Thanks Gregg,

That all makes perfect sense.

In all cases of justification, there’s some kind of model fitting.
But we should be able to tell the degree to which the person is
rationalizing their beliefs with *additional* fitting beyond normal. (like
overwhelmed by fear, distrust of  other’s understanding)

A few virtues I value:
1) not lying to self, desire for internal coherence
2) Proactive self correction, Embracing being wrong, Fearlessness of
humility
3) responding to cognitive dissonance
4) ignoring scoffs and put downs in the face of your sincerity
5) Indifference to reputation (faith, of a sort)

....the worst is when a person is regarded a fool for their sincerity, for
not playing the part. One can be unsure of social conditioning, or
blatantly disagree with it (at least in intellectual circumstances)

Fear and distrust cause corruption, which reinforces itself and takes power
away from (and humiliates) the truth.

 If we didn’t have to fear, and we embraced mistakes, and weren’t tempted
to scoff at new ideas that made us feel small, what better than that?



On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 7:48 AM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Hi Jamie,
>
>   I need to be brief here, so let me just say that one of the very
> interesting features of the concept of justification is that you can put it
> on a continuum that stretches from Freudian rationalizations and defensive
> proclamations in the service of one’s interests or reducing cognitive
> dissonance all the way to the core problem of epistemology, which is how do
> we analytically justify beliefs as true.
>
>
>
> If you want a good, but somewhat different angle on the problem of
> justification, see this interview with Daniel Schmachtenberger called The
> War on Sense-making. Notice that he will rarely, if ever use the word
> justification and he is not familiar with Justification Systems Theory and
> the Justification Hypothesis, but he does have a very good understanding of
> information and communication and the problem of deception, bias, and
> representation in accordance with one’s desires or interests (and thus not
> necessarily in accordance with others’ interests). Here it is:
>
>
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.youtube.com_watch-3Fv-3D7LqaotiGWjQ&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=MwOcW42fjsIJFUTnnf2I3A3lT3An-iNPigZGuZx6rOg&s=H_PopuTQDE6RNHkF8GJYFGxmhthXlNbo2R_ubk25CsE&e=
>
>
>
> In the language of the Unified Framework, he is pointing out how the
> dynamics of (mostly verbal) communication reside in a context of investment
> and influence and thus are dramatically impacted by those forces. As such,
> there is enormous bias and dis-information and deception. He also notes
> that even if we consider that we still have deep problem of epistemology,
> i.e., how do we actually have grounds to justify our beliefs given the
> incredible problems of getting good information.
>
>
>
> My basic point here is that he is getting at some of the key aspects
> regarding the problem of justification.
>
>
>
> Best,
> Gregg
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion <
> [log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *Jamie D
> *Sent:* Friday, February 28, 2020 6:59 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: The Red Queen and The Justification Hypothesis
>
>
>
> Thanks for asking Gregg,
>
> I suppose I missed the detail about (self serving biased) *legitimization
> of *one’s actions, rather than something like *actual interest in actual
> justification, *which the Red Queen seems to conflict with.
>
>
>
> That our primary concern is self esteem, relational value via current
> frames, and few people actually care about internal coherence, or few are
> willing to remain low status in pursuit of internal coherence... seemed to
> conflict with JUST.
>
>
>
> Is there a name for the kind of conspiracy that’s not so explicit (like,
> not a bunch of rich people getting together), but more like girls keeping
> their code of sub-communication from men, or the “cool” people bluffing
> they don’t care, while maintaining implicit or subconscious frames that
> filter out the earnest?
>
>
>
> Implicit conspiracy?
>
> Subconscious conspiracy?
>
>
>
> These are everywhere, rarely questioned. You even need to know them
> explicitly to do all sorts rats of things, making them genuine conspiracies.
>
>
>
> i wonder how universal such conspiracies are.  I’d be interested in
> revisiting historical and cultural examples of justification to see how
> many people throughout history struggled with this, as well as the
> neuropsychology of justification and prevalence or possibility of internal
> coherence. Obviously people justify their actions with often wildly absurd
> arguments.
>
>
>
> Recall Dr. Ramachandran’s work on split brain confabulation (I still
> wonder if I’d be that full of shit)... Are *those* cases of confabulation
> based on the pressure to preserve self esteem, or something else?
>
>
>
> Not having a self serving bias is associated with mental illness. (I often
> feel shame of how my intellectual humility incessantly lowers self esteem
> in myself and everyone, but it’s a double bind.)
>
>
>
> The conspiracies force a double bind where one must choose between joining
> the self serving conspiracy (aka shadow worship, as I think of it),
> betraying internal coherence, or remaining awkward in pursuit of coherence
> (truth).
>
>
>
> *I’ve come to a few useful conclusions:*
>
>
>
> * there is a limit to intersubjectivity (or intersubjective depth)
>
> * this limit is exploited by cynical people, and is often unwise NOT to
> exploit by good people.
>
> :  Trump exploits this limit when he frames his opponent in a bad way,
> knowing the audience doesn’t care, or have the time, energy, or depth to
> see what matters. Also, his supporters want to see his “memes” victorious
> over ethical limitations, because it makes room for their self esteem,
> which they feel a part of with Trump.
>
>
>
> * extroverts are usually “shallow”, while introverts are usually “deep”
>
> :this is because shallowness affords an easier fit for behavioral
> investment (enthusiasm) in the intersubjective frames.
>
> : extraversion is therefore contextual.
>
> : if an introvert found a community with shared intersubjective depth, he
> might be an extravert in that context, where his “investment” in enthusiasm
> of certain memes could be rejuvenating rather than work.
>
>
>
> * low self esteem is low behavioral investment because of low self trust
> (and/or low trust in normative frames).
>
>
>
> * High internal status = high self esteem = attractiveness (personality) =
> High emotional freedom WITHIN immediate intersubjective frame = high
> behavioral investment
>
> : requires self trust + trust, compliance with normative frames
>
>
>
> * You ARE what you DO, so high self esteem is experience with any flow
> state (high challenge + high ability).
>
>
>
> * As a deep individual (different, frame-breaker), you *definitively*
> require high external status to achieve (justify coherent...) high
> (intersubjective) emotional freedom. Your enthusiasm won’t be congruent if
> nobody gets it.
>
>
>
> * It’s possible to have high emotional freedom with low external status if
> you’re a simple person, simple fit in common intersubjective frames.
>
>
>
> *The only genuine value of high external status is the aid it provides in
> high emotional freedom. Rich people who feel poor because of their richer
> neighbor have lost touch with meaning (unless their richer neighbor is
> unavoidably oppressing them...in which case, move)
>
>
>
> * Shallow frames of mind are less likely to be dissonant with common
> frames.
>
>
>
> * Zero sum games of self esteem are common, unavoidable clashes of
> justifications
>
> : Humility helps, but without status will likely just be abused / make
> everyone uncomfortable.
>
>
>
> * The rogerian filter can conflict with the freudian filter, when a
> heartfelt pursuit of coherence (defying one’s own self serving bias in
> pursuit of truth) is seen as “too much niceness”, and *authentic* is
> Machiavellian, dominance, or “not caring”.
>
>
>
> *the “shadow” as JP calls it, is actually the temptation to lie to
> oneself.
>
> : light is truth, shadow is falsehood.
>
>
>
> *enlightenment, whatever it actually is, must be internal coherence.
>
>
>
> *all of humanity’s problems come from the Freudian filter and the shadow.
>
>
>
> ...I’m suspicious that JP defined the shadow with obscurity because of his
> own Freudian filter. “Incorporate your shadow”??? I don’t think it has to
> be so complicated. Just weigh your incentives, love yourself, but via
> loving your commitment to high relational value via the truth.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 6:22 AM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Hi Jamie,
>
>   Thanks for sharing this. I am not sure I understand what your thoughts
> are regarding how either the Red Queen or the Social Leap offers a
> narrative that is not consistent with the Justification
> Hypothesis/Justification Systems Theory. Can you say more of your thinking
> here?
>
>
>
>   Also, to most clearly see the (basic) theory of self-esteem provided by
> the Unified Framework, you would want to familiarize yourself with the
> Influence Matrix. Here is a slide show on it.
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.gregghenriques.com_influence-2Dmatrix.html&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=8_BS2pYAqGvD8xetMSs4CY0YgrwkWwF0QSWiwrrT76M&s=21_pzFIApBsBbqSGeRkSGaE8ee-Zql9Q2HEdCLhLhlE&e=>
> Happy to offer more resources if you would like. Also, I should note that
> to fully understand JUST in terms of how it frames our everyday
> interaction, it needs to be paired and contextualized with BIT and the
> Matrix. Here is a brief blog on how to use investment, influence and
> justification
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_us_blog_theory-2Dknowledge_201901_3-2Dways-2Dexplain-2Dhuman-2Dbehavior&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=8_BS2pYAqGvD8xetMSs4CY0YgrwkWwF0QSWiwrrT76M&s=xIySWLt14Xs6MDRC2U_BBpRsUWpDhWGCA2WL43DceUs&e=>
> as a basic frame for every day interaction.
>
>
>
> Best,
> Gregg
>
>
>
> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion <
> [log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *Jamie D
> *Sent:* Monday, February 17, 2020 1:40 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* The Red Queen and The Justification Hypothesis
>
>
>
> Hey all,
>
>
>
> I just finished reading The Red Queen, which seems to be an important
> recent book on the evolution of human sexuality. Another book with
> similarly candid conclusions is The Social Leap.
>
>
>
> Near the end of the Red Queen, the author describes some experiments that
> support the idea that human intelligence evolved largely because of the
> endless treadmill of competition with other humans - that we are all
> natural Psychologists, and whether we like it or not, status is important
> to one's health and wellbeing.
>
>
>
> "It's not how good at chess you are overall, but how much better you are
> than your competitors that matters"
>
>
>
> The author also mentioned a theory for the 'invention' of the subconscious
> - that in order to better deceive others (and I'll add, simply to
> cooperate), we must become good at deceiving ourselves in useful ways.
>
>
>
> The reason I add that we *might* need to deceive ourselves to cooperate
> is that certain existential truths set us against each other, and most of
> us would rather deny them than acknowledge them. But I'm more inclined to
> think we should be *publicly* conscious of our incentives and responsible
> for them rather than tuck them away. The schism between the realities of
> our individual incentives and the widespread cultural ontology seems to me
> to be main difference between the "real world" and the matrix. (You know,
> all this blue, red, black pill stuff)
>
>
>
> The author also mentions roughly that "Human communication is less for the
> honest exchange of information [and truth seeking] than for advertising
> value and status."  It seems the latter comes first, in order of priority
> to the individual, and the former is a consequence of competitive
> cooperation.
>
>
>
> This last part is a big deal for me personally, because it explains a lot
> of my frustrations. While I'm seeking people with whom to learn, explore,
> create and grow, I've constantly felt most people I come across to see the
> conversation I'm trying to have as status-aggrandizing, and to retaliate by
> misrepresenting or belittling the topic in order to stay above some "zone
> of humility".
>
>
>
> I could certainly be wrong, but it also seems to create a problem for the
> justification hypothesis.
>
>
>
> Personally, I absolutely love the idea that the refinement of rationality
> and science is the recent pinnacle and trajectory of cultural evolution.
> And pressures of competence in real-world challenges would seem to keep
> this trajectory going if our future is to explore the hidden realms of
> truth and technological-creative possibility. But great swaths of humanity
> are busy maintaining lies (usually implicit lies, it seems to me) to
> themselves and each other in the struggle to appear (and be treated) like
> they matter... and to belong, for its allegiance to the group that we are
> most willing to sacrifice truth. (this connects to the recent post about
> the American life being unhealthy. I agree with the thesis, but I don't
> think the author diagnosed the root problem nor a solution. I might write a
> post on that.)
>
>
>
> We all need to matter to important people around us, which means we need
> some measure of what does and doesn't matter - scarcity of some kind, to
> keep the hedonic treadmill going. Perhaps there must always be losers for
> others to experience liberation, and being perfectly reasonable isn't
> enough. Jordan Peterson's idea that "True Speech" is what empowers people
> doesn't jive with my experience. Rather, appearing happy and self-satisfied
> in a contagious way, while being just competent enough at whatever your
> actual job is - that seems more like it.... Unless you make a breakthrough
> that humbles everyone in your presence.
>
>
>
> I'll stop there to keep this reasonably short.
>
>
>
> - Jamie
>
>
>
> P.S. An existential bummer isn't something I went looking for, nor have
> any desire to propagate in itself, but is simply where my intellectual
> journey has thus far landed. To be honest I rather often feel unsafe even
> being conscious of such findings, because I might inadvertently trigger a
> reaction that could utterly destroy my social value. It's happened before.
> There are some milieu's where if even someone *thinks* you know or
> believe some fact that's inconvenient for dominant norms, you could get in
> serious trouble.
>
>
>
> P.S.S. Self esteem seems connected to behavioral investment theory, in
> that high self esteem activates behavior (or liberates one from chronic
> behavioral inhibition). And I suspect that self esteem is literally
> governed by the dominant norms that govern what memes are allowed to
> spread. There is an evolving 'moral filter', part of the moral arc, that
> protects previously justified memes (based on utility I presume). An
> unfortunate effect is that certain truths have to be packaged extremely
> precisely as to avoid alienating other memes/people. Therefore, many people
> throughout history could have been perfectly reasonable and right about
> whatever they care about, but didn't evolve enough politically to 'make it
> through the filter' to have their memes contribute to the cultural
> memesphere, and their person recognized as someone who matters.
>
>
>
> P.S.S. I'm having a chuckle at wondering if my signals of low status might
> make Gregg uncomfortable. Is that a source of connection or alienation?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> -Jamie
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
> following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
> following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>
> --
>
> -Jamie
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
> following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
> following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>
-- 
-Jamie

############################

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
or click the following link:
http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1