I am partly creating this thread in response to a friend looking my ideas up on AI. Being not a great lover of AI, I was surprised when I showed up and ended up concluding that such searches could generate feedback for analysis of one’s own ideas. I am sure that this is not new, and many may have been doing this for some time.
I am not raising the topic to look at artificial intelligence, but to look at analysis of one’s beliefs and thinking. I have been thinking about this area recently, in reading, ‘The 3rd Alternative:Solving Life’s Most Difficult Problems’, by Stephen R Covey, 2011. In particular, he sees the perspectives of two choices, or dualities, as limiting the way human beings perceive difficulties. It is a way of constructing ‘walls’ in thinking. The walls may be problematic.
Covey argues that,
‘One of the discouraging things is about how we deal with conflict is that cement wall of opinion.Historically, we’ve seen the the figurative walls between people turn into real walls. We saw it in Berlin between the capitalists and the communist worlds between the Israelis and Palestinians. We can’t move forward as long as the walls are up, until at least one of us is willing to seek out the other and truly understand the other.’
My own reading of this is based on understanding the psychodynamic aspects of projection. Beliefs and opinons may be shifted onto others. Philosophical analysis may involve thinking about abstract ideas but what may be essential is an understanding of personal beliefs, attitudes and values. Here, I am arguing for the importance of self understanding, especially in blindspots of thinking.
It is not an easy area, and may include aspects of politics, religion and morality. I am not sure how this will even work as a thread because awareness of blindspots involves critical self awareness. I have wondered about my own blindspots, which include the fear of ‘nothing’ after death, the possible collapse of human civilisation and the limits of human understanding. Initially, I come from a standpoint of sympathy towards spirituality. However, these areas are my own blindspots. Yours may be very different.
To what extent is awareness of personal blindspots important? It may be easier to see the blindspots in others’ thinking, but what about one own, as an aspect of self awareness, self knowledge and critical analysis? I see this as the biggest challenge, especially with artificial intelligence as a source of objective feedback for understanding subjectivity.
This topic involves the dialogue between the voice of subjectivy and objectivity in human understanding of ideas and values. What do you think, feel, or interpret your ideas and iemotions about philosophy? Have you ever been troubled by others’ideas and philosophy views? To what extent is a matter of others’ideas or what they represent to you? To what extent is philosophy about ideas or the realm of values, which may be feeling toned?
The overall thrust of the OP is a call to auto-reflect. I fully second the motion. The late Daniel Kahneman did much to illuminate, discovering a drove of cognitive biases. The ancients too made a fine list of fallacies for our benefit. Agrippa demolished logic with his trilemma. A Russian invented paraconsistent logic to confuse us further. We have an Australian to thank for dialetheism.
These are some of the walls I can think of off of the top of my head. The great wall is self-deception.
I bave read a little of his writing on fast and slow thinking and would imagine that cognitive biases are more apparent in fast thinking.It may be the absence of reflection. The slower, more reflective aspects of thinking and aspects of self analysis may also be more painstaking, involving more acknowledgement of defense mechanisms and personal weaknesss.
Self-deception, including what Sartre, saw as ‘bad faith’ may come into play, as aspects and depths of authentic seeking of ‘truth’,psychologically and philosophically.
A “blindspot” is a kind of invisible presupposition, and these come from habitual reinforcement. Habitual reinforcement is most acute at the societal level, and therefore the beliefs which are reinforced by one’s culture or society are those that are most susceptible to blindspots. For example, if one lives in a culture where slavery is the norm then one will be unlikely to scrutinize the institution of slavery. It is taken for granted when it has become second-nature to you and to all those around you.
So the most basic way to address blindspots is to expose yourself to alternative ways of thinking at the deepest levels (i.e. different cultures, religions, societies, historical eras, etc.). Traveling abroad is quite helpful in this way.
The other thing to note is that invisible presuppositions are both good and bad. If someone tried to shed themselves of all their invisible presuppositions in a short period of time they would probably go insane (and it is interesting to note that Descartes is cautious of this possibility in his Meditations). So you want to expose yourself to new ideas slowly, in a measurable manner where you have time to digest and consider the novel ways of viewing reality. The new things one encounters should always be assessed according to one’s current standpoint and knowledge, for there is no other way to assess them.
It is hard to know the limits of bias and blindspots entirely, on a cultural and personal level. I am sure that many philosophers in history were racist and sexist. The people of such times and contexts were living amongst such value systems.
In the twentieth first century, so many blindspots may be seen as obstacles which have been overcome. This may be the basis of academic disciplines, which may be at odds with underlying conflicts, especially evident in cultural wars, including conflicts about gender. Is transgender a blindspot of feminism, or femiinism a blindspot of critical thinking about gender? Here, I am seeing the basic structures of thinking of ‘norms’ as an underlying paradigm for norms.
So much of the current clashes of debate stem from cultural pluralism, ranging from religious to postmodern perspectives. To see from others’ points of view may involve stepping into differing cultural mindsets. This kind of thinking may be difficult, as entrenchment in values may be deepseated on a personal and cultural level. The kind of objectivity of analysis requires a deep understanding of the basis of subjective beliefs.
The question of the timing of changing presuppositins and assumptions is important, because there can be cultural shock if everything changes too quickly. However, it is not simple because so much is changing all the time, especially with online comnunication. The conflicting values of different perspectives and values is an ongoing concern, involving cultural clashes and conflicts. It may become important to see the underlying similarities of values amidst apparent diversity of differences.
For what it’s worth, I think the fact you’re asking the question already shows a level of self-awareness. For many people, even the suggestions that they have blind spots is rejected.
Also interesting to consider the fact that much of the original motivation behind scientific method was (and still is) to ameliorate against cultural or personal blind spots or biases. But science only goes so far as it can only deal with objective questions which many cultural and historic factors are difficult to frame in purely objective terms.
True. You seem to know more about the topic than the late Daniel Kahneman himself!
Yes, it’s all about thinking for oneself, through life, through its ups and downs, through the smooth sailings and the bumps on the road, and so on. It’s a jungle out there, a maze of scintillating words, and so on, to keep you busy your entire life. Retirement may not be an option. Life’s a headache, but money is a powerful analagesic. Keep at it.
You are right. The idea of using AI to provide analysis and feedback to personal text is not new but it is to you, being a novice in its use.
I can imagine the surprise that AI quoted you as a result of someone else’s search. Did you also feel ‘honoured’ in so being recognised? How well did AI reflect your views?
I appreciate your clear writing of background and intent. I’ve not read Covey but the name is familiar. The title suggests another helpful way or perspective to consider problem-solving in life.
Knowing your flair for serious and creative interdisciplinary frolicking (lively, enjoyable and personal), I look forward to reading more.
Yes, this seems right. Progress in conflict resolution would seem to require talking with and understanding each party or issue involved. To respectfully relate and negotiate carefully.
The war of worlds and the building of walls is pretty much continuous. At different levels, affecting those not directly involved and who have no power and influence over the major players. The decision-making process includes a certain kind of thinking, not always rational by nasty agents.
Rich and dogmatic leaders may talk of wishing the best for their country men (patriots) but are blind and unconcerned re the needs of others, not in their group (traitors).
“You are either with us, or against us!” - so goes the refrain and war-cry.
War is perhaps the deadliest game that humanity has created. The conflict itself represents what appears to be opposing views about the way things should be. Each side believes that it is right and that its actions are justified. Each side therefore seeks to impose its views against the other. Each side fears the other as an enemy and each side projects its fears onto its perceived “enemy.”
Static beliefs and inflexible ways of thinking and living — combine with diminishing resources — are prime components. How can philosophy help when it seems that the selfish, delusional and powerfully influential, will not or cannot listen? Dancing only to their tunes…
So, it may well be important to recognise and be self-aware — even tyrants have that! Are the ‘walls’ of thinking and knowledge ‘blindspots’ that can be cleared? Vision extended?
This from the Christian Bible, looking at moral codes, other than one’s own. Judging other natures, cultures, religions, politics…individually and and collectively. Subjectively and objectively.
Is AI the new God? Apparently, it has no subjectivity…but it can still participate in human thought…and act ‘as if’ engaging in a human way. To change beliefs and ideas?
Good questions.
Reading, reflecting, dialogue and questioning self and others are a major part of philosophy.
Yes, I have been troubled by others’ ideas, views and arguments. I attempt to understand authors and their stories; different perspectives. This by careful reading and questioning. Unfortunately, some see questions as an attack on self, so closely do they identify with their beliefs. Any ‘walls’ are there for a reason, self-protection. Who wants their being dismantled? Philosophy can be dangerous!
I’m curious about the last question. What do you mean by ideas which may be feeling toned?
Is this the tone or style of conversation based on an individual’s belief and need to persuade others?
How much do we analyse or share our ‘real’ thoughts and feelings? How authentic are we? Do we omit important background and experience, intentionally or otherwise? How are we affected by others’ actions or attitudes to self or others?
I have been affected by the recent discussion on AI, the division of evaluation and opinions. The way it has been personalised in unnecessary attacks on individuals. The way we deal with the new and talk to others.
Initially, I was inclined against AI, preferring to listen to the voiced/written thoughts of a person. However, I experimented with ChatGPT. This was in an online course discussion. For example, quoting a student, asking if the content was true and wondering how best to respond.
I found it helpful and noted its seductive qualities.
However, there is a real danger of relying on this tool, with its known faults. This includes losing one’s confidence in self.
So, I no longer have this blindspot but, through TPF, have become more aware.
Open mindedness is key. Unlocking the doors of perception. Not thinking in black and white terms. Painting in colours of creativity, using imagination.
I don’t have confidence in psychodynamic theory and I wonder if philosophy is overly significant to this matter. But no doubt you can make it so. We can make anything about philosophy if we want to. Or about psychodynamic theory. Or class…
As far as I can make out, people hold beliefs. Those beliefs often appeal emotionally. They are often the product of upbringing. We also tend to divide the world into tribes. Different beliefs are often the basis for tribal differences, the schism between the “isms”. Hence the popularity of sports, which, as Orwell reminds us, are wars without weapons. Certain football team colours can start violent riots in some European countries. So hatred doesn’t need to be about anything substantive: gender, race, religion, or policies. It can just come out of a dumb game and some colours.
I suspect that when we encounter views that don’t make sense to us and can’t be used in our own sense-making, we tend to feel hostile towards those beliefs. We judge people for their difference. The urge to judge and denigrate seems to me to be at the heart of how we hold values and formulate our sense of difference.
I’m sure I have a myriad blind spots. Not sure what they are, as I am not reflective. But I don’t think we can assume that blind spots are always bad. Could it not be that our blind spots might also give us resilience and strength? They might be the reason why we don’t take no for an answer or why we continue to make effort in the face of hopelessness. Who knows, right?
But when we say someone else has a blind spot is it actually them or us who is blind? Isn’t it tempting to call people with views we don’t understand limited, short-sighted, blind?
I like the eternal, internal and external dynamics. The perpetual interaction of agreement and disagreement. (Perfect) Understanding is in the eye of the beholder?
Greek philosophers, including Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, considered beauty an absolute manifest in order, symmetry, and proportion. But, Skeptics, Epicureans, and Stoics nudged towards an understanding that beauty exists in symmetry (objective) and in eurhythmy (subjective)
I came across the idea of blindspots initially on doing some therapy training. The reason for therapy was in connection with this.Strangely, a tutor on the course suggested that I was inclined to be in my head more than with my emotions. I also found that some therapy tutors were not very fond of philosophy, seeing it as being intellectualisation as a defense mechanism. However, they were working from a psychodynamic model whereas a cognitive behavioural frameworks differ, seeking to explore underlying core beliefs.
Generally, I see questioning and critical thinking to be very important. At times, I am an overthinker though, finding it hard to switch off from conflicting ideas in my mind. So, balance is helpful but not always easy. Overthinking may be an inevitable side-effect of a leaning towards philosophical questioning.
A similar approach to Kahnemann’s ideas of slow and fast thinking exists in nursing theory, especially by one nursing theorist, Johns. His model speaks of reflection in action and reflection after action. The in action reflection is about decisions in the moment while after action is the slower reflective approach. I am more of a slow thinker, and, often find swift reactive responses to be hard. I am aware of this about myself and see the art as being about bringing ideas from slower reflection into awareness of moments which require urgent action. This involves learning from mistakes.
Thanks for your detailed post. I was honoured to find AI recognised my philosophy approach and it did a very good job of summarising my views of consciousness. I think that the friend probably googled my ideas on consciousness after discussion with me in real life.
I am finding Covey to be helpful in thinking about third alternatives, as opposed to fight or flight dualities in difficult situations. I am really reading it because I have moved recently and finding it hard to get on with the others here. Their approach to so much is so different from mine. Covey looks at the idea of synergy in understanding others’ points of view. I did feel that reading of this helped with the one man who I converse with most in the house.
Wars are definitely based on clear walls of opposition,as in the fight mode. So much conflict in social life is too. I know that I can either go into flight mode, which usually involves lying on my bed, listening to music or reading. The fight mode in my case often involves sending emails to fight for my corner and are about personal protection. At the last house I was living in there were many physical fights between various tenants. I never got into those and was worried over a week ago that the person I came into conflict with was going to become aggressive. It was at that point that I began reading Covey’s book which I had been meaning to read for a while. I am reading it more slowly than many other books, because that allows for more absorption of ideas rather than quick reading.
The idea of seeing the plank in another’s eye rather than one’s own is an important Biblical idea. As you mention it, I think it may be where I first came across the idea of projection. That is because I do remember my religious studies teacher at school going into elaborate discussion of it, including the hypocrisy of the Pharisees. Of course, many Christians have projected onto others, especially in war and in identifying witches.
I am sure that projection is one of the most basic defence mechanisms. It is about protection of one’s beliefs as attachments. I am sure that most human beings seek out others of similar viewpoints and often prefer reading books by authors whose ideas they like. Reading the opposite views is the challenge and, hopefully, on philosophy sites there can be some exchange of ideas which involves some moderation of one’s ideas as opposed to mere battle.
A lot of people may hide their views in life, which may come down to fear. I know that I did not share my own critical thinking about religion with my parents. I am not sure whether this was to protect myself or them, or a mixture of both. I felt that I should probably not try to upset their beliefs by trying to get them to examine their ideas as much as I was doing. Also, I felt that I needed some privacy of thought, rather than them trying to persuade me that I was wrong.
When I speak of feeling tone, I am wondering about incongruities. If there is a lack of authenticity it may come across on some level. This may be in body language in face to face. It may be more disguised in writing but an inauthentic piece of writing may still show a lack of emotional depth in the creation of an argument. That is people pay attention to subtext rather than the surface in reading ideas.
I tend to draw on ideas from both psychodynamic and cognitive behavioural thinking.Both look at subconscious layers,including experiences and beliefs. I have also read a little on neuro-linguisting and framing or reframing.
I do wonder if you really are unreflective as you think you are. However, that may be your self-awareness.I could probably do with being more reactive.I once went for a job interview in a nursing prison and was told that it was necessary to be reactive. Straight away I decided I wasn’t suitable for the job and told the interviewers. Some situations do require being reactive.
Knowing one’s own weaknesses is important, although it is possible to me more aware of weaknesses rather strengths. It is often an area for interview preparation, although people may not confess their biggest weaknesses. One model I am aware of is Johari’s window, which is four quarters. One is what is known to self and others, one is known to self but not others, one is unknown to self or others and the other is unknown to self or others. The main one for working on oneself is the unknown to self but known to others. It is through feedback that one grows in self awareness. Of course, some feedback is challenged or denied.
I have actually found that I have learned so much about my philosophical blindspots through forum interaction. I learned more than on modules of various courses. That is because my own flimsy arguments became more apparent through various dialogues. It did not always mean that I ended up agreeing with the opposing idea. But it made me think more rigourously, and showed me how I had often had real contradictions in my own arguments. So,it can be fine tuning and I am sure that many come to the forum not just to prove their own beliefs but to gain more insight into the intricate aspects of one’s own development of ideas and arguments.
Interesting. I was doing something at my desk within the last few days and there was a Podcast on background and someone said to the effect that “if you don’t examine accepted values, you may end up in world where you you are unrecognizable to your self.” (probably a Nietzschean centered Podcast. I have been reexamining him once again.).
I am not certain what they meant but it struck me as somehow relevant to my own continuing sense of shock as I watch in real time the shattering of those political values I had thought at the heart of my country. (I am an American.).
But none of this started overnight and my initial visceral reaction to him from well over ten years ago was that he is dangerous and if we do not reject him the trajectory will take us to what is unfolding today.
Perhaps I have deceived myself. And if so, what are the philosophical/political blind spots that enable me to do so?
Interesting. I hire workers to provide complex case management for people with high-risk behaviours, substance use issues, mental ill health, and violence. I would look for workers who are proactive, definitely not reactive, which suggests a lack of nuance. But I suspect what managers are looking for are people who can respond to dynamic environments in a prompt, proactive way. Not everyone can read the play and anticipate hazards ahead before they happen. That often only comes from experience, but some people are naturals in this space.
When I say I am not reflective, I mean I don’t spend time pondering my motivations or actions. And I don’t agonise over making decisions. I think I am more intuitive. But this may be because, when I was young, I did tend to overthink things, the old analysis paralysis, which can leave one lacking in a capacity for action. Of course as you get older you often get confident, even if you don’t know what you are doing.
Self-deception occurs in many different ways. For many this may spread out over a big chunk of one’s life and may affect billions at a time. A type of self-deception I’m aware of is theism.
I was told that God loves me. Yet the reality of the darkness, the coldness, the emptiness is so great that nothing touches my heart
Billions of peeps believe in God despite 0 evidence that He exists.
Yes, the late Kahenman does a marvelous job of explaining errors in thinking. I don’t know much about learning from mistakes, having made many, and some more than once, but I look around and I get this funny feeling that all this has happened before - same wine, new bottle deal. It seems our slow thinkers haven’t prayed enough, or in the right way, or something else.
Life’s a headache, but money is a powerful analagesic. Keep at it.
A forever war!