DocWatts

Given everything that Trump's campaign is currently imploding, maybe the name of this thread should be updated. The momentum shift over the past 3-4 weeks has been absolutely wild to witness.

Not treading new ground here as far as stage-models go, but I find these are useful distinctions that are broadly applicable across a host of different domains. My intuition here was to capture commonalities between different types of stage models, in a looser way that's perhaps a bit more resistant to this more nebulous 5-stage model being used as a way of bypassing other forms of analysis. Rigid Defender Core features: Stubbornness, denial, defensiveness, rejection of contradictory information Resistant Rationalizer Core features: Minimization, whataboutism, excuse-making, seeking confirmation bias Conflicted Compartmentalizer Core features: Inner conflict, struggle to integrate new information, cognitive dissonance, partial acceptance Open Evaluator Core features: Serious consideration of new evidence, productive questioning, seeking diverse information Adaptive Integrator Core features: Full integration of new information, self-reflection, willingness to change, meta-cognition

I thought I might share a fascinating brainstorming session I had earlier today with Claude AI. I used Claude to workshop a 5-stage model of cognitive flexibility, that could be applied across a wide variety of domains and ideologies, using numerous real world examples. I was inspired by Leo's blog post where he goes through a nuanced exploration of liberals and conservatives with an AI, along with the '5 Levels' YouTube channel, where experts discuss a subject (such as quantum mechanics) at 5 different levels of complexity. Enjoy! _____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Q- I'm trying to brainstorm a 5 step model of cognitive flexibility, where 1 represents a very cognitively inflexible mind, and 5 is someone with a highly meta, self aware perspective. And 3 is the mean. Let's assume that this model is meant to be applied to adults without any serious mental disabilities. How would the 5 levels on this scale react to being given reliable experiential evidence that contradicts a core belief? To make it concrete, let's say that a political party they support gets caught red handed doing something that they criticize their political opponents for. This is an interesting concept for a cognitive flexibility model. I'll create a 5-step scale based on your criteria and describe how individuals at each level might react to contradictory evidence about their political party. Here's a breakdown: Highly Inflexible: Completely rejects the new information May become angry or defensive Accuses the source of lying or being part of a conspiracy Doubles down on their existing beliefs Refuses to engage in any discussion that challenges their viewpoint Somewhat Inflexible: Acknowledges the information but tries to minimize its importance Engages in whataboutism, pointing out similar faults in the opposing party Rationalizes the behavior, making excuses for their party Experiences cognitive dissonance but resolves it by clinging to existing beliefs May seek out alternative sources that support their current view Average Flexibility (Mean): Feels conflicted about the new information Considers the evidence but struggles to fully integrate it May compartmentalize the information, separating it from their overall view of the party Experiences prolonged cognitive dissonance Might adjust some minor beliefs but maintains core allegiance to the party Somewhat Flexible: Takes the new information seriously and contemplates its implications Experiences cognitive dissonance but works through it productively Begins to question some of their assumptions about the party Seeks out additional information from various sources May adjust their level of support for the party or specific policies Highly Flexible (Meta, Self-Aware): Fully integrates the new information into their understanding Reflects on why they held their previous beliefs and how they were formed Considers the broader implications for their political views and decision-making processes Openly discusses the issue, seeking diverse perspectives Willingly adjusts their beliefs and support based on new evidence Uses the experience as an opportunity for personal growth and learning This model provides a framework for understanding different levels of cognitive flexibility in response to contradictory evidence. It's important to note that individuals may display different levels of flexibility depending on the specific belief being challenged and other contextual factors. Would you like me to elaborate on any particular aspect of this model or discuss how it might be applied in different scenarios? Q- What might be some names that capture the core features of each of the 5 levels? Certainly! Let's create some descriptive names that capture the essence of each level in our cognitive flexibility model. Here are some suggestions: Rigid Defender Core features: Stubbornness, denial, defensiveness, rejection of contradictory information Resistant Rationalizer Core features: Minimization, whataboutism, excuse-making, seeking confirmation bias Conflicted Compartmentalizer Core features: Inner conflict, struggle to integrate new information, cognitive dissonance, partial acceptance Open Evaluator Core features: Serious consideration of new evidence, productive questioning, seeking diverse information Adaptive Integrator Core features: Full integration of new information, self-reflection, willingness to change, meta-cognition These names aim to encapsulate the key characteristics of each level, highlighting the progression from inflexibility to high cognitive flexibility. They also reflect the primary mental strategies or states associated with each level when confronted with belief-challenging information. Do you think these names effectively capture the essence of each level? Would you like to discuss any modifications or alternatives? Q- Awesome. What are the core issues that each stage would need to work on to improve their cognitive flexibility, adjusted for a realistic expectation of thier capacities at thier level. Excellent question. Let's explore the core issues each stage would need to address to improve their cognitive flexibility, tailored to their current capacities: Rigid Defender: Core issues to work on: Developing basic emotional regulation when confronted with challenging information Learning to pause before reacting defensively Recognizing that disagreement isn't necessarily a personal attack Practicing active listening, even if they don't agree Acknowledging that their perspective might not be the only valid one Resistant Rationalizer: Core issues to work on: Reducing reliance on logical fallacies like whataboutism Recognizing their tendency to make excuses and rationalizations Practicing considering alternative viewpoints without immediately dismissing them Developing the ability to hold two conflicting ideas simultaneously, even briefly Learning to seek out information from diverse, credible sources Conflicted Compartmentalizer: Core issues to work on: Developing strategies to manage cognitive dissonance productively Learning to integrate new information with existing beliefs gradually Practicing critical thinking skills to evaluate evidence objectively Enhancing self-awareness about their thought processes and biases Working on letting go of the need for absolute certainty Open Evaluator: Core issues to work on: Refining their ability to synthesize diverse perspectives Developing more sophisticated meta-cognitive skills Learning to balance open-mindedness with critical evaluation Practicing how to adjust beliefs incrementally based on new evidence Enhancing their ability to communicate their evolving thoughts to others Adaptive Integrator: Core issues to work on: Cultivating even greater self-awareness and meta-cognitive skills Developing strategies to help others improve their cognitive flexibility Refining their ability to navigate complex, multifaceted issues Learning to balance adaptability with maintaining core values Exploring ways to apply their cognitive flexibility across various life domains Each level builds upon the skills of the previous ones, with the challenges becoming more nuanced and sophisticated as cognitive flexibility increases. The focus shifts from basic emotional regulation and openness to information at lower levels, towards more complex integration and meta-cognitive skills at higher levels. It's important to note that progress isn't always linear, and individuals might find themselves at different levels depending on the specific topic or context. The goal is steady improvement rather than perfection. Would you like to explore specific strategies or exercises that might help individuals at each level work on these core issues? Q- How might someone embody a specific political ideology at each of the five levels? Let's use socialism as an example This is a fascinating question that explores how cognitive flexibility intersects with political ideology. Let's examine how someone might embody socialist beliefs at each of the five levels of our cognitive flexibility model: Rigid Defender (Socialist Zealot): Dogmatically adheres to socialist principles without question Views any criticism of socialism as an attack on their personal identity Dismisses all other economic systems as inherently evil or corrupt May idolize socialist leaders uncritically and defend their every action Refuses to acknowledge any historical failures or shortcomings of socialist regimes Resistant Rationalizer (Socialist Apologist): Acknowledges some issues with socialist implementations but always finds excuses Engages in whataboutism when confronted with socialist failures (e.g., "But what about capitalist exploitation?") Minimizes the negative aspects of socialist history while exaggerating its successes Tends to blame all socialist shortcomings on external factors (e.g., sanctions, sabotage) Seeks out and shares only pro-socialist information, disregarding contrary evidence Conflicted Compartmentalizer (Questioning Socialist): Believes in core socialist principles but struggles with real-world implementations Experiences cognitive dissonance when confronted with socialist failures May support some market-based solutions while maintaining overall socialist ideology Compartmentalizes, separating ideal socialism from its historical manifestations Feels conflicted about supporting certain socialist policies that have shown mixed results Open Evaluator (Critical Socialist): Critically examines both the strengths and weaknesses of socialist theory and practice Seeks to understand why certain socialist policies succeed or fail in different contexts Considers insights from other economic theories that might complement socialist ideas Advocates for evidence-based socialist policies rather than ideological purity Engages in constructive debates with both supporters and critics of socialism Adaptive Integrator (Nuanced Socialist Thinker): Holds socialist values but integrates them into a broader, more flexible worldview Recognizes the complexity of economic systems and the need for adaptive solutions Advocates for a nuanced approach that combines socialist principles with insights from other economic theories Reflects deeply on the ethical implications and practical challenges of implementing socialist policies Uses socialist framework as a starting point for innovative solutions to contemporary issues, rather than a rigid doctrine At this highest level, the individual might develop a highly personalized and evolving understanding of socialism. They could, for instance, advocate for a mixed economy with strong social safety nets, worker-owned enterprises alongside private businesses, and market mechanisms for certain sectors while maintaining public control over essential services. This progression demonstrates how increased cognitive flexibility allows for a more nuanced, critical, and adaptive approach to political ideology. It shows the shift from black-and-white thinking to a more complex, contextual understanding of socialism and its place in broader economic and political thought. Would you like to explore how this might apply to a different political ideology or discuss the implications of this model for political discourse? Q - That's great. How about two more examples in a similar vein. 1) Atheism. 2) Christianity Certainly. Let's explore how individuals might embody atheism and Christianity at each of the five levels of our cognitive flexibility model. Atheism: Rigid Defender (Militant Atheist): Aggressively rejects all forms of religious belief as irrational Mocks or belittles religious people without attempting to understand their perspectives Views science as infallible and the only source of truth Dismisses any positive aspects of religion or spirituality May see religious people as inherently less intelligent or educated Resistant Rationalizer (Defensive Atheist): Acknowledges some cultural or historical value of religion, but minimizes its importance Uses logical arguments against religion but may not fully understand the counterarguments Tends to stereotype all religious beliefs based on their most extreme examples Rationalizes away any gaps in scientific knowledge as "not yet discovered" May feel personally attacked when encountering religious ideas or symbols Conflicted Compartmentalizer (Questioning Atheist): Maintains atheistic beliefs but begins to recognize complexities in the debate Experiences some cognitive dissonance when encountering philosophical arguments for God May appreciate some aspects of religious culture or morality while rejecting supernatural claims Struggles with questions of meaning and purpose that religion traditionally addresses Compartmentalizes, separating respect for religious individuals from criticism of religious ideas Open Evaluator (Philosophical Atheist): Critically examines both atheistic and theistic arguments Seeks to understand the psychological and sociological functions of religion Engages in respectful dialogues with religious individuals to deepen understanding Recognizes the limitations of human knowledge and the complexities of existence May explore secular philosophies or practices that fulfill needs traditionally met by religion Adaptive Integrator (Nuanced Nonbeliever): Holds a nuanced, evidence-based worldview that happens not to include deity beliefs Integrates insights from various philosophical and scientific disciplines Appreciates the cultural and personal value of religion while maintaining nonbelief Explores existential questions deeply, comfortable with uncertainty May adopt or create secular practices that fulfill spiritual or emotional needs Christianity: Rigid Defender (Fundamentalist Christian): Interprets the Bible literally and rejects any contradictory evidence Views other religions or denominations as false or even evil May believe in young-earth creationism, rejecting evolutionary science Sees Christian morality as the only valid ethical framework Might expect divine intervention in daily life and interpret events as direct acts of God Resistant Rationalizer (Apologetic Christian): Attempts to rationalize Biblical inconsistencies or scientific contradictions May use "God of the gaps" arguments to explain scientific unknowns Minimizes or reinterprets problematic aspects of Christian history Tends to socialize mainly within Christian circles, reinforcing beliefs Struggles with but ultimately dismisses doubts through rationalization Conflicted Compartmentalizer (Questioning Christian): Maintains core Christian beliefs but struggles with certain doctrines Experiences cognitive dissonance when faith conflicts with scientific or ethical reasoning May compartmentalize, separating "religious truth" from "scientific truth" Explores different Christian denominations or interpretations Grapples with questions about the nature of God, evil, and free will Open Evaluator (Progressive Christian): Interprets the Bible contextually, considering historical and cultural factors Engages critically with Christian theology, open to reinterpretation Seeks dialogue with other faiths and philosophies, including atheism Integrates scientific understanding with religious beliefs May focus more on Christian ethics and community than supernatural claims Adaptive Integrator (Contemplative Christian): Holds a nuanced, evolving understanding of Christianity Integrates insights from science, philosophy, and other religions into their faith Sees religious texts as wisdom literature rather than literal truth Embraces mystery and uncertainty as part of the faith journey May practice interfaith dialogue and see truth in multiple traditions Focuses on the transformative aspects of faith rather than doctrinal purity In both cases, we see a progression from rigid, black-and-white thinking to more nuanced, integrated perspectives. The higher levels of cognitive flexibility allow for a more complex understanding of belief and nonbelief, recognizing the multifaceted nature of human spirituality and thought. Would you like to discuss the implications of these models or explore how they might apply in real-world scenarios? Q - These are great, let's keep them coming. How about Anarchy as a political philosophy? Excellent choice. Anarchy as a political philosophy offers an interesting case study for our cognitive flexibility model. Let's explore how someone might embody anarchist beliefs at each of the five levels: Rigid Defender (Dogmatic Anarchist): Rejects all forms of hierarchy and authority without nuance Views any form of government as inherently oppressive and evil Dismisses all historical examples of functional states as propaganda May advocate for immediate, total dismantling of all societal structures Sees violence against the state as always justified Refuses to engage with or consider any arguments in favor of governance Resistant Rationalizer (Defensive Anarchist): Acknowledges some benefits of social organization but always finds ways to attribute them to non-hierarchical structures Engages in whataboutism when confronted with challenges to anarchist ideas (e.g., "But what about state violence?") Minimizes or rationalizes away examples of failed anarchist experiments Tends to romanticize pre-state societies or small-scale anarchist communities Seeks out and shares only pro-anarchist information, dismissing contrary evidence Conflicted Compartmentalizer (Questioning Anarchist): Believes in core anarchist principles but struggles with practical implementation Experiences cognitive dissonance when considering complex societal issues that seem to require some form of governance May support some limited, decentralized forms of organization while maintaining overall anarchist ideology Compartmentalizes, separating ideal anarchy from real-world challenges Feels conflicted about participating in current societal structures (e.g., voting, using government services) Open Evaluator (Critical Anarchist): Critically examines both the strengths and weaknesses of anarchist theory and practice Seeks to understand why certain anarchist ideas succeed or fail in different contexts Considers insights from other political theories that might complement or challenge anarchist ideas Advocates for evidence-based anarchist practices rather than ideological purity Engages in constructive debates with both supporters and critics of anarchism Explores various schools of anarchist thought (e.g., anarcho-syndicalism, green anarchism) and their applicability Adaptive Integrator (Nuanced Anarchist Thinker): Holds anarchist values but integrates them into a broader, more flexible worldview Recognizes the complexity of human societies and the need for adaptive, context-specific solutions Advocates for a nuanced approach that combines anarchist principles with insights from other political and social theories Reflects deeply on the ethical implications and practical challenges of implementing anarchist ideas in a complex, interconnected world Uses anarchist framework as a starting point for innovative solutions to contemporary issues, rather than a rigid doctrine Might propose or support transitional models that gradually reduce hierarchies and increase direct democracy Explores how technology (e.g., blockchain, decentralized networks) might enable new forms of non-hierarchical organization At this highest level, the individual might develop highly personalized and evolving understanding of anarchy. They could, for instance, advocate for a society with radically decentralized decision-making processes, but acknowledge the need for some form of coordination for large-scale issues like climate change or public health crises. They might explore how anarchist principles could be applied within existing structures to gradually transform them. This progression demonstrates how increased cognitive flexibility allows for a more nuanced, critical, and adaptive approach to the political philosophy of anarchism. It shows the shift from a simplistic "smash the state" mentality to a more complex, contextual understanding of power, organization, and human cooperation.

Doesn't have to be either-or thing. He can genuinely believe he's doing good for the world, while operating from a place of ignorance and self-deception. Which is what I see as most likely. It doesn't make him a good person. Hitler genuinely thought he was doing what necessary to save European civilization from existential threats, which he imagined to be very real.

Oooooph... Aftering watched some clips, calling that Elon-Trump interview a shitshow is severely under selling it. While it almost certainly won't have the same impact as Biden's disastrous debate performance, Trump has been declining in a very noticeable way that's going to be hard to hide. Only now it's Trump, rather than Biden, that's the decrepit old man. Would be sad to see if Trump wasn't such a terrible human being, and if his continued health and well being wasn't detrimental to so many.

A good heuristics is: 'don't let your intellectual models do your thinking for you'. If your metamodels are leading you to deliver canned answers, it's a good indication that it might be time to set them aside. For what it's worth this just doesn't apply to this Forum, but at one point I was part of a Spiral Dynamics discussion group that contained some very smart people, and I would see this happen all the time.

Learn Spiral Dynamics, and then set it aside IMHO. If you rely too much on it, it can become a form of epistemological bypassing.

I've used both. For creative tasks brainstorming, and contemplative exercises I much prefer Claude. While ChatGPT is preferable for stuff like coding.

Scientism is the 'I'm not like other girls' of epistemologies 😆

Thought I might share this write-up for my philosophy book, '7 Provisional Truths', on how Scientism is an incoherent perspective that's parasitical upon genuine science. Some additional context for this section is that it's part of a chapter which critiques Transcendental Rationality in favor of Metarationality, using conceptual categories to illustrate how context and perspective are features - not bugs - of human reason. * Note that 'Transcendental' here, refers to the viewpoint that ideas and concepts transcend our human perspective, and are inherent features of a mind-independent Reality. (Plato's 'Theory of Forms' is an excellent example of this kind of thinking, along with Scientific Realism and Kantian Idealism). ____________________________________________________________ Transcendental Illusions: The Scientism Trap At its core, this phenomenological approach to categories seeks to embrace, rather than transcend, the limitations of our human perspective. Beyond how counterintuitive this approach may seem, an additional objection might be raised. Doesn't a means of accounting for our human biases already exist, built into the structure of the scientific method? To address this objection, we first need to distinguish between simplified portrayals of the scientific method in popular culture, and how it operates in a real-world context. These portrayals tend to overlook the integral role of human interpretation in scientific inquiry. In this folk understanding, scientific practice consists of a gradual accumulation of perspectiveless, uninterpreted ‘facts’, retrieved from a mind-independent Reality. In actuality, science is heavily interpretative; driven by a productive tension between competing viewpoints that, despite their differences, ultimately fuels scientific progress. While this tension between competing viewpoints is crucial for scientific progress, it operates within a structured framework. This framework, known as the scientific method, provides the rigor and consistency that distinguishes science from other forms of inquiry. A more thorough characterization of science, therefore, must begin with the scientific method. The scientific method is a systematic process for investigating the behavior of the natural world. It uses careful observation and controlled experimentation to develop iterative, falsifiable models that distinguish true cause-and-effect relationships from coincidental patterns. Much could be said about the degree to which science achieves this laudable aim in practice. For our present purposes, we’ll confine ourselves to what this more nuanced perspective on the scientific method means for our intuitions about categories. In essence, it demolishes the assumed link between ‘Transcendental Categories’ and genuine scientific principles, exposing noticeable shortcomings in folk theories of science. What’s essential to understand about this assumed link is that it’s derived from metaphysical assumptions, not a rigorous application of scientific principles. The supposition that our conceptual categories are transcendent representations of a mind-independent Reality is not a falsifiable conclusion that can be evaluated through controlled scientific experimentation. Instead, it’s a starting assumption that incorrectly gets associated with the precision and authority of science. The same critique also applies to ‘‘Transcendental Objectivity’ and ‘Transcendental Reason’. At their core, these Transcendental epistemologies exhibit a parasitical relationship with science; riding the coattails of its authority, while foregoing the rigor that makes science a credible source of knowledge. Unlike scientific theories, which are subject to testing and falsification, these transcendental concepts are beyond the scope of controlled experimentation. This would be fine, since not every type of truth is amenable to the methods of science (including many of the ideas within this book), except that Transcendental epistemology is often veiled within an aura of unassailable truth. This is problematic because it reinforces a distorted perception of science that’s disconnected from how the discipline actually operates. At its worst, Transcendental epistemology can morph into a view known as scientism. This perspective, while claiming to champion science, actually misrepresents it in a profound way. In contrast to genuine science, scientism is a murky chimera of scientific aesthetics and metaphysical suppositions. It contends that the only ‘valid’ forms of truth are those that are amenable to the scientific method. While at the same time, it insists that Transcendental metaphysical assumptions, which are beyond the scope of science, are absolutely true. Needless to say, this is an inconsistent, and arguably incoherent, viewpoint; it’s the epistemological equivalent of trying to have one’s cake and eat it too.

Absolutely 👍

@Leo Gura I believe you mentioned that you were writing a book, but it's been awhile since I've heard anything else about it. Any details about the book that you'd be comfortable sharing?

Thanks for asking. I estimate that it's about %30-40 written at this point, so most likely another 2-3 years until it's completed, since I'm writing it in my spare time. (While also being mindful to maintain a sustainable pace to avoid burnout). Going to continue putting chapters on my website as I complete them, for anyone who's interested. Should also have a recording of a presentation on the material by the end of the summer, that I'm planning on giving at a Metrationality conference I'll be attending.

If we're sticking with Spanish, how about 'la caca naranja'? 😆

Partisan Loyalty Without Issue Awareness: They may vote consistently for a party without a deep understanding of that party's current platform. Brings to mind that a shocking number of Americans have zero idea which political party is behind major policies that impact them directly. A good recent example are misconceptions that Biden's $35 a month insulin price cap was a bipartisan effort, when in actuality every single Republican voted against it. Many of these folks knew someone (such as an elderly family member) who directly benefited from this policy. I personally know people who bitch and moan that the economy isn't working for ordinary Americans, or that our taxes should be doing more to help poor people. And when elections come around they cast their ballots for the Republican Party. It's kind of wild how banal this sort of thing has become, to be honest.

Thought it might be interesting / useful to have a more precise definition of a 'low information voter'. Of these, 'Partisan Loyalty Without Issue Awareness', 'Reliance on Entertainment-Focused Media', and 'Overreliance on Simplistic Narratives' stood out as particularly relevant right now. _________________________ Q - "What would be some reasonable heuristics for precisely defining a 'low information voter', in the context of contemporary American politics?" ChatGPT: Defining "low information voters" (LIVs) in the context of contemporary American politics involves identifying characteristics and behaviors associated with limited political knowledge, awareness, or engagement. Here are some reasonable heuristics: 1) Limited Political Knowledge: Low Awareness of Issues: LIVs may lack detailed understanding of key political issues, policies, or candidates' platforms. Limited Knowledge of Political Processes: They might be unfamiliar with how government institutions work or the roles of different political offices. 2) Media Consumption: Reliance on Entertainment-Focused Media: LIVs may primarily consume news from entertainment-oriented sources, social media, or platforms with low journalistic standards. Infrequent News Consumption: They may rarely follow political news or only do so during major events like elections. 3) Voting Behavior: Single-Issue Voting: LIVs may vote based on a single issue, often without considering broader implications or the full spectrum of a candidate’s policies. Partisan Loyalty Without Issue Awareness: They may vote consistently for a party without a deep understanding of that party's current platform. 4) Civic Engagement: Low Participation in Civic Activities: LIVs might not engage in civic activities such as attending town halls, participating in political discussions, or volunteering for campaigns. Limited Research Before Voting: They may decide how to vote with minimal research or consideration of the candidates and issues on the ballot. 5) Cognitive Engagement: Minimal Critical Thinking Applied to Politics: LIVs might not critically analyze political information or question the validity of sources. Overreliance on Simplistic Narratives: They may prefer and accept simple, often emotional narratives over more complex and nuanced explanations. These heuristics aim to capture the characteristics of voters who engage less deeply with political information and processes, leading to less informed voting decisions. However, it’s important to recognize that this concept is subjective and can be influenced by bias in how information is judged as "low" or "high" quality. Q - "What percentage of Americans might fit these heuristics? A super rough estimate is okay" ChatGPT: A super rough estimate might suggest that around 25% to 40% of American voters could fit the description of "low information voters" based on the heuristics mentioned. This estimate considers several factors: Media Consumption Habits: Surveys show that a significant portion of Americans get their news from social media or entertainment-based sources, which tend to provide less comprehensive coverage of political issues. Political Knowledge and Engagement: Research has often found that a sizable portion of the electorate is not well-informed about political processes, candidates, or policy details. For instance, polls often reveal gaps in basic political knowledge or low engagement with political news. Voting Behavior: Many voters make decisions based on party loyalty, single issues, or the appeal of a candidate's personality, rather than a detailed understanding of platforms. While this estimate is rough and somewhat speculative, it reflects the idea that a considerable minority of the electorate may not be highly informed or engaged in a nuanced way with political issues.

@Leo Gura Thanks for the reply. Take care of yourself Leo, hope your health issues improve. Appreciate ya', and looking forward to whatever you put out in the future

@NightHawkBuzz You've fallen prey to a Christian Nationalist cult of personality, my man. These folks are currently trying to destroy American democracy. Healthy conservatism has a constructive role to play in American politics and culture, but this ain't it. It's the most warped and destructive version of those values.

While it's very much true that the world is far better off today than it was in the past, it's a fact that's not of much use to people who are being harmed and exploited today. Too often people like Stephen Pinker (some of whose work I do find valuable) use it to hand-wave and apologize for current serious systemic failures. Imagine telling a black person living under Jim Crow in the 1950s : "Sure you live in an apartheid regime that denies you basic rights and you're a second class citizen in your own country, but did you know that things are less bad for your people right now than at any point in history? While that may be true from a comparative standpoint, you shouldn't be surprised when they kindly tell you to fuck off. 😆

😂😂😂 Best use of a meme I've seen on the Forum in some time. Kudos.

Thought I might add this follow up section, which touches upon the misconception that a Transcendental interpretation of categories is 'scientific'. _________________________________________________ Why Our Limitations Matter The first of these potential pitfalls involves a misconstrual of what this ‘shot across the bow’ to absolute knowledge actually entails. The assertion that conceptual categories aren’t a retrieval of mind-independent distinctions that are ‘out there’ in the world may seem strange. This strangeness is understandable. We live in a scientific culture that’s long since dethroned mankind from the center of the universe, and the suggestion that categories aren’t external to us may seem as if it flies in the face of established knowledge. Naturally, this rejection of mind-independent categories raises some questions, chief among them: doesn’t it resurrect the outdated idea that we occupy a privileged position at the center of Reality? After all, our everyday categories certainly seem to correspond to external, mind-independent distinctions. Before we tackle these concerns, let’s introduce some shorthand that will be helpful going forward. We’ll use ‘Transcendental Categories’ to refer to the tacit assumption that conceptual categories are fixed features of Reality which transcend our human perspective. By contrast, recall that phenomenology is a methodology for scrutinizing how the world shows up for us in the directness of our lived experience. ‘Phenomenological Categories’, then, refers to the idea that categories are anthropocentric schemas that arise from our embodied interactions with the world. With this shorthand in mind, let’s return to the issues that are raised by this phenomenological interpretation of categories. The key question is whether it contradicts well-established observations that we have good reason to trust. To that end, let’s look at it from the perspective of modern science. One of the underlying assumptions of modern science, known as the Mediocrity Principle, holds that we have no inherently privileged position within the cosmos. It’s a denial that our cosmic vantage point holds any special importance within the grand scheme of the universe, just because we happen to be occupying it. Essentially, the principle aims to avoid introducing unintentional anthropocentric bias into our study of the natural world. This is a noble intention, not just for scientific inquiry, but for philosophical investigation as well. Given its emphasis on how conceptual categories are unavoidably anthropocentric, it may be surprising to discover that this phenomenological approach doesn’t contradict the Mediocrity Principle. Instead, it extends it in a more fundamental way. By emphasizing how categories are grounded in a human perspective, we can avoid projecting our own needs, interests, and capacities onto nature. Counterintuitively, by acknowledging the anthropocentric origins of our categories, we gain the ability to critically examine their limitations. This is important because it facilitates a far less biased interpretation of their meaning and significance. Consequently, this phenomenological perspective stands in sharp contrast to the unrealistic assumption that our categories are transcendent representations of a mind-independent Reality. In sum, we gain notable clarity by questioning this insistence that there’s a single correct understanding of Reality that transcends the human perspective. By embracing this human vantage point, and incorporating its underlying limitations into our abstractions, we more effectively safeguard ourselves against self-deception as we interpret Reality through these frameworks.

I thought I might share this write up on meta-rationality which I drafted for the philosophy book I'm working on, 7 Provisional Truths. In it I discuss both the usefulness and limitations of conceptual categories, and make the case that 'Reason' is inherently tied to a human perspective within Reality. And that this is a feature - not a bug - of rationality. _______________________________________________________________________ Context Is King for Categorization What a context refers to is the background situation and circumstances that shape our interpretation of something. Consider spoken language, for instance - and the degree to which tone, body language, and personal relationships contribute to the meaning of a verbal conversation. Although we readily recognize context’s influence on speech, we often fail to acknowledge its foundational importance for the categories we use to make sense of the world. Notably, this contextual influence doesn’t just apply to elusive categories like ‘truth’ and ‘beauty’, whose meanings have been discussed and debated for centuries. It extends to concrete phenomena in the everyday world as well. This includes material objects like tables and chairs, sensory properties like color and texture, and even spatiotemporal fundamentals like space and time. Our intuitions tell us that these everyday categories correspond to ‘objective’ categories that exist in nature; yet this is a mistaken assumption. As we’ll discover, a more complex and fascinating truth awaits us, if we can let go of our rigid insistence that our categories are mirrors of Reality. The roots of this deceptive intuition arise from a fundamental misunderstanding about the formation and function of the categories we use. Conceptual categories, even for seemingly concrete things, aren’t a straightforward retrieval of pre-existing distinctions that are ‘out there’ in the world. Instead, they are more like mental frameworks that help us make sense of our embodied experience. These mental frameworks, or schemas, are inherently tailored to our needs, capacities, and purposes as human beings. In this sense, categories are unavoidably anthropocentric - reflecting our uniquely human perspective within Reality. A schema, simply put, is a pattern for organizing and interpreting information within a given domain. Categories, then, can be understood as anthropocentric schemas, which are unavoidably tied to our embodied experience within the world. This understanding of categories as anthropocentric schemas reveals an important insight into their formation and structure. At their core, categories are functional rather than objective. Their purpose is to help us make predictive generalizations about what we encounter within the world, which is integral to our ability to reason. Reason, then, is our capacity to manipulate and extend these ‘predictive generalizations’ - using them to draw inferences, predict patterns, and reflect upon our embodied experience. A closer look at the formation and structure of categories also invites us to reexamine many of our intuitions about Reason - chief among them, the prevailing assumption that Reason is primarily a detached, intellectual activity. This traditional view presupposes that reason is inherently transcendental, meaning that it literally transcends our human perspective. Reason, in this view, is an inherent feature of Reality, independent of any thinking beings. Going forward, we’ll refer to this perspective as Transcendental Reason. When we use the word ‘Reason’ with a capital R, it’s to this transcendental conception of Reason that we’re referring. The alternative perspective we’ll be exploring aims to show how human reason arises from our embodied, everyday experience - and that reasoning relies significantly upon emotion, imagination, and metaphor. In contrast to capital 'R' Reason, when we use the word with a lowercase 'r', it's to this embodied, human reason that we refer. In connection with this alternate account of reason, we’ll also challenge prevailing assumptions around ‘Objectivity’. These notions often presuppose that there’s a single, correct view of Reality that transcends our human perspective - in essence, a ‘‘Transcendental Objectivity’. In contrast to the transcendental perspective, what we’ll be articulating is a fundamentally ‘human objectivity’. Where the focus is on leveraging a shared human context to arrive at common forms of understanding, without resorting to the unrealistic idea that Reality can be understood from a 'neutral', perspective-free viewpoint. As with our account of ‘Reason’ and ‘reason’, we’ll use a capital ‘O’ when we’re referring to Transcendental Objectivity, and a lowercase ‘o’ for human objectivity. So why draw attention to these distinctions? It’s to highlight that being bound within a context and a perspective isn’t a ‘flaw’ of human reasoning - it’s an essential feature. The epistemological ramifications of this observation are huge. In essence, it’s a ‘shot across the bow’ to notions that we can have absolute or universal knowledge.

Section 3 of 14th Amendment wasn't just written for the Confederacy, it's eminently reasonable to interpret that it was meant to apply to any other violent insurrection attempts in the future as well. Doesn't seem like there should be much ambiguity for anyone who's actually adhering to the spirit of the law in good faith. Trump inciting a violent mob to stop a peaceful transfer of power is a good faith interpretation of an 'insurrection'. Republican claims that Biden's handling of the Southern border somehow constitutes an 'insurrection' is not. In other words, it's almost impossible to write a law that's completely immune from Bad Faith interpretation. (This is leaving aside that it would be better for the country if Trump is defeated at the ballot box, rather than being disqualified. The Law seems pretty clear on this).

I suggest that you introspect on where those feelings are coming from. It's all too easy to misconstrue our feelings of personal discomfort into moral outrage. It's a form of psychological projection that I would invite you to examine. It's okay to feel personally uncomfortable with a lifestyle that feels unfamiliar to you - it's not okay to use that discomfort as justification to dehumanize those people or to strip them of their rights. Maybe you should get to actually know some LGBTQ individuals? Doing so will give you an opportunity to see that they're just regular people, not the abnormal Boogeyman that you're imaging them to be. If you jump into politics without working on integrating this obvious shadow that you have, you'll just end up making the world a worse place.