Many sidewinding roads later...
Jul. 6th, 2009 11:05 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jhameiaThis is a continuation of an earlier conversation. For context, go here.
Rin says:
oh, and I keep meaning to finish my argument over on your lj
Rin says:
I hope it's not too obnoxious :p
Jha says:
i think it's more a case that i'm not explaining myself properly
Rin says:
I think fundamentally we're aiming for the same thing, but grouping methods into different categories
Jha says:
i'm still having difficulty expressing it
Jha says:
yes, that could be it
Rin says:
objective introspection, I think, is what you mean?
Rin says:
which is... objective :p
Jha says:
not just objective introspection but
Jha says:
like
Rin says:
you can't examine your own emotions without abstracting, stepping away from them
Jha says:
objective introspection..... of what?
Rin says:
because to acknowledge them you have to have part of your mind separate
Jha says:
but at the same time, if you abstract and step away from them too much, then how do you know what you're looking at?
Rin says:
careful balancing of the mental scales!
Rin says:
I think it's an interesting and very narrow point that could be pinned down a bit more
Jha says:
yeah, that's where my trouble is XD
Jha says:
i need to percolate on it a bit more
Rin says:
(but mostly my concern with the lj responses is the other commenter's notion that we live in a reason-dominated society, which I only wish were the case.)
Jha says:
and i do think that it varies between person
Rin says:
oh of course, everyone has their own ways of looking at things
Rin says:
different strengths and weaknesses and so on
Rin says:
but I think *striving* for objectivity, or at a minimum knowing HOW to, is critically important
Jha says:
and i do think that abstracting too much, being too objective, can be detrimental, particularly to one's mental health, especially if one faces abuses
Rin says:
oh yes.
Rin says:
but I think at that point one has gone beyond "objectivity" and into "denial"
Jha says:
because with enough reasoning, one can explain away any kind of abuse as within reasonable limits and deny the anger
Jha says:
but see, some people use objectivity for their denial though, where's the cut-off?
Rin says:
no, I think they claim they do
Jha says:
that's where the emotionalism comes in, just, letting ourselves feel
Rin says:
like
Rin says:
you said people who believe in, oh, alt med are being logical in their own minds
Rin says:
or, maybe a bad example
Rin says:
creationists, say, since people can be conned into homeopathy fairly readily
Rin says:
creationists might consider themselves logical-- I know plenty who think they're talking about objective truth-- but the fact is they disregard data and don't look at it objectively, don't abstract away from their gut emotions
Jha says:
i remember having a discussion with a creationist. i asked them about dinosaur fossil. they said dinosaurs were god's first experiment.
Rin says:
they feel it is so, thus it is so
Rin says:
oh geez
Jha says:
i wasnt sure what to say to that, but then i was 12
Rin says:
before I go further, what are your religious convictions if any? >.>
Jha says:
(still amusing today though)
Jha says:
i'm not sure what they are
Jha says:
i'm pretty i have some though!
Rin says:
well I have some quotes from a good friend of mine that are... interesting
Rin says:
this man is utterly inflexible in his convictions
Jha says:
they're not so much religious as they are spiritual
Rin says:
I hear that a lot
Jha says:
so, i get to make up a lot of really awesome quotes about god and godliness
Jha says:
that are really applicable to everything, not just religious matters
Rin says:
regarding a "regrettable" atheist summer camp:
Rin says:
"I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing. Your focus seems to be on a kid being taught something they nonetheless believe to be untrue. And sure, this happens all through life. My focus was rather on a child being sincerely taught something the teacher believes is true, which the child then likewise accepts as true, which is actually untrue in reality. That is what I'd find regrettable. "
Jha says:
....................................................
Rin says:
Sorry, it might not be clear out of context
Rin says:
Not that it... is... in context
Jha says:
whether or not it's in context that quote still boggles.
Rin says:
Niere wrote:
Why not just a non-religious oriented camp that does explore philosophy and etchis? Why does a "higher authority" necessarily need to be used or bashed in either case for the basis of a kids summer camp?
Rin says:
he also said, "to teach someone that philosophy or ethics exist without a higher authority, is *itself* a particular worldview. I'm afraid there's no truly "outside" position to be had in life."
Rin says:
Yeah.
Jha says:
where's the head and wher's the tail?!
Rin says:
He's an expert at convoluted so-called "reasoning"
Rin says:
and it's because he won't acknowledge his own biases
Rin says:
convictions, he will acknowledge
Jha says:
right
Jha says:
i knew a guy like that, except he was a self-avowed atheist
Rin says:
his argument against gay marriage, summarized, is something along the lines of
Jha says:
unfortunately, he's a Randian, so he had few redeeming qualities
Rin says:
"pretend you have some red chips and some blue chips. there is a machine, analagous to marriage, which processes one red chip and one blue chip. you can't put in two blue chips."
Rin says:
Haha
Rin says:
Well, they come in all types
Jha says:
ugh, Randians are the worst though
Jha says:
i mean, Christians? I can handle them. unless they're some sort of fucking psychopath, they usually try to give back to their community
Jha says:
even if they can't pass the Stick Rule, they still mean well
Jha says:
Randians? they're stuck in the selfishness of childhood, except with adult concepts and language
Jha says:
i dont think i've ever met a randian who i liked at the core
Jha says:
then again, i DO tend to limit the amount of douchebaggery in my life
Jha says:
and those BASTARDS love to stea Objectivism!
Jha says:
now, by my post, i dont mean to say that the objective view is useless
Jha says:
or that i deny it totally
Rin says:
well I hope my philosophical stances are made clear, though I may have muddled them utterly
Rin says:
:p
Jha says:
it's definitely useful, but i dont think it enables a deep understanding of the harm that biases cause
Rin says:
well no, because the perception of harm is inherently subjective
Rin says:
you can't measure that
Jha says:
i mean, before RaceFail, everything was pretty objectively clear to me - diversity good, white washing bad, but the more I read, the most clear that there's a great deal of personal harm being done which i completely missed because i kept abstracting the issue
Rin says:
"harm" as such also goes in all directions and it's a big complicated net
Jha says:
and whilst harm can't be measured, it should at least be taken into consideration
Rin says:
you can't trace it to any one source
Jha says:
exactly
Jha says:
exactly
Rin says:
so in terms of objectivity
Rin says:
it's one of those cases where you can't really ask useful questions about it and form a coherent theory
Jha says:
i dont know, the objective view is useful in that it enables us to ask questions
Rin says:
but that doesn't mean one shouldn't try to abstract from emotional spins put on individual cases, for instance
Jha says:
even if at first they arent useful and we keep adapting our questions until we get somewhere
Rin says:
well yes that's the point
Jha says:
but we still are trying to ask
Jha says:
tease out
Jha says:
sources of pain
Jha says:
which means
Jha says:
engaging with the pain
Rin says:
this might wind up being a bit OT
Jha says:
so objectivity combined with emotional sensitivity would inherently be more useful than objectivity alone
Rin says:
but in linguistics, for instance, there's no scientifically meaningful definition of a language
Jha says:
inorite! isn't that difficult!
Rin says:
oh that depends entirely on your purposes though! :P but to continue
Jha says:
XD
Rin says:
re: language... that doesn't mean you can't have everyday discussions about languages and social linguistic issues or whatever
Jha says:
well, i'm talking about dealing with issues that affect people on a personal level
Rin says:
it just means that doing so is a hell of a mess with predefined categories and biases all over the place :p
Rin says:
languages DO
Jha says:
i mean, objectivity when it comes to science and empirical evidence? bring it on
Jha says:
hmmmmmmmm
Jha says:
does linguistic determination come into play with any of that?
Rin says:
language is a hugely important part of many people's identity, rightly or wrongly
Rin says:
(and I lean towards wrongly)
Jha says:
(why wrongly?)
Rin says:
what do you mean by linguistic determination?
Jha says:
like, kinda, our viewpoints and biases and suchlike are kind of formed by the language we grew up in
Rin says:
(I think that defining a culture based on language is dangerous, ultimately pointless, and leads to more harm than good)
Jha says:
our perspective is limited by how we can express
Rin says:
(based on numerous real-world examples)
Rin says:
(sentimental attachments to "dog" over "chien" or "eskolkia" are pointless and bad, to be blunt)
Jha says:
or rather, our perspective is dependent on how we can express it
Rin says:
oh, I disagree with that a lot
Rin says:
a LOT
Jha says:
i have trouble with the concept
Jha says:
mostly because i like fucking with language to constantly evolve modes of expression and i think THAT's more useful
Rin says:
cognitive science has no support for that other than in the most trivial of examples (I mean, trivial in the sense of "well, the FRENCH are INCAPABLE of calling a cat a "cat"!)
Jha says:
no no no
Rin says:
are you talking about larger structures and semantic shades and so on?
Jha says:
i mean, like, a child who doesnt know the word "love" and the attendent concepts, is going to be quite limited in expressing it
Jha says:
for example
Jha says:
or more closely
Jha says:
like
Rin says:
it's all BS really
Jha says:
how some girls dont call what happened to them sexual assault
Rin says:
oh that's different.
Jha says:
simply because they didnt know that term existed
Rin says:
when you're talking intralinguistic things you're talking about modes of expression
Rin says:
it's not the TERM they don't know exists, it's the concept
Jha says:
the feeling is there but unaddressed because hey dont have the necessary language
Jha says:
yeah
Rin says:
which is not really related
Jha says:
yeah, the concept, but sometimes concepts need names
Rin says:
sure
Jha says:
in order to further pinpoint what it is
Rin says:
but that doesn't have anything to do with language
Jha says:
no?
Jha says:
oh
Rin says:
it's all culture
Jha says:
i thought it did.
Rin says:
well I mean
Rin says:
your example, not the fact that concepts need names
Jha says:
well, if it's got nothing to do with language then i was completely off-base XD
Rin says:
hehe it's a tricky thing
Rin says:
but a concept like that, it's a human invention
Jha says:
i mean, that's why it's so cool to learn many languages, right? being able to express one's self in so many different ways and the nuances involved and cool fun shit like that.
Jha says:
it broadens one's modes of expression
Rin says:
it's like saying, because someone grew up where there are no motorcycles... they don't talk about motorcycles
Rin says:
it does. but for all you run into things that are supposedly "untranslatable", there's really a way to get just about any possible human thought across regardless of language. you might have to play around with the structure, use more words, or whatever
Rin says:
but underlyingly it's really all the same
Rin says:
and *that's* what I find amazing about language
Jha says:
well, not until they came in contact with motorcycles, or unless they learn about the word and concept of motorcycles
Rin says:
on the surface Farsi looks so different from Icelandic
Rin says:
but the differences are cosmetic
Rin says:
Right! exactly. it's not a permanent state necessarily
Jha says:
i dunno, i've done some translation work before
Rin says:
which is what a lot of people who claim that our thought patterns are directly a result of our language believe
Jha says:
oh
Jha says:
well, thought patterns arent permanent either
Jha says:
O_o
Jha says:
at least, i hope so
Rin says:
well, one gets set in one's mental ways
Jha says:
it would SUCK to stay 15 forever!
Rin says:
but at least one prominent field linguist/anthropologist claims
Rin says:
(I will summarize)
Rin says:
there is a particular Brazilian tribe, monolingual and unexposed to any other culture except some interaction with Portuguese-speaking soldiers and so forth
Rin says:
conveniently enough, this guy and his wife are the only outsiders to have lived with them and studied their language extensively
Rin says:
as missionaries originally
Rin says:
but that's backstory :p
Rin says:
he claims that these people have no concept of
Rin says:
numbers
Rin says:
counting
Rin says:
colors
Rin says:
recursion, the ability to "loop back" and reference something you spoke about before, very loosely speaking
Jha says:
but that's like saying the Greeks had no concept of the colour blue, since they called the sky "bronze"
Rin says:
EXACTLY
Jha says:
ancient greeks
Rin says:
it is exactly like that
Jha says:
i mean, the sky was probably still bloue
Rin says:
they talk about things "the color of berries" and he claims they have no color concept
Rin says:
he claims they can't count OR EVEN LEARN TO COUNT
Jha says:
they just didnt give a shit about calling it something other than bronze, because EVERYTHING was bronze.
Rin says:
because of some experiments he did with putting fruits in baskets
Jha says:
hrm
Rin says:
(and, not to belabor the point, but who else is there to say that they just didn't feel like putting fruits in baskets?)
Rin says:
and the most important thing
Jha says:
i mean, if counting isnt relevant to your life, you probably wouldnt need to learn the concept
Rin says:
is that he claims they lack all of these mental capacities because their language lacks them. not the other way around or any other interpretation
Rin says:
that is very true
Rin says:
and there IS evidence that they're capable of learning
Jha says:
yeah
Rin says:
but jesus
Jha says:
well, i was thinking that linguistic determination affects, not limits, perspective
Jha says:
anyways
Jha says:
that's kinda patroniing
Rin says:
I saw this guy talk in person actually, and he's about as condescending and arrogant as you'd expect someone making such condescending, patronizing views to be >.>
Rin says:
not that that really affects the validity of his theories
Rin says:
but icing on the cake :p
Jha says:
lol
Rin says:
it's totally patronizing!
Rin says:
and worse
Rin says:
the mainstream media picked up on his articles
Jha says:
aiya
Rin says:
and published pop articles about this cute, quaint little tribe that doesn't know how to count to three
Rin says:
it's absolutely infuriating
Rin says:
furthermore this guy will never give up these theories, even if they're totally debunked, since his career is built on them
Rin says:
and the media just loves this kind of thing
Jha says:
ah
Rin says:
and it does so much harm. more than you'd think.
Rin says:
Rin says:
sorry. that was very angry of me. :p
Jha says:
naw, i dont think i learnt about linguistic determination in that way
Jha says:
i think i learnt about it in a class on modern theory or something equally obscure
Jha says:
it's okay, you're allowed to get angry :P
Rin says:
well the thing about determinism is that it SOUNDS intiutively appealing
Jha says:
hmmmm
Rin says:
like, the eskimos have more words for snow! how obvious
Jha says:
uh
Rin says:
except that they don't
Rin says:
:p
Jha says:
they.... dont O_o
Jha says:
they just use a lot of prefixes and suffixes, from what i understand, to denote the state the snow is, or something like that
Rin says:
of course
Rin says:
it's an agglutinative language, to be technical
Rin says:
and even that's a fairly pointless category :p
Rin says:
but what I mean is
Rin says:
people LOVE to latch on to that kind of thing because it seems right
Jha says:
it's the equivalent of using a ton of adjectives and stuff in a phrase
Rin says:
the same way that like
Rin says:
"men have been scientifically proven to talk less than women? why of COURSE!"
Rin says:
which is one of the reasons I am a staunch fan of the objective view in such matters:p
Jha says:
those are empirical though :P
Rin says:
and yes, it is. and itthan a comparable English phrase would be
Rin says:
*it's really no more interesting
Rin says:
empirical matters? :p
Jha says:
yeah, provable if you test again and again
Rin says:
well things like "men have been scientifically proven to talk less than women" are just invented statistics
Rin says:
like, literally invented
Jha says:
or rather
Jha says:
you have a thesis and you can test it
Jha says:
now, getting the same results all the time might be difficult because, you know, people are involved
Rin says:
but people don't bother :p and they accept these notions as true and well that's just crap
Rin says:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louann_Brizendine
Jha says:
that's the thing, right? it sounds SooooOoo objectively true because it is, after all, scientifically proven!
Jha says:
:P
Rin says:
YES, which is the same problem with people claiming scientific support for alt med and so forth
Rin says:
and "scientists say it is so!" is not at ALL what I mean by being objective :p
Jha says:
XD
Rin says:
even if all the scientists say so you can still objectively look at the matter, disagree, and be RIGHT
Jha says:
by what perspective though?
Rin says:
I would never say otherwise
Rin says:
by the objective truth of the universe. :p
Jha says:
okay, i think we've hit an important thing here, which ties into the problem in racefail
Rin says:
you might not KNOW if you're right
Rin says:
hell, you never CAN be sure
Rin says:
because we are not privy to such objective truth
Jha says:
hang on hang on
Rin says:
but... that doesn't mean we should stop asking questions and trying to see it for what it is
Rin says:
okay, okay
Rin says:
I'm presupposing objective truth
Rin says:
I should have said that up front :p
Rin says:
now when it comes to things like race, I don't think that necessarily applies. race is a category, and that aforementioned net of harm is largely immaterial
Jha says:
you can be objectively right, and so right, you got like, the law of reality in your hands right there. but that rightness doesn't matter if all the scientists say otherwise. your fact is just another opinion, and completely unsubstantiated by the people who WILL be believed. this is problematic for people who suffer harm and don't have the power to assert themselves to point out the harm being done.
Jha says:
well, to that end, what's the usefulness of objectivity? i mean, if the net of harm is immaterial, then how useful is it it apply objectivity?
Rin says:
well in an ideal world the scientists, the ones with power (not to say that scientists really have any... largely it's up to mainstream media, depressingly!) would be the ones being right
Rin says:
well it depends on your goals, really, jha
Jha says:
yeah, and generally, my goals are, you know, equal representation and addressing of wrongs and harm being done to others
Rin says:
but I think one should outline them clearly and, yes, objectively
Jha says:
which CAN be done objectively
Jha says:
but it's incomplete with subjective opinions weighing in
Rin says:
hmmm
Jha says:
see the problem i'm having? :P
Rin says:
well in science, not that that's the same goal :p, you gotta toss out flawed data sometimes
Jha says:
and i'm not even talking about that, either
Rin says:
or data that doesn't fit the theory
Rin says:
you can't incorporate every opinion
Jha says:
i was musing about personal biases and how we react with our personal biases
Rin says:
which is why I brought up the implicit association tests
Jha says:
and i was positing that interacting with our own personal biases, getting in touch with how we feel about certain statements, for example, would be useful in being able to objectively assess how much our biases factor into our arguments
Jha says:
kinda like, talking to one's self, and with one's self
Rin says:
sure. I don't necessarily believe we're capable of doing that accurately, but it could be a useful exercise.
Jha says:
now, someone else has probably talked about this elsewhere and i just never saw it
Jha says:
yeah, that's what i'm talking about! it's a useful exercise!
Rin says:
nothing wrong with that
Rin says:
thought experiments, if we're carrying over the science metaphor :p
Rin says:
you can stimulate discussions with that
Rin says:
but I don't think you'll get a whole lot of pure insight
Jha says:
yeah but with who? o.o
Rin says:
balance it out with some IATs :p
Rin says:
haha
Rin says:
well you can compare yourself with others. :p
Jha says:
see, i think that's where the ElizaBot comes in.......
Rin says:
or just have long internal dialogues with the voices in your head. your choice.
Rin says:
or that!
Rin says:
that might work
Jha says:
yeah
Jha says:
possibly
Jha says:
or a combination of all three!
Rin says:
it's one of those irritating situations where you can't pull out your brain and examine it
Rin says:
this is a common frustration for linguists :p
Jha says:
lol
Jha says:
well, the goal of this is to enable the recognition and owning of privilege
Rin says:
Right, I was just making the comparison :P
Jha says:
yah
Rin says:
surely you concede that it would be easier to examine biases by prodding at them >.>
Rin says:
with sticks!
Rin says:
as physical objects
Jha says:
well, i think, like, who does the prodding?
Rin says:
rather than merely their physical effects on the world
Rin says:
haha
Jha says:
and if we want to be helpful at all in addressing these very abstract issues, we gotta poke ourselves
Rin says:
our objective observer, of course
Jha says:
cos you know, those peope, they're kinda busy having LIVES and shouldnt be bothered with our hubris :P
Rin says:
yes, but I think we have to be careful about that
Rin says:
people poke each other more often than I'd like
Rin says:
in the discussions I've read
Rin says:
and there's always a sense of competition that bugs the hell out of me
Jha says:
yeah, i know, that's why i suggest poking ourselves, rather than other people XD
Rin says:
"I'm less privileged than youuu, neener neener"
Rin says:
Not saying that everyone is like that!
Rin says:
but it's incredibly unhelpful to the cause, I imagine
Jha says:
yeah, i know, which is ultimately not helpful, because a person's gotta WANT to own their privilege or at least, admit to it
Rin says:
and just gets people's hackles up
Rin says:
mhm
Rin says:
it shouldn't be difficult really
Jha says:
you'd think!
Rin says:
as far as I'm aware, acknowledging privilege doesn't mean saying "I deliberately took advantage of others, and by virtue of being born I am immoral"
Rin says:
but that's how a lot of people seem to view it, and sadly, how a lot of people really present it
Jha says:
but that's where the "neener neener" feel comes in, i think, because the marginalized get so sick of being condescended to and having to educate others on their privilege, they really feel they have to shove it in other people's faces.
Rin says:
Ah yes, but those I see shoving it are rarely the truly marginalized. :p
Jha says:
it's like, if you've been stepped on a lot, you're occasionally gonna want to kick people
Jha says:
lol, not in the circles i run in
Jha says:
although
Rin says:
Well I understand the need for taking a strong stance
Jha says:
usually the marginalized try to take themselves off to someplace more safe
Rin says:
But
Rin says:
haha
Jha says:
but that's limiting, you know?
Rin says:
well there are shades of marginalization, too
Jha says:
yeah, exactly
Rin says:
I mean, I'm pretty unattractive, conventionally speaking. that's limited my success in some areas of life relative to an equally placed skinny blonde
Rin says:
but I'm obviously vastly more privileged than, hell, most Americans, simply by virtue of being a middle-class New Englander
Jha says:
you're also a woman, dont forget that ;D
Rin says:
and white, and reasonably intelligent, and all that
Rin says:
but you can't say that being a woman is universally a negative or a positive, can you?
Jha says:
it shouldnt be either, you know
Jha says:
that as well as i do
Rin says:
it works for you in some ways and against you in others
Rin says:
of course it shouldn't, but
Rin says:
you know
Rin says:
:P
Jha says:
yeah, but even in ways that it works for you, it... i dunno, but it seems to be like, kinda....crumbs to off-set the negatives?
Rin says:
oh probably
Jha says:
and like, i dont want fuckin crumbs. =(
Rin says:
me neither :)
Jha says:
i'll take the whole loaf, even if it IS multigrain (and i fucking hate multigrain!)
Rin says:
but nor do I demand fancy cake when everyone else gets baguette :p
Rin says:
haha, awesome metaphor, incidentally
Jha says:
THEY HAVE CREAM CHEESE IN THE FUCKING BAQUETTES
Jha says:
T_T
Jha says:
WANT.
Rin says:
oh my goodness that exists?
Jha says:
i dunno but if it does i want it NOW.
Jha says:
i mean
Jha says:
there are bagelfuls
Rin says:
>.>
Jha says:
little bun-like things with creamcheese in them
Jha says:
and like, everybody should get bagefuls, although it would seem to some that it's downgrading from fancy cake, but the thing is, fancy cake is like, too rich for your blood sugar anyway so it would really be much better for you to have this here vagelful.
Jha says:
bagelful.
Jha says:
........
Jha says:
DO YOU NOT KNOW OF BAGELFULS?
Rin says:
but why can't everyone have a little bit of cake on the side?
Rin says:
I... I don't think so :(
Jha says:
there's friggin' cream cheese!
Jha says:
NOOOOOOOO
Jha says:
AWRIGHT
Jha says:
THAT GETS FIXED NOW
Jha says:
http://brands.kraftfoods.com/bagelfuls/
Rin says:
oh dear
Rin says:
bagel hotpockets?
Jha says:
kinda but more awesome <3
Rin says:
A: BAGEL-FULS can be kept in the refrigerator for up to two weeks, and can be stored frozen for one year.
Rin says:
that doesn't... alarm you?
Jha says:
that's a feature, not a bug
Rin says:
no earthly bagel is capable of such
Jha says:
EXACTLY
Jha says:
it's A SPIRITUAL BAGEL
Rin says:
THESE ARE DEVIL BAGELS
Jha says:
EVEN BETTER!
Rin says:
well I suppose depending on your viewpoint, it's all the same!
Jha says:
indeed, it's certainly otherworldly!
Rin says:
*grin*
Jha says:
you must try some if you ever find them
Rin says:
if I get out to Haligonia again one of these days, I guess :p
Jha says:
they should be available in any superstore, really :P
Rin says:
that's good, it seems like an awful hike to the maritimes in search of toasty bagels
Jha says:
yeah
Jha says:
see, the bagelfuls should come to you too, it shouldn't be a trial to go get bagelfuls!
Rin says:
ha
Rin says:
perhaps so
Jha says:
this conversation should go into my LJ
CLEARLY, I AM HAVING A VERY GOOD NIGHT.
Rin says:
oh, and I keep meaning to finish my argument over on your lj
Rin says:
I hope it's not too obnoxious :p
Jha says:
i think it's more a case that i'm not explaining myself properly
Rin says:
I think fundamentally we're aiming for the same thing, but grouping methods into different categories
Jha says:
i'm still having difficulty expressing it
Jha says:
yes, that could be it
Rin says:
objective introspection, I think, is what you mean?
Rin says:
which is... objective :p
Jha says:
not just objective introspection but
Jha says:
like
Rin says:
you can't examine your own emotions without abstracting, stepping away from them
Jha says:
objective introspection..... of what?
Rin says:
because to acknowledge them you have to have part of your mind separate
Jha says:
but at the same time, if you abstract and step away from them too much, then how do you know what you're looking at?
Rin says:
careful balancing of the mental scales!
Rin says:
I think it's an interesting and very narrow point that could be pinned down a bit more
Jha says:
yeah, that's where my trouble is XD
Jha says:
i need to percolate on it a bit more
Rin says:
(but mostly my concern with the lj responses is the other commenter's notion that we live in a reason-dominated society, which I only wish were the case.)
Jha says:
and i do think that it varies between person
Rin says:
oh of course, everyone has their own ways of looking at things
Rin says:
different strengths and weaknesses and so on
Rin says:
but I think *striving* for objectivity, or at a minimum knowing HOW to, is critically important
Jha says:
and i do think that abstracting too much, being too objective, can be detrimental, particularly to one's mental health, especially if one faces abuses
Rin says:
oh yes.
Rin says:
but I think at that point one has gone beyond "objectivity" and into "denial"
Jha says:
because with enough reasoning, one can explain away any kind of abuse as within reasonable limits and deny the anger
Jha says:
but see, some people use objectivity for their denial though, where's the cut-off?
Rin says:
no, I think they claim they do
Jha says:
that's where the emotionalism comes in, just, letting ourselves feel
Rin says:
like
Rin says:
you said people who believe in, oh, alt med are being logical in their own minds
Rin says:
or, maybe a bad example
Rin says:
creationists, say, since people can be conned into homeopathy fairly readily
Rin says:
creationists might consider themselves logical-- I know plenty who think they're talking about objective truth-- but the fact is they disregard data and don't look at it objectively, don't abstract away from their gut emotions
Jha says:
i remember having a discussion with a creationist. i asked them about dinosaur fossil. they said dinosaurs were god's first experiment.
Rin says:
they feel it is so, thus it is so
Rin says:
oh geez
Jha says:
i wasnt sure what to say to that, but then i was 12
Rin says:
before I go further, what are your religious convictions if any? >.>
Jha says:
(still amusing today though)
Jha says:
i'm not sure what they are
Jha says:
i'm pretty i have some though!
Rin says:
well I have some quotes from a good friend of mine that are... interesting
Rin says:
this man is utterly inflexible in his convictions
Jha says:
they're not so much religious as they are spiritual
Rin says:
I hear that a lot
Jha says:
so, i get to make up a lot of really awesome quotes about god and godliness
Jha says:
that are really applicable to everything, not just religious matters
Rin says:
regarding a "regrettable" atheist summer camp:
Rin says:
"I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing. Your focus seems to be on a kid being taught something they nonetheless believe to be untrue. And sure, this happens all through life. My focus was rather on a child being sincerely taught something the teacher believes is true, which the child then likewise accepts as true, which is actually untrue in reality. That is what I'd find regrettable. "
Jha says:
....................................................
Rin says:
Sorry, it might not be clear out of context
Rin says:
Not that it... is... in context
Jha says:
whether or not it's in context that quote still boggles.
Rin says:
Niere wrote:
Why not just a non-religious oriented camp that does explore philosophy and etchis? Why does a "higher authority" necessarily need to be used or bashed in either case for the basis of a kids summer camp?
Rin says:
he also said, "to teach someone that philosophy or ethics exist without a higher authority, is *itself* a particular worldview. I'm afraid there's no truly "outside" position to be had in life."
Rin says:
Yeah.
Jha says:
where's the head and wher's the tail?!
Rin says:
He's an expert at convoluted so-called "reasoning"
Rin says:
and it's because he won't acknowledge his own biases
Rin says:
convictions, he will acknowledge
Jha says:
right
Jha says:
i knew a guy like that, except he was a self-avowed atheist
Rin says:
his argument against gay marriage, summarized, is something along the lines of
Jha says:
unfortunately, he's a Randian, so he had few redeeming qualities
Rin says:
"pretend you have some red chips and some blue chips. there is a machine, analagous to marriage, which processes one red chip and one blue chip. you can't put in two blue chips."
Rin says:
Haha
Rin says:
Well, they come in all types
Jha says:
ugh, Randians are the worst though
Jha says:
i mean, Christians? I can handle them. unless they're some sort of fucking psychopath, they usually try to give back to their community
Jha says:
even if they can't pass the Stick Rule, they still mean well
Jha says:
Randians? they're stuck in the selfishness of childhood, except with adult concepts and language
Jha says:
i dont think i've ever met a randian who i liked at the core
Jha says:
then again, i DO tend to limit the amount of douchebaggery in my life
Jha says:
and those BASTARDS love to stea Objectivism!
Jha says:
now, by my post, i dont mean to say that the objective view is useless
Jha says:
or that i deny it totally
Rin says:
well I hope my philosophical stances are made clear, though I may have muddled them utterly
Rin says:
:p
Jha says:
it's definitely useful, but i dont think it enables a deep understanding of the harm that biases cause
Rin says:
well no, because the perception of harm is inherently subjective
Rin says:
you can't measure that
Jha says:
i mean, before RaceFail, everything was pretty objectively clear to me - diversity good, white washing bad, but the more I read, the most clear that there's a great deal of personal harm being done which i completely missed because i kept abstracting the issue
Rin says:
"harm" as such also goes in all directions and it's a big complicated net
Jha says:
and whilst harm can't be measured, it should at least be taken into consideration
Rin says:
you can't trace it to any one source
Jha says:
exactly
Jha says:
exactly
Rin says:
so in terms of objectivity
Rin says:
it's one of those cases where you can't really ask useful questions about it and form a coherent theory
Jha says:
i dont know, the objective view is useful in that it enables us to ask questions
Rin says:
but that doesn't mean one shouldn't try to abstract from emotional spins put on individual cases, for instance
Jha says:
even if at first they arent useful and we keep adapting our questions until we get somewhere
Rin says:
well yes that's the point
Jha says:
but we still are trying to ask
Jha says:
tease out
Jha says:
sources of pain
Jha says:
which means
Jha says:
engaging with the pain
Rin says:
this might wind up being a bit OT
Jha says:
so objectivity combined with emotional sensitivity would inherently be more useful than objectivity alone
Rin says:
but in linguistics, for instance, there's no scientifically meaningful definition of a language
Jha says:
inorite! isn't that difficult!
Rin says:
oh that depends entirely on your purposes though! :P but to continue
Jha says:
XD
Rin says:
re: language... that doesn't mean you can't have everyday discussions about languages and social linguistic issues or whatever
Jha says:
well, i'm talking about dealing with issues that affect people on a personal level
Rin says:
it just means that doing so is a hell of a mess with predefined categories and biases all over the place :p
Rin says:
languages DO
Jha says:
i mean, objectivity when it comes to science and empirical evidence? bring it on
Jha says:
hmmmmmmmm
Jha says:
does linguistic determination come into play with any of that?
Rin says:
language is a hugely important part of many people's identity, rightly or wrongly
Rin says:
(and I lean towards wrongly)
Jha says:
(why wrongly?)
Rin says:
what do you mean by linguistic determination?
Jha says:
like, kinda, our viewpoints and biases and suchlike are kind of formed by the language we grew up in
Rin says:
(I think that defining a culture based on language is dangerous, ultimately pointless, and leads to more harm than good)
Jha says:
our perspective is limited by how we can express
Rin says:
(based on numerous real-world examples)
Rin says:
(sentimental attachments to "dog" over "chien" or "eskolkia" are pointless and bad, to be blunt)
Jha says:
or rather, our perspective is dependent on how we can express it
Rin says:
oh, I disagree with that a lot
Rin says:
a LOT
Jha says:
i have trouble with the concept
Jha says:
mostly because i like fucking with language to constantly evolve modes of expression and i think THAT's more useful
Rin says:
cognitive science has no support for that other than in the most trivial of examples (I mean, trivial in the sense of "well, the FRENCH are INCAPABLE of calling a cat a "cat"!)
Jha says:
no no no
Rin says:
are you talking about larger structures and semantic shades and so on?
Jha says:
i mean, like, a child who doesnt know the word "love" and the attendent concepts, is going to be quite limited in expressing it
Jha says:
for example
Jha says:
or more closely
Jha says:
like
Rin says:
it's all BS really
Jha says:
how some girls dont call what happened to them sexual assault
Rin says:
oh that's different.
Jha says:
simply because they didnt know that term existed
Rin says:
when you're talking intralinguistic things you're talking about modes of expression
Rin says:
it's not the TERM they don't know exists, it's the concept
Jha says:
the feeling is there but unaddressed because hey dont have the necessary language
Jha says:
yeah
Rin says:
which is not really related
Jha says:
yeah, the concept, but sometimes concepts need names
Rin says:
sure
Jha says:
in order to further pinpoint what it is
Rin says:
but that doesn't have anything to do with language
Jha says:
no?
Jha says:
oh
Rin says:
it's all culture
Jha says:
i thought it did.
Rin says:
well I mean
Rin says:
your example, not the fact that concepts need names
Jha says:
well, if it's got nothing to do with language then i was completely off-base XD
Rin says:
hehe it's a tricky thing
Rin says:
but a concept like that, it's a human invention
Jha says:
i mean, that's why it's so cool to learn many languages, right? being able to express one's self in so many different ways and the nuances involved and cool fun shit like that.
Jha says:
it broadens one's modes of expression
Rin says:
it's like saying, because someone grew up where there are no motorcycles... they don't talk about motorcycles
Rin says:
it does. but for all you run into things that are supposedly "untranslatable", there's really a way to get just about any possible human thought across regardless of language. you might have to play around with the structure, use more words, or whatever
Rin says:
but underlyingly it's really all the same
Rin says:
and *that's* what I find amazing about language
Jha says:
well, not until they came in contact with motorcycles, or unless they learn about the word and concept of motorcycles
Rin says:
on the surface Farsi looks so different from Icelandic
Rin says:
but the differences are cosmetic
Rin says:
Right! exactly. it's not a permanent state necessarily
Jha says:
i dunno, i've done some translation work before
Rin says:
which is what a lot of people who claim that our thought patterns are directly a result of our language believe
Jha says:
oh
Jha says:
well, thought patterns arent permanent either
Jha says:
O_o
Jha says:
at least, i hope so
Rin says:
well, one gets set in one's mental ways
Jha says:
it would SUCK to stay 15 forever!
Rin says:
but at least one prominent field linguist/anthropologist claims
Rin says:
(I will summarize)
Rin says:
there is a particular Brazilian tribe, monolingual and unexposed to any other culture except some interaction with Portuguese-speaking soldiers and so forth
Rin says:
conveniently enough, this guy and his wife are the only outsiders to have lived with them and studied their language extensively
Rin says:
as missionaries originally
Rin says:
but that's backstory :p
Rin says:
he claims that these people have no concept of
Rin says:
numbers
Rin says:
counting
Rin says:
colors
Rin says:
recursion, the ability to "loop back" and reference something you spoke about before, very loosely speaking
Jha says:
but that's like saying the Greeks had no concept of the colour blue, since they called the sky "bronze"
Rin says:
EXACTLY
Jha says:
ancient greeks
Rin says:
it is exactly like that
Jha says:
i mean, the sky was probably still bloue
Rin says:
they talk about things "the color of berries" and he claims they have no color concept
Rin says:
he claims they can't count OR EVEN LEARN TO COUNT
Jha says:
they just didnt give a shit about calling it something other than bronze, because EVERYTHING was bronze.
Rin says:
because of some experiments he did with putting fruits in baskets
Jha says:
hrm
Rin says:
(and, not to belabor the point, but who else is there to say that they just didn't feel like putting fruits in baskets?)
Rin says:
and the most important thing
Jha says:
i mean, if counting isnt relevant to your life, you probably wouldnt need to learn the concept
Rin says:
is that he claims they lack all of these mental capacities because their language lacks them. not the other way around or any other interpretation
Rin says:
that is very true
Rin says:
and there IS evidence that they're capable of learning
Jha says:
yeah
Rin says:
but jesus
Jha says:
well, i was thinking that linguistic determination affects, not limits, perspective
Jha says:
anyways
Jha says:
that's kinda patroniing
Rin says:
I saw this guy talk in person actually, and he's about as condescending and arrogant as you'd expect someone making such condescending, patronizing views to be >.>
Rin says:
not that that really affects the validity of his theories
Rin says:
but icing on the cake :p
Jha says:
lol
Rin says:
it's totally patronizing!
Rin says:
and worse
Rin says:
the mainstream media picked up on his articles
Jha says:
aiya
Rin says:
and published pop articles about this cute, quaint little tribe that doesn't know how to count to three
Rin says:
it's absolutely infuriating
Rin says:
furthermore this guy will never give up these theories, even if they're totally debunked, since his career is built on them
Rin says:
and the media just loves this kind of thing
Jha says:
ah
Rin says:
and it does so much harm. more than you'd think.
Rin says:
Rin says:
sorry. that was very angry of me. :p
Jha says:
naw, i dont think i learnt about linguistic determination in that way
Jha says:
i think i learnt about it in a class on modern theory or something equally obscure
Jha says:
it's okay, you're allowed to get angry :P
Rin says:
well the thing about determinism is that it SOUNDS intiutively appealing
Jha says:
hmmmm
Rin says:
like, the eskimos have more words for snow! how obvious
Jha says:
uh
Rin says:
except that they don't
Rin says:
:p
Jha says:
they.... dont O_o
Jha says:
they just use a lot of prefixes and suffixes, from what i understand, to denote the state the snow is, or something like that
Rin says:
of course
Rin says:
it's an agglutinative language, to be technical
Rin says:
and even that's a fairly pointless category :p
Rin says:
but what I mean is
Rin says:
people LOVE to latch on to that kind of thing because it seems right
Jha says:
it's the equivalent of using a ton of adjectives and stuff in a phrase
Rin says:
the same way that like
Rin says:
"men have been scientifically proven to talk less than women? why of COURSE!"
Rin says:
which is one of the reasons I am a staunch fan of the objective view in such matters:p
Jha says:
those are empirical though :P
Rin says:
and yes, it is. and itthan a comparable English phrase would be
Rin says:
*it's really no more interesting
Rin says:
empirical matters? :p
Jha says:
yeah, provable if you test again and again
Rin says:
well things like "men have been scientifically proven to talk less than women" are just invented statistics
Rin says:
like, literally invented
Jha says:
or rather
Jha says:
you have a thesis and you can test it
Jha says:
now, getting the same results all the time might be difficult because, you know, people are involved
Rin says:
but people don't bother :p and they accept these notions as true and well that's just crap
Rin says:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louann_Brizendine
Jha says:
that's the thing, right? it sounds SooooOoo objectively true because it is, after all, scientifically proven!
Jha says:
:P
Rin says:
YES, which is the same problem with people claiming scientific support for alt med and so forth
Rin says:
and "scientists say it is so!" is not at ALL what I mean by being objective :p
Jha says:
XD
Rin says:
even if all the scientists say so you can still objectively look at the matter, disagree, and be RIGHT
Jha says:
by what perspective though?
Rin says:
I would never say otherwise
Rin says:
by the objective truth of the universe. :p
Jha says:
okay, i think we've hit an important thing here, which ties into the problem in racefail
Rin says:
you might not KNOW if you're right
Rin says:
hell, you never CAN be sure
Rin says:
because we are not privy to such objective truth
Jha says:
hang on hang on
Rin says:
but... that doesn't mean we should stop asking questions and trying to see it for what it is
Rin says:
okay, okay
Rin says:
I'm presupposing objective truth
Rin says:
I should have said that up front :p
Rin says:
now when it comes to things like race, I don't think that necessarily applies. race is a category, and that aforementioned net of harm is largely immaterial
Jha says:
you can be objectively right, and so right, you got like, the law of reality in your hands right there. but that rightness doesn't matter if all the scientists say otherwise. your fact is just another opinion, and completely unsubstantiated by the people who WILL be believed. this is problematic for people who suffer harm and don't have the power to assert themselves to point out the harm being done.
Jha says:
well, to that end, what's the usefulness of objectivity? i mean, if the net of harm is immaterial, then how useful is it it apply objectivity?
Rin says:
well in an ideal world the scientists, the ones with power (not to say that scientists really have any... largely it's up to mainstream media, depressingly!) would be the ones being right
Rin says:
well it depends on your goals, really, jha
Jha says:
yeah, and generally, my goals are, you know, equal representation and addressing of wrongs and harm being done to others
Rin says:
but I think one should outline them clearly and, yes, objectively
Jha says:
which CAN be done objectively
Jha says:
but it's incomplete with subjective opinions weighing in
Rin says:
hmmm
Jha says:
see the problem i'm having? :P
Rin says:
well in science, not that that's the same goal :p, you gotta toss out flawed data sometimes
Jha says:
and i'm not even talking about that, either
Rin says:
or data that doesn't fit the theory
Rin says:
you can't incorporate every opinion
Jha says:
i was musing about personal biases and how we react with our personal biases
Rin says:
which is why I brought up the implicit association tests
Jha says:
and i was positing that interacting with our own personal biases, getting in touch with how we feel about certain statements, for example, would be useful in being able to objectively assess how much our biases factor into our arguments
Jha says:
kinda like, talking to one's self, and with one's self
Rin says:
sure. I don't necessarily believe we're capable of doing that accurately, but it could be a useful exercise.
Jha says:
now, someone else has probably talked about this elsewhere and i just never saw it
Jha says:
yeah, that's what i'm talking about! it's a useful exercise!
Rin says:
nothing wrong with that
Rin says:
thought experiments, if we're carrying over the science metaphor :p
Rin says:
you can stimulate discussions with that
Rin says:
but I don't think you'll get a whole lot of pure insight
Jha says:
yeah but with who? o.o
Rin says:
balance it out with some IATs :p
Rin says:
haha
Rin says:
well you can compare yourself with others. :p
Jha says:
see, i think that's where the ElizaBot comes in.......
Rin says:
or just have long internal dialogues with the voices in your head. your choice.
Rin says:
or that!
Rin says:
that might work
Jha says:
yeah
Jha says:
possibly
Jha says:
or a combination of all three!
Rin says:
it's one of those irritating situations where you can't pull out your brain and examine it
Rin says:
this is a common frustration for linguists :p
Jha says:
lol
Jha says:
well, the goal of this is to enable the recognition and owning of privilege
Rin says:
Right, I was just making the comparison :P
Jha says:
yah
Rin says:
surely you concede that it would be easier to examine biases by prodding at them >.>
Rin says:
with sticks!
Rin says:
as physical objects
Jha says:
well, i think, like, who does the prodding?
Rin says:
rather than merely their physical effects on the world
Rin says:
haha
Jha says:
and if we want to be helpful at all in addressing these very abstract issues, we gotta poke ourselves
Rin says:
our objective observer, of course
Jha says:
cos you know, those peope, they're kinda busy having LIVES and shouldnt be bothered with our hubris :P
Rin says:
yes, but I think we have to be careful about that
Rin says:
people poke each other more often than I'd like
Rin says:
in the discussions I've read
Rin says:
and there's always a sense of competition that bugs the hell out of me
Jha says:
yeah, i know, that's why i suggest poking ourselves, rather than other people XD
Rin says:
"I'm less privileged than youuu, neener neener"
Rin says:
Not saying that everyone is like that!
Rin says:
but it's incredibly unhelpful to the cause, I imagine
Jha says:
yeah, i know, which is ultimately not helpful, because a person's gotta WANT to own their privilege or at least, admit to it
Rin says:
and just gets people's hackles up
Rin says:
mhm
Rin says:
it shouldn't be difficult really
Jha says:
you'd think!
Rin says:
as far as I'm aware, acknowledging privilege doesn't mean saying "I deliberately took advantage of others, and by virtue of being born I am immoral"
Rin says:
but that's how a lot of people seem to view it, and sadly, how a lot of people really present it
Jha says:
but that's where the "neener neener" feel comes in, i think, because the marginalized get so sick of being condescended to and having to educate others on their privilege, they really feel they have to shove it in other people's faces.
Rin says:
Ah yes, but those I see shoving it are rarely the truly marginalized. :p
Jha says:
it's like, if you've been stepped on a lot, you're occasionally gonna want to kick people
Jha says:
lol, not in the circles i run in
Jha says:
although
Rin says:
Well I understand the need for taking a strong stance
Jha says:
usually the marginalized try to take themselves off to someplace more safe
Rin says:
But
Rin says:
haha
Jha says:
but that's limiting, you know?
Rin says:
well there are shades of marginalization, too
Jha says:
yeah, exactly
Rin says:
I mean, I'm pretty unattractive, conventionally speaking. that's limited my success in some areas of life relative to an equally placed skinny blonde
Rin says:
but I'm obviously vastly more privileged than, hell, most Americans, simply by virtue of being a middle-class New Englander
Jha says:
you're also a woman, dont forget that ;D
Rin says:
and white, and reasonably intelligent, and all that
Rin says:
but you can't say that being a woman is universally a negative or a positive, can you?
Jha says:
it shouldnt be either, you know
Jha says:
that as well as i do
Rin says:
it works for you in some ways and against you in others
Rin says:
of course it shouldn't, but
Rin says:
you know
Rin says:
:P
Jha says:
yeah, but even in ways that it works for you, it... i dunno, but it seems to be like, kinda....crumbs to off-set the negatives?
Rin says:
oh probably
Jha says:
and like, i dont want fuckin crumbs. =(
Rin says:
me neither :)
Jha says:
i'll take the whole loaf, even if it IS multigrain (and i fucking hate multigrain!)
Rin says:
but nor do I demand fancy cake when everyone else gets baguette :p
Rin says:
haha, awesome metaphor, incidentally
Jha says:
THEY HAVE CREAM CHEESE IN THE FUCKING BAQUETTES
Jha says:
T_T
Jha says:
WANT.
Rin says:
oh my goodness that exists?
Jha says:
i dunno but if it does i want it NOW.
Jha says:
i mean
Jha says:
there are bagelfuls
Rin says:
>.>
Jha says:
little bun-like things with creamcheese in them
Jha says:
and like, everybody should get bagefuls, although it would seem to some that it's downgrading from fancy cake, but the thing is, fancy cake is like, too rich for your blood sugar anyway so it would really be much better for you to have this here vagelful.
Jha says:
bagelful.
Jha says:
........
Jha says:
DO YOU NOT KNOW OF BAGELFULS?
Rin says:
but why can't everyone have a little bit of cake on the side?
Rin says:
I... I don't think so :(
Jha says:
there's friggin' cream cheese!
Jha says:
NOOOOOOOO
Jha says:
AWRIGHT
Jha says:
THAT GETS FIXED NOW
Jha says:
http://brands.kraftfoods.com/bagelfuls/
Rin says:
oh dear
Rin says:
bagel hotpockets?
Jha says:
kinda but more awesome <3
Rin says:
A: BAGEL-FULS can be kept in the refrigerator for up to two weeks, and can be stored frozen for one year.
Rin says:
that doesn't... alarm you?
Jha says:
that's a feature, not a bug
Rin says:
no earthly bagel is capable of such
Jha says:
EXACTLY
Jha says:
it's A SPIRITUAL BAGEL
Rin says:
THESE ARE DEVIL BAGELS
Jha says:
EVEN BETTER!
Rin says:
well I suppose depending on your viewpoint, it's all the same!
Jha says:
indeed, it's certainly otherworldly!
Rin says:
*grin*
Jha says:
you must try some if you ever find them
Rin says:
if I get out to Haligonia again one of these days, I guess :p
Jha says:
they should be available in any superstore, really :P
Rin says:
that's good, it seems like an awful hike to the maritimes in search of toasty bagels
Jha says:
yeah
Jha says:
see, the bagelfuls should come to you too, it shouldn't be a trial to go get bagelfuls!
Rin says:
ha
Rin says:
perhaps so
Jha says:
this conversation should go into my LJ
CLEARLY, I AM HAVING A VERY GOOD NIGHT.