| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
 |
|
Companion piece for Man in Pub
I believe for every drop of rain that falls, a flower grows
In a previous story https://medium.com/p/65fdf9c97ef9 I explained why, when presented with a novel idea, your first reaction is to reject it. Since the human brain does not have a holding store for ‘new ideas, rejected, but worth revisiting at leisure’ that is the end of the matter. It is why everything you believe is the same as everything your friends and acquaintances believe. Pretty much.
For you, this is not a satisfactory position. One of the things you believe is that you have chosen those beliefs after mature consideration and would change them, if necessary, in the light of new information. Since that hasn’t happened in living memory, you have the following choices
1. Reject the idea everyone you know believes all the same things you believe. Since they do (after making all due allowances) this is not possible.
2. Carefully ignore the fact that everyone you know believes the same things you believe. Since I have just told you, this is not possible.
3. Assume all the things you believe happen to be true, over and above the fact you happen to believe them, and that therefore you and everyone you know is fully justified in believing them.
Luckily for you, your brain agrees with you — it’s (3). Since it
* would not retain anything known not to be true
* rejects new and contrary ideas automatically
* doesn’t have a holding store for considering doubtful cases
* has held the same beliefs long enough for contrary evidence to accrue
* is always in the company of people who believe the same things…
it doesn’t have a lot of choice.
Now the only thing left is to account for all those people who believe things you don’t believe. But you have already done that. They are mad, bad and dangerous to know. Phew. You thought for a moment…
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Re-reading this I realise the crucial bit is
| 3. Assume all the things you believe happen to be true, over and above the fact you happen to believe them, and that therefore you and everyone you know is fully justified in believing them. |
Since you assume everything in your brain is true--otherwise you would have rejected it--this doesn't make much sense. I think I am probably referring to 'paradigms' or some other special category of knowledge. Maybe the ones academics refer to as 'overwhelmingly supported by the evidence'. Maybe the ones people refer to as 'it's a moral issue, simple as that'. Something. Worth thinking on't.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
Not at all sure about this.
My first reaction with novel ideas that fit into my general framework of thinking is to accept, as it surely must be right, why bother expending energy trying to disprove it? It neatly fits. It's helpful.
I only have a problem with novel ideas that throw into question my general world view, if I come across these, I will fight against them or maybe, as a great unique thinker/inventor (surely?), evetually reconcile with this new idea as a fascinating paradox.........of course without changing my view.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| My first reaction with novel ideas that fit into my general framework of thinking is to accept |
Yes, of course, that is what everyone does. But it cannot be a 'novel' idea if it fits into your general framework, it would be more by way of new wrinkle of a familiar idea.
| as it surely must be right, why bother expending energy trying to disprove it? It neatly fits. It's helpful. |
That is exactly what we are battling against. 'New material' is always being presented to us as merely an extension of and thereby a strengthening of orthodoxy.
| I only have a problem with novel ideas that throw into question my general world view, if I come across these |
You talk as if this is an everyday event yet I doubt if you could name, say, the last two occasions when it happened. Even the last one.
| I will fight against them or maybe, as a great unique thinker/inventor (surely?), evetually reconcile with this new idea as a fascinating paradox.........of course without changing my view. |
If you say so. And let us remember, you are either unusually trained or have arrived here unusually.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: |
| I only have a problem with novel ideas that throw into question my general world view, if I come across these |
You talk as if this is an everyday event yet I doubt if you could name, say, the last two occasions when it happened. Even the last one.
|
That might be true if I didn't read your posts. The last one was when you did your mini series on the Nation State. Still, I learnt something. You just didn't notice......
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
An interesting example. If (somehow) people can be exposed over time, the oil tanker is capable of changing course. But only if, as in this case, there is no real established paradigm that needs replacing.
But I don't really include you in any of this. You're one of the Old Incorrigibles. Not the least remarkable of which is that even their numbers are in constant decline so far as I can see. We're like sharks, if we don't keep moving forward we become mackerel.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
|
It's very difficult to take in novel ideas that challenge your first instincts. First of all you have to mentally treat the new idea as very profound, really try hard and make it work, only then can you treat it as idiotic and refute it. Least that is I how I understood you from yonks ago. I don't know, it works for me now.. I can't change now even if I hadn't grasped the AE method.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
This is the heart of the matter. I'll give it some thought and try to write something up.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| It's very difficult to take in novel ideas that challenge your first instincts. |
We have to assume there is a difference between AE-trained people (or a certain category of people) and people. For the latter, I would amend 'very difficult' to 'impossible'. I don't know if the brain can tell what's a first instinct and what isn't but if we assume we all have some vague idea of what's fundamental and what isn't, this is probably fair enough.
In terms of brain chemistry it would presumably be a matter of how far down the tangle of synapses you have to go. The brain doesn't mind how far it has to go down, it minds having to rip them out. We are all familiar with the 'Blimey, I didn't realise that' thought because presumably the brain does not object to a little bit of light gardening at the top.
| First of all you have to mentally treat the new idea as very profound |
It cannot be regarded as profound because that carries the weight of 'important, must be dealt with'. That is why 'fruitcake', 'conspiracy theorist' and suchlike are hurled around. And why, when it comes from an established authority, such fury is generated.
| really try hard and make it work |
Since the person providing the new theory has already 'made it work', this must never be undertaken. The paradox is that the more work put in to establishing a hypothesis, the more effort has to be undertaken to understand it, and the easier it is to say 'Sorry, life's too short, I've got a train to catch' and other variants of careful ignoral.
| only then can you treat it as idiotic |
You brain knows it will not be 'idiotic'. If it has arrived at your ear it will have already passed that test. Even the strangest internet-generated notion will have a logic of sorts. This is important for AEists since once you have been accused of idiocy, it is a very low hurdle demonstrating, whatever else it may be, it is not idiotic. Opponents that say 'You are wrong' are much harder to deal with.
This is the tough bit (for responders). Unless they happen to be specialists in the very narrow area of the new theory, they will have nowhere near the expertise of the proposer, and will find refuting it impossible. That is why we hear so often, "Well, I'm afraid it's not my area so I cannot comment further. But good luck, we appreciate new input, I'm sure we all get complacent from time to time" -- after spending the last half hour attacking it viciously because it was their area and they thought you were a baboon.
| Least that is I how I understood you from yonks ago. I don't know, it works for me now.. I can't change now even if I hadn't grasped the AE method. |
You may have arrived at the position where you compulsively see error everywhere. People call this contrarianism (there are less polite terms) but basically it's just because human beings don't operate at any analytical depth more profound than housewives gossiping over the fence. Except they're pretty clued in as to what's going on, so better 'liberals at dinner parties'.
Anyone who has a modicum of training can spot that virtually everything said is challengeable. Yet no dinner party guest or garden gate housewife has ever done so. In my hearing anyway. I'd have married them if I had.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
The In the Pub with M J Harper story (on the previous page) has had an interesting backwash, AE-wise. The exchange here is between me and Pete Jones, something of a fan of mine (he even claims to have read RevHist)
| Pete Jones wrote: | | I have a friend, a well-heeled attorney, who reacts this way to everything. He's skeptical and smart in a very specific way. He suspects that the real answer is always the familiar answer. His version of Occam's razor is that alternative theories can't possibly be right because if they were, that would be a form of multiplying variables...a second explanation for phenomena being one variable too many. In the end, he distrusts academia, politicians, any given PhD-possessing writer...yet he ends up endorsing every paradigm theory he can find on Wikipedia. |
| Mick Harper wrote: | | But that makes a huge difference. If it's in Wiki, it has already gone through the mill, there's no need for your friend to do it as well. He doesn't bring anything to the table. Which is why it's set in a pub. The bloke across the table is defenceless and he is confronted by someone who knows more or less everything there is to know about this new whatever it is. So he's got to use the blanket defence. |
| Pete Jones, a week later, wrote: | Mick, I had a great experience just now. I provided your recent article on grooming gangs to the above-referenced attorney friend. He rejected it immediately. He said it didn't make sense. I said that you'd asserted some facts about northern British provincial towns that neither he nor I (being Americans) were aware of. I asked if he'd ever been to any northern British provincial towns, much less their fast food joints. He responded like this:
"Never. I’m not saying that I can speak with authority but it just doesn’t make much sense to me. I have buddies that are Indian by heritage but they’re born and bred Americans and they’ve dated whites"
I then accused him of acting like the bloke in the pub, at least sort of. He also added what looks like a total non sequitur, which is doing the Bloke in Pub one better. For the sake of my argument with my friends about this, could you tell me how you know that the facts leading up to criminality are actually facts? |
| Mick Harper wrote: | | This is difficult since it is such a familiar part of the landscape. I suppose the US equivalent would be 'hanging around the mall'. Which are either absent or closed in the evening in English towns. I obtained the 'facts' from TV documentaries which always feature eye witness statements from victims. They are not disputed as far as I know and would be contained in any official report, of which there are many. Sorry, best I can do. |
I'll post up the 'grooming gangs' story for context. Let me know if I've got anything wrong.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Musk hits out at grooming gangs
British Prime Minister hits back
A fearful kerfuffle has broken out between the top echelons of the ‘special relationship’. Between the conservatism of the new Trump/Musk administration in America and the progressivism of the new Labour government in Britain. It concerns ‘grooming gangs’ in the northern towns of England.
As an applied epistemologist with a sound knowledge of the relevant subject areas and a contempt for conservatism and progressivism, I am in an excellent position to cast light on the row but I should warn you in advance that since you are either a conservative or a progressive you will be offended by about half of the things I will be saying so please stop reading when it gets too much as I have to live amongst you.
Fact One
English provincial towns are somewhat impoverished in the provision of leisure activities for young teenage girls so there is always a substantial number of them ‘looking for action’.
Fact Two
This generally amounts to hanging around in groups experimenting with alcohol, soft drugs, casual sex and so on and so forth. Perfectly normal behaviour given British societal norms.
Fact Three
For sustenance they look to fast food outlets.
Fact Four
Fast food outlets in English provincial towns are operated for the most part by men of (as the saying goes) Pakistani heritage.
Fact Five
Men of Pakistani heritage in English provincial towns form inchoate but significant social networks based partly on kinship and partly on consciousness of forming a minority which is, to some degree or other, distinct to the local community.
Fact Six
Men of Pakistani heritage in English provincial towns operate in a sexual environment that does not conform to local societal norms. They are not permitted to form casual sexual relationships with women of Pakistani heritage nor encouraged to form serious sexual relationships with non-Pakistani women.
Fact Seven
Hence when mildly feral English teenage girls with (by Pakistani standards) louche sexual morals and not much money start hanging around fast food joints, liaisons of various sorts are pretty much on the cards.
Fact Eight
This is all for the most part desperately harmless. English teenage girls can run rings round Pakistani men when it comes to trading sexual favours for fast food and in the fullness of time both parties grow older, if not wiser, and take their place in their respective societies.
Fact Nine
The local authorities — parents, police, social services, parks and recreation etc — are naturally aware of all this. They may not approve but since there is not a lot they can do about it and it is not engendering a great deal of interest from (either of) the local communities, they let sleeping dogs lie.
Fact Ten
Except sometimes. If girls under the age of sexual consent (sixteen in Britain) are involved, if girls with mental health issues are involved, if girls ‘in care’ are involved, if Pakistani men with ambitions to exploit the situation by grooming and providing teenage girls to other Pakistani men for money are involved, then serious crimes of various sorts can ensue. And do.
Facts Eleven, Twelve, Thirteen…n
Various shits hit various fans.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
I had this exchange yesterday after posting a piece on the Californian wildfires and instancing the Deserts video.
| Pete Jones wrote: | | It's a great video and further research should be funded by a billionaire interested endowing the Department of Discordant Facts and Doubtful Cases. My recurring question on such ideas that you write about is this: how many other people are contributing to this (and other AE ideas you mention)? |
| Mick Harper wrote: | | Not an easy question to answer. If I said 'not many' it would be an exaggeration. Think of a grain of sand hurled into a stagnant pool. |
| Pete Jones wrote: | | I located the AE forum from the link in one of your books.... Is that still actively used? I have meaning to go through it in detail, machete-ing my way through what appears to be British humor I don't get and ironies (maybe?) that are sailing over my head. |
| Mick Harper wrote: | Yes, though much of it goes on in the Reading Room which is for future books being written a section a day ('it's the only way!') and is not publicly accessible. Most of the daily action, such as it is, is in the Politics section, and the Sport and TV threads in New Concepts (Medium stuff is under Cabinet of Curiosities, natch). Forgery material pops up regularly in British History. As you know.
You might have a browse in the Applied Epistemology section where theory gets bandied around but otherwise pick your poison. You can always find me at [email protected]. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
| As an applied epistemologist with a sound knowledge of the relevant subject areas and a contempt for conservatism and progressivism, I am in an excellent position to cast light on the row |
What is the difference between a "paedophile ring" and "a grooming gang".....?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Nothing as far as I know. I doubt there are, or ever have been, either in the Pakistani (heritage) populations of English towns. If nothing else, the whole town would have known about them in five minutes flat. That's why paedophile rings and grooming gangs are characteristically confined to closed institutions like churches, public schools, sports clubs et al.
A 'gang' or a 'ring' bespeaks of 'organised for the purpose'. The casual passing on of pliant girls does not count in my book. I am happy to concede that there might have been more than this occasionally but not on the scale of 'tens of thousands of children' that the Official Reports and the newspaper headlines routinely refer to.
'Paedophile' in this context is a complete red herring. Just as the word 'rape' is. We are talking about consenting young women. I am happy to acknowledge that, legally speaking, there are questions of 'under the age of consent' and 'statutory rape' -- and again the occasional exception when the facts amounted to more than this -- but it just ain't like they're making it out.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
The ineffable Mark Zuckerberg has announced Facebook is scrapping professional 'fact checkers' to combat the menace of misinformation and is going over to the Community Notes system pioneered by Elon Musk on X. I won't comment here on whether this is a sound policy or not--both systems have their good and bad points--but it may be quite a significant development from our point of view.
We are unusual in proposing unorthodox ideas that are novel, and therefore have no pre-existing opposition. This is in contrast to 'misinformation' people who are putting forward ideas that are either of the conspiracy-theory type or are just plain mischievous. But either way they have a built-in opposition. So what happens with the two systems, specialist Fact-Checkers and generalised Community Notes?
1. Fact Checkers pick up misinformation because it is so widespread it comes to their notice and is dealt with.
2. Fact Checkers don't pick up our stuff mostly because it is not sufficiently widespread to get noticed but even if it is, fact-checkers would likely recognise it is not 'misinformation'.
3. Community Notes pick up misinformation because it is so widespread it is sure to attract CN's and then presumably action will be taken.
4. But our stuff will attract CN's because though not widespread we do get attacked when we do appear. Instead of, as now, just receiving a few oppositional posts, some opponents will likely avail themselves of a Community Note to express their disapproval.
When these CN's are brought to the attention of Facebook or X for possible action, there is a clear difference between some sad sack maundering on (us at present) and some sad sack saying stuff that rank-and-file people on Facebook and X think is mischievous. What happens then? That I don't know but it strikes me as quite a good thing either way. We won't be carefully ignored quite so easily.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
