Very cool, Cory!
Many thanks for sharing that!
Best,
Gregg
From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Cory David Barker
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2019 12:17 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: "Askers" and "Declarers"
@ All
On the topic of two-fold bifurcation, I just got back from a walk and noticed this succulent I’ve walked by dozens of times without realizing. It has a recursive structure, with each stem ending in a two pedal flower, and within each flower, two new flowers grow out from the middle. I looked it up, it is a species called Euphorbia milii.
How it is relevant to this conversation is because this discussion has mostly been about bifurcation models in mind and culture, and this is an example of bifurcation in life. Nature shows us that sometimes the same two-ness can exist in both sides of the two-ness itself.
Cory
[cid:image001.jpg@01D58824.31F09BF0]
[cid:image002.jpg@01D58824.31F09BF0]
On Oct 21, 2019, at 9:57 AM, Cory David Barker <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
@ Jason
About static and dynamic, I made a video presentation about them. In the first part of the video, I define static and dynamic as universal modes of human experience. In the second part of the video, I go over expressions of them across ways people make sense of themselves, the world, and the universe. >>><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.youtube.com_watch-3Fv-3Dqc00zV-2DNLLE&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=i0QcH6pK1DXsNvfPWAT9Rc8JojqfDwGTZufnvEgKFSw&s=Qpu3vHfhfX1QQ66j5yrdWQeNfmEntVU23zGwdpDYT_0&e=>
Cory
On Oct 20, 2019, at 10:57 PM, nysa71 <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
Hello ToK list,
These are really fascinating responses to the Asking/Declaring dichotomy! I got it from something called Socionics --- a field that studies personality, which has been developed by psychologists in the former Soviet Union since the 1980s. I'd be more than happy to share links to a couple of papers on the topic to anyone interested. And let's just say I think there's a lot of overlap with the ToK in several key ways.
The Asking/Declaring dichotomy is itself a complex dichotomy which can be thought of as being composed of other simpler dichotomies.
So if you're interested, I can present (as one example) two other dichotomies, and how they (supposedly) relate to the Asking/Declaring dichotomy. I'd be curious to see if it resonates with folks here in any way, (e.g.,anything in psychology, philosophy, etc. that any of this reminds you of?):
I. The Static / Dynamic dichotomy
Static Types
1. Perceive events in an episodic manner – discrete states rather than continuous changes.
1. More inclined to say how stages A, B and C are.
1. Describe events in a general manner and by comparing them to other similar events.
1. More inclined to talk of properties and structures of reality.
1. The stories of statics usually involve one constant main character.
Dynamic Types
1. Perceive events in a continuous sequence – continuous changes rather than discrete states.
2. More inclined to say how stage A leads to stage B, and how stage B leads to stage C.
3. Describe events in a specific and concrete manner.
4. More inclined to talk of movements and interactions of reality.
5. The stories of dynamics usually involve multiple main characters.
II. The Aristocratic / Democratic dichotomy
"Aristocrats"
1. Inclined to perceive and refer to other people, and themselves, by means of groupings and categories that they see these people belonging to; these groupings may be created and defined by the Aristocrats themselves, rather than be already existing and socially defined ones.
2. Their initial attitude towards another person is influenced by their attitude towards the grouping they see this person belonging to.
3. Tend to attribute common qualities to members of same groupings, and define such groupings by these same qualities.
4. Inclined to refer to others using expressions that mention generalized features of their groupings.
"Democrats"
1. Perceive and refer to other people, and themselves, primarily describing individual, personal qualities: frank, trustworthy, generous, unimaginative, lighthearted, good-looking, etc. which are generally not in connection to any grouping to which they might belong.
2. Form their relationships and attitudes toward other persons based on their own individual characteristics, rather than taking into account which grouping these persons fall into or their own relationships with the members of these circles and groupings.
3. Not inclined to perceive people as representatives of a certain grouping that supposedly possesses qualities inherent to people who comprise it.
4. When referring to others, not inclined to use expressions that mention the generalized features of the grouping or categories that these people belong to.
Now....how do these two sets of dichotomies supposedly relate to the Asking/Declaring dichotomy?
"Asking" types
* Static Democrats
* Dynamic Aristocrats
"Declaring" types
* Dynamic Democrats
* Static Aristocrats
Not sure I can see the connection here. But perhaps it can stimulate some interesting thought. There's some pretty smart people here!
~ Jason Bessey
On Friday, October 18, 2019, 08:20:13 AM EDT, Frank Ambrosio <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
Jason,
just a quick highly impressionistic thought, which oddly, I have a great deal of confidence in, for whatever that is worth: Plato = asker; Aristotle= declarer. One implication: there are long broad traditions of discourse, that replicate themselves in cultural- genetic patterns that are ultimately rooted in biological evolutionary structures, but are not strictly reducible to those structures because they have merged linguistically.
much more to be developed there, but P&A are a good example of cultural genetic trait that displays itself as an incommensurable pairing with the dynamics of paradigm and ultimately worldview development.
Frank
Francis J. Ambrosio, PhD
Associate Professor of Philosophy
Senior Fellow, Center for New Designs in Learning and Scholarship
Georgetown University
202-687-74
On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 12:57 PM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
Jason,
As you and I discussed a bit ago, I have noticed what I would call three “profound dichotomies” in justification systems:
One the “Is v. Ought” distinction and that propositions can be divided into statements about what is or is not accurate, and what ought to be (or not). This can be extended into the second distinction… “True/Good v. False/Bad”. See here<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_us_blog_theory-2Dknowledge_201203_no-2Done-2Dintentionally-2Dtries-2Djustify-2Dbad-2Dfalse-2Dthings&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=wjF8cZoiFchamTuxBdDEmw&m=PyIt0E7_i4QmhDq2HIaGzuVoCPJGZmfqGlK1zWwaUFQ&s=_Zky70KNmBXdMGAk4HPsUYsf7nubQnJjHcRpAifN9pY&e=> for the 2 x 2 that gets at what it means. I always thought this was interesting because it carries a clear empirically testable claim: It suggests that human justification is driven by either accuracy or some investment value, but would not be driven by both inaccuracy and low value by the individual. Now, people from the outside of belief systems will say that others believe both inaccurate and bad things. The Nazis, for example. Thus, we know there are “false-bad” beliefs out there. However, to believe in something means that is to invest in it via Behavioral Investment Theory. And it is interesting to note we have a hard time believing in things that we believe to be both inaccurate and harmful.
Now, to your post. The other is the difference in justification dynamics is what I have sometimes referred to as “stance” (in my own mind, not something I have published on). The “stance” refers to position in exchanging between the questioner and the answerer. Indeed, as you likely know already, it is the capacity to ask questions that gives rise to the problem of social justification. Thus the Q and A dynamic is central. Which is exactly what is suggested here.
So, that there are some people honed toward asking and others honed toward declaring is a fascinating proposition. I know of no research on it or even related questions. Would be interested to hear what others think.
Best,
Gregg
From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> On Behalf Of Alexander Bard
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2019 6:13 AM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: "Askers" and "Declarers"
Dear Jason
I would say this is an excellent summary of basic rhetorics. Please notice how askers are often most comfortable with other askers and declarers most comfortable with other declarers so support is needed when the two categories clash and need to communicate directly with each other. For example in a corporate board room where both types are often needed. Or an a constructive mailing list.
Evolutionarily speaking, the askers are of course developed to allign with mythos and the declarers to align with logos. You prefer the askers over a dinner table conversation in the evening but you prefer the declarers when you attend an academic speech in the morning to succeed with your development plan. Which proves how important it is to set out goals and ambitions for dicussions and social activities before they get started. Is it mythos or logos that takes us where we want to get here?
Best intentions
Alexander Bard
Den fre 18 okt. 2019 kl 01:49 skrev nysa71 <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>:
Hello ToK community,
I was curious if there was, by any chance, anything in psychology (or maybe even sociology or philosophy) that folks here are aware of, (e.g., theory, research, etc.), that might resemble the following dichotomy. (It seems like there could be some loose correspondence to justification here, as well).
Just something I read about recently. Curious to know if this sort of dichotomy could have any usefulness.
"Askers"
1. tendency to dialogue
2. much of what an asker says seems more question-like, even statements
3. always, as the other person talks, affirm the receipt of information with yeah, mhm, etc.
4. motive of communication is external
5. can talk to an audience as a whole very well
6. starts talking at times expecting someone to get interested and start paying attention
7. has a tendency to interrupt and feels comfortable pausing half way on the speech and with "questions allowed all the time" way, returning to what was said later if necessary
8. quite often asks a non-rhetorical question and answers it himself
9. often just asks questions to fill in time, without serious need to actually find the information asked
"Declarers"
1. tendency to monologue
2. much of what a declarer says seems more statement-like, even questions
3. listens attentively and silently to others' speeches to return to a long speech
4. motive of communication is internal
5. finds it easier to talk to one person at a time
6. before starting to talk, first ascertains that attention is grabbed
7. is very patient in terms of others speeches in terms of letting finish
8. prefers to finish the speech before letting others talk, likes closure and that their point was conveyed
9. questions are often either rhetorical or only strictly motivated by serious need for certain information
~ Jason Bessey
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto: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]<mailto: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]<mailto: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]<mailto: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]<mailto: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]<mailto: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
|
