[FRIAM] observability and randomness

[Frank Wimberly]

As a defense mechanism rationalization is primarily characteristic of
adolescence.  "I know we're not supposed to climb up here but I don't see
how it will hurt anything."  But without explicit language (until
confronted).

If you want a reference, Glen, see Karen Horney "Neurosis and Human Growth".

Frank

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Mon, Jun 29, 2020, 3:33 PM ∄ uǝlƃ <gepropella at gmail.com> wrote:

> I feel like you've asked me to prove a negative with your Eliza-like "Can
> you tell me more about ...?" 8^D But because I have no choice but to be the
> dork that I am, I also have no choice about whether to have the
> conversation. [sigh]
>
> Maybe it was influenced by this article:
>
> Rationalization is rational
> Cushman 2020
>
> https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/behavioral-and-brain-sciences/article/rationalization-is-rational/2A13B99ED09BD802C0924D3681FEC55B
>
> Or not. I read like 10 things at a time, abandon some, follow through on
> others, etc. This one was printed out sitting next to the toilet. In any
> case, it states the point well with this paragraph: "In sum,
> rationalization approximates a form of rational inference and thus can be
> understood as a variety of IRL at Marr’s computational level – its function
> is to extract useful information from observed actions. This does not
> imply, however, that rationalization always involves Bayesian inference at
> a mechanistic level. In some cases, it may, but in other cases relatively
> simple cognitive processes, akin to those identified by Heider and
> Festinger, may approximate the rational inferences described above."
>
> Even allowing the idea that *some* mechanisms we might say look like "free
> will" might be fully low-order Markovian, there are (likely) *some* other
> mechanisms that would not fit that bill. This wouldn't be important if I
> thought that set of other mechanisms was *small* in comparison to the
> "rational" mechanisms. But because I think people who prioritize for
> thought/beliefs/desires and such ... interiority, I guess, are delusional,
> my intuition is that those other mechanisms are more prevalent than the
> "rational" ones. To be as clear as possible, I think rationality is very
> rare, if it exists at all. And that argues against (low order) Markovity.
>
> And on that note, I'd LOVE it if someone knew of a thorough criticism of
> this result:
>
> THE EFFECT OF SEVERITY OF INITIATION ON LIKING FOR A GROUP
> Aaronson & Mills 1959
>
> http://faculty.uncfsu.edu/tvancantfort/Syllabi/Gresearch/Readings/A_Aronson.pdf
>
> I debated changing the subject to indicate a tangent from observability.
> But I would lump an [un]willingness to give up *sunk costs* (e.g. severity
> of initiation/hazing) as a kind of truncation error. So, it may still be on
> topic.
>
> On 6/24/20 8:55 AM, Jon Zingale wrote:
> > Could you tell me more about the lack of relation between river deltas
> and
> > the proposed mechanism? I remember you calling the theory LOUMFW, but I
> am
> > not sure if it is an acronym or what.
>
> --
> ☣ uǝlƃ
>
> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC <http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/FRIAM-COMIC>
> http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20200629/8a62d8af/attachment.html>