I take my cues from people who have at least these three qualities

1.  top-tier intelligence
2.  top-tier compassion
3.  they are enjoying their own lives and have a playful spirit

=Chance

On Sun, Jun 28, 2020 at 5:01 PM Brent Allsop <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>
>
> Very nice piece on a critically important topic, Leland,
>
>
>
> You have lots of popular great rules of thumb like:
>
> ·       Evidence over ideology
>
> ·       Expertise over authority.
>
>
>
> But I expected to see at least something about consensus, at least of the
> scientific kind?
>
>
>
> Also, there is the issue where one person’s “expert” is another’s ‘devil
> worshiper’, so trusted methods of determining expertise are needed.
>
>
>
> Differences like those primarily come from different “motivated
> reasoning”, which is one of the most important things, to me, though it
> looks like motivation is not valued in this piece?  For example, the
> strongest evidence is, and odds are, that nobody can live forever, because
> nobody ever has.  Yet I remain faithful.  Just like when the Write brothers
> had similar faith.  They had the faith to go against all the odds, all the
> hard evidence, and all the skeptics claiming the truth is “man was not
> meant to fly” and due to their motivation, finally became the first to fly.
>
>
>
> And, just like it shows in the TOC, truth depends on the level of detail
> you are interested in.  For example, a quantum theorist’s description of
> truth about reality is quite different from the chemists, or the macro
> economist’s.  In other words, like one person’s expert is another’s devil
> worshiper, the quantum theorist’s ‘expert’, has no reputation amongst macro
> economists, and other groups.  So, a lot depends on what different people
> want, and what their different perspective is.
>
>
>
> “Evidence over ideology” is great, but all current systems, including peer
> reviewed journals, everything on the web, and so on, only focus on what
> people disagree on.  Everything polarizes people, ideologically, which is
> currently ripping apart all these ideals you value.  Just saying you do not
> value it, doesn’t make it go away.  And, again, at least to me, ideological
> motivation is the most important part.  We need to find ways to bridle it,
> not devalue and destroy it.  Sure, motivation can cause problems, but don't
> throw the baby out with the bath.
>
>
>
> A good example is global warming.  There is no rigorous or trusted (by the
> other side) way to measure exactly how much consensus there is on what.
> Today, no matter what you find on the internet, someone can claim that is
> ‘fake news’, so we are all clueless, morally, and can’t make any trusted
> argument on anything 'ideological'
>
>
>
> We’re building the consensus building and tracking system at Canonizer.com
> with the goal of adequately dealing with all these kinds of problems and
> more.  For example, the global warming theorists could start to build and
> track consensus around exactly what it is they are motivated about.  Then
> the ‘deniers’ could create their competing camps around their motivations,
> and they could have their own ‘canonizer algorithm’ which they would trust,
> because it would only count the experts the ‘deniers’ trust, which would
> not be ‘fake news’ to them.
>
>
>
> And as the adage goes, that which you measure, improves.  If the experts
> can know exactly what all the ‘deniers’ currently believe and why, they can
> come up with specific experiments and arguments to address exactly those
> problems, to get everyone on board, and continue the measurable consensus
> progress.
>
>
>
> The experts can work within what the denier’s experts trust, to
> communicate to them, from their point of view, and so on.  (i.e. find
> things like: “Your trusted experts, who only support what is not fake news,
> believe ‘x’.  then they can say that ‘x’ supports global warming in this
> way, and so on.
>
>
>
> Today, everyone just collects and throws any argument they can find, most
> of which have no converting power at all, at the other side, over and over,
> forever, to nobody listening.  Again, everything in use, today, just
> polarizes people like this.  But with Canonizer, you can measure and track
> the converting power of the good arguments, so the ones with converting
> power can rise to the top, and then stop wasting everyone’s time on what
> doesn’t work.
>
>
>
> Also, the super camp tree structure helps with building consensus.  Today,
> when you find something anyone disagrees on, normally the edit/censor wars
> start polarizing everyone, and consensus is destroyed.  The disagreements
> are almost always less important than what the consensus is being built
> around.  So, with the tree structure, you can push these disagreeable
> things down to supporting sub camps, out of the way of building consensus,
> where they can still be tracked and valued.
>
>
> The bottom line is, you need to build and track consensus, so you can
> know, concisely and quantitatively, what everyone is motivated to want.
> And THAT, by definition, is consensus.  No censoring required.
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 28, 2020 at 3:16 PM Waldemar Schmidt <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
>> Thank you, Lee.
>>
>> *Waldemar A Schmidt, PhD, MD*
>> (Perseveret et Percipiunt)
>> 503.631.8044
>>
>> *Strive not to be a success, but rather to be of value. (A Einstein)*
>>
>> On Jun 28, 2020, at 12:59 PM, Leland Beaumont <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> TOK List,
>> With so much misinformation bombarding us, how do you choose your beliefs?
>> To answer that question I wrote an essay “Choosing my beliefs”.
>> See:
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikiversity.org_wiki_Knowing-5FHow-5FYou-5FKnow_gallery_Choosing-5Fmy-5Fbeliefs&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=uXKweYRRWbDBkQFCSffzECSFNBR9PqY-xHmzZTRrCfg&s=JGSNx_LHqraJZP9ELJATyGurhGVrzLcQbwzGxLJclx0&e= 
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikiversity.org_wiki_Knowing-5FHow-5FYou-5FKnow_gallery_Choosing-5Fmy-5Fbeliefs&d=DwMFAg&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=F6WL4OjZjGNgjfAzixIejlmFxhpWUv7RDfKplajqQmw&s=SN3-dIxdoQBGkcT07Z8Oln-MTinrTjmxbd7aKP7WptQ&e=>
>>
>> Reality is our common ground. If we can find reliable methods for
>> discovering reality, than we can seek out that common ground.
>> This is helpful in resolving anger
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikiversity.org_wiki_Resolving-5FAnger&d=DwMFAg&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=F6WL4OjZjGNgjfAzixIejlmFxhpWUv7RDfKplajqQmw&s=ry2KMpQFiKzNZvta-04-AIeoLdaJEX7JibtBp637uVE&e=>
>> , practicing dialogue
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikiversity.org_wiki_Practicing-5FDialogue&d=DwMFAg&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=F6WL4OjZjGNgjfAzixIejlmFxhpWUv7RDfKplajqQmw&s=fvk37aGRkyCwHtgC7qR9z1awFZzajETrtdeW5xPPZts&e=>,
>> and creating common ground
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.creatingcommonground.org_&d=DwMFAg&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=F6WL4OjZjGNgjfAzixIejlmFxhpWUv7RDfKplajqQmw&s=9RILoUXGOFGuKN-aNDjmy-UNu7v3O2RFWx_O7tJOAHk&e=>
>> .
>>
>> Differences of opinions are useful because they expose us to many point
>> of view and the wide range of human experiences. Controversies are useful
>> because they can motivate us to practice dialogue and attain new insights.
>> Having a reliable method for choosing beliefs increases our contact with
>> reality, helps determine fact or fiction, and helps us discover our common
>> ground.
>>
>> How do you choose your beliefs?
>>
>> I welcome your comments on this, and encourage you to write down how you
>> choose your beliefs.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Lee Beaumont
>> ############################
>>
>> 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
>>
> ############################
>
> 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