4 ms·
> The fact that what they knew was based on their own motivations seems incidental. I doubt if they had the perfect formula evidenced and understandable to them
by dsacco 9y ago
> The fact that what they knew was based on their own motivations seems incidental. I doubt if they had the perfect formula evidenced and understandable to them at the time, that they would have intentionally ignored it to still encode it in their own image.
My understanding of the comment you’re responding to is that the nature of human experience precludes that ideal understanding, not that people would purposely ignore it. The point appears to be that humans encounter intrinsic difficulty in understanding the myriad idiosyncratic motivations of others in the species, not that they deliberately don’t want to understand it.
In other words: I don’t think you and the parent commenter are disagreeing.
- WhitneyLand 9y agoI certainly disagree the nature of human experience precludes ideal understanding. My point is the comment suggests almost an egocentric process, i.e. modeling a system in our own image, when actually it’s explained by simple ignorance.
- dsacco 9y agoRight, I follow what you’re saying. My followup to that is that I think (personally, and what the commenter is saying) that ignorance in the modeling of human behavior both causes and is caused by egocentrism in a feedback loop. In any case, you disagree with that, so I suppose you are disagreeing with the parent; my interpretation of the parent commenter’s point was that this ignorance you speak of is pretty tightly coupled with innate egocentrism. I don’t think they’d consider that necessarily malicious if they consider it from that framework, whereas you might consider it malicious if the process is egocentric because you disagree with the same relationship; vis-a-vis ignorance and egocentrism.