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