From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Sat May 25 2002 - 11:04:06 MDT
On Saturday, May 25, 2002, at 10:35 am, Lee Corbin wrote:
> Now we're getting somewhere. I never think like that. I never
> consider "procedures for conducting rational thought".
> When you write "When someone proposes new ideas with which I
> disagree, I like to examine them with these tools", it comes
> off as very weird to me. As though you haven't been doing
> that (or trying to do that) all your life. Or perhaps as if
> it's something you turn off and on.
I do think real research and critical analysis is hard work. Answers
don't just pop into our skulls for no reason. If somebody makes a
complicated series of arguments, it takes work to read, understand, and
perceive the whole framework. It takes work to analyze each point in
turn to see if it make sense or will accomplish what we want. When
trying to deal with future events or social interactions, it is very
iffy to predict things without hard data or detailed analysis. I can't
image discussing the complex issues here without using such tools for
thinking, or following a specific procedures. To do otherwise would
have me just randomly responding to posts as thoughts pop up from my
subconscious. It wouldn't follow any consistent plan or procedure or
work toward any goal. Nothing would get accomplished except random talk.
> 1. I NEVER look for flaws in logic. They either jump out at
> me or they don't. Moreover, it's *extremely* rare to find
> a flaw in someone's logic. Extremely.
That's what logic is for. To find flaws that don't jump out. Most
logical flaws aren't obvious unless you look and try to figure out an
inconsistency. It is easy to disagree with an idea. It takes more
specific thinking patterns to analyze a viewpoint and narrow down
exaclty why one disagrees. It threatens one of my goals, or it is
inconsistent with itself, or the data is faulty, or I think it won't
work. I don't know how I could respond back against a viewpoint without
a logical analysis. Otherwise, I would just be going off feelings
saying "that feels icky, but I don't know why" or "that's no fun, I'm
going to avoid it and instead do something that feels good."
> 2. I NEVER line up the new conjecture with a list of the
> Extropian Principles, and work down the list looking
> for a deviation.
This is the only way to decide if something is "extropian" or not. We
can't categorize something as pro-extropian, anti-extropian or unrelated
to extropy just based on whether we like it or not. We have to compare
it to various standards to see where it is categorized.
This also lets us see if there are inconsistencies in our approach. An
idea might sound good at first glance, but further analysis shows it
sets up a monopoly company. I would think to myself, wouldn't this
interfere with my goal for a free market? Or an idea might sound good
but treat genders inequitably. i would think to myself, is there enough
data to differentiate on that basis? I keep repeating that I am not
using such tests as dogma, to say that's un-American. But I would point
out if it violated any laws, or required someone to break their
professional code of ethics, or went counter to principles that we
previously expressed support for.
> Second, I don't consciously "use" the principles any more than
> I would consciously use, as I said, the Declaration of Independence
> or other lofty inspirational material.
I think this can be useful for a consistency check. If one valued the
Declaration of Independence, and affirmed that all men are created
equal, this would be a summary of some of one's beliefs. If one later
proposed that one race should be treated differently than another race,
it could be helpful to recognize that this doesn't match with what was
said before. It either is a change in belief or a mistake. If it is a
change, then one needs to stop referencing the document as inspirational
since one no longer agrees with it. If it is a mistake, using the
document would catch an unintentional deviation from previous beliefs,
or a accidental mis-statement of one's beliefs.
> You appear to be regarding the Extropian Principles as you might
> the U. S. Constitution, or a body of law, except worse: You
> sound as if from time to time you try to bring your thinking
> more into line with the Principles.
No. I would never change my beliefs to match an external document,
unless they convinced me to change my mind on some merit basis.
However, I would have to consider my label as an "Extropian" if any of
my views contradicted the Extropian Principles. This would simply be a
matter of accurate and clear labeling. And I would have to resolve the
inconsistencies if I found that I believed in two mutually exclusive
goals at the same time.
> This is utterly and horribly
> backwards. You can use them as inspirational guides if you wish,
> but in no way can they replace your own thinking processes.
This is why I do so much analysis with logic and scientific methods and
research. It prevents me from replacing my own thoughts with someone
else's just because I read them. I think that absorbing new ideas
should be a carefully controlled process, just as diet would be. I
don't want to absorb ideas just because they are there. I consider what
they are, how they work, if they are useful, what the results would be,
how they interact with my other ideas, etc. I decide if an idea fits in
with what I already believe. I either have to reconsider my previous
beliefs or reconsider the new idea if they are incompatible. Although
it is fine to have conflicting ideas, it is useful to keep in mind that
one has conflicting thoughts and that they all can't be pursued at the
same time if they are mutually exclusive.
-- Harvey Newstrom, CISSP <www.HarveyNewstrom.com> Principal Security Consultant <www.Newstaff.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:21 MST