[extropy-chat] belief

[Brett Paatsch]

Samantha wrote:

> On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 08:38:18 +1100
> "Brett Paatsch" <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> > If it is not possible to get smart people to voluntarily improve
> > (update if you like) their internal dialog simply to do away with
> > a word that is harmful and which they are propagating probably
> > unintentionally every time they use it, how on earth can we do
> > any of the other stuff?  Language is the means by which we
> > communicate with each other and it is about semantics.
> >
> > When folk says things are "just semantics" they are dismissing
> > in a phrase all possibility of their acquiring political sophistication
> > and the non-destructive power to better persuade.
> >
> In all the many exchanges on this topic you have not clearly
> demonstrated to most people's satisfaction that using the word
> "believe" but only believing rational things is in fact sufficiently
>  harmful to necessitate eradicating the word itself.

You are right that I have been involved in "many exchanges on
this topic".  There is a reason for this though. Each of us is a
separate sentient with our own copy of the believing meme that
we have picked up from our cultures in our childhood and
continued to use most of our lives. To get folks to voluntarily
examine a meme in their own heads with a view to persuading
them to look at it when they don't immediately see the harm
in it is very very difficult. Until other see if the experiment works
and can join me or relieve me I have to work with one person
at a time. And at any time that person can figure because it is
one on one that the effort is not worth their while they can
abandon the exercise and my time is wasted and they will
probably go back to propagating the meme again because
that is their default way of expressing themselves and that is
the way their internal dialog runs.

You said (above) I have "not clearly demonstrated to most
peoples satisfaction" ..... this is not the sort of thing that
we can all look at together like a maths proof and some
of us can have the others do for us while we aren't paying
attention.... so yes its true I think that it would not be clear
to you or to anyone that my case had been made to others
unless they said it had. Nor though is it clear that I have
failed to make the case. I know because I am working
one to one that I have made most if not all of my case
to some.   I am willing to spend the time with you to try
and make the case with you Samantha if you will spend
the time with me. But it takes a bit of commitment from
you to take a look and if you stop looking before the
arguments are done my time is wasted so please be
gentle Samantha and please be open minded and then if I can
I will make my case for you.

> > If we can't communicate we cannot persuade. If we can't
> > persuade we can't influence change except by force. And that
> > doesn't do more than small incremental changes usually at the
> > cost of the life of the person that tries it anyway so force is
> > not a satisfactory answer either.
> >
>
> There is such a thing as choosing one's battles carefully.  A lot
> of effort toward a cause that seems less important makes us look
>  like cranks before we even get to important issues.

I am not afraid of looking like a crank. Too few people are paying
attention anyway. We do have to pick our battle though that is
true we only have so many hours in the day.

> > I watch politics closely. The rate of technological change can
> > and has been greatly reduced by the politics of fear aimed at
> > uncritical thinkers (believers). It has slowed stem cells, genetic
> > engineering, gmo foods, the nature of the quid pro quo in IP is in
> > urgent need of review so that stupid laws don't slow things down.
> >
>
> I don't like conversations like "well, this is what I *believe*, so
> there is no point talking about it."   But somehow I don't think
> simply removing the word will stop this. Another word will quickly
> take its place even if you could limit use of the word "believe".

I understand. It won't stop others using it but it will do some things
for you if you stop using it. (1) It will add one more point of
differentiation between you and anybody that is arguing against you
in front of an audience in any political forum on the basis of sloppy
thinking and prejudice because you can guarantee they will be
believing all over the place. (2) It will (I think) it seems to have
worked for me though it may not be obvious help you classify things
in you head with more precision if you use more precise words
than "I believe" in your inner dialog. (3) You will see others using
the words "I believe" with far more clarity and their words will
tag for you the week points in their arguments. Often you will
be amazed at the gall of political leaders to pass off pure prejudice
as belief and to see voters actually lapping it up because the word
believe has a positive connotation and can be imbued by the listeners
with whatever interpretation the uncritical listener comes to most
easily.  (4) If others start to do it too you will see you friends and
allies more easily - I am not advocating eradicating believers just
identifying them by their words and using whatever competitive
advantage we can get in the political forums. Believers don't mind
people not using the word belief most of the time they are not
aware of it. But other words sound better when they are more
precise even to some believers. (5) And this is small, I will be
grateful -you will have shown me it is possible to persuade without
using force. I like the idea of a parthenon of gods much better.
Its more interesting than being the only one.

You said if we stopped using the believe word another would
replace it. Well sure we have plenty of synonyms, but I realise thats
not exactly what you mean. But the flip side of it being hard to get
memes out of folks heads and of them needing to make an effort is
that only clear thinkers are likely to be able to pull it off. The non
clear thinkers won't bother. I think that if everyone stopped believing
that we'd probably already be at the singularity. There really is very
little prospect that the word will go completely from the population
at large. People are too fond of intellectual short cuts. What there is
is a prospect that clear thinkers will be differentially and preferentially
empowered over and above those who use the believe word because
they will be able to see how the meme works much more clearly. The
power will move more to the clearer thinkers who will be better able
to find each other. And should a clear thinker try their hand at a bit
of scoundrelly enthralling of believers of their own - lets see them do
it without the believe word :-)  They may get a few transfer believers
but the pan-critical non-believers will see them coming a mile off.

> > It is not only possible that there will be no singularity it is possible
> > that civilization can go backwards. It has happened before in the
> > dark ages.
> >
>
> Well, yes.  But it seems pretty strained to imply that use of the
> word "believe" will make any significant difference in whether it
> goes backward or not.

A few clear thinkers can exert extraordinary power in democracies.
Samantha. Power way beyond their mere one vote. But most
people can't or won't take the time to see subtlety so they don't
get to discover the non-mystical power that is available to those that
do. I don't want to waste my time giving away techniques and strategies
to folk that are just likely to replace one fool believing system with
another. One can't teach political sophistication shotgun mode its
strictly rifle shot. And one of course is selective about who one
wants to empower. I don't hate believers (as people) I actually like
them for the most part (as people). I am not keen to empower them
any further in democracies though as I think they already have too
much power for their and my good. They can and do sometimes
vote against things because they don't understand them or are afraid
of them and don't want to work through their concerns until they
have too.

Regards,
Brett
[Sorry if you find my style over verbose here Samantha. Prune
with ferocity if you wish and ask anything you like if something is
not clear. I wrote this with you in mind in particular because you
in particular asked.]