Jump to content

Plastic human mind (Split from Modeling the psychic space)


Recommended Posts

Posted
5 minutes ago, Lorentz Jr said:

That's an interesting comment, joigus. Did my message bother you? I had no idea. It never even occurred to me. I corrected your wording because I wanted to help you with your English, and I did it privately because I didn't want to embarrass you.

So you call me thin-skinned, and yet you got upset because I wasn't polite enough or diplomatic enough for your tastes in a short message. I hope you don't take this the wrong way, joigus, but I think you're even more thin-skinned than I am. I apologize for apparently offending you.

Preamble

I'm not sure if you have Scottish roots or what, but my experience of Scots abroad is that whilst they are warm and friendly in their homeland, they are more often than not defensive and prickly outside it. So I don't want to upset you by my commenting on this.

All credit to Scotland to win (retain) the Calcutta Cup yesterday. I find the English establisment unreasonably big headed about its position in these competitions and so like to see a few tumbles.

Now my comment

In this very thread I was passing some information to joigus about a very English saying concerning "a bull in a china shop".

Contrast this with the contents of your PM exchange (no I don't want  to know the details).

Posted
1 hour ago, studiot said:

Now my comment

In this very thread I was passing some information to joigus about a very English saying concerning "a bull in a china shop".

Contrast this with the contents of your PM exchange (no I don't want  to know the details).

Ah, it does ring a bell now that you mention it. I must have mixed them, as in Spanish it's rather "an elephant in a pottery shop," (un elefante en una cacharrería), which I seem to have adapted to some kind of hybrid form. Live and learn!

  

1 hour ago, Lorentz Jr said:

I don't like fencing. Verbal fencing is for court trials, not science discussions.

Duly noted. The list of things you don't like is growing thick.

1 hour ago, Lorentz Jr said:

It's an exaggeration, just like saying I called it an "insult" is an exaggeration and emphasizing "entirely" and "nothing" but not "more or less" or "almost" is an exaggeration.

I was benevolent, I'd say. You juxtaposed the words "more or less entirely" which is a notorious oxymoron that didn't escape my attention. But I'll stay tuned for further nuances on when something is "more or less entirely" this or that. Pointing at straw-clutching is not the same as doing as strawman.

  

1 hour ago, Lorentz Jr said:

The only things I see being sharpened here are trolling and BSing skills. No thanks.

That's your call, not mine. But I'll refer to my previous comment on 'kid gloves.' I'll try not to correct you anymore. Let other people do that thankless job, because,

1 hour ago, Lorentz Jr said:

So I make a comment about the lack of genetic programming for higher-level cognitive phenomena like beliefs and attitudes (which I associate with geordief's "psychic space"), and people try to correct me for not mentioning the genetic programming of behaviors and aptitudes. I'm sure I'm wrong just as often as you are, but there are also a lot of communication problems (and one or two trouble-makers) that unnecessarily lead to arguments.

(My emphasis.)

God forbid!

1 hour ago, Lorentz Jr said:

That's an interesting comment, joigus. Did my message bother you? I had no idea. It never even occurred to me. I corrected your wording because I wanted to help you with your English, and I did it privately because I didn't want to embarrass you.

So you call me thin-skinned, and yet you got upset because I wasn't polite enough or diplomatic enough for your tastes in a short message. I hope you don't take this the wrong way, joigus, but I think you're even more thin-skinned than I am. I apologize for apparently offending you.

You read too much into what people say. You think I'm upset... You clearly don't know me at all. It's anecdotal, but it tells quite a bit about the problems you seem to be having with some people. No 'hello' or 'cheers' or 'how are you?' or 'see you around''... Just a blunt 'blah' coming from a lurking presence in the darkness.

"Consciousness"

It took me a couple of seconds to realise it wasn't some kind of threatening / cryptic message from out of the woodwork.

Nice.

 

 

Posted
3 hours ago, Lorentz Jr said:

I didn't say babies have no memories at all

We can only respond to the words you type and submit, which in this case were the following:

 

On 2/3/2023 at 8:36 PM, Lorentz Jr said:

the human mind is more or less entirely plastic (i.e. impressionable) at birth, so almost nothing can be said about its initial state (except that there basically is none)

15 hours ago, Lorentz Jr said:

said babies are impressionable, meaning they can learn any language and grow into any belief system. I said they have little or no initial state

Simply repeating an invalid point over and over again without adding any new information doesn’t magically render it true.

You were wrong, and/or your phrasing sloppy. Big deal. Man up. Either do a better job at defending your stance to support why it’s correct or acknowledge that you made a mistake and learned something new today. Is your ego too fragile to acknowledge or accept that latter possibility? Can you not even conceive of the possibility that you too are imperfect? Will you now attack me with bile and vitriol and childish whining to remind everyone just how thick your skin is?

Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, joigus said:

You juxtaposed the words "more or less entirely" which is a notorious oxymoron

I've never seen or heard anyone complain about that before in all my life, and I've seen and heard many other people use the expression. In most cases, the word "more" isn't meant to be taken literally when used with "entirely", and "less" isn't meant to be taken literally when used with expressions like "not at all".

5 hours ago, joigus said:

 I'll try not to correct you anymore.

Please correct me any time I make a mistake, joigus. No kidd gloves required. Just make sure you correct what I actually said and not some exaggeration or fantasy that you made up in your imagination.

5 hours ago, joigus said:

God forbid!

I'm trying to understand how we have such different ideas of terms like "state of mind" and "impressionable". Mostly I'm referring to things like political and religious beliefs, prejudice, and other convictions that people tend to form later in life. Sometimes social theorists make too many assumptions about people.

As I said, no one is born a capitalist or a communist, and I don't think anyone is born a bigot. I guess the tendency toward social activity is important, so maybe that and other factors predispose individuals to certain kinds of belief. I'm sorry if I didn't express myself clearly enough.

5 hours ago, joigus said:

You read too much into what people say. You think I'm upset... You clearly don't know me at all.

No 'hello' or 'cheers' or 'how are you?' or 'see you around''... Just a blunt 'blah' coming from a lurking presence in the darkness.

Irked? Offended? Put off? Would one of those terms be better? You obviously had some kind of negative reaction to my message, joigus. I remember you said something about it some time ago, and now you've mentioned it again. When you're communicating in a foreign language with people from other cultures, maybe you should be more careful about how you interpret their comments.

5 hours ago, joigus said:

It took me a couple of seconds to realise it wasn't some kind of threatening / cryptic message from out of the woodwork.

So you weren't upset, and I read too much into what people say, but you read the possibility of a threat into my attempt to help you with English wording on a science forum. You also read "insult" into "strawman argument", which I've never seen or heard anywhere else in my entire life, called "more or less entirely" a "notorious oxymoron", which I've never seen or heard anywhere else in my entire life, and interpreted "upset" in a more extreme way than I intended it.

To be perfectly honest, joigus, I had a suspicion that you might object to the word "upset", because I think I already understand how you operate: Basically, you have a consistent habit of exaggerating what other people say, or interpreting what they said in the most extreme way possible, and you always use that interpretation as an excuse to criticize and disagree with them. Here in the US, we call that playing "Gotcha!". Disagreement as a form of competition rather than communication.

You call me thin-skinned, but your "not upset" reaction to my message shows that you're even more thin-skinned than I am. You say I read too much into what people say, but you consistently start arguments by reading too much into what other people say. You act more like a paranoid lawyer than a science enthusiast, joigus. I really hate chatting with you, because you keep finding or making up fake or trivial things to argue about unproductively.

 

7 hours ago, studiot said:

In this very thread I was passing some information to joigus about a very English saying concerning "a bull in a china shop".

Contrast this with the contents of your PM exchange

In the simultaneity thread, I was describing a hypothetical scheme for accelerating a train to relativistic speeds by calculating the required acceleration of each car ahead of time, converting the resulting time series to proper times, using the time series to preprogram the engine in each car, and using synchronized timers to start the engines simultaneously (in the ground frame):

On 12/10/2022 at 6:13 PM, Lorentz Jr said:

I've been assuming the lengths of the cars are neither especially long nor especially short. In order for them to all accelerate simultaneously without getting pulled apart or crashing together, the information about their accelerations as a function of time has to be contained in each car from the start, and all the engines have to start accelerating at the same time.

Contrast this with the contents of your reply:

On 12/10/2022 at 6:54 PM, studiot said:

I think most participants is this thread know and agree that these conditions are neither necesary nor possible.

Not a shred of support or explanation. What is this supposed to mean, studiot? Are you literally so senile that you think train cars can accelerate willy-nilly without breaking apart or crashing into each other, or that it's impossible to preprogram machines? And I'll just say now that I don't think you are, but I found this comment of yours very intimidating when I had just started posting on this forum.

So what's the explanation, studiot? Do you think you're some kind of dictator who can tell everyone else what the forum's official doctrine is?

This website is allegedly a science forum, not a tea party. I will be delighted to discuss science with anyone who cares to, but I'm not a high-society socialite.

Edited by Lorentz Jr
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Lorentz Jr said:

I've never seen or heard anyone complain about that before in all my life, and I've seen and heard many other people use the expression. In most cases, the word "more" isn't meant to be taken literally when used with "entirely", and "less" isn't meant to be taken literally when used with "not at all".

Please correct me any time I make a mistake, joigus. No kidd gloves required. Just make sure you correct what I actually said and not some exaggeration or fantasy that you made up in your imagination.

I'm trying to understand how we have such different ideas of terms like "state of mind" and "impressionable". Mostly I'm referring to things like political and religious beliefs, prejudice, and other convictions that people tend to form later in life. Sometimes social theorists make too many assumptions about people.

As I said, no one is born a capitalist or a communist, and I don't think anyone is born a bigot. I guess the tendency toward social activity is important, and maybe other factors predispose individuals to certain kinds of belief. I'm sorry if I didn't express myself clearly enough.

Irked? Offended? Put off? Would one of those terms be better? You obviously had some kind of negative reaction to my message, joigus. I remember you said something about it some time ago, and now you've mentioned it again. When you're communicating in a foreign language with people from other cultures, you need to be careful about how you interpret their comments.

So you weren't upset, and I read too much into what people say, but you read the possibility of a threat into my attempt to help you with English wording on a science forum. You also read "insult" into "strawman argument", which I've never seen anywhere else in all my life, called "more or less entirely" a "notorious oxymoron", which I've never seen anywhere else in all my life, and interpreted "upset" in a more extreme way than I intended it.

To be perfectly honest, joigus, I had a suspicion that you might object to the word "upset", because I already understand how you operate: Basically, you have a consistent habit of exaggerating what other people say, and you always seem to use that exaggeration as an excuse to criticize and disagree with them. Here in the US, we call that playing "Gotcha!". Disagreement as a form of competition rather than communication.

You call me thin-skinned, but your "not upset" reaction to my message shows that you're even more thin-skinned than I am. You say I read too much into what people say, but you consistently start arguments by reading too much into what other people say. You act more like a paranoid lawyer than a science enthusiast, joigus. I really hate chatting with you, because you keep finding or making up things to argue about unproductively.

Honestly... what a load of whataboutism. Grow up. Seriously.

Let's get down to business...

Tendencies towards conservatism, liberalism, and the like... It's not etched in your genes, but there are consistent claims that there must be a genetic component to them. Of course there are environmental factors. How could it be otherwise. I leave it to the experts to elaborate on that, as I'm not one of them. Clearly.

 

Edited by joigus
minor correction
Posted
1 hour ago, Lorentz Jr said:

Are you literally so senile

!

Moderator Note

You need to STOP making this so personal. Have we reached the end of your ability to have a civil conversation? Do you need a vacation?

 
Posted
21 hours ago, Lorentz Jr said:

Yes, it decreases with age

What does make you think that ability to change one's beliefs decreases with age?

Posted (edited)
33 minutes ago, Genady said:

What does make you think that ability to change one's beliefs decreases with age?

Common knowledge, I guess. Does the claim seem questionable to you? How often do career politicians or businessmen or religious leaders convert to different ideologies? Not very often, I would say. It may be possible for an old dog to learn new tricks, but that doesn't mean it's easy.

Edited by Lorentz Jr
Posted (edited)
43 minutes ago, Genady said:

What does make you think that ability to change one's beliefs decreases with age?

It's a generally observed phenomenon that older people are less likely to change their position than young ones. From this, it's easy to conclude that this is due to diminished mental capacity.

In my experience, the the most common cause is conviction. One has been working, reading, listening, experimenting, interacting with people, experiencing the world for x number of years. Up to a certain point, the input was fresh, novel, informative and persuasive. One has learned and formed opinions. There comes a time when these opinions and convictions feel complete, satisfactory, in line with one's own inclinations and desires. In fact, it may happen that any, or most new information coming in serves only to confirm views that have already been formed. One has figured out strategies that work, formed networks of communication, forged alliances, made commitments, based on those beliefs and convictions that coalesced in the youthful, exploratory phase.

There is then less and less motivation to change beliefs or directions. In fact, people who do keep changing their minds in mid-life are usually called indecisive and unreliable.

Another way to look it: It takes 18-30 years to decide what one's relationship top the world is. Once done, it would take a landslide shift  conditions, or a soul-shaking  disappointment, or a Damascus-sized epiphany to change it.  

Edited by Peterkin
Posted (edited)
38 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

It's a generally observed phenomenon that older people are less likely to change their position than young ones. From this, it's easy to conclude that this is due to diminished mental capacity.

In my experience, the the most common cause is conviction. One has been working, reading, listening, experimenting, interacting with people, experiencing the world for x number of years. Up to a certain point, the input was fresh, novel, informative and persuasive. One has learned and formed opinions. There comes a time when these opinions and convictions feel complete, satisfactory, in line with one's own inclinations and desires. In fact, it may happen that any, or most new information coming in serves only to confirm views that have already been formed. One has figured out strategies that work, formed networks of communication, forged alliances, made commitments, based on those beliefs and convictions that coalesced in the youthful, exploratory phase.

There is then less and less motivation to change beliefs or directions. In fact, people who do keep changing their minds in mid-life are usually called indecisive and unreliable.

Another way to look it: It takes 18-30 years to decide what one's relationship top the world is. Once done, it would take a landslide shift  conditions, or a soul-shaking  disappointment, or a Damascus-sized epiphany to change it.  

Yes, I agree with all this. It explains correlation between age and chances of changing one's beliefs. It does not show a correlation between age and ability to change beliefs.

45 minutes ago, Lorentz Jr said:

Does the claim seem questionable to you?

Yes, it does.

 

45 minutes ago, Lorentz Jr said:

How often do career politicians or businessmen or religious leaders convert to different ideologies?

1. Are career politicians or businessmen or religious leaders, a representative sample?

2. I don't have the data.

3. Not very rare, I think. Moshe Dayan, Putin, Sakharov, etc.

4. Even if it does not happen often, where is a correlation with age? I mean, it does not happen often in any age, then.

Edited by Genady
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Lorentz Jr said:

How often do career politicians or businessmen convert to different ideologies?

Less often than they get divorced, I imagine. They have too much invested in the political, business and social institutions. Where and how would they start over? What would it cost, in terms of lost revenues, patronage, political support? 

Quote

or religious leaders

That's an even stickier ball of hot wax. You don't get to be a religious leader by shilly-shallying over your faith. Lose it once, and the congregation knows that you've lost it, you're done for. If they do change beliefs or ideologies, you can be damn sure they keep it well under their mitre.

Edited by Peterkin

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.