4 ms·

This seems leading enough that I'm curious if you have more to add on the subject? In general, I've found this idea was quite natural to me, but always seems q

This seems leading enough that I'm curious if you have more to add on the subject? In general, I've found this idea was quite natural to me, but always seems quite foreign to others except those with a background in neurology, meditation, sometimes physics, and Buddhist circles. People seem especially hostile to this when you start talking about the criminal justice system.

mistermann 5y ago
Oh, I was discussing this phenomenon whereby intelligent people can have substantial knowledge of the various complexities involved in human perception, bias, etc, and discuss it freely and competently. However, if you take the same people and (at some other point in time) change the topic of conversation to some object level issue, they then behave as if they have no knowledge whatsoever. And if you remind them, it isn't just that they get angry (as would be expected), but they seem literally unable to recall the knowledge that they do possess. I genuinely believe that to some degree, the default human mind can't really multi-task abstract and object level thinking, so if you throw a bit of emotion and cognitive quirks [1] into the mix, add it all together [2] into one big system, you have a half decent model for explaining why the world is the way it is. I'm leaving a ton of stuff out of course, but this is one of the more fundamental ideas in my hypothesis. > In general, I've found this idea was quite natural to me, but always seems quite foreign to others except those with a background in neurology, meditation, sometimes physics, and Buddhist circles. Agree....I truly think its possible that things like Buddhism are an important aspect: if a person can't "get" Buddhism (or can't take it seriously), I suspect they will also not be able to properly understand this topic. > People seem especially hostile to this when you start talking about the criminal justice system. Oh, can you expand on this? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-dependent_memory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-dependent_memory [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

mistermann 5y ago

Oh, I was discussing this phenomenon whereby intelligent people can have substantial knowledge of the various complexities involved in human perception, bias, etc, and discuss it freely and competently. However, if you take the same people and (at some other point in time) change the topic of conversation to some object level issue, they then behave as if they have no knowledge whatsoever. And if you remind them, it isn't just that they get angry (as would be expected), but they seem literally unable to recall the knowledge that they do possess. I genuinely believe that to some degree, the default human mind can't really multi-task abstract and object level thinking, so if you throw a bit of emotion and cognitive quirks [1] into the mix, add it all together [2] into one big system, you have a half decent model for explaining why the world is the way it is. I'm leaving a ton of stuff out of course, but this is one of the more fundamental ideas in my hypothesis. > In general, I've found this idea was quite natural to me, but always seems quite foreign to others except those with a background in neurology, meditation, sometimes physics, and Buddhist circles. Agree....I truly think its possible that things like Buddhism are an important aspect: if a person can't "get" Buddhism (or can't take it seriously), I suspect they will also not be able to properly understand this topic. > People seem especially hostile to this when you start talking about the criminal justice system. Oh, can you expand on this? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-dependent_memory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-dependent_memory [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence