BS: Subjectivity obfuscates communication.

Subject: BS: Subjectivity obfuscates communication.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 11:01 AM

One thing that always has to be kept in mind regarding how people evaluate any candidate's performance is this:

The opinion they already have about the candidate profoundly influences their evaluation of the candidate's behaviour.

If they already like someone, then they will put the best interpretation on what he or she says and does. If they don't like someone, they will put the worst interpretation on what he or she says and does.

I see exactly the same problem cropping up all the time on this forum, as regards its membership and the way they relate to one another when they have disagreements about anything. ;-)

So it tends to become very subjective. Those who love Obama already, for instance, will usually think he did a wonderful job in a debate, say, while those who hate Hillary already will sneer at everything she says, no matter what it is.

And vice versa. It cuts both ways.

It's pretty rare to find people who are genuinely impartial and fair in their judgements of politicians...because they usually have a well-used axe to grind.

And that is why those on opposing sides often simply cannot comprehend what in the hell the other people are going ON about! ;-)   (I can't help but think of myself and DougR, for instance, when I say that...)

The mistake they then often make is to assume that the people on the other side of the argument are very stupid...not to mention assuming that those other people believe all sorts of utter nonsense..."After all he MUST believe the utter nonsense I imagine that he does...or why would he be disagreeing with ME! He probably is a communist (alt:fascist), a racist, a secret child molester, a religious fanatic (alt: atheist nutcase), mentally unstable, possibly criminal, a male chauvinist (alt: a man hating shrew) and a complete total loser in every respect possible. An utter tosser, in fact. Someone who does not even deserve to live!"

And right from the getgo the conversation goes straight down the toilet....due to these various extremely subjective assumptions...most of which are facile and quite incorrect.   People's chauvinism toward one another is really a sad thing to witness.

I shall name no names. ;-) (having already mentioned myself and DougR in passing, just for the purpose of illustration, but actually I think DougR is a gentleman and a good guy, despite our differing political views)

Subject: RE: BS: Subjectivity obfuscates communication.
From: Peace
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 11:11 AM

Our objective views are still influenced and informed by our subjective perceptions. Tough 'question', LH.

Subject: RE: BS: Subjectivity obfuscates communication.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 11:20 AM

Yup. This is why I think that frequent self-criticism is a very good idea...and one that can benefit anyone who employs it in a reasonably balanced manner.

I've known people to whom it was an entirely foreign concept. More than a few, in fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Subjectivity obfuscates communication.
From: Wesley S
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 11:25 AM

I think self-realization is one of the most difficult things we can attempt - but ultimatly very rewarding. We have to learn to stand outside of ourselves so we can see ourselves as other see us. Sometimes the "committee in our heads" is not the best source of information.

Subject: RE: BS: Subjectivity obfuscates communication.
From: Amos
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 11:28 AM

One of the reasons behind this problem is related to the placebo effect and the faith issues recently raised on the "No Gods" and "God Still" threads.

That issue is that the boundary between the universe of "subject" and the universe of "objects" is not clearly understood in any discipline.

There is a wide range of phenomena in which subjective changes bring about experiential changes indistinguishable from "real" and physical. Placebo cures are the most widely remarked. Wine-tasting based on the suggested retail price tag is another. But in addition to the impact of thought and subjectivity on physical being, there is also a very poorly defined set of phenomena coupling changes in thought with changes outside the sphere of the body in objective physical universe space as well as social space.

I believe where this field of enquiry will eventually lead is toward the non-dogmatic and non-deistic assessment of the individual spiritual entity, about which past opinions and superstitions range from "does not exist" to "nothign else exists" and everywhere in between.

Whatever the outcome of such enquiries, it is very plain that there is a hell of a lot of disentangling and sorting out to be done in this region where the "I" meets the "It".

And I think this is an important quest. Because, as we have all been told, ""It" happens."



A

Subject: RE: BS: Subjectivity obfuscates communication.
From: Donuel
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 11:29 AM

Also, as suspicion in the back of ones mind breeds more suspicion the communication becomes one of a duel between paranoid adversaries.

Subject: RE: BS: Subjectivity obfuscates communication.
From: Azizi
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 11:29 AM

I believe that the comment that I posted on this Mudcat thread thread.cfm?threadid=108237&messages=29 in response to your statement is also appropriate for this thread:

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: Azizi - PM
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 11:17 AM

Little Hawk, with regard to your comment that "Those who love Obama already will usually think he did a wonderful job. Those who hate Hillary already will sneer at everything she says, no matter what it is":

it is also possible that people might assess the past and present statements, policies, and actions of several candidates and their surrogates as a means of deciding which candidate they believe would be the best for that position. And even when they decide which candidate they support, that does not mean that they can't see anything good about the other candidates they did not support.

For a number of reasons, I am a Democrat. As such, I never considered voting for any of the Republican candidates for US President. I am proud to say that I am an ardent supporter of Senator Barack Obama for President. However, I was not automatically for Senator Obama. Initially, I leaned more toward Senator Hillary Clinton. However, as a result of listening, watching, and reading about the policy positions of Obama, Clinton, and Edwards in particular {the Democratic candidates who I believe had the best chance of getting the Democratic nomination}, and as a result of the way the candidates and their surrogates conducted themselves during this campaign, I chose to support Senator Barack Obama. I do so because I consider him to be the best person-Democract or Republican-who is campaigning for President.

This doesn't mean that I can't sometimes agree with the positions other candidates [presently in the campaign or who have since dropped out of the campaign] have stated.

That said, I don't feel the need to advocate on this forum or elsewhere for any other candidate besides the one who I have chosen.

Those who support another candidate can spend their time and energy posting on behalf of that candidate.

Subject: RE: BS: Subjectivity obfuscates communication.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 11:33 AM

Yes indeed.

I personally think that the answer is to be found in practicing compassion and non-condemnation of others...as well as an honest assessment of self.

Which is not to say it's easy. It demands quite a bit of patience.

Ever notice how impatient most people are? That shows that they are under considerable stress almost all the time, and they're reacting to it.

Subject: RE: BS: Subjectivity obfuscates communication.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 11:45 AM

The above reply was to Amos.

In regards to your post, Azizi:

Yes, I understand your position.

We are always teetering between subjectivity and objectivity...and the question is, to what extent, and how much to one side or the other?

I lean more toward Obama than Clinton too, for various reasons. My favorite was Dennis Kucinich, and I think I like Edward's platform better than Obama's or Clinton's, but Kucinich never had a chance, and Edwards is out now. So it goes.

Subject: RE: BS: Subjectivity obfuscates communication.
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 11:47 AM

"Subjectivity obfuscates communication."

well, sure. That's a pretty obvious statement. The problem is that there is often too much subjectivity about what really *IS* subjective.

   I see regular attempts to counter opponent's points by claiming that "yours is just as subjective as mine".....and this is just not always the case. (I once KNEW a guy who bought into the idea that pi was 'really' equal to exactly 3. He claimed *I* just 'believed' in a different math structure than he did.)(he also claimed he could trisect an angle using only compass & straightedge, demonstrating counter examples didn't faze him...it 'worked' when HE did it.)

Subject: RE: BS: Subjectivity obfuscates communication.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 12:00 PM

Well, yeah. ;-) That was his method. People are like that. Their ideas are like their children, and they will defend them with great ferocity.

Subject: RE: BS: Subjectivity obfuscates communication.
From: Rapparee
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 12:26 PM

Transmitter ---> (noise) ---> Receiver

...as Shannon and Weaver demonstrated so many years ago. Subjectivity in this case is the noise (which of course can also be a poor choice of words, poor phrasing, and a myriad of other things which weaken the message transmitted even further).

Subject: RE: BS: Subjectivity obfuscates communication.
From: Amos
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 12:34 PM

Actually, I think the premise of this thread is just wrong.

ALL communication is subjective -- it is between Viewpoint A and Viewpoint B. Even when a 1000 people ready an article there is only the same transaction -- AUthor A to Reader B =-- occurring.

When communication becomes mechanical, rote, automatic, scripted, it of course loses a lot of its life. That's what really obfuscates communication. For example try understanding the mind of the person who writes the fine pront in your credit card statement. Obscure? I'll say.

Subjectivity is the spice of life and the garden of independent thought, and the only channel to the heart. As such it makes communication alive and interesting (as long as it is conducted reasonably well).


A

Subject: RE: BS: Subjectivity obfuscates communication.
From: Janie
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 01:00 PM

Cognitive Equation


Event --------------------------->Interpretation---------->Reaction/or Response
(for example, what another                (the meaning one assigns
person says)                                           to the event after running
                                                                through all the internal filters
                                                                of experience, unnoticed beliefs
                                                                  cognitive distortions, etc.)


This actually a circular and not a linear process. The reaction or response then becomes an event.


Which all just another way of saying what LH and Rap have already said.

Subject: RE: BS: Subjectivity obfuscates communication.
From: Mrrzy
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 01:02 PM

One of my favorite bumber stickers is Eschew Obfuscation.

I didn't get to watch the debate, but I hear that each won, depending on to whom I was listening at the time. I'm waiting to hear what the BBC thought... I try not to listen to US news these days, at least not to US newscasters.

What do you guys think?

Subject: RE: BS: Subjectivity obfuscates communication.
From: Peace
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 01:07 PM

My favourite bumper sticker is upside down and says "IF YOU CAN READ THIS, CALL 911".

Subject: RE: BS: Subjectivity obfuscates communication.
From: PoppaGator
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 01:14 PM

While LH's observations in the opening post are always true to one exent or another, it's interesting to reflect upon how and why this barrier to communication can be so much worse in some circumstances than in others, and in some eras.

The political climate in Washington DC has become increasingly ~ make that alarmingly ~ partisan in recent years. There have always been differing opinions, but the recent bitterness and tendency to demonize one's opponents has reached unprecedented heights. This is obviously true among officeholders of the two opposing parties, and it can be seen among the population as a whole. The popularity of rabblerousing talk radio is certainly a contributing factor, although it's hard to say whether this phenomenon is a response to the increasing rancor, or the cause of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Subjectivity obfuscates communication.
From: Amos
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 01:37 PM

Well, I don't consider rabble-rousing to be genuine communication -- it's more of muckraking and frenzied mobbery. But I repeat my point. The problem is not subjectivity per se. It is distortion within the subjectivity.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Subjectivity obfuscates communication.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 01:44 PM

Agreed, Amos. The distortion is the problem, and the distortion usually occurs because of the interplay of various negative emotions (contempt, fear, hostility, anger, jealousy, prejudice, arrogance, etc.).

Someone in the grip OF a negative emotion usually feels entirely justified in having it and blames it on whoever he's arguing with...but in doing so he is quite often passing the buck.

Subject: RE: BS: Subjectivity obfuscates communication.
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 02:28 PM

It's pretty rare to find people who are genuinely impartial and fair in their judgements of politicians...

Truth of the matter is I'm much more impartial in my judgement of politicians than of non-politicians. When I hear a politician spouting idiocy, I figure there's at least a 50% chance that he's not speaking what he truly believes, but is just saying whatever he thinks is going to get him the most votes. When I hear a non-politician spouting idiocy, I figure he's an idiot, no doubt about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Subjectivity obfuscates communication.
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 03:15 PM

LOL...now there's wisdom in that!

Subject: RE: BS: Subjectivity obfuscates communication.
From: Amos
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 03:26 PM

BWL, you are a gem among men, and you should be in Bobert's Cabinet as Secretary of Insight.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Subjectivity obfuscates communication.
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 04:56 PM

Opps... Did I fail to mention that Bill is already penciled in as Secretary of Philosophy...

(And, no, Bill.... You won't have to commute... You can work outta yer home *and* continue making purdy wooden things... Might of fact, the purdy wooden things are part of the job description because they give you time to clear out yer head and get some serious thinkin' done...)

B

Subject: RE: BS: Subjectivity obfuscates communication.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 05:10 PM

One qualifier to what you said, Bee-Dub...

There are some people who are sensible about a good many things or even most things, but are still idiots regarding one or two things that they have a hangup about.

So when you hear someone spouting what strikes you as idiocy, remember....they may not be idiots in a general sense, but rather just as regards one particular subject or situation. I find that's often the case with various people. ;-) You just have to steer them away from those situations which provoke them into morphing into an idiot, that's all.

Subject: RE: BS: Subjectivity obfuscates communication.
From: Rapparee
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 05:30 PM

As I mentioned to my brother the Alderman, "City Council? What are you, nuts?" and he agreed.

Subject: RE: BS: Subjectivity obfuscates communication.
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 06:37 PM

It distorts, but does it obfuscate?

Subject: RE: BS: Subjectivity obfuscates communication.
From: Amos
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 07:55 PM

Distortion obfuscates signal, by its nature.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Subjectivity obfuscates communication.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 08:05 PM

If we can't state our opponent's position in a way with which they agree, we don't understand what their position actually is, and we aren't very well equipped to counter it.

Subject: RE: BS: Subjectivity obfuscates communication.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 08:58 PM

Ah! Well said.

Subject: RE: BS: Subjectivity obfuscates communication.
From: Slag
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 09:47 PM

Gee LH. If I post my sincere agreement with you then I demonstrate the I am not one of those prejudiced types! Yeah. None of us HERE are like that.

What shapes our biases? Is it the opinions of significant others? How many of the Republicans had Republican parents? Democrats with Democrats for parents. How may were born Catholic? Atheists? Are your preconceptions shaped by past experience? After you've been bitten a few times by dogs do you develop a sort of innate fear of dogs? Does your way of dealing with conflicts always work? Never works? Did it work in the past but not now?

The point is, we all build a world of assumptions about us. Some are accurate. Some may not be accurate but they work for us. They are needed in order to survive the world and deal with dangers of all sorts. In this way we don't have to re-invent the wheel every time we need to roll. You only have to be burned once to understand a particular aspect of fire. Thus our minds are shaped by our sitz em leben ( life situation ), our cultural (or counter-culture, as the case may be), our experiences, our fears and our loves.

When we find agreement with another and establish common ground then we are communicating. But what about those with whom we disagree? What points are there in common that serve as a launching pad for communication or do we just blow them off? Ignore or disregard them or their ideas? On what basis do you evaluate what they say? Do you run it through your filters of political idealism or religious purity? Categorize until you have everything pigeon-holed?

It is tough to really listen to someone else and really hear what they are saying. It takes real effort and you have to lower your own bulwark of defenses and step inside the other person's world to begin to understand. Some of us do this professionally and that is a good thing but at the end of the work day you turn it off. You shouldn't bring work home from the office! Right? Never give out your home phone number! Right? Were you really there for them or there for them for the money? The last bulwark?

How about even in knowing yourself? Have you ever let down your defenses against the things you fear about yourself? How well do you really know yourself?   Into the dark and the nightmare. I, the subject and the object?

Ah, well, maybe it's my own story I am looking at after all. We can never truly stand inside the mind of another, can we? Really? I think we can, as much as another person makes her or his mind available to us. The history of human thought suggest that we can do that. We pass along ideas and inventions, share common experience via a common language. We define terms, stipulate, argue and so on but the key thing is that we KEEP TALKING! Keep on trying to understand one another. When the talking stops, the killing begins.

Subject: RE: BS: Subjectivity obfuscates communication.
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 09:58 PM

The very term "debate" has antagonistic nuances. That's why you have "opponents" in a debate. It's all about persuading the other side of the validity of your viewpoint. Not about learning anything. It's information "push" - no way to get at objective results, even when one side clearly "wins". More about showing off mental trickery (as opposed to dexterity) and stubbornness (as opposed to steadfastness). Useless, stupid and wasteful of time and effort.

Whereas a "discussion" has "participants" - who may have a starting point of view, but may well end up with different ones. It aims to get at the truth, and requires an open mind. It's information sharing, push as well as pull - much more condusive to objective results. Not as much fun to watch by a society geared towards confrontation, winners and losers, playground-nyah-nya-teasers, but hey, you get what you ask for.

Subject: RE: BS: Subjectivity obfuscates communication.
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 10:31 PM

'penciled in' as "Secretary of Philosophy"....

hmmm...I'd bet that once you see my list of planned hearings, conferences and manditory workshops I want you all to attend, that appointment might just be re-examined with a big, fat eraser... ;>) ☺

I've never seen a Philosophy agenda get much influence after folks realized they were supposed to **think** on a regular basis.

(I have for years said I was running for "Emperor of the Universe", but no one would vote for me after they heard ALL my platform)

Subject: RE: BS: Subjectivity obfuscates communication.
From: Janie
Date: 02 Feb 08 - 12:13 AM

Good post, Slag.

Subject: RE: BS: Subjectivity obfuscates communication.
From: Amos
Date: 02 Feb 08 - 12:19 AM

Ah, well, maybe it's my own story I am looking at after all. We can never truly stand inside the mind of another, can we? Really? I think we can, as much as another person makes her or his mind available to us. The history of human thought suggest that we can do that.


Bravo, Slag. I think we can too. I think we do in degrees every time we really listen, and the degrees range from little to complete duplication -- although we don't experience that very often. I suppose society couldn't stand too much of that!! :D

Good post.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Subjectivity obfuscates communication.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Feb 08 - 01:25 PM

Debating is a kind of game, with formal rules and the objective is to win. The actual issues are relatively secondary, the point is to show that you can be more effective in dealing with them. And the assumption is that opponents should treat each other with respect, and play by the rules, with mutual respect being one of the rules. That needn't exclude fairly robust play any more than it does in other games. And it doesn't mean that the outcome may not matter quite a lot, and that cheating may not come into it.

A discussion is something different - the actual issue or issues are central, and the object is for people to bring to bear their different perspectives on exploring the issues, and advancing their understanding. Once again, hostility has no place.

Quarrels or arguments (in that sense) are what we get when a debate or discussion degenerates and turns into a real fight, in which the excercise of skill or the pursuit of truth is abandoned. Any time that happens it's a failure on the part of those concerned.

Typically often enough it is onlookers and the people on the outside in contests who are more liable fall into that trap. In sport and in politics fans can get quite taken aback when they see that the actual players can get on quite well with each other. The same thing happens with rival advocates in court cases.