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

Jim Henderson wrote:
> Perhaps "true twits" should be replaced with something indicating that in 
> general it's human nature to do so? 

It's a survival trait, actually. You forget the times you were wrong but 
mostly unharmed, because that's less important to survival than guessing 
right. You rarely forget to look both ways before crossing the street if 
you've actually been run down before, tho. That's where the whole concept of 
"grudge" and "stereotype" sort of thinking comes from.

Just like it's natural to overestimate danger of rare events. If guessing 
wrong once in 100 times that the rustling isn't a tiger in the grass, you 
get eaten. So naturally every rustle seems like a dangerous predator even if 
it almost never is. Hence the wild overreaction to things like a mother 
letting the kids walk home from the store, even tho only something like 20 
kids a year get kidnapped in the whole country by someone other than their 
own relatives.

-- 
   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 21:01:50 +0200, andrel wrote:

>> 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.

This seems to cover it, I think:

http://www.qi.com/talk/viewtopic.php?p=32722

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 12:20:13 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> All horses are born January 1,

It's only after they reach 3 that they are given their "real" name. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 12:25:59 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Perhaps "true twits" should be replaced with something indicating that
>> in general it's human nature to do so?
> 
> It's a survival trait, actually. You forget the times you were wrong but
> mostly unharmed, because that's less important to survival than guessing
> right. You rarely forget to look both ways before crossing the street if
> you've actually been run down before, tho. That's where the whole
> concept of "grudge" and "stereotype" sort of thinking comes from.
> 
> Just like it's natural to overestimate danger of rare events. If
> guessing wrong once in 100 times that the rustling isn't a tiger in the
> grass, you get eaten. So naturally every rustle seems like a dangerous
> predator even if it almost never is. Hence the wild overreaction to
> things like a mother letting the kids walk home from the store, even tho
> only something like 20 kids a year get kidnapped in the whole country by
> someone other than their own relatives.

Makes sense to me. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 7-8-2009 21:40, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 21:01:50 +0200, andrel wrote:
> 
>>> 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.
> 
> This seems to cover it, I think:
> 
> http://www.qi.com/talk/viewtopic.php?p=32722

yup, was it already 4 years ago. o how time flies (please don't quote Marx)

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 22:36:02 +0200, andrel wrote:

> On 7-8-2009 21:40, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 21:01:50 +0200, andrel wrote:
>> 
>>>> 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.
>> 
>> This seems to cover it, I think:
>> 
>> http://www.qi.com/talk/viewtopic.php?p=32722
> 
> yup, was it already 4 years ago. o how time flies (please don't quote
> Marx)

Yeah, I hadn't realized it was that long ago, would've missed it in my 
review. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> 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.

  I might have understood this completely wrongly, or I'm remembering it
wrongly, or perhaps I'm confusing it with something else (but similar),
but I got the impression that the first time in history that any head of
state has been given the name "president" was precisely when the USA was
founded, and the title given to its first president, Washington. It wasn't
but after that that other countries followed the practice.

  (The word "president" was certainly used before that, but never for the
leader of an entire independent country.)

  Thus saying that someone else was "the first president of US/America"
has to be quite a stretch of the word "president".

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> but I got the impression that the first time in history that any head of
> state has been given the name "president" was precisely when the USA was
> founded,

Now that you mention it, I kind of remember hearing something about that. 
There was even an argument over what honorific to use, and Washington 
decided that just "Mister President" would do. As in, my vague memories of 
grade school are telling me you're right in that.

I was also thinking of this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_Association
which was a kind of bit of local government set up a few years before the 
actual revolution. But it doesn't look like it set up an actual leader.

It's possible the original "trick" question was about the first Congress in 
America, not the first President?

-- 
   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 17:46:32 -0400, Warp wrote:

> but I got the impression that the first time in history that any head of
> state has been given the name "president" was precisely when the USA was
> founded, and the title given to its first president, Washington.

Incorrect.  The term "President" was used in the continental congress 
prior to the first US President.  The point of the question is that the 
first national government in the US wasn't what we have now, it was the 
continental congress, and the president of the continental congress was 
elected by the members of the continental congress (more like a 
parliamentary leader election than anything).

The point of the question on QI was to say that there were "presidents" 
before the current executive leader of the country because there was 
actually a different form of national government here before our current 
system.  The CC "President" and the current executive office called 
"President" have no relation to each other, but that's not relative to 
the point of the question.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 15:31:01 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> But it doesn't look like it set up an actual leader.

Correct, it was for all intents and purposes a ceremonial role that had 
no real authority.

> It's possible the original "trick" question was about the first Congress
> in America, not the first President?

Bingo. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> before the current executive leader of the country because there was 
> actually a different form of national government here before our current 
> system. 

I'm not sure if you can argue it was a "national government" when it opened 
up pledging allegiance to the King of England and wasn't a nation to start 
with. Very edge-case. :-)

-- 
   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 16:25:30 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> before the current executive leader of the country because there was
>> actually a different form of national government here before our
>> current system.
> 
> I'm not sure if you can argue it was a "national government" when it
> opened up pledging allegiance to the King of England and wasn't a nation
> to start with. Very edge-case. :-)

I wasn't making the argument, just repeating the point made in the 
discussion thread I pointed at. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> I wasn't making the argument,

Yes, I should have used "one" there. I know it's not your argument. :-)


-- 
   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 16:49:12 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I wasn't making the argument,
> 
> Yes, I should have used "one" there. I know it's not your argument. :-)

I figured as much. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> 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.
> 
Now... There is an irony. My CS degree was the one that "required" a 
basic course in psych. lol

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
>> 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

Well, my point here was that "everyone" has some general biases. Its not 
hard to detect "some" kinds of deceit, especially if they manage to 
press many of the wrong buttons. After all, its likely that the 
individual you are talking about where used to dealing with precisely 
the people that thought they where going to, i.e. lawyers. They knew 
their mind set, they knew what to say that would sound plausible to 
"those" people, etc. You on the other hand... they where not able to 
predict, so couldn't, as effectively, mess with. So, yes, in that 
situation "anyone" with your background might have had "better" 
instincts than the people who they where "intending" to target.

This is actually so common that there are a few companies that have 
started, based on the theory, "Everyone has blind spots." The idea being 
that an engineer, for example, may be clearly aware of some math, 
design, behavior, or curiosity of the things they work on, which a 
biologist simply doesn't know. Yet, that thing "may" provide a lead 
into, or explanation for, some biological issue, for which a purely 
bio-based examination fails to come up with. Mind, this is kind of like 
someone failing to realize that triangles are applicable to house 
building, as well as bridge building, but its still a blind spot. 
Laywers, also have blind spots. And, my guess is, who ever your working 
with, do, and they just happen to not match yours. ;)

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> Incorrect.  The term "President" was used in the continental congress 
> prior to the first US President.

  The term "president" was used for a lot of things way before the USA was
founded. My point was that it was never used as the title of the leader of
a sovereign country.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 7-8-2009 1:25, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> Because that is what everybody does, even you.
> 
> Yes. That doesn't mean it *is* knowledge, and that doesn't mean 
> everything is reasonably "knowledge" to someone. That's why I'm bringing 
> up the examples of Napoleon.

Let me put it this way: I say I *'know'* something if it is beyond 
reasonable doubt for *me*. Beyong reasonable doubt can be for a number 
of reasons:
1) based on authority that I have no reason to doubt (the sun is about 
150 million kilometers away)
2) own experience (there must be an algorithm that computes the cube of 
an integer finalizing 3 bits per iteration*)
3) when the negation would be incompatible with my existence (god does 
not exist)
Possibly an underlying problem in this discussion is that you assumed 
that the non existence of god is category 1 or 2 knowledge (because it 
would be for you?) whereas it is actually category 3. Also possibly 
confusing is that I admit that for theists the negation may also be 
category 3. I don't see a problem in that because we are different people.

>>> No, I said knowledge is justified true belief. 
>>
>> Again that implies that you or somebody knows what is 'true'. 
> 
> No it doesn't. It merely means there are some assertions of belief which 
> we cannot determine the truth of, and hence we cannot determine whether 
> they are actually knowledge.

To which I countered that there is virtually nothing that we can be sure 
of and for those things that we are certain about we can always question 
the method by which we are certain. The logical conclusion is that under 
your rules there is no knowledge at all.

>> I keep repeating that there are many differences of opinion about what 
>> is true, about what processes are allowed to determine if something is 
>> true and all the other metalevels.
> 
> Right. And I keep repeating that while there are many differences of 
> opinion, there are also many facts about which there are few differences 
> of opinion.

How many is a few and who is to draw the line?

>>>  > In my opinion
>>>> you can only do that if you have an objective reference frame that 
>>>> allows you to distinguish claims in a fields of belief versus those 
>>>> where truths that may be absolute.
>>>
>>> Now you've made "knowledge" objective, which I think you were 
>>> objecting to.
>>
>> Yes I was following your reasoning here, trying to point out leads to 
>> a nonsense conclusion. I am confident that in e.g. Greek I would have 
>> used another time than you did read.
> 
> But I didn't say we could distinguish confidently between whether 
> something that is disputed is knowledge and something that is disputed 
> is not knowledge.

So why would you object if someone says that for him it is (or isn't)?

>>> No, because he has justification and it is true. 
>>
>> No, he merely thinks it is true, he may be wrong, so he has to use 
>> 'believe' according to your rules.
> 
> I'm not making rules. I'm simply saying that if he says he knows 
> something, and that thing is false, then he's mistaken. I'm not saying 
> he isn't confident.

And if he is confident that it is true would he be allowed to say it is 
'knowledge'? I feel that time and time again we come back to a person 
expressing something he knows is true versus you as an outsider claiming 
he should not say that because *you* know different.

>>> Simple question: Can you "know" something that's objectively 
>>> real-world false?  
>> yes. I know Newton's law of gravity. 
> 
> You know what it is, but you also know it doesn't apply in all 
> situations. And that's true of every other replaced theory, and possible 
> of every other scientific theory.
> 
>> I also know that most cardiologists know what causes the T wave part 
>> of the ECG. I also know that they are wrong.
> 
> You see, I would never say that. I would say "They think they know what 
> causes it, but I know they're wrong", or even "I think they're wrong".

That is because you are reasoning from your perspective not theirs or 
mine. It is category 1 knowledge for them, so they are allowed to use 
'know'. Also I don't think they are wrong, I know, that is category 2.

> OK, so to you, there's no difference between knowing something and being 
> confident it's true. I feel that's a loss.

There is, knowing implies a lot more than merely being confident.

------------------
*) To create some sort of parallelism with god I decided to take an 
example of something I, and possibly nobody else, has never seen.

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 08 Aug 2009 03:39:11 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Incorrect.  The term "President" was used in the continental congress
>> prior to the first US President.
> 
>   The term "president" was used for a lot of things way before the USA
>   was
> founded. My point was that it was never used as the title of the leader
> of a sovereign country.

Yes, and I was intending my writing to be read as "as the leader of a 
country".  Apparently the idea came from the president of cricket clubs.  
I wasn't saying that this was the *origin* of the word.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 22:39:03 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> 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.
>> 
> Now... There is an irony. My CS degree was the one that "required" a
> basic course in psych. lol

That is ironic. ;-)

And I can see the benefit of taking a psych course for CS majors - 
teaching geeks how to interact with people and understand how people 
tick. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 22:52:05 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> 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
> 
> Well, my point here was that "everyone" has some general biases. Its not
> hard to detect "some" kinds of deceit, especially if they manage to
> press many of the wrong buttons. After all, its likely that the
> individual you are talking about where used to dealing with precisely
> the people that thought they where going to, i.e. lawyers. They knew
> their mind set, they knew what to say that would sound plausible to
> "those" people, etc. You on the other hand... they where not able to
> predict, so couldn't, as effectively, mess with. So, yes, in that
> situation "anyone" with your background might have had "better"
> instincts than the people who they where "intending" to target.

Perhaps, but the specific case in hand the person wasn't intending to be 
talking to the lawyer at all.  He was trying to force me to do something/
allow him to do something.  He said the magic words that meant I had to 
take it to legal, though - and he was *very* surprised when he got a call 
from a lawyer.  He was trying to deceive me, but didn't know me very 
well.  His thinking was "Jim should value me and my contribution, so I 
should be able to force him to bend to my will".  When I didn't, he 
started trying to use deceit, even dragging others into his deception 
(which could have gotten really ugly).

> This is actually so common that there are a few companies that have
> started, based on the theory, "Everyone has blind spots." The idea being
> that an engineer, for example, may be clearly aware of some math,
> design, behavior, or curiosity of the things they work on, which a
> biologist simply doesn't know. Yet, that thing "may" provide a lead
> into, or explanation for, some biological issue, for which a purely
> bio-based examination fails to come up with. Mind, this is kind of like
> someone failing to realize that triangles are applicable to house
> building, as well as bridge building, but its still a blind spot.
> Laywers, also have blind spots. And, my guess is, who ever your working
> with, do, and they just happen to not match yours. ;)

One of the things I've read is that every company's marketing department 
needs someone with a sick sense of humour.  Reason being that when 
product naming/marketing plans/marketing campaigns are created, you need 
that person to make sure you're not being blind to some sort of rude word 
in your marketing that isn't intended.  Like an abbreviation that almost 
spells a curse word.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

My degree required a number of classes in various fields, and after
taking all of them, I still had to take some more credits to fill it
up reaching a minimum of 124. But, to my surprise, the credits could
be any field other than my own major. Anyway, later on, I applied for
another degree in another school who then told me: ``you didn't take
too many credits in your field.''

Define frustration.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> On 7-8-2009 1:25, Darren New wrote:
>> andrel wrote:
>>> Because that is what everybody does, even you.
>>
>> Yes. That doesn't mean it *is* knowledge, and that doesn't mean 
>> everything is reasonably "knowledge" to someone. That's why I'm 
>> bringing up the examples of Napoleon.
> 
> Let me put it this way: I say I *'know'* something if it is beyond 
> reasonable doubt for *me*. Beyong reasonable doubt can be for a number 
> of reasons:
> 1) based on authority that I have no reason to doubt (the sun is about 
> 150 million kilometers away)
> 2) own experience (there must be an algorithm that computes the cube of 
> an integer finalizing 3 bits per iteration*)
> 3) when the negation would be incompatible with my existence (god does 
> not exist)
> Possibly an underlying problem in this discussion is that you assumed 
> that the non existence of god is category 1 or 2 knowledge (because it 
> would be for you?) whereas it is actually category 3. Also possibly 
> confusing is that I admit that for theists the negation may also be 
> category 3. I don't see a problem in that because we are different people.
> 
body else, has never seen.

And yet.. You miss category 4: "Because the negation would contradict 
societal ideas and social beliefs, which I am heavily invested in." One 
**strongly** suspects that the same argument of negation in #3 would be 
stated by *anyone* with *any* god, even one so terrifyingly different 
from yours that you find its very nature abhorrent. In fact, I am 
certain of it. Its the Francis Collins method of "knowing". And, its 
been rightly dissected by numerous people, ever since it was suggested 
he might become the head of the NIH. This is one of the better ones:

http://www.reasonproject.org/archive/item/the_strange_case_of_francis_collins2/

I am sure it wouldn't be *too hard* to think of other things, besides 
religion, which are entirely social constructs of their society, are 
presumed to be "known" as fact, and yet are absolutely nothing of the sort.


-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 22:52:05 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> 
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> 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
>> Well, my point here was that "everyone" has some general biases. Its not
>> hard to detect "some" kinds of deceit, especially if they manage to
>> press many of the wrong buttons. After all, its likely that the
>> individual you are talking about where used to dealing with precisely
>> the people that thought they where going to, i.e. lawyers. They knew
>> their mind set, they knew what to say that would sound plausible to
>> "those" people, etc. You on the other hand... they where not able to
>> predict, so couldn't, as effectively, mess with. So, yes, in that
>> situation "anyone" with your background might have had "better"
>> instincts than the people who they where "intending" to target.
> 
> Perhaps, but the specific case in hand the person wasn't intending to be 
> talking to the lawyer at all.  He was trying to force me to do something/
> allow him to do something.  He said the magic words that meant I had to 
> take it to legal, though - and he was *very* surprised when he got a call 
> from a lawyer.  He was trying to deceive me, but didn't know me very 
> well.  His thinking was "Jim should value me and my contribution, so I 
> should be able to force him to bend to my will".  When I didn't, he 
> started trying to use deceit, even dragging others into his deception 
> (which could have gotten really ugly).
> 
And, I am sure it worked before, on people more gullible. Most people, 
whether they have suspicions or not, will cave under such tactics, 
either due to being unaware how far they could take it, or because they 
don't want to put in the effort to fight back.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 08 Aug 2009 22:51:38 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> And, I am sure it worked before, on people more gullible. 

I'm sure it had.  One of the people who was convinced to pass along 
untrue information clearly had given in on the issue.

> Most people,
> whether they have suspicions or not, will cave under such tactics,
> either due to being unaware how far they could take it, or because they
> don't want to put in the effort to fight back.

It becomes a question of the value of the thing that's being defended vs. 
the cost of fighting the deception.  I made the judgment that the value 
of the thing being defended was higher than the cost of giving in 
(because giving in would mean others could get away with it and devalue 
the thing being defended).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 9-8-2009 7:47, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> On 7-8-2009 1:25, Darren New wrote:
>>> andrel wrote:
>>>> Because that is what everybody does, even you.
>>>
>>> Yes. That doesn't mean it *is* knowledge, and that doesn't mean 
>>> everything is reasonably "knowledge" to someone. That's why I'm 
>>> bringing up the examples of Napoleon.
>>
>> Let me put it this way: I say I *'know'* something if it is beyond 
>> reasonable doubt for *me*. Beyong reasonable doubt can be for a number 
>> of reasons:
>> 1) based on authority that I have no reason to doubt (the sun is about 
>> 150 million kilometers away)
>> 2) own experience (there must be an algorithm that computes the cube 
>> of an integer finalizing 3 bits per iteration*)
>> 3) when the negation would be incompatible with my existence (god does 
>> not exist)
>> Possibly an underlying problem in this discussion is that you assumed 
>> that the non existence of god is category 1 or 2 knowledge (because it 
>> would be for you?) whereas it is actually category 3. Also possibly 
>> confusing is that I admit that for theists the negation may also be 
>> category 3. I don't see a problem in that because we are different 
>> people.
>>
> body else, has never seen.
> 
> And yet.. You miss category 4: "Because the negation would contradict 
> societal ideas and social beliefs, which I am heavily invested in." 

I don't see the difference with my category 3. Then again I have 
sometimes difficulty to understand what you exactly mean.

> One 
> **strongly** suspects that the same argument of negation in #3 would be 
> stated by *anyone* with *any* god, even one so terrifyingly different 
> from yours that you find its very nature abhorrent. 

Yes indeed. I tried to word it in such a way that it was clear that I 
intended to include those.

> In fact, I am 
> certain of it. Its the Francis Collins method of "knowing". And, its 
> been rightly dissected by numerous people, ever since it was suggested 
> he might become the head of the NIH. This is one of the better ones:
> 
> http://www.reasonproject.org/archive/item/the_strange_case_of_francis_collins2/ 

I hadn't heard of that. Thanks for the link.

> I am sure it wouldn't be *too hard* to think of other things, besides 
> religion, which are entirely social constructs of their society, are 
> presumed to be "known" as fact, and yet are absolutely nothing of the sort.

As I am an atheist, many people would consider anything I say outside of 
religion. Other fields include male/female and class differences and the 
idea that if anybody be as selfish as possible the whole world would be 
better.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> On 9-8-2009 7:47, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> andrel wrote:
>>> On 7-8-2009 1:25, Darren New wrote:
>>>> andrel wrote:
>>>>> Because that is what everybody does, even you.
>>>>
>>>> Yes. That doesn't mean it *is* knowledge, and that doesn't mean 
>>>> everything is reasonably "knowledge" to someone. That's why I'm 
>>>> bringing up the examples of Napoleon.
>>>
>>> Let me put it this way: I say I *'know'* something if it is beyond 
>>> reasonable doubt for *me*. Beyong reasonable doubt can be for a 
>>> number of reasons:
>>> 1) based on authority that I have no reason to doubt (the sun is 
>>> about 150 million kilometers away)
>>> 2) own experience (there must be an algorithm that computes the cube 
>>> of an integer finalizing 3 bits per iteration*)
>>> 3) when the negation would be incompatible with my existence (god 
>>> does not exist)
>>> Possibly an underlying problem in this discussion is that you assumed 
>>> that the non existence of god is category 1 or 2 knowledge (because 
>>> it would be for you?) whereas it is actually category 3. Also 
>>> possibly confusing is that I admit that for theists the negation may 
>>> also be category 3. I don't see a problem in that because we are 
>>> different people.
>>>
>> body else, has never seen.
>>
>> And yet.. You miss category 4: "Because the negation would contradict 
>> societal ideas and social beliefs, which I am heavily invested in." 
> 
> I don't see the difference with my category 3. Then again I have 
> sometimes difficulty to understand what you exactly mean.
> 
Ok, I see what you mean. Yeah, they are the same in the case that I 
actually mention. However, there is what might be called the "Stockholm 
Syndrome" version of the same rule, which states that, on some level, 
they know its all delusional BS, but have become so invested in 
following it, that giving it up feels like the world will end, and the 
consequence of being wrong is both socially too high, and emotionally 
too extreme, to accept. That, in the end, its basically become like a 
phobia of germs, where elaborate ritual is performed, to avoid the 
otherwise non-existent consequences of coming in contact with what is 
*not* actually detrimental. It simply *has to be*, or otherwise the 
phobia would be a horrible self deception, and that just isn't acceptable.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> Let me put it this way: I say I *'know'* something if it is beyond 
> reasonable doubt for *me*.

Yes. And when I say I *know* something, it means I believe it, and I have a 
reason to believe it. Whether it's actually "true" has to be accessed by 
someone other than myself, because I could be mistaken in my reasons for 
believing.

I sometimes informally say I "know" something when I really mean I am 
strongly convinced I'm right. Unless it's actually true, however, it's not 
knowledge. And since it's possible we're all mistaken entirely about the 
reality of the universe's existence, it's remotely possible that what we all 
have strong justification for believing is indeed not knowledge but mistaken 
belief.

> 3) when the negation would be incompatible with my existence (god does 
> not exist)
> Possibly an underlying problem in this discussion is that you assumed 
> that the non existence of god is category 1 or 2 knowledge (because it 
> would be for you?) whereas it is actually category 3. 

I'm not just talking about belief in a god. I'm talking (if I remember after 
a week's vacation) about the meaning of the word "knowledge."

I'm trying to distinguish the word "knowledge" from "conviction." If you 
don't admit there are cases where you can be convinced something is true 
that isn't knowledge, i.e., if you think that being strongly convinced of 
something is enough to make it "knowledge", then we're just disagreeing 
about the word. I feel that making "knowledge" mean "topic about which I'm 
strongly convinced regardless of the truth of the referent" just muddles the 
word and leaves us with no word that means "something that I believe and is 
true."

Bringing arguments about deities into the picture is just muddling the 
conversation, because neither side is likely to admit that the other side 
might have a justified belief.

> To which I countered that there is virtually nothing that we can be sure 
> of and for those things that we are certain about we can always question 
> the method by which we are certain. The logical conclusion is that under 
> your rules there is no knowledge at all.

It depends on how certain you want to be. Of course if we're all brains in a 
bottle, then we are all 100% incorrect about the universe.

However, if I'm justified in believing X is true, and X is true, then that's 
knowledge. If X is false, that's not knowledge. You wish to muddle the 
waters by saying that whether X is true or not is irrelevant.

>> Right. And I keep repeating that while there are many differences of 
>> opinion, there are also many facts about which there are few 
>> differences of opinion.
> 
> How many is a few and who is to draw the line?

Irrelevant. If you accept objective reality, there are things that are true 
about it and things that aren't, whether you know which is which or not.

>> But I didn't say we could distinguish confidently between whether 
>> something that is disputed is knowledge and something that is disputed 
>> is not knowledge.
> 
> So why would you object if someone says that for him it is (or isn't)?

Because the justification and belief can make it so, but the objective 
reality defines truth. If you're arguing there is no objective reality at 
all, then what is or isn't knowledge is kind of pointless to discuss.

>> I'm not making rules. I'm simply saying that if he says he knows 
>> something, and that thing is false, then he's mistaken. I'm not saying 
>> he isn't confident.
> 
> And if he is confident that it is true would he be allowed to say it is 
> 'knowledge'?

"Allowed"?  Sure.  And if he's confident he's Jesus reincarnated, returned 
to start the Rapture, he'd be allowed to say he knows it. That doesn't mean 
it's true.

> I feel that time and time again we come back to a person 
> expressing something he knows is true versus you as an outsider claiming 
> he should not say that because *you* know different.

I think if you're going to claim as true something objective, you should 
have justification for that claim that is objective.

> That is because you are reasoning from your perspective not theirs or 
> mine. It is category 1 knowledge for them, so they are allowed to use 
> 'know'. Also I don't think they are wrong, I know, that is category 2.

Category 1 and 2 and 3 are the levels of justification. You can't both be right.

>> OK, so to you, there's no difference between knowing something and 
>> being confident it's true. I feel that's a loss.
> 
> There is, knowing implies a lot more than merely being confident.

Yes, but you've been unable to express what that is. I have already given 
you my definition. What's an example of a difference between being 
confident, justifiably confident, and having knowledge? What's the 
difference between "I'm convinced because of these reasons" and "I know it", 
other than "it's objectively true"?

-- 
   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 16-8-2009 23:57, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> Let me put it this way: I say I *'know'* something if it is beyond 
>> reasonable doubt for *me*.
> 
> Yes. And when I say I *know* something, it means I believe it, and I 
> have a reason to believe it. Whether it's actually "true" has to be 
> accessed by someone other than myself, because I could be mistaken in my 
> reasons for believing.
> 
> I sometimes informally say I "know" something when I really mean I am 
> strongly convinced I'm right. Unless it's actually true, however, it's 
> not knowledge. And since it's possible we're all mistaken entirely about 
> the reality of the universe's existence, it's remotely possible that 
> what we all have strong justification for believing is indeed not 
> knowledge but mistaken belief.
> 
>> 3) when the negation would be incompatible with my existence (god does 
>> not exist)
>> Possibly an underlying problem in this discussion is that you assumed 
>> that the non existence of god is category 1 or 2 knowledge (because it 
>> would be for you?) whereas it is actually category 3. 
> 
> I'm not just talking about belief in a god. I'm talking (if I remember 
> after a week's vacation) about the meaning of the word "knowledge."
> 
> I'm trying to distinguish the word "knowledge" from "conviction." If you 
> don't admit there are cases where you can be convinced something is true 
> that isn't knowledge, i.e., if you think that being strongly convinced 
> of something is enough to make it "knowledge", then we're just 
> disagreeing about the word. I feel that making "knowledge" mean "topic 
> about which I'm strongly convinced regardless of the truth of the 
> referent" just muddles the word and leaves us with no word that means 
> "something that I believe and is true."
> 
> Bringing arguments about deities into the picture is just muddling the 
> conversation, because neither side is likely to admit that the other 
> side might have a justified belief.
> 
>> To which I countered that there is virtually nothing that we can be 
>> sure of and for those things that we are certain about we can always 
>> question the method by which we are certain. The logical conclusion is 
>> that under your rules there is no knowledge at all.
> 
> It depends on how certain you want to be. Of course if we're all brains 
> in a bottle, then we are all 100% incorrect about the universe.
> 
> However, if I'm justified in believing X is true, and X is true, then 
> that's knowledge. If X is false, that's not knowledge. You wish to 
> muddle the waters by saying that whether X is true or not is irrelevant.
> 
>>> Right. And I keep repeating that while there are many differences of 
>>> opinion, there are also many facts about which there are few 
>>> differences of opinion.
>>
>> How many is a few and who is to draw the line?
> 
> Irrelevant. If you accept objective reality, there are things that are 
> true about it and things that aren't, whether you know which is which or 
> not.
> 
>>> But I didn't say we could distinguish confidently between whether 
>>> something that is disputed is knowledge and something that is 
>>> disputed is not knowledge.
>>
>> So why would you object if someone says that for him it is (or isn't)?
> 
> Because the justification and belief can make it so, but the objective 
> reality defines truth. If you're arguing there is no objective reality 
> at all, then what is or isn't knowledge is kind of pointless to discuss.
> 
>>> I'm not making rules. I'm simply saying that if he says he knows 
>>> something, and that thing is false, then he's mistaken. I'm not 
>>> saying he isn't confident.
>>
>> And if he is confident that it is true would he be allowed to say it 
>> is 'knowledge'?
> 
> "Allowed"?  Sure.  And if he's confident he's Jesus reincarnated, 
> returned to start the Rapture, he'd be allowed to say he knows it. That 
> doesn't mean it's true.
> 
>> I feel that time and time again we come back to a person expressing 
>> something he knows is true versus you as an outsider claiming he 
>> should not say that because *you* know different.
> 
> I think if you're going to claim as true something objective, you should 
> have justification for that claim that is objective.
> 
>> That is because you are reasoning from your perspective not theirs or 
>> mine. It is category 1 knowledge for them, so they are allowed to use 
>> 'know'. Also I don't think they are wrong, I know, that is category 2.
> 
> Category 1 and 2 and 3 are the levels of justification. You can't both 
> be right.
> 
>>> OK, so to you, there's no difference between knowing something and 
>>> being confident it's true. I feel that's a loss.
>>
>> There is, knowing implies a lot more than merely being confident.
> 
> Yes, but you've been unable to express what that is. I have already 
> given you my definition. What's an example of a difference between being 
> confident, justifiably confident, and having knowledge? What's the 
> difference between "I'm convinced because of these reasons" and "I know 
> it", other than "it's objectively true"?

I think that if I answer all your points separately I would be repeating 
myself too many times, so let's just do it once.
My definition was given before as: beyond reasonable doubt.
So we have both given our definition, we both feel that that should be 
clear and we both think that the definition of the other has too many 
holes. Seems to show to me that we use different standards. ;)

About the objective reality. Sure, it must exist. I am living in one and 
so are you. Only, neither of those two need to coincide with the 
objective objective reality. The reason being that before we can agree 
on what objectively true is we need to agree on the rules to define what 
is objective. I am pretty sure we would not agree on those. And above 
that is another meta level...

The reason for bringing it deities is that it make the point clearer, at 
least that is what I think. For me it is simple, no god (in the 
conventional) sense exist. As I said that is category 3. There is no way 
for me to come to any other conclusion nor is there anything anybody can 
say that would instil any doubt in me. Hence 'beyond reasonable doubt' 
i.e. absolute truth and fully justified to use words like 'know' and 
'knowledge'. That I know that there are other people just as confident 
as I am about the inverse is, for me, irrelevant. Simply a matter of 
different objective realities.
I am confident about a lot of other stuff, but my life would be the same 
if it turned out not to be so.

Post a reply to this message

Am Mon, 03 Aug 2009 14:13:18 -0500 schrieb David H. Burns:

> Darren New wrote:
> 
>> Brain damage:
>>   The man who mistook his wife for a hat
> 
> Very interesting book. All of the author's (Oliver Sacks) books, that I
> have read,
>   are well worth reading.

Definitely!

Post a reply to this message