291d, Posted for: Whole Community
My Comments on Video of Intellectual Standards
Posted by: Behnam Jafari
{"ops":[{"insert":"Podcast: "},{"attributes":{"background":"#ffffff","color":"#1155cc","link":"https://community.criticalthinking.org/watchEmbeddedVideo.php?id=311"},"insert":"(Ep. 16) Intellectual Standards: Going Deeper - How Egocentric and Sociocentric Thinking Divert Us from Using Intellectual Standards"},{"insert":"\n\nSome of organizing ideas covered in this podcast:\n\nEgo-centricity and two categories of its drivers as Selfishness and narrow-mindedness. One subtle point is that egocentricity does not always mean as selfishness to the extent that protects us. "},{"attributes":{"list":"ordered"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"Applying such standards as accuracy, precision, relevance, logic and fairness especially in assumptions behind our egocentric and socio-centric views. "},{"attributes":{"list":"ordered"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"Distinction between two views of \"It's true because I/We WANT to believe\" vs. \"It's true because I/We BELIEVE\" in the contexts of egocentricity and socio-centricity. In case of the former, our views are impaired due to lack of accuracy and relevance standards. "},{"attributes":{"list":"ordered"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"One interesting way of asking questions from ourselves can be asking: What part of our views is most likely to be inaccurate instead of asking what part of our views is accurate?(Thanks to Dr. Nosich)"},{"attributes":{"list":"ordered"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"One approach of dealing with Socio-centricity is to analyze its cluster of ideas individually focusing on the concepts of ideas."},{"attributes":{"list":"ordered"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"Question 1: t Which of two views are more difficult to analyze? It's true because either I WANT to believe or I BLIEVE?"},{"insert":" To me it seems that WANTING can be part of TO BELIVE. It is all about HOW and WHY we believe? We might be taught or want to believe an idea. \n\n"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"Question 2: When we do analyze our egocentricity and socio-centricity ideas, to what extent we can apply intellectual standards in an objective manner?"},{"insert":" I mean, when we try to understand the drivers behind our egocentricity we approach through our own lenses and in this way we might even distort our ideas and the way we apply standards. we can imagine ourselves as an ego built from fibers of egocentric ideas. When we say we analyze our egocentricity it implies an assumption of having an hidden objective entity which can dissect egocentric ideas into elements of thought and applying intellectual standards while the our inner analyst's identity is inextricably tied with those egocentric ideas. \nI think in some physical topics as far as we do apply standards as universally-agreed standards like a ruler for measurement it doesn't matter whether we are inside the water or outside of it although we experience two totally different sense of measurement in such two environments. One answer to my question might be as far as we apply universally-agreed intellectual standards(based on feedbacks on objectivity) like a ruler, we can analyze our egocentric ideas while being aware of our limitations in our ego-built identity. (Like an observer who is watching the cases of interest through water in a glass container while being aware of the impact of light refraction as a distorting factor in his measurement)\n\n\n"}]}
Posted by: Gerald Nosich
{"ops":[{"insert":"Hello Behnam,\n\nI found your two questions to be very interesting. They are also important in that they are representative of issues we all face. Let me respond a little only to your second question. \n\nThough we want an \"objective\" way to apply the standards, I don't think it's reasonable to expect us to be able find one, pure and simple, with vital interests that affect our lives. We can do so sometimes, as in your analogy with seeing the ruler through refracted light. \n\nFor a substantive example, I can see quite clearly that my own life does not have more value than the lives of ten other individuals. So I can say that, objectively, the ethical course of action, other things being equal, is to sacrifice my life if doing so will in fact save ten others. That seems to me to be clear, accurate, precise and significant. That may not be what I decide to actually do, and I may use my egocentric reasoning to squirm out of the conclusion. Still, that won't make it ethical.\n\nStill, the example I just gave is a pretty stark, all-or-nothing case, and so it's not like the far more complicated and nuanced issues we actually face in life. With those, we can't get any guarantee of \"objectivity.\" The best we can do is to do the best we can. To recognize my own egocentricity and sociocentricity; to see things from other people's points of view (not just my own); to weigh consequences in an even-handed manner; to be on the lookout for my own biases, and so forth. That's a lot to do, but we can do it. Not only that, but as we practice we can get better at doing it.\nBest,\nGerald\n"}]}