[FRIAM] anonymity/deniability/ambiguity

[Steve Smith]

I like this "turn of events" where the subject of the discussion is
somewhat self-referential and is peeling away it's own veneers as it were.

Regarding "false humility",  I find myself *avoiding* those qualifiers
sometimes *out of respect* to my audience.   I feel like, in a group
like this, that those qualifiers are painfully implicit, especially
among regular contributors.

For example, I don't read Frank as "aggressively authoritative" (or was
it authoritarian) at all, but perhaps because I've spent a little time
with him in person and recognize that in a long and interesting life, he
has lots of direct or second order encounters with various "authorities"
in different fields, who he can quote with ... ahem... "authority of
personal experience".  (and I may be mischaracterizing this for Frank,
so he may need to correct what I impute/impugne here).

I believe we are generally agreed here that we don't trust "proof by
authority" but most of us still defer to authority for a shared sense of
what has gone before, what is generally accepted, from whence the
language of a topic is rooted.  

I think this extra level of "signalling" you refer to is deeply
instinctual and helps to reinforce (for better AND worse)
ingroup/outgroup structures...  which we tend to think of as *bad
things* but in fact,  I believe that the self-other boundary is key to
complex organization.   CHON molecules form lipid and protein and
carbohydrate chains which then combine and/or fold into macromolecules
which then self-organize into larger structures like cytoskeletal
membrane, cell walls, etc. which continue to "stack" via self-other
differentiation/aggregation on up in complexity.   I'm not sure how many
identifiable layers deep of such stacking humans are (with the conscious
mind as an emergent property of the hominid or mammalian or vertebrate
neurology), but the self-other differentiation is right in the middle of
it all.

mumble,

 - Steve


> Ha! Nice one. We have only the "apparently" qualifier to guide our decoder choice.
>
> I forget the phrase Jon used, but I thought "humility signalling" when he mentioned it and I described being accused of false humility (in a friendly way). By peppering one's assertions with "I think" and "in my opinion" and/or regularly denigrating oneself (all of which I do a lot), yet continuing to *act* arrogant and defending one's assertions to the grave, have we descended to playing some game of false humility? ... are we expected to pepper everything we say this way and purposefully hide our arrogance and self-centeredness?
>
> I honestly have no idea. I could easily be a raging narcissist who's *learned* to manipulate people by peppering my language with self-denigration and IMO qualifiers. Or (as it feels internally), I am actually scared to death that I'm a moron surrounded by super-intelligent beings and I'm just desparate to stay in the game. I seriously have no idea which is the case ... probably a little bit of both. 8^D
>
>
> On 5/21/20 8:46 AM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
>> Bendito Espinoza (Spanish version) apparently did not believe in the transcendent God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.  Nor did he believe that men are constrained by the Ten Commandments*.  He was declared "herem", a very severe action.
>> [...]
>> Said without authoritatian motive.
>