can argue forever on the details and infinite regress of meanings of what you say above, demonstrate that the only way is to change your basic premises , your axiomatics and to go ahead. IF a thought scheme looks restrictive and shows no ways-out -> change it, look for higher one. It is NOT about compliance per se.
The thought scheme isn't the problem. Thought schemes emerge in reaction to environmental conditions. So the successful thought schemes evolve (survival of the fittest thought schemes) because they help people survive in different environments.
To navigate the law (which we can think of as an array of traps set by society) we have to develop an ability to capture a sample of the environment and assess that sample. It's essentially statistical analysis which allows a person to discover different kinds of probabilities but in times where proper analysis is impossible then rough estimations, approximations, educated guesses, fill in the blanks.
The point is, to be completely spontaneous and do exactly what you want may work as a child (if it even works then) when there are elders managing your environment, keeping the predators out, warning you about the traps, but as you become an adult there might not be anyone to warn you, there might not be anyone to manage your environment for you, and you may have to discover the traps through careful observation by yourself because perhaps the competition is hoping you fall for those traps.
Tell me how you thrive as an adult in modern society if you don't rely on advanced reasoning, logic, and rational strategies for behavioral adaptation? Look both ways before you cross a street is done for a reason, because statistically people who don't have a higher chance of getting hit by a vehicle. To tell people not to do this because it costs them time and effort is bizarre.
I do not say 'not to do' but to just mind that what you think now is not what you'll have on disposal tomorrow. no need to tie yourself up. The theories and terminology you base your above construct sound quite stern and scary, but are they? Do you want together to vivisect the Signaling theory, Radical Transparency, Genuinity of communication?