[Paleopsych] between fuzzball and hard ball lies...

Sat Oct 30 20:10:05 UTC 2004

Hi Paul,

Thanks for the giggle...(the part re fuzzballs, I think it was...)

I think you're probably right about this ability to tolerate cognitive
dissonance having something to do with this all...and perhaps it is related
to Heider's 'balance theory', as well.

You say:

intolerance of
> cognitive dissonance is not...
> a mental deficiency.

I might like to argue that perhaps it is more atavistic, though...I suspect
black-and-white polarized thinking is nm ancient trait, a good and simple
heuristic which was very adaptive and still works today. But when people
employ it habitually, and are unable to reconcile two opposing ideas
together etc  etc etc etc, I think it IS some kind of devolution. On the
other hand, I very much think we desperately need such polarized extreme
views and we need all voices...so that we can suss out what needs sussing
out.

At the individual level, however, I think we want to strive for having
people be able to be good at reconciling--to be healthy epistemic engines
who are neither fuzzy nor hard.

I know I keep referring to my own writing, but here's something else from an
essay I wrote called: 'Being Brave: In Defense of Naturalism and
Essentialism ' along same lines:

"...Is it possible to hold the view that certain patterns of behavior,
and/or certain characteristics of people etc., are hard-wired, while
recognizing culture plays an important role in behavior? While recognizing
people can change? While understanding that what is 'true' isn't necessarily
good or right or completely immutable? Of course! But perhaps it is not easy
for everyone.

Borderline personality disorder is a disorder characterized by an overuse of
a defense mechanism called 'splitting.' In splitting, a person is unable to
hold or reconcile two opposing ideas in their mind at the same time, so they
use black-and-white thinking to protect themselves from contradictory
feelings, gray areas and ambiguities.

Dennett and others like him, who are fearful and distrusting and want to
tell scientists when to shut up, have good reason.  We live in a borderline
personality disordered world; and a world where many have committed and will
commit the naturalistic fallacy-a way of thinking, by the way, which is also
probably ancient and hard-wired.

 But to fight illogical and psychologically unhealthy people by covering up
the truth or shutting up, seems infantilizing and the wrong way to go. (We
should be working toward helping people to become more logical and healthy!)
Plus, when people see and feel certain truths as self-evident, and are told
these 'truths' are not true, it makes people angry and crazy. And rightfully
so."

Blah blah blah! you get the idea...

You made a lot of thought-provoking and evocative points which I would like
to get back to when I have some more time...and I hope to...Thank you!

ps re novelty-seeking and tolerance for cognitive dissonance:

allow me to be very dualistic again, and a little bit fuzzy:

relative to left-brain dominant folks, right-brain dominant folks are low in
novelty-seeking. it is also my opinion that r-brain dominant people are not
big into categorization, labeling, etc...Which gets closer to the idea re
reconciling, or keeping opposing ideas together in one's mind...And while
I'm at it, I might as well add that I also think right-brainers are more
honest with themselves and with others than are l-brainers....I view
left-brain as seat of defense mechanisms and I also have a number of ideas
re this, which, one day, I may do study on....

All best,

Alice

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Werbos, Dr. Paul J." <paul.werbos at verizon.net>
To: "The new improved paleopsych list" <paleopsych at paleopsych.org>; "The new
improved paleopsych list" <paleopsych at paleopsych.org>
Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2004 3:17 PM
Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] binary nature

> At 12:55 PM 10/30/2004 -0400, Alice Andrews wrote:
> >maybe...or maybe something along lines of ervin laszlo's 'bifurcation' in
> >dynamical systems theory...hmmm...
>
> Hmm. Fuzzy logic. Have discussed that often enough with Lotfi Zadeh,
> the official God of that movement.
>
> But the concern you began with... is more reminiscent of yin-yang
things... or
> of some more precise technical things.
>
> Some folks on this list have talked about "introvert versus extrovert."
> There is
> something there, but the validity of that distinction has been
exaggerated.
> The best cognitive psychologist I know at NSF really gets his dander up
> when he hears some
> of the silly overenthusiasm about Meyers-Briggs as a key to all of life...
>
> But one of the other top people told me in 1999 that "tolerance of
> cognitive dissonance"
> and "novelty seeking" are far more fundamental dimensions of human
diversity.
> Those variables tend to remain stable in people's lives, he says... and
get
> passed on to children..
> far more than most traits we measure.
>
> Your initial complaint about Bush's folks involve low tolerance of
> cognitive dissonance.
>
> And in fact... this relatively stable part of psychology has some ties to
> even more reliable stuff
> in genuine cybernetics. Reliable, but technical.
>
> But my intuition says this is not the time or the place to explain more
> about how this works.
> Such explanation needs to be part of a connected whole. Such stuff out of
> context can distract people
> to wrong places. Suffice it to say I know how to build such systems, and
> have published the main
> outlines of how, for those who can understand.
>
> A few words. The Nazis and the Communist Party were also famous for
extreme
> intolerance of cognitive
> dissonance -- and it went far beyond what they needed to stay in power,
> unless you count supporting certain types
> of personality as part of how they stayed in power. Yet intolerance of
> cognitive dissonance is not
> an evil trait, nor even a mental deficiency. It is.. just a parameter. The
> opposite extreme,
> the extreme "sponge" or "fuzzball" personality, has equally severe
weaknesses.
> I would argue that we need some diversity here, and some efforts by both
> personality types to appreciate
> and live with the other, and to overcome their own characteristic
weaknesses.
>
> And maybe we need some new hard systems of thought that allow those who
> demand coherence to remain in touch
> with reality, the largest possible reality. The possibility is there... we
> need it very badly... but who is
> really willing to work on that project? Fuzzballs can't see it, and most
of
> those who demand coherence are strongly
> wedded to prior commitments right now. And it demands an openness to a
> complexity that those
> with intolerance of cognitive dissonance rarely would have the courage to
> face up to (as indeed few of Bush's
> loyal people face up to the mess his tax cuts have created). They tell me
> that novelty seeking
> and tolerance of cognitive dissonance are not 100 percent correlated, and
> are equally fundamental; so perhaps
> we rely a lot on those for whom the correlation is broken...
>
> Best,
>
>     Paul
>
> >Alice
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Steve Hovland" <shovland at mindspring.com>
> >To: "'The new improved paleopsych list'" <paleopsych at paleopsych.org>
> >Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2004 9:37 AM
> >Subject: RE: [Paleopsych] binary nature
> >
> >
> > > If you're looking for computer metaphors,
> > > consider "fuzzy logic."
> > >
> > > Steve Hovland
> > > www.stevehovland.net
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Alice Andrews [SMTP:aandrews at hvc.rr.com]
> > > Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2004 4:41 AM
> > > To: The new improved paleopsych list
> > > Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] binary nature
> > >
> > > Hi Michael,
> > > I  think you're right...Binary is the wrong word. It came to me as I
was
> > > thinking of the word '(uni)versal' and  wanting to displace that 'uni'
> > > concept with a morpheme that reflected a dual or multilayered
> > > 'being'/nature.
> > >
> > > "However, it seems to me, that we'd be better off talking about
> > > multi-phylogenetic modes [along lines of (tri) MacLean or (quad) Jim
> >Henry]
> > > or even a bi-human nature...rather than uni."
> > >
> > > But, you're right re:
> > >
> > > >It's all part of one cycle, not two
> > > > separate things but two limits approached alternately
> > > > by one function.
> > >
> > > I guess the part that gets me stuck is that when we left-brainishly DO
> >start
> > > to categorize, we invariably want to say: the one function is a
particular
> > > way--rather than saying the one function is a dual way. Does that make
> > > sense? It's early...
> > > And also I think  you're so 'right on' re the polarity question.
> > > Re the wimp factor: I think that these recent posts of mine are pretty
> > > wimpy...You're not likely to hear a man say "my Floresian-sized brain"
or
> > > "I'm grappling" or "I don't think that was what I was talking about
but
> > > maybe it was." These were all genuine feelings I had, which I
expressed
> > > reluctantly, knowing that to male ear it would either be seen as phony
> >(from
> > > projection--since when do they ever feel such things?!!!!), or
> >manipulative
> > > in some way--since I'm a woman and why else express a weakness if not
for
> > > some gain?????
> > > I'll go look at the Wimp link, thanks....
> > > I just yesterday heard on news Arnold preaching to a Republican crowd
re
> > > something like: "You don't want a girly-man country, do you?? Yikes!
> > >
> > > All best,
> > > Alice
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Michael Christopher" <anonymous_animus at yahoo.com>
> > > To: <paleopsych at paleopsych.org>
> > > Sent: Friday, October 29, 2004 2:12 PM
> > > Subject: [Paleopsych] binary nature
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Alice says:
> > > > >>And/or we can take the more existential, romantic,
> > > > transcendental, dualistic route and say, one of human
> > > > nature's features is that it is binary.<<
> > > >
> > > > --I think "binary" is the wrong word. Humans, like
> > > > everything else in nature, oscillate. We're like the
> > > > tides. We go in, we go out. We're expressive, we're
> > > > introspective. It's all part of one cycle, not two
> > > > separate things but two limits approached alternately
> > > > by one function.
> > > >
> > > > In our culture we tend to believe in willpower, and we
> > > > keep trying to say "this is my final position." It
> > > > fails, because even if one side of a polarity is held
> > > > without wavering, it only increases the intensity of
> > > > the opposite swing. Conservatives will be shocked when
> > > > they discover their lock on power will only lead to a
> > > > more intense anti-conservative (or perhaps
> > > > anti-extreme?) backlash later on.
> > > >
> > > > Michael
> > > >
> > > > PS: The Wimp Factor
> > > >
> > > > The author of a new and timely book reveals how
> > > > American politics is shaped by a cultural definition
> > > > of masculinity that is based on disavowing all things
> > > > feminine.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/20343/
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________
> > > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > > Express yourself with Y! Messenger! Free. Download now.
> > > > http://messenger.yahoo.com
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > paleopsych mailing list
> > > > paleopsych at paleopsych.org
> > > > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > paleopsych mailing list
> > > paleopsych at paleopsych.org
> > > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > paleopsych mailing list
> > > paleopsych at paleopsych.org
> > > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >paleopsych mailing list
> >paleopsych at paleopsych.org
> >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych
>
> _______________________________________________
> paleopsych mailing list
> paleopsych at paleopsych.org
> http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych