Op-tion-al il-lu-sions

[coberst]

Op-tion-al il-lu-sions

 

Accept or reject are not the only options one has. The most important and generally overlooked, especially by the young, is the option to ‘hold’.

 

It appears to me that many young people consider that ‘to be negative is to be cool’. This leads them into responding that ‘X’ is false when responding to an OP that states that ‘X’ is true.

 

When a person takes a public position affirming or denying the truth of ‘Y’ they are often locking themselves into a difficult position. If their original position was based on opinion rather than judgment their ego will not easily allow them to change position once they have studied and analyzed ‘Y’.

 

The moral of this story is that holding a default position of ‘reject or accept’, when we are ignorant, is not smart because our ego will fight any attempt to modify the opinion with a later judgment. Silence, or questions directed at comprehending the matter under consideration, is the smart decision for everyone’s default position.

 

Our options are reject, accept, and hold. I think that ‘hold’ is the most important and should be the most often used because everyone is ignorant of almost everything.

 

Do you agree that ‘hold’ should be the option of choice in almost all occasions?

[Southtown]

Yup. Define definitive. :cup:

[Tarantism]

It appears to me that many young people consider that ‘to be negative is to be cool’. This leads them into responding that ‘X’ is false when responding to an OP that states that ‘X’ is true.

 

being a young man myself, i see this sometimes with even my best and most enlightened of friends. im sure i am guilty of it myself, though i make attempts of avoid this at all costs. one of the things that troubles me the most is that we (being young people) put those who are critical about anything or anybody on a kind of pedistal, it seems that if you put down other people you are insuring some kind of presence as alpha. this is not right, it makes me want headlice.

 

The moral of this story is that holding a default position of ‘reject or accept’, when we are ignorant, is not smart because our ego will fight any attempt to modify the opinion with a later judgment. Silence, or questions directed at comprehending the matter under consideration, is the smart decision for everyone’s default position.

 

one might say "to be quiet is to learn. i find myself understanding a vow of silence. i wish i had the self control for that...

 

Do you agree that ‘hold’ should be the option of choice in almost all occasions?

 

yes, i do, and like you said especially i think by me and my peers.

[Loricybin]

from my experience, taking a nuetral standpoint towards most issues presents a better chance to gather perspective.

 

perspective is key to a more in depth understanding.

[CraigD]

I recall that in the Converse computer-based dialog language (See item #24 in Warner Slack’s bibliography), the default yes/no question allows 6 responses:

• Yes
• No
• I don’t know
• I don’t understand the question
• I don’t want to answer

and

• Ask me later

This proved very effective in collecting accurate medical history information.

 

“Hold” as Coberst uses it in this thread seems to me to encompass 2 of Converse’s 4 non-yes/no yes/no responses: “I don’t know” and “ask me later.” “I don’t want to answer” seems disjoint from “hold”. This response typically implies that the querant has a yes/no judgment concerning the question, but chooses not to tell it. As an invitation to further dialog, “I don’t understand” seems distinct from all of these responses.

 

My intuitive opinion is that it’s often a complicating waste of mental resources to avoid judging propositions true/false, and usually better to judge, but always assign a degree of confidence to one’s judgment. (This approach is formalized in several published decision-making schemes, such as Kempner-Trego.) As long as one renders the possibility of having made an error objective and external in this manner, ones ego can withstand the realization of error.

[coberst]

I recall that in the Converse computer-based dialog language (See item #24 in Warner Slack’s bibliography), the default yes/no question allows 6 responses:

• Yes
• No
• I don’t know
• I don’t understand the question
• I don’t want to answer

and

• Ask me later

This proved very effective in collecting accurate medical history information.

 

“Hold” as Coberst uses it in this thread seems to me to encompass 2 of Converse’s 4 non-yes/no yes/no responses: “I don’t know” and “ask me later.” “I don’t want to answer” seems disjoint from “hold”. This response typically implies that the querant has a yes/no judgment concerning the question, but chooses not to tell it. As an invitation to further dialog, “I don’t understand” seems distinct from all of these responses.

 

My intuitive opinion is that it’s often a complicating waste of mental resources to avoid judging propositions true/false, and usually better to judge, but always assign a degree of confidence to one’s judgment. (This approach is formalized in several published decision-making schemes, such as Kempner-Trego.) As long as one renders the possibility of having made an error objective and external in this manner, ones ego can withstand the realization of error.

 

In my post I think that I said that questions in order to learn are important but to decide without taging it, as you suggest, as an open matter is the mistake. I think that our brain should have many more tags indicating need for future analysis.