Steve,
Thanks for your presentation and this summary.
I begin to disagree with your bullet points on the value of “reliability”.
Reliability may have more than one interpretation, and let me use the analogy of outdoor temperature to try to parse this.
Outdoor temperature is inherently variable, and I enjoy the change of seasons.
I use accurate temperature gauges to measure the temperature (on my front porch).
I want those temperature gauges to be reliable in the sense that they accurately report the actual temperature.
I also expect that a variety of reliable temperature gauges will agree (within observational error) on the temperature they report from my front porch. (Consilience)
This is the reliability of the measurement and of the instrumentation, and this is good (my value).
But I expect and indeed value changes in outdoor temperature as measured on my front porch in different seasons.
Porch temperature is inherently variable, throughout the day, day-to-day, season-to-season, and as a result of climate change.
So what I want is a reliable measurement of an inherently variable outdoor temperature.
With respect to human nature, we have emotions, moods, temperaments, traits, growth, and development along with genotype, phenotype, classical conditioning, operational conditioning, learned skills, cultural influences, and various circumstances.
What is it you want to be reliable? Where do you value diversity, variety, and change, and where do you value consistency?
I am happy to dialogue with you on this or other topics inspired by your presentation, or this email.
If you are interested I would be happy to join you in a private Zoom chat for further exploration of these ideas.
I recognize your time is valuable and my ideas are often naïve, so please don’t feel any pressure to respond or pursue this further.
Thanks,
Lee Beaumont
From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Steven Quackenbush
Sent: Wednesday, November 4, 2020 6:32 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: TOK Thanks to Steve
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hi everyone,
I greatly appreciated the opportunity to share my thoughts about "the problem of value" on Monday evening. I've been reflecting on various issues raised in the discussion, and figured it might be a useful exercise for me to lay out my position in a series of bullet points. This is just a start, and I'll continue to revise for clarity and coherence (if not for consistency!). Let me know if you have any thoughts or suggestions.
On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 5:52 AM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Hi Folks,
Just wanted to say thanks to Steve Q for sharing his story regarding the problem of value in psychology. It affirmed for me strongly how fraught the problems of simply applying the methodological language game of MENS is to human psychology, as it comes with many different “value parameters” that can quickly be overlooked and hidden, and extreme assumptions of “objectivity” become masked and tangled with the methods.
My proposal is for a metapsychology that uses the ToK System instead of empirical methodology as the language game of MENS. The reason is obviously, metaphysical/conceptual clarity. For example, it was clear that the exchange, as all the TOK Community exchanges have been, along with virtually all other zoom exchanges, take place on the Culture-Person plane of existence and involve justification, investment and influence dynamics. In the broad sense, Steve shared his justification narrative for his struggles with the justifications that empirical psychology, especially trait personality psychology, offer.
Mike M largely concurred. I did also, with a caveat. The problem is largely resolved, IMO, when we have the right metaphysical map of human psychology. The “traits” of the Big Five are, indeed, dispositional tendencies that emerge over the course of development. There are genetic differences that track onto behavioral dispositional differences, although the road is complicated and filled with feedback loops, such that genes clearly don’t cause traits.
I could go on, but the point is that we need a theory of “traits”, just like we need a theory/frame for talking about our entire subject matter. And, ala Mike’s arguments, that does need to be intersubjectively constructed. (Note, BTW, I am noting an interesting set of tensions is emerging between folks in the group who emphasize epistemological positions that are grounded in: 1) subjective/phenomenological v 2) objective/behavioral v 3) intersubjective/language).
The question I pose: What is the proper language game for human psychology? For me, the metapsychology provided by UTOK provides the best way forward. For starters, it shines the light on the Enlightenment Gap and offers a way to resolve that. I would argue it was in the shadow of the Enlightenment Gap that Steve found his “is-ought” problem. And the proper way forward is not via the empirical methods of science, but first, a language game that gets the field of inquiry clear. We were headed in that direction near the end: What are the needs we have as Primates? How do we justify our selves as Persons?
Best,
Gregg
___________________________________________
Gregg Henriques, Ph.D.
Professor
Department of Graduate Psychology
216 Johnston Hall
MSC 7401
James Madison University
Harrisonburg, VA 22807
(540) 568-7857 (phone)
(540) 568-4747 (fax)
Be that which enhances dignity and well-being with integrity.Check out the Unified Theory Of Knowledge homepage at:
https://www.unifiedtheoryofknowledge.org/
############################
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