On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 21:45:29 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> "Knowing" isn't *just* a state of mind, is what I'm trying to express.

That's a fair point, and something I hadn't considered before.

>> Well, my specific experience was the reverse - I wasn't dreaming
> 
> No, because then you would have discounted it. :-)

Very likely, yes. :-)

>> But I see what you mean and will have to think on that more as well.
> 
> Cool.

I find that life is generally full of challenges to things that one 
asserts as true - and that "truth" (as commonly used from a philosophical 
standpoint rather than a scientific or mathematical standpoint) is 
something that depends on circumstances.  So accepting a perception as 
truth means that often it has to be subject to change.

>> Hmm, an interesting point, and something else to think about.
> 
> These are fun things to think about. I find it's actually kind of
> refreshing and liberating to realize that I might be wrong in my deepest
> convictions. It makes discussions of various philosophical stuff much
> more interesting.

Same here (that's what I was trying to say above, and as always, you said 
much more eloquently <g>).  It takes a willingness to accept that one 
might be wrong about something that's a deeply held conviction, though, 
and it's rare that people do that.  I think that's a real shame.

>> I think part of it with me is that I tend to attribute "faith" and
>> "belief" with "religion", so I shy away from those terms because of
>> those connotations, which I consider undesirable connotations.
> 
> I don't have a problem with faith, even of a religious nature. It's when
> that "faith" turns into "knowledge" and therefore "you should do X" that
> causes trouble, religion or not. For example, in college at one point my
> mother became convinced I was doing drugs, and she wanted to see all my
> class schedules and wanted me to come home promptly. (I was commuting to
> college at the time.) I, *knowing* I wasn't doing drugs, just laughed
> and refused. No amount of confidence, belief, or faith on her part was
> going to convince me I had to change my behavior to stop doing drugs I
> wasn't already doing. So maybe I'm a little oversensitive to people
> claiming something is true simply because they're really, really
> convinced it is.

That makes a lot of sense and provides an interesting insight into your 
perspective - thank you for sharing it.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 15:23:55 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> Hmm. Point taken. But, then, I also tend to forget that not everyone
> necessarily took even the basic psychology course I did in college
> either, which covered at least bits of it too. 

Question of putting yourself in the shoes of someone with a different set 
of life experiences. :-)  I never took any psychology classes in college, 
my focus was engineering and then computer science.

> Still, its harder to miss
> some of the common examples of mind tricks, which have been shown on TV
> programs. But, again, that only works if you presume they where watching
> the show on "Funny tricks played on people using psychology.", instead
> of, "Random sitcom #345, in which someone trips over a hose.", that day
> instead. lol Or, well... you get what I mean. Picking things with,
> relatively, *zero* content in new ideas, or which tend to feed into
> common perception, or not watching at all, instead of pointing out where
> those perceptions fail, etc.

Yeah, I tend not to go for the brainless sitcoms, I prefer things that 
make me think at least a little.  Magic and misdirection (Penn & Teller 
style, for example) are things I really enjoy a lot.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 21:48:30 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> better than 90% of the time, I'm right.
> 
> You mean, better than 90% of the time you remember making the prediction
> and remember checking, you're right?  Or do you actually keep objective
> notes?

Just an informal recollection - and yeah, I know I'm biased, but I try to 
be objective about it.

> Granted, it's definitely a skill you can learn to read people and to
> pick up subtle clues. I'm just saying ...

Yes. :-)

>> I've also been told by people in professions that depend on the ability
>> to read people and situations that my instincts are exceptionally good
>> -
> 
> See, now *that* is justified belief. :-)  Without some external
> validation, you can never tell whether you're fooling yourself.

I do get that kind of feedback quite frequently, it seems.  Of course my 
best recent examples are ones that are confidential due to their legal 
nature.

> Just look at any friend who is infatuated with some girl that's no good
> for him. :-)

LOL

> A very good book on the subject:
> http://www.amazon.com/Gift-Fear-Gavin-Becker/dp/0440226198

I'll have to see if the library has that one.  I need to read more. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> I remember that....and now I wonder what it was, too. :-/

There are lots of strange trick questions, some of which depend on knowing 
technical definitions, some which depend on simply answering the question 
that was asked rather than what it sounds like.

What color was George Washington's white horse?  Grey.
(Technically, it's not a white horse unless it's albino, according to breeders.)

Where is Grant buried?  Not in Grant's Tomb.
(Grant is entombed there.)

Who was born on Washington's Birthday?  Not Washington.
(The calendar changed between his birth and his death.)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 10:35:41 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I remember that....and now I wonder what it was, too. :-/
> 
> There are lots of strange trick questions, some of which depend on
> knowing technical definitions, some which depend on simply answering the
> question that was asked rather than what it sounds like.
> 
> What color was George Washington's white horse?  Grey. (Technically,
> it's not a white horse unless it's albino, according to breeders.)
> 
> Where is Grant buried?  Not in Grant's Tomb. (Grant is entombed there.)
> 
> Who was born on Washington's Birthday?  Not Washington. (The calendar
> changed between his birth and his death.)

Yeah, but I don't think it was actually this kind of trick question.  
I'll have to find the episode if I have a few hours to spare (we still 
have many of the XL episodes from the last series to go through anyways) 
and see what the answer was.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 15:44:36 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

>> True, but at the same time, some people have *very* good instincts.  I
>> seem to be one of those kinds of people - because I have an instinct
>> that something's going to be OK or work out for the best, and I find
>> that better than 90% of the time, I'm right.  That's far better than
>> the luck of averages.
>> 
> Everyone thinks that they make good instinctive decisions 90% of the
> time, save for those people that are totally disfunctional and hide in
> their houses, unwilling to make *any* decisions. Its our nature to
> forget the cases where we screwed up, or at least marginalize them, in
> favor of a self perception of being right most of the time. We couldn't
> function effectively if we second guessed every action, based on a
> recognition that we get it close enough to right only half the time to
> call it "good instinct".

Except that my view is confirmed by people who are in a position to 
evaluate objectively and without bias or anything to gain.  For example, 
in one circumstance I had evaluated the potential for deceit in a 
situation that involved lawyers, and the lawyers initially thought that I 
might have a point, but that they needed something concrete other than a 
"gut feeling" (which in my mind was backed up by a thoughtful analysis of 
the person and the items in question).  The person then admitted to the 
deceit, proving my instinct correct.

The lawyer involved who I had expressed my suspicion of the evidence 
provided was not swayed from his stance of "we have to take it at face 
value" until the OP had admitted the deceit, at which point the lawyer 
complimented me on my instincts and insight into the items in question.

> Its also a tested psychological factor that the true twits in society
> have a coping mechanism, by which they "exaggerate" their own
> competence.

Perhaps "true twits" should be replaced with something indicating that in 
general it's human nature to do so?  I try to be objective about myself, 
and yes, it is hard to do, especially if one doesn't make a conscious 
decision to be objective in self-evaluation.  I think most people are 
prone to exaggeration about their own abilities and skills.  That's 
confirmed, in part, by an adjustment that is made in standard course 
evaluations from Knowledge Advisors - there are questions that ask about 
the % of increase in productivity (I'd have to look at the questions 
again for the exact verbiage) as a result of training, and it's a 
situation where the individual answers have no meaning at all, but the 
aggregate answer does provide useful information, but only after an 
adjustment downward of the average answer of something like 30% (again 
would have to look at my notes to see what the specific value in the 
adjustment is).

>> I've also been told by people in professions that depend on the ability
>> to read people and situations that my instincts are exceptionally good
>> - I have an extremely good track record and picking out attempts at
>> deception.  Part of that I attribute to the fact that I tend not to
>> trust very easily because I know that people will generally try to get
>> away with whatever they can.
>> 
> I would, with some caveats, tend to allow for their perceptions to be
> less flawed than yours. The caveats being, for starters, that their
> perception of "why" you seem to have good instincts may be due to their
> own flawed views of who a good candidate for deception are, and the
> like, due to personal bias, than to actual skill in the matter. Good
> example of this sort of fun thing:

Well, I'd refer back to the above example involving the lawyers.  It's 
not the only example, but one of the more notable.  The advantage there 
was that the lawyer in question was more inclined to dismiss my idea 
because he had to make a totally objective decision about what the best 
course of action would be - least costly, least likely to cause 
litigation, etc.  And he's got a great deal of experience in making those 
determinations and has a very good track record himself.

> Now, if everyone that was telling you that you are good at detecting
> deceit where one of those who claimed to trust priests, farmers and
> prostitutes, before scientists, what would your reaction be to their
> certainty of how good you are?

Admittedly not that good.  That's why I don't look to those kinds of 
people (or people actually in those professions) to help me adjust my 
personal self-perception bias.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 7-8-2009 20:14, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 10:35:41 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> 
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> I remember that....and now I wonder what it was, too. :-/
>> There are lots of strange trick questions, some of which depend on
>> knowing technical definitions, some which depend on simply answering the
>> question that was asked rather than what it sounds like.
>>
>> What color was George Washington's white horse?  Grey. (Technically,
>> it's not a white horse unless it's albino, according to breeders.)
>>
>> Where is Grant buried?  Not in Grant's Tomb. (Grant is entombed there.)
>>
>> Who was born on Washington's Birthday?  Not Washington. (The calendar
>> changed between his birth and his death.)
> 
> Yeah, but I don't think it was actually this kind of trick question.  
> I'll have to find the episode if I have a few hours to spare (we still 
> have many of the XL episodes from the last series to go through anyways) 
> and see what the answer was.

I remember something along the lines of somebody else being appointed as 
a president of america before the independence war or something like that.

Post a reply to this message

On 7-8-2009 19:35, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I remember that....and now I wonder what it was, too. :-/
> 
> There are lots of strange trick questions, some of which depend on 
> knowing technical definitions, some which depend on simply answering the 
> question that was asked rather than what it sounds like.
> 
> What color was George Washington's white horse?  Grey.
> (Technically, it's not a white horse unless it's albino, according to 
> breeders.)

They are born with a color and 'prematurely' grey, so grey or white is 
not their natural color, but you knew that of course.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> I remember something along the lines of somebody else being appointed as 
> a president of america before the independence war or something like that.

Technically, since there wasn't a USA before the independence war, they'd 
have to word the question very oddly. If they say "First American President" 
and mean "First president on the north american continent", then it quite 
possibly would be a native american or some such, etc.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> They are born with a color and 'prematurely' grey, so grey or white is 
> not their natural color, but you knew that of course.

Yeah. The point is that when you register the horse for racing or breeding 
or something, writing the color as "white" means it's albino. If the 
*hooves* are brown, it's a grey horse (or brown horse or whatever). The 
trickiness of the question is based entirely on the arbitrary rules by the 
people who set up the registries.

All horses are born January 1, also. Same sort of silliness.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message