How we know what we know: utter denial in human beings
 

Utter denial: once in a while you get a clear example of this sort of thing, and I think it is fasinating to see.

Billy posted the web site for a project by two Brits who reenacted Mao's "Long March". Mao himself said that the length of this march was 25,000 li, or about 7800 miles. That "fact" became a truth for the Chinese people.

But when they actually studied it and walked it, it turned out to be shorter:
OK, that's the setup. Here's the detail. Confronted with the actual fact right before his eyes, the fact simply can't change for one gentleman:
This kind of partisan denial happens in all societies, in ourselves too, and we just can't see it. It's "the truth hole" and I hope to try to understand it.

My thinking on this is affected by an NPR piece I listened to about two years ago. There was this guy who was half black as his mother had sex with a gentleman of color. Mom however steadfastly denied it to the kid all his life. She told him that there was American Indian in their bloodline and his darkish appearance was due to that. His belief became so steadfast that even when presented with scientific evidence that showed the contrary, he refused to believe it for years and years, and lived in the denial state. That denial state is fascinating to me. Things that are not true, but are believed anyway because to not believe them is psychologically difficult.

DENIAL: Don't Even kNow I Am Lying

Cognitive dissonance is a powerful thing.

Labs, especially understaffed and overpressed American labs, have been known to make HUGE mistakes. HUGE. A man was poisoned by his wife with Anti-Freeze: the testing lab made a fatal error (very usual, by the way) and misplaced a decimal point in the results. Neveryoumind that antifreeze in ANY amount should NOT be found in humans...the lab dismissed it. Years went by before the wife was prosecuted. Medical mistakes are de riguer. It is POSSIBLE to doubt results--either lab or otherwise. Thats all I mean. d'you know how many false negative pap smears go by?

Very interesting subject .

Let's start with getting rid of the easy reply 'what is truth anyway?' I have a lot of problems with the concept of time for example . I know that X particular event only ran on for a couple of hours , but why the hell does it take up the whole of my head then ? I know that that other X period of time ran on for years and years , but why does it only take up about one second of my brain ?

OK , now that is out of the way , it is interesting to remember that not all cultures count like we do . In many languages , once you have got past the fingers and toes , everything else is 'a lot' ( those cultures put detail elsewhere) . We can hardly say that the Chinese think in terms of 'a lot' . No one knows more about counting than they do . Mao obviously played around with figures and other people's credibility . This is not good , but then neither was Mao .

Seeing how little things actually were is part of growing up . We have all gone back to that huge tree of our childhood only to find out that it is just an ordinary old tree . That bottomless , scary cupboard turns out to be a scruffy little glory-hole . I have never been able to grow up completely though , as I still see my father as tall , brave and wonderful . Well , he IS tall , brave and wonderful .

And apparently it is not true about being able to see the Great Wall of China from outer space .

As a recent historical corollary, one could ask how many men were in the Million Man March? So long as history names it such, the actual number won't really matter, as it's as much a symbol as anything. In this case, the numbers aren't quite so conclusive as the Long March, but the effects of a significant number remain.

"The Boston University team figured that there were 878,587 marchers. With an estimated error margin of 25%, the number of participants could have been as high as 1,098,234 or as low as 658,940."

Info found here: http://observe.arc.nasa.gov/nasa/edu...llion_man.html

Good point , Ridgeplate . It is also a very white American point , as was Undertoad's . Both your complementary points are valid , of course . Perhaps we choose to count when it is in our interest ? And how many tears have you counted in The Trail of Tears ?

And in America , do they do what they do in France , Ridgeplate ? Whenever there is a public demonstration , the trade unions give one figure , and the police a much lower one .

(There are no more public demonstrations in the United Kingdom , by the way . Mrs Thatcher managed to kill all the trade unions , and no one dares to demonstrate against capitalism in the UK any more .)

I experience MY truth about the world. This truth is based on my perceptions of all past experiences and knowledge. Joe has his truth, Mary has her truth, Dave has his truth, etc, etc until we encompass every person living, as well as all those that came before us. Some of us group together and agree to have an identical portion of the truth. Thus we have a mathematical group that agrees 4 + 4 = 8, we have a Christian group that agrees in salvation through Christ, we have an alcoholic group that agrees a liquid substance can control their lives,etc, etc until we encompass every group that is and has ever been. The largest group around , humans, (most humans anyway) have a truth inside us that says "I AM this truth that I perceive". So if you disagree with one of my truths you are attacking me personally as well as all my groups that I belong to. Also, if I would happen to allow myself to believe your truth that means part (if not all) of me dies.

Truth in this world is only perceptual.

Accepting a new truth = death.

Denial becomes survival

Very interesting , Bluesky .

What do you do to the people who you think are attacking you and your groups ?

If I'm speaking in generalities (as I was in my previous post), I'll speak as most humans do:

I will kill you spiritually, emotionally, or physically to prove my truth is stronger than yours.

If I'm speaking for me personally:
I TRY to acknowledge that your attack on my truth is only an ill conceived attempt for you to protect yourself and then communicate understanding back. Notice I said try, it is a very ingrained habit in all of us to perceive these things as attacks and then attack back.

I shall have to be very careful then .

Points apparently now have race and nationality...that's ever so much more interesting than just having validity. Now one can be racist or nationalist about a point without any people actually being involved. Would pointing out that "Bolshevik" was not in fact the "majority party" at the time also be a white American point? One must think so now.

I guess we'll deprecate Orwell's observations on language and politics too...perhaps not American, but certainly white. Clearly guilty of excessive occidentalism.

And here is a point that may be a white American point without the speaker even being white. A miracle!

Most people choose to put a point over when it happens to coincide with their vision of the world , MaggieL . There are loads of points all over the place . One can pick and choose .

A few people - not very many - try to see the points , and then they try to make sense of them .

I try to belong to the latter group , but I no doubt belong to the former .

No doubt. Beliving you have risen above speaking out of your own weltanschauung must be a particularly pernicious form of self-deception.

...so when you pointed out Ridgeplate's ideas as white where you trying to see the points and make sense of them or just muddle them up to promote you perceived truth ?

... and what the hell is a weltanschauung ? ;)

That's a Germanic point.

http://www.pz.harvard.edu/Research/PatThk.htm

this is research project I find interesting that looks at understanding (and misunderstanding)- critical thinking, beyond just ability.

I would say "inclination and sensitivity" are even greater contributers than the article professes. Probably to the point that we could say "ability" is standard across the board and severe inclinations toward "inclination and sensitivity" hinder the ability to accurately measure "ability".


:3eye:

Surely a computer dude knows how to Google. :-)

People will find experiences in their life that can be used to affirm whatever they believe.

No matter what the experiences or belief. ;)

You've seen through my humble attempt at drollness via feigned ignorance.

Is your leitmotiv to do with MaggieL being your doppelganger , BlueSky ? Or is that just schadenfreude on my part ?

No...just my predisposition to posting without F5ing. : )

Today I bent the truth to be kind, and I have no regret, for I am far surer of what is kind than I am of what is true. -Robert Brault, software developer, writer (1938- )

And why not?

[quote=BigV]Today I bent the truth to be kind, and I have no regret, for I am far surer of what is kind than I am of what is true. -Robert Brault, software developer, writer (1938- )
QUOTE]


Well Done BigV !

I feel the essence of your quote answers the original post with a truth we often overlook.

Just an off hand guess based on the number of women I know who've had them (false neg.) I'd say, ohhh about most of them.

Denial, you've heard it all before
 

Here.

I do hope you have that backwards. If you know women who had false negatives, how did they find out?

When the tumor grew large enough to detect by non-pap-smear methods, its size indicating it must have been there during previous pap smears?

No, Maggie is on the Ball. I have that backwards. A lot of them had false positives. That's why I had to give up being an freelance groin ecologist.

Computer dudes know better than to "google". Clustered results are much better.

Do you actually believe that the G-Evil company provides better search results? There is no scientific evidence to show that, and several private studies (that I am privey to, being a search expert) that indicate otherwise.

Maggie, Google is a Silicon Valley company; all other Silicon Valley companies you distrust. Why the affinity for such an evil empire? I have met with Google on three seperate occasions and I know them well. They are very evil; you have no idea. Why do you like them?

Can you give us a tib bit of their evil doings?

It's what you check when you're trying to calculate your lebensraum.

That's an unsupported sweeping generality...you're just cranked becuase I think your latest "WiFi NetZero" Kool-Ade smells of fish.

And "privey" sounds like where that objection belongs, too; finding the definition for a foreign word doesn't exactly require the best search engine on the planet...whatever you may believe that means. There are currently twelve engines in my search bar; I'm satisfied with Google for routine stuff such as the above. My sympathies if they compete with your advertising business.

Since you're a "search expert" you'd probably better get used to the fact that-like it or not-"google" has become a generic term for web search. (So much so that maybe they should scramble a little to protect the trademark.)
"It's not so much the verbing that wierds language, it's the renounification."

Not any more. :-)

I had to sign NDAs a few times in my dealings with them. So, I am limited in what I can say. I offer the following public tid bit. I believe that Google is unfair to older workers even though they prevailed in this suit. It's very hard to prove especially with verbal comments in private.

(AP) A California judge has sided with Google Inc. in an age discrimination lawsuit filed by a former manager who alleged the online search engine leader had fired him because he didn't fit in with the company's youthful culture.

Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge William Elfving granted Google a summary judgment on all the case's key issues in a Sept. 21 ruling. The judge concluded that Brian Reid, formerly Google's director of operations, hadn't presented enough evidence to prove Google fired him in February 2004 because of his age.

Reid, who was 54 when he filed the suit more than 14 months ago, said one of Google's executives told him that he lost his job because he didn't fit into Google's youthful atmosphere. ...

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=1174574

Because sometimes being kind is the greatest disservice possible. When they find out they'd been making a fool of themselves and you could have prevented it, how will they feel about you? ;)

They will feel your kindness. They will feel your love. They will forget their embarrassment. Their life will be better off from feeling the joy brought by your compassion. Besides, most of the time sacrificing kindness for "truth" is lost as people will only believe what they are ready to believe.

I have NEVER regretted the situations in my life where kindness was chosen over truth.


EDIT: after posting the above I thought it was important to clarify my view by saying that kindness is the key in BigV's quote. Many times truth is the kindness . The intentions of what you express far outweigh the syntax of the words given.

Yes , kindness is beauty .

And, to quote Keats :

'Beauty is truth, truth beauty - that is all ye know on earth and all you need to know' .

... but , we cannot be poets all the time .

What is the line between true kindness and condescension ? I would not like anyone to hide the truth from me 'out of kindness' . I decide what is good for me , not other people . Mao probably thought he was being kind when he lied to the Chinese .

This is so common it is ridiculous, the example that confuses me the most is all the evidence of Mediterranean, Asian, North African and European presences in the Americas far before Columbus, yet American and European text books still contain that falsehood.
This is true of much of what we know of history, particularly of the move West in America, but a great deal more... it is sad and shameful.

Yes . Although we do mention Eric the Red .

There is also an old tradition of a pre-Columbus North American tribe being able to speak Welsh , but this is nonsense . Similarly , in New Zealand , some people of European stock like to claim that the Celts were there before the Maori . This theory tends to be put forward by uneducated racists .

Concerning the Chinese , yes , it seems to be respectable historical fact that they got around far more than was hitherto believed .

... see Martin Doutré for the loony Celt theories in New Zealand / Aotearoa .

I have also recently read that a very old bit of human has been found in America . The Native Americans want to give this bit of human a proper traditional burial , but the scientists say that DNA tests show that this bit of human does not belong to them , as it is a European .

Anyone know any more about that ?

Yeah.... google Kennewick Man.

C'mon. :eek6: OK, nice save. Then you would tell them they have toilet paper stuck to their shoe, instead of, they look marvelous.

It's the line of uncertainty. If I am unsure of what I think is true, but I am sure of what is kind, better to err on the side of kindness.

To steal a very useful acronym from Scott Adams of Dilbert fame, BOCTAOE

I don't think that lying to anyone under any excuse is kindness. Whether or not you cloud the lie in poetic lines about kindness nothing to do with the fact that you are lying to them. Even the feeling that you lie because you care about them is false, because you are belittling them in the process. You say "well, they would be happier if they thought this" but it really ends up being "well, they can't really handle it so I'd better make sure they don't hurt theirself". It is what is done with children, not adults.

In the end I think it boils down into happiness vs dignity

I'm not advocating lying. To lie implies an intentional withholding of a relevant truth. If I am uncertain of the truth, then I am not lying.

Mark Twain takes this question up nicely in a short story entitled "Was it Heaven? Or Hell?"

Worth a look.

If you intentionally deceive (or intentionally allow a deception to continue), outright or through any form of omission, it is a lie.
It ain't hard.

That's when I like to say, "I don't know." But then, I can offer an opinion.

Did I just miss the point by not reading the whole thread? Woops.

I think your on the money here that deception is a lie,and I think what's being proposed here is not deception though. It's simply allowing for the fact that your perception of truth does not have to be same as everyone Else's and therefore not forcing your viewpoint on another is the kindness. I'll try an example:

Let's say your friend gets a new haircut, and technically this haircut is a freakin wreck in the areas of straightness of cut, esthetically pleasing , or whatever reason you perceive. Your friend then asks you, "How do you like my new haircut?"

You say, "You look great!"

Deception is when you've said this because: you don't have the balls to express your perceived truth, you've said this in hopes that they will look foolish by proclaiming their great haircut to all they see, or any other motive that has intentions of allowing some pain into their existence.

Kindness is when you've said this because: you know your friend takes all criticism in a negative way and your perceived truth does no good by being expressed, you've said this because you truly see only greatness in your friend and the temporary effects of a haircut are meaningless to you, or you've said this because you're unsure whether you're perceiving a bad haircut or if it actually is a bad haircut.

Words and images surround us everyday, being interpreted in as many ways as there are people in existence. The only thing you can be absolutely sure of is whether you intended love or you intended hurt in your actions. Everything else is subjective.

:thumbsup: wise words there

:redface: Thank you skysidhe.

But, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. ;)
Maybe you're in the clear because your intentions are good, but that doesn't help the victim of good intentions gone awry.

Also, opening your mouth if you don't know what you're talking about is never a good idea no matter how good your intentions are. I hate to shatter your little 'my little universe, your little universe, it's all good' campfire song of a philosophy, but you can know a hell of a lot more than your own emotions.