Manners and etiquette, social lubricant or acceptable dishonesty?

This coming Wednesday,  we are discussing the acceptable dishonesty in the name of good manners at the Ideas Cafe.

We all know that liars cannot be trusted as we don't know when they are not telling the truth and therefore have to assume that they may not be telling the truth and therefore do not depend on what they say.

However, when someone is not telling the truth because of "politeness",  we all make exceptions and trust that this "polite" person will be honest in other situations (except when it involve manners).

No doubt,  this is to make allowances for our sensibilities of being easily offended by criticisms and negative opinions of our appearance, behavior, or thoughts.

Politeness lubricate the awkward initial social situation setting participants up in a positive mood to react favourably with the group they are socialising with.

It continues until participants feel comfortable enough to be more truthful as they get to know the others better.

Nevertheless, there are some strict exceptions:

Take the standard example of a guest's reaction to a mediocre dinner by the host or hostess.

Is it inconsiderate for a guest to not gush over a hostess' less than perfect dinner, but should the guest not also offer helpful advice on how to improve on the meal for next time?  

That will likely be received as a criticism even if it will improve the quality of future meals.

Do we need to develop a thicker skin as host and hostess so that we are not offended so easily and can benefit more from the helpful input?

Or perhaps we need to lower our expectation of what our competence level is so that we expect helpful suggestions without seeing it in the light of a criticism?

As guests, should we not try to help the host improve instead of fooling him one more time that he is the perfect chef and set him up for the next less than perfect meal?

How do we ourselves recognize our emotional reaction to criticism and contrary opinion?  How do we separate helpful suggestion from truly hurtful remarks?

If we all know that good manners require guests to be complimentary, why do we still feel good about being paid these compliments?

Who determines etiquette?  Is it similar to fashion with leaders and followers?  Can we start our own etiquette code?

Are we better to trust opinions of strangers and anonymous feedback over comments from our friends and family as the latter tend to be more considerate and less truthful?

Are true friends and close family suppose to be brutally honest or warmly supportive?

Let's have your brutally honest ideas this Wednesday!

What separates us from the other

Well,  we had our Ideas Cafe meeting this evening and the discussion went down different paths than what I was anticipating.  This is what makes the meetings so interesting.  You can never tell ahead of time how it is going to go.

To mention a few of the ideas,

1.  Mano thought that we will always have a mix of us and them.  We belong to many communities and each of these communities include and exclude many of the same people based on our shared purposes and interests.  When asked how we manage all these different lines,  Mano's answer is that we "muddle through" (!!!??)

2.  We cannot have a self without the other as a contrast and comparison.

3.  We may not want to eliminate the dividing lines between us and other as we do not want all of us to be the same.  There will be no diversity,  no difference of opinions to benefit from.

4.  Equality of human rights and opportunity is a political or normative concept.  It is something that most of us have come to accept as the way we can best get along in a social group, society, or community.  It was not always this way nor does it have to stay this way but so far it is the most stable and equitable way.

5.  While we may feel that we should share some of our wealth in our developed society with those less fortunate in the developing societies,  it is not money, or resources that will help them the most.  It is education that will give them get the best long term improvement.

It occurred to me afterwards that as social animals,  we humans crave the community with others.  Yet we have self preservation instincts that are constantly at odds with the interests of our social instincts within our community.

The community boundary that separates us from the other is in a similar conflict.  We want to preserve the interest of the community while at the same time we also want to belong to other communities and the interests of the various communities that we belong to sometimes conflict.

Muddling through may not be the nice sounding way to handle it.  Maybe we should say that we should exercise our discretion in managing these conflict to the greater good of our own interest, our community's interests and to the interest of all the communities we belong to.

How is that for a political statement that covers all basis but satisfies no one?

The meaning of life

This age old question was the topic of discussion at one of the philosopher's cafes.

There were a number of interesting ideas worth noting:

1.  Shula suggested that it may be a result of our having mental abilities that we ask this question because we can.  There may not be an answer to this question and that may be how it is.  Things are just is without a purpose or agenda behind it.

2.  The word "meaning" is often interpreted as "purpose".  When we look at man made objects,  the objects are made with a purpose in mind.  The can opener is made to open cans, the radio is made to receive broadcasts.  However, we should not apply this to non man made objects such as cats are meant to catch mice or dogs are meant to guard properties.  They may do that but no one made them for that purpose.  The religious will of course say there is a maker that arrange the universe just so and this supernatural being created everything with a purpose in mind.  For the religious,  the meaning and purpose in life is laid down in the "holy books" interpreted by the messengers of the supernatural.

3.  The moderator, Graham,  challenged us as to why we chose to live if we do not know the meaning of life. We can commit suicide anytime we want. Some mentioned that we did not have a choice about being conceived and born but we have the choice to end our life.  Not committing suicide keeps that option open and keep us convinced that we have free will and are in control (??!!)

4.  One lady offered that she had suicidal thoughts when she went through depression.  What prevented her from committing suicide at those few particular times is that she remembered that someone was depending on her to do something and she would let that person down if she committed suicide.  Another lady who said she had experience with suicidal people said that "nobody love or cared about me" is the most often heard reason for people contemplating suicide.  This leads to the conclusion that the meaning of life is love.  That we all need someone else's love and attention to give us meaning.  Another evidence of humans as social animal with herd instincts.

5.  One of the younger member of the participants offered that she is not ready to articulate what the meaning of life is as she does not have enough experience and knowledge to do so at this point.  To try to do so now will be too limiting.  She is keeping her senses open.  That is great perspective from a young person.  When will we be experienced enough to answer this question?  Why should we not leave this question open for another year?  What should we do about our life while this question is not answered?  Maybe it is alright to go through our whole life without answering this question?  Maybe finding the answer to this question is the meaning of life?

6.  Several people offered that life is full of things to enjoy, to find out.  It is so interesting that it is inconceivable to not want to live.  Graham said that we may not really want an answer.  For if there is a definitive answer to the question of the meaning of life,  then it may well be the end to the mystery of life.

7.  Since depression, which makes everything seem dark, worthless, and leads to suicidal thoughts,  Rafi thinks brain chemistry may be responsible for us feeling positive and wanting to live or negative and wanting to commit suicide.  However,  what causes the brain chemistry to change in the first place?  Is it a thought process or a biological bodily function kind of thing?

8.  Some one offered the concept of life force and that we are all being swept along by this force. We should recognize it and flow with it. Some do not agree with this metaphor while others feel that they are the ones that like to swim upstream instead of going with the flow.  I tend to think that it depends.  We should go with the flow for things that we cannot change, and work to change the things that we can.  Now if we can only differentiate these two groups reliably when we encounter them........

Comments?

Questions about this Wednesday's Ideas Cafe meeting on social groups

I usually put out an email to people who may be joining me for our Ideas Cafe discussion on Wednesdays.  I try to introduce the topic and point out the possible interesting questions that are begging for answers on the topic so that we can come prepared for the discussion.

People have been positive about these emails and I thought I would start putting them on the blog here as well.

For this Wednesday,  we will be discussing the nature of social groups, or what we like to refer to as communities.  What do we include in these groups that we consider as part of "us" and what do we exclude as those who are outside of our community or social group and therefore consider as "others"?

We generally think positively about the term "community".  The definition of community is such that those who do not share the common value, experience, or cause of the community is therefore not in the community.  Therefore by definition, a community excludes people.

Some may ask,  why can we not have an "inclusive" community that includes "everyone"?

If we have a community of New Westminster residents,  there is nothing stopping us from being friendly to Burnaby residents and be inclusive of them.

What about Vancouver?, BC? Canada? the world?

At what point does it stop being a community of New Westminster?

On a more problematic scale,  what happens when the interests of New Westminster residents are in conflict with the interests of Burnaby residents?

We all know that there are terrible living conditions in other parts of the world.  Should we not divert our resources to improve these terrible conditions at the detriment of our health care and education needs here?  If we are serious of being in the world community,  we should not be spending money on "discretionary" things like knee surgery or university education for our younger generation while people are starving elsewhere.

Since most of us would object to this, we have to come to the recognition that we consider being able to walk and educate our next generation as more important than people dying of hunger only because we draw a line differentiating us from them.

The line is everywhere dividing all kinds of social groups.  Historically it justifies war and violence to those on the other side of the line.

Is it good to have these divisions?  

Can and should we get rid of these divisions?

Are communities good?  Does it exists at the expense of those it excludes?

How do we empathize with those we disagree?  Is it even possible?

How do we balance the protection of "our own" against the interest of "others" ?  

Can we be patriotic about our country while being a good citizen of the world ?

How can we be compassionate knowing that there are "others" on the other side of the line?

Where do we draw the line???

There are too many questions and not enough answers.  Let's hear your ideas next Wednesday at Waves Coffee House at Columbia and Begbie!

Predicting the future

Wouldn't it be great if we know what is going to happen tomorrow, next week, next month?

It is such a tantalizing thought that we try to predict the future all the time.

Subconsciously, we predict when our foot will land when we take a step and we get surprised if the landing does not fit our expectations.  Ever walked up and down stairs that did not seem right?  You were predicting before finishing your step.

On a more conscious level, we predict the future when we plan, form an expectation of what is to come, and actively arrange things to move future events towards what we would like to see.

In fact,  one definition of intelligence is the ability to quickly learn a new situation and accurately predict what the outcome maybe.  Therefore, an intelligent person is able to get to the core of a game not only in terms of the rules but also the strategies to win faster than those less intelligent and predict more accurately what the outcome of moves in the game will result in.

The problem is that even though we do it all the time,  we are always struck by the times when our prediction is wrong.  If only we can be more accurate, we can rely on it.

What are the causes of these wrong predictions?

Let's look at an example I read from some notes on logic.

You enter a room and find a transparent glass jar with different colour candy in it.  There are red ones, orange ones, as well as yellow, green, and black.

You try a red one and find it to be cherry flavoured.

Do you think that if you try another red candy that it will be cherry flavoured?

Most of us would say yes but the logicians would say no.

Their view is that trying to figure out the flavour of the next candy is foretelling what is going to happen in the future which is impossible.

Just because the sun rose and set today does not guarantee that it will do it again tomorrow.

People who attributed good luck to charms and rabbits foot can make wrong predictions if the prediction is based on whether they have their lucky charms with them or not.

There is actually a term call the "turkey illusion".  To a turkey growing up in a turkey farm,  the turkey farmer is his best friend because everyday the turkey farmer brings food and clean out the pan.  Can the turkey expect this to go on forever base on past experiences?

A few weeks before thanksgiving,  the turkey farmer came to wring the turkey's neck.

However,  the logicians will concede that you will be able to predict candy flavour if you know the rule that the flavour of the candy is uniquely tied to the colour of the candy.

But of course,  that is what we tend to "assume" which can be right a lot of the time but not all the time.

Logicians would like to be precise and examine every premise before making a conclusion.

Real life demands that we make assumptions or else nothing gets done.

We therefore make predictions based on assumptions that can be mostly true but often overlook these assumptions.  If we add oversights and missed information to this mix,  we can see why it is quite difficult to predict the future, especially on situations that we don't have much experienced to draw from.

We have all seen the fine print "past performance is no guarantee of future returns" in investment advertising while loudly proclaiming how well they have performed in the past.

"Turkey illusion" warning while telling us to be practical and make an investment instead of leaving money in boring bank accounts?

The candy example also reinforce my dissatisfaction with philosophical explanations expressed in my earlier post on life.  If we can solve the prediction of candy flavours with a rule tying flavours to candy colours,  we have only shifted the uncertainty to the rule of candy colours.

We now need another rule to say that this rule for candy colours will not change tomorrow or in the future,  which we can never be sure of.

So again,  we seem to be making progress in understanding but truth just backed off a bit further.  Sometimes, it seems to back off even further than the progress we just made!

Habits

Yes, habits.

Now that does not seem like something that is even worth thinking about.

After all,  habits are part of actions that happens in the background and hardly noticeable at all because that is the nature of habits.

I was at a philosopher's cafe this week about the conscious and the subconscious mind and someone mentioned habits as an example of the unconscious.  I am not exactly sure we mean habits when we think of the unconscious but I did not think habits can be so interesting until then.

We form habits by doing certain motions or actions repeatedly until the outcomes of these actions are so predictable that our mind can push this series of actions and expected responses into the background.  The brain can then concentrate our thinking on something else that requires more attention.

However, that does not mean that our mind has forgotten about these habits.

When we walk down a familiar set of stairs in our own house, our mind is likely preoccupied with something else besides going up or down the stairs.  However, if we think carefully,  we will know that our mind is actually checking every step in the background with our expectations of when our feet will land on that next step.  We automatically know that we are stepping on something even if we are not looking at the steps because our foot touched something before it is expected to.

In contrast,  when we go hiking on an unfamiliar trail,  we are looking at every rock and stone on the rocky trail that we are climbing and know that we are about to step on it.

It is like the main part of our brain is concentrating on all the new tasks that requires learning and analysis but our mind is able to delegate the familiar tasks to some other part of the brain to let it go on autopilot or cruise control.  For computer programmers,  this will be the equivalent of turning some code into a function call or subroutine because it is required repeatedly.

It is all the more interesting that we like habits and familiar things and don't like new and unfamiliar situations.  It is as if the brain is trying to minimize its own work by staying with the familiar that can be dealt with habitually.  Learning must be hard work for the brain,  all that pattern recognition, searching in the past for clues on how to predict the outcome of these new situations and what actions to take.

What about those of us who like excitement of new situations instead of the same old thing all the time?  Maybe there is another aspect of the brain with dopamine reward systems that crave rewards from doing something right instead of just minimizing effort.

Athletes talk of muscle memory.  There is just no time for a tennis player to think about how to return the ball when it is coming from the other side.  Only by training often that the appropriate reaction can happen instantly without thinking.  This to me is a form of habit but used for its fast acting rather than minimizing brain function. Our thinking brain is too slow for this. I don't think that our muscles can handle the complexity of tennis but there must be another part of our brain that can bypass our thinking brain to tell the muscles to act a certain way.

So habits likely bypass the operation of our thinking brain.  Only when the habitual actions don't work will the thinking brain recognize the exception, interrupt what it is thinking, and come in to analyse the situation to learn from it.

What do we get out of all this?

Perhaps be more aware of how habits are being formed without us actually being aware of it.  Maybe the pleasure derived from visiting an old familiar place or performing a familiar ritual is our thinking brain enthralling in being able to use an old routine from the past?

Maybe when we recoil from having to do something different, it is our brain  trying to get out of learning something new or taking risks instead of relying on old habits?

Brain science is fascinating.

Musings about philosophy, life, truth, Algebra, and leaps of faith

As a retired engineer,  I tend to go into philosophy with the same tactics of my trade.

Define the problem or issues, measure them, look for possible solutions, try the solutions, measure them to confirm success or failure.

What I have found is that philosophical and life issues are generally hard to define and harder to measure.  This generally stops the engineering approach cold.

There are also problems with the engineering approach to problem solving.  Logical as it may sound, we do not have infinite time to carry out these procedures.  With deadlines to meet,  every step of the procedure can potentially be incomplete before going to the next step.  While there may be a logical answer resulting from this procedure,  it is based on incomplete steps.  Unless we have hind sight, it is impossible to know when each step is complete.

I am impressed with some of the thinking of the great philosophers but somehow, there is always something missing and the answer is never definite enough to satisfy my engineering view.

Take Socrates example of how to choose a good politician.  He thinks above all,  there is nothing that beats experience.

However, since we cannot predict what kind of future situation this politician will have to face,  we cannot say for sure that he will have the experience to deal with it.

So the next best thing to direct experience is virtue.  What is virtue?  Here it gets vague, good character, good citizenship, vision, good judgement, are some of the things that come to mind.

But if we cannot nail down what good virtue is with a virtue meter, how are we to compare one political candidate against another on virtue?

Even if we do make a good choice of politicians, their service over their elected term is heavily influenced by luck and external events.  How do we know that our virtue meter is working correctly when we look back on our choice of politicians?  We need to calibrate our virtue meter properly to make a better choice next time but there is no way of reliably doing this.

The most common feeling I have with philosophy though is that I seem to be squeezing a balloon when I pursue an issue: When I try to nail down the choice of politicians, the balloon bulges out on the issue of virtue.  When I try to grasp what virtue is,  the balloon bulges out somewhere else on what good judgement is to form virtue.

This is where algebra comes in.

High school algebra tells us that if we have 2 unknowns, say x and y,  we need to have two independent equations in x and y to solve for the value of x and y.

The more unknowns we have, the more independent equations we need to solve these unknowns.

Each independent equation represents a new piece of information that we can use in logic to define the answer of what x and y is.

My dilemma with philosophy reminds me of trying to solve algebraic problems with less equations than unknowns.  If you have two unknowns, x and y, but only one equation,  you will not be able to find what the value of x or y is.

However,  you will be able to express x in terms of y or y in terms of x.  Therefore the analogy with squeezing the balloon again.  You will know x if only you know what y is.  Or, you will know y if only you know what x is.

Seems to me that we do not have enough equations (information) to solve for the algebraic unknowns (truth in life).   We are missing some more equations to nail things down.

For the religious, they take a leap of faith and then everything is defined and they have truth.

The leap of faith to me is the filling out of the missing equations in algebra.

We live in a world that we do not fully understand.

We can put up with this state of ignorance or take a leap of faith by adopting a bunch of equations that we cannot prove but can only accept on faith.  We can then have the comfort of knowing everything has an explanation but this is only base on faith that we cannot prove.

We can know x if we take a leap of faith in y.

Or else we accept in algebra that the solution of x and y is in a line.  We may not be able to define it to a point but we have narrowed it down from x and y being anywhere in the universe to being in this line.

That is not bad compared to trying to fix x by assuming y from a leap of faith.

Especially when hind sight shows holes in previous leaps of faith.

Comments?