Ed Hudgins

After the Apocalypse, Try Reason!

Recommended Posts

We have been over a few stats on OL, not too long ago with Phil and Carol and me and you digging around for some metrics. They were not shockingly awful, but perhaps sobering for Americans to hear they were not number one in all measures.

If say Canada is number one at 97 and Finland is number two at 96 and America is number nine at 93, all it would tell me is USA Top Ten, baby!!

I do not believe that I engaged a lot in that discussion about the metrics and education as much as I wanted to. Additionally, I am extremely suspicious of the "scores" that are reported by the Department of "Education" which form the "metrics" that refer to the US position in the world rankings that you posted.

Suspicion -- even extreme suspicion -- of metrics is a useful, skeptical starting point, especially when a long-standing bias or incompetence can be shown. Suspicion alone is not indicative, however -- we have to dig in to find the errors and correct misapprehensions.

Before I get us in a snarl of issues, consider what I think you are hoping to illuminate: it looks to me like you are most disturbed by the dark spots where educational achievements are behind the norm, not the general light tint of 88% (77%) high-school completion by say the National Center for Education Statistics, but the pockets of failure that seem to have persisted and deepened. I dare say, Adam, that the bone-deep wound you want to cleanse is in central Detroit, LA, NYC, Cleveland, Miami and so on, places where all metrics indicate an entrenched problem.

Maybe you are not impressed by the Guardian/OECD stats because they do not measure such things as Columbus, Ohio drop-out rates compared to the norm . . .

50mostpopulous.png

It is true that you did not engage much in the couple of threads that featured quantitative measures, and I should point out that there were actually very few metrics put forward. In the main, we looked at the Guardian story of the three-measure international standings in education; in this case, Adam, the figures were not derived from US DOE figures but from actual international surveys by the OECD.

The reality on the ground is apparently a disaster. Detroit just reports that the illiteracy rate is around forty seven (47%) percent.

[ . . . ]

Newark High Schools in NJ graduate less than 50%.

This is the wound, then?

mmetroNYC.png

If so, then I think you will like the tool at Edweek.com, where you can check the drop-out rates school district by school district. It is pretty dire, especially the underclass problem that Brant alluded to. We don't have anything like it here in socialist hellhole Finland Canada, the central racial/ethnic core concentrations and divergences:

edweekSchooldistricts.png

Here is another graphic that makes sense of the urban educational divide, from the New York Times Census Explorer:

nytimescensusexplorer.png

Edited by william.scherk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

William:

Excellent. You do really good work. We should collaborate on a for profit project.

Yes, at the one level, the graduation statistics for NJ are indicators of the wound here, statewide there are not too many rates above 50% which are bolded. Newark is under 50%. In your link, the "proficiency" rating in the three core areas are abysmal.

I would like to develop an overlay of literacy, graduation and proficiency rates which I believe would illustrate the geographical problem of the central urban areas, but that would not address the broader problem of the "systemic infections" in the educational body.

Any competent doctor, nurse, farmer, medic or outdoors-man would be able to identify the fetid, gangrenous woulds that you indicated.

My non-metaphorical premise is that the system is methodologically diseased. The repressive, non scientific and politically correct paradigms that are driving the systems teacher evaluations, curricula, funding and day to day operations are fundamentally wrong, inefficient, unethical, repressive and anti-thinking.

I am appalled by the lack of creative thinking, critical thinking and problem solving abilities of the young students that I interact with regularly. I am very active with young folks through politics, sports and my community activities.

Once we get through the trust each other process and they are able to openly express what is actually going on in their schools, the rage and desire to change their educational track is palpable.

This expression is apparent across ethnic, racial, religious and age ranges. In fact, their desire to learn is unlimited, but terribly stifled by a system that is dysfunctional and frankly dangerous to their mental and physical health.

This systemic problem is magnified at the university level. I am really interested in following Peter Thiel's scholarship program here . He is awarding $100,000.00 scholarships to students who will quit college and be entrepreneurs

"Now they're all getting two years of mentoring from a network of tech and entrepreneurial experts and $100,000 to start a business. The benefactor? PayPal founder, early Facebook investor, and Stanford's least favorite alumnus, Peter Thiel. Least favorite because Thiel has been making waves by arguing that college is an overhyped, overpriced bubble, and that the world needs better ways to recognize young talent. It's all been great fodder for debate, but little more."

I think he is dead on correct. However, the concept of a college or academy which teaches philosophy, rhetoric, science, ethics, etc. is viable, if we returned to the future of thinking about how to think which is the goal of a university. The pursuit of truth does not need tenure, temerity or the tyranny of the intellect that has destroyed the current university's viability in my opinion.

Thanks for all the info and links.

Adam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So does this mean I should hold off paying my bills?

What difference will that make? No, if you’ve recognized the undeniable truth of what’s going to happen tomorrow, first make a choice: heaven or hell. I choose hell, the company is better. Imagine spending eternity with the kind of people who go to heaven. Ugh, sounds like hell to me (wait, now I’m getting confused).

<div style="background-color:#000000;width:368px;"><div style="padding:4px;"><embed src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:southparkstudios.com:152270" width="360" height="293" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" base="." flashVars=""></embed><p style="text-align:left;background-color:#FFFFFF;padding:4px;margin-top:4px;margin-bottom:0px;font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;"><b><a href="http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s04e11-probably">Probably</a></b><br/>Get More: <a style="display: block; position: relative; top: -1.33em; float: right; font-weight: bold; color: #ffcc00; text-decoration: none" href="http://www.southparkstudios.com/">SOUTH<br/>PARK</a><a href="http://www.southparkstudios.com/guide/episodes/s04e11-probably">more...</a></p></div></div>

<div style="background-color:#000000;width:368px;"><div style="padding:4px;"><embed src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:southparkstudios.com:152292" width="360" height="293" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" base="." flashVars=""></embed><p style="text-align:left;background-color:#FFFFFF;padding:4px;margin-top:4px;margin-bottom:0px;font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;"><b><a href="http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s04e11-probably">Probably</a></b><br/>Get More: <a style="display: block; position: relative; top: -1.33em; float: right; font-weight: bold; color: #ffcc00; text-decoration: none" href="http://www.southparkstudios.com/">SOUTH<br/>PARK</a><a href="http://www.southparkstudios.com/guide/episodes/s04e11-probably">more...</a></p></div></div>

So, how to spend these last what, 24 hours? What you can do is instead of paying bills, take that money and splurge, get your last taste of earthly pleasures. I gather you’re married, so that rules out…oh never mind. So, in your case, I suggest an expensive restaurant and, I don’t know what else, I just don’t know you well enough. Ok, here’s an idea, take your two babies with you to aforementioned restaurant, and since you’re in DC, arrange to be seated next to some plotting statists, Barney Frank and Paul Krugman are ideal candidates. Wait for the server to come by with the piping hot soup tureen, then give the prearranged signal (I’m assuming your babies are already trained to wail on command). Simulate surprise at the sudden intrusion of the klaxon blasts, execute a sitting high jump upsetting the tureen such that it lands in the lap of the one villain, while liberally splashing the other, and, well that’s about it, just enjoy the moment, for it will be among your last. Mwua-ha-ha-ha!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or maybe Harold Camping meant that the world would end for Col. Gadhafi (or Gaddafi or Qaddafi or Kadhafi).

Aww, they’re soooo cute, just look at those bright smiles and glowing cheeks!

Another sign the end has arrived, Richard Dawkins has deigned to write a piece about why he won’t debate William Lane Craig. It’s a good one.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/20/richard-dawkins-william-lane-craig

Never argue with a fool, they will lower you to their level and then beat you with experience.
-Woody Allen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a quick reminder folks, the world is going to end October 21, that's this Friday.

So how's everyone planning to celebrate the end, that is the end that's coming tomorrow? Per the Mayans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The world ends at 06:11 EST.

See you on the Other Side.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a quick reminder folks, the world is going to end October 21, that's this Friday.

So how's everyone planning to celebrate the end, that is the end that's coming tomorrow? Per the Mayans.

I was so happy that October 21 came and went.

If you have had a gander at histories of doomsday groups** (whether religious or alien-inspired), you know that the day after End-of-Days can be a troubling time. When the end of the world comes and goes (or the date for the descent of Jesus passes) and the event is not apparent to the senses, cognitive dissonance of the third kind entails.

Oddly, some research shows that although some will indeed fall out of the doom-spell, a failure of the event can often reinforce the beliefs. All manner of cognitive whoopee is performed to keep the original prophecy intact.

Thus for the Jehovah's Witnesses the end-of-the-world was explained as a dating and a conceptual problem. Same with variation for the Seventh-Day Advent. In this case the reason Jesus didn't appear was because he did appear, taking his place on the throne in the celestial places ...

I think there was a doom cult operating on a date back in late spring. If I remember rightly, the failure of the end was ascribed to the very people who were expecting it: their actions in defence of jayzuss or something caused the lord above to spare humanity.

The saddest things to hear about are the real zombie fearful folks in Russia and China, where their cults Go Wild.

Because the Mayan calendar can be likened to gears, most of us will accept that a chronometer will sometimes show a whole lot of zeros ... and then start up again at 1. Funny/sad to think that a mystical belief can trump mechanics for some deluded humans.

______________________

** "When Propecy Fails" is one though I can't remember the particular authors of bits of knock-on in since Festinger, but see this Wikipedia note on the psychological impact of failed predictions.

Edited by william.scherk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The world ends at 06:11 EST.

Are you sure they had it down to the minute like that? I mean, why not to the nanosecond if they can be so precise? Anyway, assuming you're right, then we're in the clear, hurrah! Otherwise, look out, Barry's going be singing too soon, and poetic justice will take the form of the final crackup starting right as the truly predictable key change happens late in the song:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/29/2011 at 1:48 PM, Selene said:

Metaphors most certainly are processes of reasoning and by definition are reasons.

I noticed that William just reacted to this old post with a "confused" icon. I know these days he is worried about debunking all forms of argument by analogy. I don't quite understand why, but we all have our personal quests.

For anyone interested in a symbolic line of abstract reasoning, try this book: Metaphors We Live By, by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson.

From the book (first paragraph of first chapter):

Quote

Metaphor is for most people a device of the poetic imagination and the rhetorical flourish—a matter of extraordinary rather than ordinary language. Moreover, metaphor is typically viewed as characteristic of language alone, a matter of words rather than thought or action. For this reason, most people think they can get along perfectly well without metaphor. We have found, on the contrary, that metaphor is pervasive in everyday life, not just in language but in thought and action. Our ordinary conceptual system, in terms of which we both think and act, is fundamentally metaphorical in nature.

They continue a few paragraphs later to give one illustration (of many that come later in the book):

Quote

To give some idea of what it could mean for a concept to be metaphorical and for such a concept to structure an everyday activity, let us start with the concept argument and the conceptual metaphor ARGUMENT IS WAR. This metaphor is reflected in our everyday language by a wide variety of expressions:

ARGUMENT IS WAR

Your claims are indefensible.
He attacked every weak point in my argument.
His criticisms were right on target.
I demolished his argument.
I've never won an argument with him.
You disagree? Okay, shoot!
If you use that strategy, he'll wipe you out.
He shot down all of my arguments.

It is important to see that we don't just talk about arguments in terms of war. We can actually win or lose arguments. We see the person we are arguing with as an opponent. We attack his positions and we defend our own. We gain and lose ground. We plan and use strategies. If we find a position indefensible, we can abandon it and take a new line of attack. Many of the things we do in arguing are partially structured by the concept of war. Though there is no physical battle, there is a verbal battle, and the structure of an argument—attack, defense, counterattack, etc.— reflects this. It is in this sense that the ARGUMENT IS WAR metaphor is one that we live by in this culture; it structures the actions we perform in arguing.

That's just the beginning of the rabbit hole. It goes way deeper.

As it turns out, metaphors are the building blocks of not only most higher level abstractions, but lower level as well.

It's an interesting book with interesting ideas. 

Also, as this was written by a neuroscientist who is a flaming leftie (Lakoff), it might be more palatable to some folks than an argument coming from the hoi polloi of the libertarian right.

:evil:  :) 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I noticed that William just reacted to this old post with a "confused" icon. I know these days he is worried about debunking all forms of argument by analogy. I don't quite understand why, but we all have our personal quests.

For anyone interested in a symbolic line of abstract reasoning, try this book: Metaphors We Live By, by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson.

From the book (first paragraph of first chapter):

They continue a few paragraphs later to give one illustration (of many that come later in the book):

That's just the beginning of the rabbit hole. It goes way deeper.

As it turns out, metaphors are the building blocks of not only most higher level abstractions, but lower level as well.

It's an interesting book with interesting ideas. 

Also, as this was written by a neuroscientist who is a flaming leftie (Lakoff), it might be more palatable to some folks than an argument coming from the hoi polloi of the libertarian right.

:evil:  :) 

Michael

Your key  phrase here of the quote is "building blocks",  and I love stories as much as the next person. But playing Legos with apples and oranges can get, well, rotten. 

The above I apologize for , for being a sketchy metaphor, because I for my own part am tired of the often-inappropriate use of metaphor and analogy to repeat one side of a discussion as an agreed fact. It is a sketchy metaphor for some  debate tactic which has holes in it. I forget the name of the tactic but there is something logically wrong with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, caroljane said:

Your key  phrase here of the quote is "building blocks",  and I love stories as much as the next person. But playing Legos with apples and oranges can get, well, rotten. 

The above I apologize for , for being a sketchy metaphor, because I for my own part am tired of the often-inappropriate use of metaphor and analogy to repeat one side of a discussion as an agreed fact. It is a sketchy metaphor for some  debate tactic which has holes in it. I forget the name of the tactic but there is something logically wrong with it.

I have not looked it up but it occurred to my ancient memory that the original meaning of "begging the question" may have been the term I was thinking of - meaning, to forcefully state a position, then build upon it to make an argument which was not challenged by the other side. If said memory is faulty I will stand corrected. ie expecting rhetorical questions to be answered, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn!, I mean holy galt.

A vision came to me, clear as day, of  my favourite classic movie, Airplane, and its soul-stirring last line, "Let's get started. Somebody's got to rebuild Rio de Janiero!

And immediately I heard a harsh, stern and authoritative voice saying, "Never mind Rio de wherever,Somebody's got to rebuild Epistemology."

What can it mean? I'm way late to Damascus aa it is, I don't need this!

Awed. Carol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, caroljane said:

... I for my own part am tired of the often-inappropriate use of metaphor and analogy to repeat one side of a discussion as an agreed fact.

Carol,

And to pretend that this is the only use of analogy and metaphor is, well, surfing without a wave.

:) 

btw - Does overuse of trivial gotchas as validation of one-sided agreed upon fact within a bubble? I never see you complain about them.

:) 

Anyhoo, if you ever get around to reading ITOE, look up the part about "abstracting from abstractions." When you do that, what do you think you are doing if not using metaphors?

Thinking outside the box or donning a mental straight-jacket or something?

:) 

Also, I suggest at least looking online at a book like Lakoff's before trying to blank out his ideas from existence. He's a flaming leftie, but this is a good book. This book, in fact, is one of the classics of modern understanding of how the mind works.

Just a suggestion. But I understand if you don't take it.

I wouldn't want to interrupt your awe of yourself session.

That's a sacred moment.

:) 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Carol,

And to pretend that this is the only use of analogy and metaphor is, well, surfing without a wave.

:) 

btw - Does overuse of trivial gotchas as validation of one-sided agreed upon fact within a bubble? I never see you complain about them.

:) 

Anyhoo, if you ever get around to reading ITOE, look up the part about "abstracting from abstractions." When you do that, what do you think you are doing if not using metaphors?

Thinking outside the box or donning a mental straight-jacket or something?

:) 

Also, I suggest at least looking online at a book like Lakoff's before trying to blank out his ideas from existence. He's a flaming leftie, but this is a good book. This book, in fact, is one of the classics of modern understanding of how the mind works.

Just a suggestion. But I understand if you don't take it.

I wouldn't want to interrupt your awe of yourself session.

That's a sacred moment.

:) 

Michael

Hey hold on, I never said or thought the one way you were using them, was the only way of using of analogy or metaphor! I have way too much respect for language than  to think in those terms.. But the one way you were using them, yes I did object to.

As to trivial gotchas, I will likely continue to overuse them, and cannot be bothered to keep track, so you can take all my Bubblemiles and declare yourself the rightful winner. No harm no foul.

IOTE , I actually did read it --so long ago that my impression of it is so overlaid with my own commentary, sort of like trying to attend yeshiva again at approximately the age of Methusaleh - I could say I would read it again, but I would be lying.  I will just apologize for previous errors of interpretation, try  to correct where I am in error, and stumble along in my own version of awefullnes, while respecting yours.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, caroljane said:

But the one way you were using them, yes I did object to.

Carol,

You wouldn't be referring to when I compared the corrupt epistemology of the modern progressive mob mentality when they make a zealous attack on innocent people to the mob mentality of the KKK holding a trial before hanging a black man, or the mob mentality of Islamist fanatics judging a homosexual before throwing him off a building, would you? :) 

I mean, come on. The analogies work.

The mob mentality, the savage attack on innocents, the pretense at rational judgment, the covering of heads with masks of the henchmen, and the corrupt epistemology are pretty much the same in all cases.

What could possibly be there to object to?

(smiling innocently :) )

1 hour ago, caroljane said:

... so you can take all my Bubblemiles and declare yourself the rightful winner.

I appreciate the offer, but I'm not competing and, besides, I don't chew Bubble gum.

:) 

Michael

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

 

Carol,

You wouldn't be referring to when I compared the corrupt epistemology of the modern progressive mob mentality when they make a zealous attack on innocent people to the mob mentality of the KKK holding a trial before hanging a black man, or the mob mentality of Islamist fanatics judging a homosexual before throwing him off a building, would you? :) 

I mean, come on. The analogies work.

The mob mentality, the savage attack on innocents, the pretense at rational judgment, the covering of heads with masks of the henchmen, and the corrupt epistemology are pretty much the same in all cases.

What could possibly be there to object to?

(smiling innocently :) )

I appreciate the offer, but I'm not competing and, besides, I don't chew Bubble gum.

:) 

Michael

Good idea!  Chewing on ideas is way better for the canines and the incisors both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wound care ...

21 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
On 5/29/2011 at 11:48 AM, Selene said:

Metaphors most certainly are processes of reasoning and by definition are reasons.

I noticed that William just reacted to this old post with a "confused" icon.

That's true. 

Quote

I know these days he is worried about debunking all forms of argument by analogy.

These days, no.  Worry, no.  Debunking all forms, no.  [See: availability heuristic.]

In other words, my interest in apt and in-apt analogies extends back in time on this forum.  It's not a new thing or a new focus or a new line of 'attack.' You and I have been tangling over in-apt or misleading or dodgy analogies since shortly after I joined in discussion.

My opinion is that analogies are fraught when used to deliver a conclusion. 

Why pay attention to analogies?  Well, I can think of a few and so can you. I "know that about you."

You would (in my creative imagination) agree that analogies aren't always good emulations. You'd agree that there are excellent analogies, compelling and insightful analogies, creative and illuminating analogies, less good analogies, strained analogies, and at the end of the scale, bad or false analogies.  Sometimes analogies get in the way of discussing actual events, motives, thoughts, actions and positions. That realm of possibilities and cautions is -- since you are wise and well-informed -- perfectly acceptable to you intellectually.  

**********************

Recursion:

It remains interesting to me to see the use of analogies in argument -- especially when an analogy is used as a replacement for a careful argument.  Sometimes analogies are satisfyingly 'aha'-ish ... even when false or faulty.  Not all analogies are built to the same exacting standards.

So your statement is a bit wrong. It is based on a faulty identification, in my opinion.  

Quote

I don't quite understand why

Here in this thread, above, the lamented Selene used a metaphor about 'to the bone' in the context of a wound.  The wounding of American education. We had an interesting and rewarding exchange.

Spoiler

The power of analogy lies in what is omitted in the comparison. The power and the punch comes from recognition. In this instance the actual wound analogy presumes a deep and dangerous injury that requires radical, if not extreme response. It does not show measures of temperature, heartrate, blood loss, history of infection, blood work, x-rays, patient reports, and so on. These are assumed to be dire, dropping off a cliff in the graphs: toxic shock, rampant infection, crushed flesh, blood, pain, swelling. Of course we have to go to the bone!

Since these measurements are not shown, but assumed, how can we actually make the comparison that the analogy urges us to make?

In the context of a wound that may need debridement or flushing, we are dealing with a serious trauma, damage and danger. The personnel dealing with the wound need to know the history of the wound, including its diagnosis and treatment. These items of knowledge have been measured and examined in the real world of wound care. There is agreement, protocols, trained responders. There is no disagreement on the necessity for active measures.

So, the power of this analogy is its common-sense evocation of severe, deep infection or trauma of the body. It doesn't matter where the infection/trauma is located. It threatens the life of the patient. The wound or trauma may have touched the bone. It needs flushing, debridement, antibiotic infusion. If there are tears it needs stitching. If bones have been infected or traumatized it needs further urgent examination.

It may be that the wound necessitates amputation of a limb or part of a limb.

Adam, an analogy does work outside of its field. As can be seen in your example of metaphor in mathematics, metaphor can do work, in general terms. But to insist that your wound metaphor reigns over discussion of public education, to dismiss critical reflection on your actual metaphor, to misunderstand the basic objection to your assertion -- this can stall discussion.

You have issued notice that all your prescriptions for education in America are based on the firm, unyielding diagnosis of a wound that needs emergency attention. You are reserving the power to make the diagnosis. Your insistence that only your diagnosis can rule treatment can then prevent Shayne and others from progressing in analysis of the problem.

Cleansed to the bone, your argument would seem to be something like this: In the last thirty years, education has fallen off a cliff. Only by amputating can I preserve its life.

Quote

but we all have our personal quests.

This may be so, but you have misidentified my own.  Here's the thing -- when you don't understand why someone like me has been interested in the differences between apt and in-apt analogies, perhaps the best way of answering the 'why' is to ask the person, me.  And not to assume you are the fully-cognizant or omniscient narrator of other peoples' interior lives.

To analogize, imagine a forum owner and leader whose amour-propre guides her to reject and rubbish cogent critiques, to demean critical voices as somehow morally-squalid.  As if the leader was an Empress, legislator, appeal court, investigator, magistrate, prosecutor,  beat cop, traffic cop, and the wisest person in most discussions.

Apt, in-apt?

Quote

I don't quite understand why

Correcting for the misapprehension of motive and agency, I suggest again that next time you ask the person about the thing you do not quite understand.  When you are confused, it's perfectly legitimate to ask "do I understand your moral quest correctly?"  Presumptions can be ...

Anyway,  it seems to me that you simply do not accept that analogies can be fraught. I could definitely be wrong, since I don't have access to your mind except through your words.

This one line from Adam's statement was (on its face) puzzling to me: 

On 5/29/2011 at 11:48 AM, Selene said:

Metaphors [...] by definition are reasons.

"Metaphors are reasons."  Yeah?

Here is the most interesting part of the linked commentary, for me.  Mileage may differ for Empresses and legislators. Emphases added.

On 5/29/2011 at 11:48 AM, Selene said:
On 5/29/2011 at 11:16 AM, sjw said:

Metaphors aren't reasons.

Shayne

Metaphors We Think With: The Role of Metaphor in Reasoning

"The way we talk about complex and abstract ideas is suffused with metaphor. In five experiments, we explore how these metaphors influence the way that we reason about complex issues and forage for further information about them. We find that even the subtlest instantiation of a metaphor (via a single word) can have a powerful influence over how people attempt to solve social problems like crime and how they gather information to make “well-informed” decisions. Interestingly, we find that the influence of the metaphorical framing effect is covert: people do not recognize metaphors as influential in their decisions; instead they point to more “substantive” (often numerical) information as the motivation for their problem-solving decision. Metaphors in language appear to instantiate frame-consistent knowledge structures and invite structurally consistent inferences. Far from being mere rhetorical flourishes, metaphors have profound influences on how we conceptualize and act with respect to important societal issues. We find that exposure to even a single metaphor can induce substantial differences in opinion about how to solve social problems: differences that are larger, for example, than pre-existing differences in opinion between Democrats and Republicans."

Adam Selene is no longer here to extend his argument or explain in more detail. 

On 5/29/2011 at 11:48 AM, Selene said:

Metaphors most certainly are processes of reasoning and by definition are reasons.

20CognitiveBiases.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

My opinion is that analogies are fraught when used to deliver a conclusion. 

William,

Here's my difficulty with your position. That statement I just quoted above is a statement of kind. And right below it in your post, you said:

29 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

You'd agree that there are excellent analogies, compelling and insightful analogies, creative and illuminating analogies, less good analogies, strained analogies, and at the end of the scale, bad or false analogies. 

That is a statement of degree.

btw - Outside this kind and degree thing, you could say the same thing about sentences (re both kind and degree). Let's give it a try for you to see what I mean:

My opinion is that sentences are fraught when used to deliver a conclusion.

. . .

You'd agree that there are excellent sentences, compelling and insightful sentences, creative and illuminating sentences, less good sentences, strained sentences, and at the end of the scale, bad or false sentences.

:) 

With such epistemological flexibility, it's very easy to interpret your position as meaning: When I use analogies, they are rational, excellent, compelling, and so on. When people I disagree with use analogies, they are "fraught."

:) 

btw - Did you look at the Lakoff book? You might be surprised by what you see as it relates to metaphors being arguments or processes of reason. He goes much further.

For the record, I don't agree with your insinuation that metaphors are indications or the equivalent of cognitive biases. That doesn't make any sense to me in the same manner "sentences are indications or the equivalent of cognitive biases" doesn't make any sense to me. One is a form of thought. The second is an error of thought, irrespective of form.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it is arguable that metaphor and analogy can be "fraught". Look at those examples "I destroyed him with my argument" and so on. The metaphor is a fine and useful thing, so long as one keeps in mind it is a picturesque means to aid understanding the concept of some "thing", it's not the concept of the thing, itself. Enough analogies strung together by association*, run the risk of creating The Narrative, which as we know can often be removed so far from facts, as to replace them entirely with a 'new reality'. One thing I've found you can't argue against, once settled into enough minds, and that is The Narrative.

*Associations too, which I think are instrumental in several of those fallacies William put up, may be fun, benign and harmless - or fraught. In conceptualizing 'like with like', subconscious associations (connections) are highly unreliable and often emotional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Long ago, in a place far away in time and good faith, a paraphrase  ...

From where I stand the flow of this discussion is evidence of my point: judging someone's perspective, only on its external features judged from a contrary perspective without understanding how that someone's perspective was formed, necessarily leads to misinterpretation. Understanding a person is no different, in principle, from understanding any entity. We can't understand what it does until we fully understand the processes that determine its identity and behaviour. Whether we are trying to understand the nature of an atom, a star, an amoeba, or a human brain, we cannot claim to understand why a thing behaves as it does until we understand the processes/principles that shape its nature and actions.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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