How much can a person change about themselves?

Can philosophers help resolve the real problems that people have in their lives?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Advocate
Posts: 2658
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: How much can a person change about themselves?

Post by Advocate »

The whole Aumann thing is a canard because it presumes rational people. But also because it uses statistical probability to come to that consensus. Statistics is a measurement of Uncertainty, and whatever agreement you reach is therefore guaranteed to be uncertain, and therefore entirely subject to upset by any new information whatsoever.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 5077
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: How much can a person change about themselves?

Post by bahman »

Gary Childress wrote: Thu Jan 28, 2021 4:05 pm I get kind of angry and frustrated at times talking with people on the Internet. I know I shouldn't but there seems to be something inside my mind that propels me in that direction. It's not like I can just flip a switch and turn off anger or frustration and not be angry or frustrated anymore. Some of the time I just walk away and sulk in the proverbial corner but I still feel irritated while I'm away. I suppose I could go to an anger management class or something, but if they're anything like other kinds of therapy sessions I've been to, then I wonder how much they will really help me.

What are some ways that others here handle anger? Do you get angry or frustrated sometimes talking to people on the Internet too? If not, is it something that just doesn't come to your mind or do you somehow diffuse it in some way (and if so, how)?
Perhaps you were not so angery enough. A little of anger won't kill you but makes you stronger if you can manage it. It is very easy to get angery from people.
Skepdick
Posts: 8305
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: How much can a person change about themselves?

Post by Skepdick »

Advocate wrote: Fri Jan 29, 2021 6:02 pm The whole Aumann thing is a canard because it presumes rational people.
You might have to forego/abandon your preconceived notion of "rationality".

In my world rationality is about the ability to achieve goals. This definition prescribes nothing with regards to a person's mental/intellectual capacities. If it's stupid and it works, then it isn't stupid.

In so far as both of us want to come to consensus, and we have an algorithm for the task at hand, and we are willing to practice this algorithm (adhere to the rules of the game) then we will arrive at consensus.

Advocate wrote: Fri Jan 29, 2021 6:02 pm But also because it uses statistical probability to come to that consensus.
Statistics is a measurement of Uncertainty, and whatever agreement you reach is therefore guaranteed to be uncertain, and therefore entirely subject to upset by any new information whatsoever.
Statistics IS information theory.

Information is precisely that which resolves uncertainty. By definition.

The point about consensus isn't to arrive at any permanent/unchanging answers. The point is to agree on course of action given all available information at the time.

That course of action may well be a mistake - but you don't have the information to know that a priori.
Advocate
Posts: 2658
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: How much can a person change about themselves?

Post by Advocate »

>You might have to forego/abandon your preconceived notion of "rationality".

>In my world rationality is about the ability to achieve goals. This definition prescribes nothing with regards to a person's mental/intellectual capacities. If it's stupid and it works, then it isn't stupid.

Your pragmatism limits rationality to only that which is immediately possible. Rationality has no such limit. Revolution can be a rational act and it's outcome is always entirely unknown. Also, you're throwing out "preconceived" as though post-conceiving is somehow better? All thoughtful ideas are preconceived! Just like all pictures are of you when you were younger.

If one's goals are simple, no matter how much you achieve them, rationality wasn't required. Requiring pragmatism as an attribute of rationality is not necessary. One can be entirely rational without any idea of the actual outcome of their acts, because predictive power isn't inherently part of a rational train of thought.

>Statistics IS [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle ... py#History]information theory[/url].

OK. My prior point was that it's insufficient for many tasks because it's not providing certainty as most people believe. It provides some degree of certainty, but whether that so-called consensus is actually so, or sufficient, depends entirely upon intent, which is not a rational variable.

>Information is precisely that which resolves uncertainty. By definition.

>The point about consensus isn't to arrive at any permanent/unchanging answers. The point is to agree on course of action given all available information at the time.

Actionable certainty is the purpose of All knowledge, wisdom, and understanding. With regard to consensus, which as i pointed out is Not rationality-bound, it can produce feelings of certainty without addition of actual information, meaning false certainty.

Statistics measures how much we know relative to how much we know we don't know. The unknown unknowns portion which remains means there is an upper limit to how much certainty you can get with statistics, which in turn means (definitively) that statistics are a measure of uncertainty, not certainty. Understood through that lens, everything else about the field makes sense. If it's not in the wikipedia article or the Stanford Dictionary of Philosophy or emblazoned in 10000 pt Helvetica over the entrance of the economics department at MIT, they simply don't understand statistics.

I'm not saying statistics doesn't provide some increase in certainty, only that it's not the sure kind of certainty that people treat it as. Saying you're 99% sure of anything means you are not sure. Whether you're sure Enough is where that intent comes in. "All available information" requires accounting for individual anecdotal experience which in turn requires vetting the voracity of each participant. This reason alone shows the insufficiency of the tool for most tasks. Because humans are bound in time and space, meaning amount of information and weight of individual perspectives is always Likely to change, not just subject to change.

The task for decision-making is to eliminate as many variables as reasonably possible without dumping anything relevant to the intent. In other words, accounting for all available information must mean dumping most of it which is not, i think, what you had in mind when you said that. Intellectual progress, whether or not in an individual instance, is the process of Closing your mind by eliminating unnecessary confusion and doubt by eliminating irrelevant information and that which is not sufficiently weighty or sourced to be meaningful.
Eugene Glus
Posts: 19
Joined: Sat May 05, 2018 7:50 pm

Re: How much can a person change about themselves?

Post by Eugene Glus »

And also an important opposite question: how to stop your own changing? As we know we're all not getting younger a day. Another thing is that each eight /twelve?/ days our body looses the last one old molecules /the organism renewing/.

I guess that that 'core' element that allows our bodies to change is anything that is unstoppable completely. If with it anything else - like that is what belongs to a soul, or kinda - is changing too, then there's no way to change it; else, I guess it depends on of some conceptual levels. - Just like a question of the ontological status of fiction characters.
Advocate
Posts: 2658
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: How much can a person change about themselves?

Post by Advocate »

[quote="Eugene Glus" post_id=495554 time=1612984710 user_id=15960]
And also an important opposite question: how to stop your own changing? As we know we're all not getting younger a day. Another thing is that each eight /twelve?/ days our body looses the last one old molecules /the organism renewing/.

I guess that that 'core' element that allows our bodies to change is anything that is unstoppable completely. If with it anything else - like that is what belongs to a soul, or kinda - is changing too, then there's no way to change it; else, I guess it depends on of some conceptual levels. - Just like a question of the ontological status of fiction characters.
[/quote]

Maintenance is regularly changing things back to the way they should be.
Oakley
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2021 10:05 pm

Re: How much can a person change about themselves?

Post by Oakley »

Gary Childress wrote: Thu Jan 28, 2021 4:05 pmWhat are some ways that others here handle anger?
Spend as much time in nature as possible.

Carefully install your computer at the bottom of the nearest swimming pool, pond, lake, river or ocean etc.

Chain your TV to the back of your car, and drag it down a country road for a couple of miles.

Stand on top of the highest mountain you can find, lean out over the edge, and see how far you can throw your phone.

Avoid human beings except in case of emergency.

Don't listen to idiot posters like me on the Internutz. :-)
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 5165
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: How much can a person change about themselves?

Post by attofishpi »

Oakley wrote: Wed Jun 23, 2021 1:07 pm
Gary Childress wrote: Thu Jan 28, 2021 4:05 pmWhat are some ways that others here handle anger?
Spend as much time in nature as possible.

Carefully install your computer at the bottom of the nearest swimming pool, pond, lake, river or ocean etc.

Chain your TV to the back of your car, and drag it down a country road for a couple of miles.

Stand on top of the highest mountain you can find, lean out over the edge, and see how far you can throw your phone.

Avoid human beings except in case of emergency.

Don't listen to idiot posters like me on the Internutz. :-)
Rather ironic - you want to spend as much time in nature which you appear to want to mess up by dragging all the man made crap into it.
Post Reply