Ship of Fools: Black & White Minds in a Full Colour World

Thread: Black & White Minds in a Full Colour World Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027422

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Why do people insist on viewing the world as if simple, one-sided solutions exist? I understand it is in the benefit of certain groups to propound these narrow views, but why do we listen? And why do we often think this way ourselves?
Sure, it is easy, but it is many times demonstrably inaccurate.

Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on :

I wonder if sometimes it's because a black and white approach makes people feel safer. It can be scary to explore new territory.

I also think that sometimes it's a function of age as I can think of several people who were really black and white when young but who changed as they went through certain life-changing experiences.
Having said that, I can also think of people to whom this does apply at all......

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

Clear, easily identified good and evil are comforting. Constantly evaluating the moral calculus is hard and, worse, easily prone to abuse to justify evil. Clear lines in the sand means you can get most people to be good most of the time, and it is policable. Ambiguity relies on individual assessments and individual conscience, which are fallible.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Why do people insist on viewing the world as if simple, one-sided solutions exist? I understand it is in the benefit of certain groups to propound these narrow views, but why do we listen? And why do we often think this way ourselves?
Sure, it is easy, but it is many times demonstrably inaccurate.

I find this interesting. In my work, there is a lot of work with ambivalence and pre-ambivalence. Generally, young people and immature people find ambivalence very difficult, they prefer the black and white. As people mature, they can see that both/and is more real than either/or. Thus, love and hate are not really alternatives.

[ 22. June 2014, 08:59: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

I see black and white thinking with teenagers and young people, but also sadly with their parents. Didn't Piaget suggest that abstract thinking was the final stage of cognitive development?

I've just checked something I put together a few years ago on physical, intellectual, language, emotional and social development. Expected age that students have mastered the following:

aged 14: being able to understand multiple viewpoints
aged 16: empathy for others in less fortunate circumstances;
aged 16: recognition of the law and need for maintaining social order

[This came from a variety of sources but I suspect most of this came from Daniel, B Wassel S and Gilligan R (1999) Child Development for Child Care and Protection Workers - I did say I did this a while ago.]

I would have thought that people need those abilities to be able to put the shades of grey into their thinking.

And a second idea: does our sound bite culture, 140 character thought process lead to black and white expression of views?

Posted by Gareth (# 2494) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Didn't Piaget suggest that abstract thinking was the final stage of cognitive development?

Perhaps, but this leads us to a very unhelpful conclusion: that people who think in black and white are doing so because they are less developed and less sophisticated than us.

It is true for some people - but for an awful lot of people black and white thinking is a functional matter: it achieves results that they desire.

This can be because it supports prejudices, or because it makes dealing with other people easier (aren't arguments so much simpler when you can dismiss contrary opinions without even listening to them?) or because it allows us to make choices that don't stand up to closer scrutiny.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

Or less prepared to give credence to the experiences of other people?

Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :

I'd like a few definitions or clarifications here, because surely, many things are black and white. Not all - I would totally agree.

I assume that by black and white thinking, the OP refers to thinking that comes to a binary conclusion.

E.g. evolution as a theory is valid or not. Jesus was God or not. I can see the problem but also the strength.

Racism is wrong is black/white. Taking a black/white view to cultural issues would normally be viewed as silly. But where is the line to be drawn.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
I'd like a few definitions or clarifications here, because surely, many things are black and white. Not all - I would totally agree.

I assume that by black and white thinking, the OP refers to thinking that comes to a binary conclusion.

E.g. evolution as a theory is valid or not. Jesus was God or not. I can see the problem but also the strength.

Racism is wrong is black/white. Taking a black/white view to cultural issues would normally be viewed as silly. But where is the line to be drawn.

Very good point. I suppose one reply is that being able to calibrate between binary and fuzzy is one hallmark of mature thinking. Whereas immature thinking is unable to do this, but sticks rigidly to binary in all situations.

I suppose at this point we should have a huge row about relativism, but my dear, that is so passé now. I prefer to think in terms of fuzzy logic, and I refuse to accept any other kind!

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

Maybe another way of looking at it is what sort of mindset people are bringing to the discussion.

For lots of us, categorization is simply observational. It's a useful way of grouping things. Others may have other ways of looking at the issue and use other schema. That's going to take some more extended discussion to resolve sufficiently if we are to view things from each others perspectives.

However, some may go further and be making a claim that verges on a definition, or which is more firmly ontological.

Whilst I see quetzalcoatl's point, I'm not sure that fuzzy logic can explain all discourse - as anteater points out, there are some binaries in thought. Not least whether we apply binary thinking, or not!

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

I disagree with CK and quetzalcoatl that B&W thinking is necessarily "grown out of", enter a political discussion at the pub if you doubt this. Political careers are dependent on this, there are religious movements are founded on this.

Racism is wrong. Sounds like a fairly straightforward claim. But start a conversation defining racism and the shades of grey appear. Add in the underlying tenet of assigning meaning to groups ( gender, culture) and a kaleidoscope of colour bursts forth.

Very few people are B&W about everything, almost everyone is B&W about something and a lot of people are B&W about a lot more than they might admit.

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :

I think the answer to why people think in black-and-white terms is as complex as one would expect. Some people may be taught by their parents to think in such terms. Others may understand they are over-simplifying but are lazy. The American two-party political system encourages either/or thinking. Some religions encourage or require a dualistic world view. In business, we often come down to profit or loss.

As usual with such matters, I wouldn't look for one answer. I would ask about a specific instance.

By the way, there are probably potential problems with the spectrum-of-possibilities view, as well.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

There are time-saving issues as well.

If you think exhaustively about everything, you are going to do nothing but think in your life. IMHO that's why most people decide what issues are most important (or possibly, most pressing) and use a rule-of-thumb approach to the rest.

Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :

Where I can see a problem is when people out of practical ethical concerns, try to suppress the nuancing of moral issues.

For example you often meet resistance in trying to argue in a multitoned way about, say, sex with children, and I found it difficult when I read a book written by academics trying to distinguish different degrees of involvement and criminality involved. Yet I could not say that I could rationally disprove them, but I really didn't like the lowering of the taboo.

So I suppose I would, in this case amongst others, campaign for a black and white approach, even knowing the rational difficulties. As you can probably guess, I think some taboos are beneficial.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

I'm not sure I said what you've imputed to me, lilBuddha. I was trying to say that ambiguity in thinking requires capacity to do so, the empathy and abstract thinking skills, and that until those are developed that it's difficult to move into more nuanced thinking.

I suspect from working with teenagers that those skills are late to develop in some people, if ever. They aren't exposed to the requirement in their lives after school and they didn't reach the levels of achievement that required them to use those skills while still in education.

The experience of having had a number of futile arguments with Daily Mail readers who cannot see any grey areas around the headlines is even more compelling.

I also wondered if our sound bite world is adding to the number of people thinking in black and white or limited by 140 characters.

Posted by Gareth (# 2494) on :

quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
I'd like a few definitions or clarifications here, because surely, many things are black and white. Not all - I would totally agree.

I assume that by black and white thinking, the OP refers to thinking that comes to a binary conclusion.

E.g. evolution as a theory is valid or not. Jesus was God or not. I can see the problem but also the strength.

Racism is wrong is black/white. Taking a black/white view to cultural issues would normally be viewed as silly. But where is the line to be drawn.

You begin by defining the question, and then defining the terms of the answer.

For example, is "evolution as a theory valid or not?" First, define "theory," and then define "valid." Personally, I would say that Richard Dawkins' use of the Theory of Evolution to "prove" the nonexistence of God is absolutely invalid, but the Theory of Evolution is not only valid, but also entirely consistent with belief in a divine Creator - according to the interpretation of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin...

Black & white is a very simplistic view even of questions with binary conclusions.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Taking a black/white view to cultural issues would normally be viewed as silly. But where is the line to be drawn.

Exactly the point of the thread. Being able to see that things aren't black-and-white, and figure out how to draw the line without the comfort of a childish binary view, is what we need to develop.

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I also wondered if our sound bite world is adding to the number of people thinking in black and white or limited by 140 characters.

I think you're onto something here.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I disagree with CK and quetzalcoatl that B&W thinking is necessarily "grown out of", enter a political discussion at the pub if you doubt this. Political careers are dependent on this, there are religious movements are founded on this.

Racism is wrong. Sounds like a fairly straightforward claim. But start a conversation defining racism and the shades of grey appear. Add in the underlying tenet of assigning meaning to groups ( gender, culture) and a kaleidoscope of colour bursts forth.

Very few people are B&W about everything, almost everyone is B&W about something and a lot of people are B&W about a lot more than they might admit.

I don't think I said that binary thinking is 'necessarily' grown out of. I think that mature people are less binary, and more nuanced; but a lot of people never grow up fully, and retain B&W thinking. You are probably therefore right about us being more B&W than we admit to.

Posted by Highfive (# 12937) on :

From the Casting Crowns song "Slow Fade":

It's a slow fade when you give yourself away
It's a slow fade when black and white have turned to gray

Someone mentioned a while ago how to feel the starving prisoners in Kenya, one had to bribe the guards with food as well, so I can understand the need for ambivalence.

Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :

Many years ago I had an argument with my then girlfriend, "You think there are two sides to everything", she said angrily. Instinctively I replied, "That's true in one way but in another ...". End of relationship.

I'm mostly in at least two minds over almost every thing. My sentences tend to be filled with "mostly", "at least", "tend to", "maybe", "perhaps" and so on.

But I'm absolutely certain about disagreeing with people who see things in black and white. On the other hand ...

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

I see that most shipmates are completely black and white about black and white thinking. But is it a sign of their immaturity, or simply pre-emptive liberalism?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

One interesting psychological theory about B&W thinking relates it to splitting. The theory goes that very young infants split experiences into good and bad, and even split their mother (for example) into a good mother and a bad mother.

At some point, they integrate these, in other words, realize that this is the same person. This is considered to be a painful learning process.

But, the theory goes, some infants find this very difficult, for various reasons, and continue to separate good and bad, into adulthood.

There is another aspect of this, that one splits oneself in similar fashion. In extreme cases, this leads to fragmentation, which makes one seriously ill.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

Just speaking of the internet for a moment, I've seen several examples over the years of people who started off with a nuanced opinion. But they allow themselves to get dragged into acrimonious arguments, and after a while, they too have converted themselves into black and white thinking. You see this most noticeably in culture-wars type subjects, though it's not restricted to those.

Whatever has happened, some sort of transformation has occurred in respect of those subjects. If you think that a nuanced opinion on that matter is the way to go, you'll see it as regression. If you regard a nuanced view on that subject as a cop-out, you'll regard the change as progressive.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I see that most shipmates are completely black and white about black and white thinking. But is it a sign of their immaturity, or simply pre-emptive liberalism?

There is indeed an ironic problem with concluding that everything is not black and white.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

Even black and white are not black and white, there are many shades of both!

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Even black and white are not black and white, there are many shades of both!

Only because paint companies are trying to sell you something.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Even black and white are not black and white, there are many shades of both!
Only because paint companies are trying to sell you something.

Nope - online graphics have many shades of both too, as do artists paints [Smile]

[ 23. June 2014, 09:15: Message edited by: Boogie ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

The universe is supposed to be 'cosmic latte' coloured, which is a shade of white. In other words, we all add up to beige really.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_latte

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

A proper definition of white is that it reflects all light. A proper definition of black is that it absorbs all light. As soon as you depart from those definitions, so that something reflects or absorbs a 'bit' of light in particular parts of the spectrum, then I would argue that you no longer have something that is literally 'white' or 'black'. You have something that is very slightly blue or red or whatever.

In the context of this discussion, the whole freaking point of talking about "black and white minds" is that they deal in absolutes.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The universe is supposed to be 'cosmic latte' coloured, which is a shade of white.

Please adjust the brightness setting on your monitor.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Somebody is bound to quote it: "As the miller told his tale. That her face, at first just ghostly, Turned a whiter shade of pale."

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Somebody is bound to quote it: "As the miller told his tale. That her face, at first just ghostly, Turned a whiter shade of pale."

whiter (adjective): closer to white, heading towards white, paler than something else, increasing values in a 'hex triplet' or in the RGB colour coordinates, decreasing values in the 'k' part of CMYK colour coordinates.

white (noun): actually white, with a 'hex triplet' of FFFFFF, an RGB colour value of 255, 255, 255, and a CMYK colour value of 0, 0, 0, 0.

Seriously folks, white and black are the only "colours" that are capable of precise definition in a colour system. When I was growing up, I was taught that they weren't "colours" at all, but tones. That's exactly why they can be defined in a way that colours can't.

EDIT: It's your own link to cosmic latte that brought all those colour systems to mind and demonstrated precisely why cosmic latte isn't white.

[ 23. June 2014, 09:36: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I always hated that Navajo White bathroom suite, but now I can tell my wife that it's not even white. Bring back avocado!

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Whereas she can retort that it's whiter than the other options. [Razz]

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

It is important to realise that there are two different kinds of "black and white" thinking, i.e., binary discriminations, and that they are being confused here for purely rhetorical purposes.

On one hand, there is what I would call passive B&W, or limited perception / cognition. In this case somebody is either incapable or unwilling to recognise nuance and grading concerning something beyond two kinds. On the other hand, there is what I would call active B&W, or the imposition of principle / thresholds. In this case somebody consciously and intentionally divides the nuance and grading concerning something into two kinds.

The rhetorics in play here is to claim that every case of active B&W is due to passive B&W, i.e., binary discrimination as such indicates either a weak or malevolent mind. However, that is clearly not the case. It is entirely possible for example to see a wide spectrum of racism and yet to propose clear principles and thresholds concerning what shall be rejected as racism, and what can be tolerated. In fact, in order to provide reasonable and sensible rules and judgements that instantiate such a binary discrimination ("no racism") one has to be keenly aware of the wide spectrum. At whatever point one "draws the line in the sand" there will be questionable cases and indeed disagreement about some cases even among those who in general have agreed on that line. These matter can be resolved only with considerable insight, and this applies whether we are talking about applying a complex rule system or "wisdom".

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

Pure "shades of grey" thinking leads to nihilism. And nihilism is good for no one. It is not, IMO, a sign of maturity.

Black and White thinking is good, if all possibilities have been considered.

But hey, who can consider all possibilities but God?

So we do our best, and muddle along.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

No, B&W thinking isn't good, it's bad. Har har har.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Orfeo:

You have fallen into the "each word has one and only one definition" trap. "White" means the absolute, but it also is quite properly used to refer to various shades that are "close to absolute white." Thus, it is not wrong to say I have a white t-shirt, even though it is not white in the absolute sense, without using metaphor. Ditto for black. I have a pair of black slacks, and it's neither metaphor nor mistake to say so. Because "black" means more, in natural language, than simply "absorbing all light."

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Orfeo:

You have fallen into the "each word has one and only one definition" trap. "White" means the absolute, but it also is quite properly used to refer to various shades that are "close to absolute white." Thus, it is not wrong to say I have a white t-shirt, even though it is not white in the absolute sense, without using metaphor. Ditto for black. I have a pair of black slacks, and it's neither metaphor nor mistake to say so. Because "black" means more, in natural language, than simply "absorbing all light."

Indeed. And the wikipedia article on 'shades of white' is instructive.

But it depends on context. In certain fields, white and black are absolutes and that's the whole point of them. I would have thought that in a thread about 'black and white' thinking, the entire point was that white and black represented absolutes.

There is something deeply symbolic about the reluctance of people to treat black and white as absolutes even when the purpose is to contrast them to more nuanced colours. It's as if some are so averse to absolute thinking that they can't even bring themselves to properly define what it is they're opposed to.

[ 23. June 2014, 21:06: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
orfeo quoth:

There is something deeply symbolic about the reluctance of people to treat black and white as absolutes even when the purpose is to contrast them to more nuanced colours. It's as if some are so averse to absolute thinking that they can't even bring themselves to properly define what it is they're opposed to.

There's probably something in that. I know I've been heavily influenced in various careers by relativism, and in fact, post-modernism, that I shrink from any kind of absolute. Thus the word 'truth' brings me out in hives, and either/or is like a red rag to a bull. Well, sort of red, maybe terra cotta or cerise, to a bull.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
know I've been heavily influenced in various careers by relativism, and in fact, post-modernism, that I shrink from any kind of absolute. Thus the word 'truth' brings me out in hives, and either/or is like a red rag to a bull.

And this is the problem with postmodernism. It defines itself against binary thinking and absolutes of "truth". But in so doing, it succumbs to the very thing it despises: an absolute in that there is no "truth".

The answer (IMV) is post - postmodernism.

Reflect on and understand the difficulties in defining "truth", but then do it anyway. It's a better way to live.

(Yes, that's mixing utilitarianism with postmodernism and a dash of revelation in my case. [Big Grin]

)

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

I suspect answers rather depend on how you read the OP. I read it as saying that people are very prone to saying, for example, that criminals should be locked up without the key or capital punishment is the answer to murders or terrorists, whereas a more liberal take would want to include extenuating circumstances and come to a more nuanced view.

A current UK discussion on immigration has tried to shut borders - the black and white answer. The greyer answer, including the campaign to show what immigrants have brought to this country along with any understanding of the status of asylum seekers and refugees, is not being heard.

We have similar views that all benefits claimants are scroungers and don't deserve to have any of the hard earned tax payers' money; it's very difficult to get the fact that most benefit claimants are working heard.

Paedophilia and racism are different issues, but racism is argued for regularly here, in terms of immigration, benefits caps and a whole lot more.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
know I've been heavily influenced in various careers by relativism, and in fact, post-modernism, that I shrink from any kind of absolute. Thus the word 'truth' brings me out in hives, and either/or is like a red rag to a bull.
And this is the problem with postmodernism. It defines itself against binary thinking and absolutes of "truth". But in so doing, it succumbs to the very thing it despises: an absolute in that there is no "truth".

The answer (IMV) is post - postmodernism.

Reflect on and understand the difficulties in defining "truth", but then do it anyway. It's a better way to live.

(Yes, that's mixing utilitarianism with postmodernism and a dash of revelation in my case. )

One of the ironies about post-modernism is that in some ways it has helped religion. I mean that it contests various 'grand narratives', including religious ones, but it also celebrates the so-called 'power of the individual event', and the local as against the universal.

Well, that's the kind of religious framework that I can enjoy, and I'm sure other people as well. I suppose that the 'totalizing' aspects of Christianity might take a hit.

Yes, you are right that it itself becomes another grand narrative; one solution is to focus on the here and now. We are all post-modernists now.

Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
know I've been heavily influenced in various careers by relativism, and in fact, post-modernism, that I shrink from any kind of absolute. Thus the word 'truth' brings me out in hives, and either/or is like a red rag to a bull.

Belief is a complicated thing. I believe my beliefs to be correct (or they wouldn't be beliefs!) but looking around I see people who believe different things from me and sometimes our beliefs are incompatible. And amazingly my brilliant arguments fail to convince them.

Among those I differ from there seem to be similar ranges of eudaimonia or whatever and I cannot claim my beliefs give me a better or worse life than yours (OK, if I end up in Hell and you don't, I shall be a bit miffed). Crudely, I don't want to swap places with any of you because I'm happy with my beliefs - but equally I doubt you'd want to swap with me (for similar reasons).

Having a 'true' beliefs often doesn't matter - frequently it's better to be kind than to be right (someone's sig - sorry I can't remember who). And even when it does, we don't know indubitably who is right. It doesn't seem to me a terrible predicament. Just the way stuff is. I can live with that.

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

Reflect on and understand the difficulties in defining "truth", but then do it anyway. It's a better way to live.

A bit like Richard Rorty's "irony" (which is where I pinched my world view from). I'd only add that we don't seem, psychologically, to have a choice. I have to go on believing my truths to be correct but as my sig says ...

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

Reflect on and understand the difficulties in defining "truth", but then do it anyway. It's a better way to live.
A bit like Richard Rorty's "irony" (which is where I pinched my world view from). I'd only add that we don't seem, psychologically, to have a choice. I have to go on believing my truths to be correct but as my sig says ...

I prefer the other option.

I'm probably right.

[Big Grin]

Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I prefer the other option.

I'm probably right.

I defer to your confidence.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

You really shouldn't.

Live what you believe until experience tells you otherwise. [Big Grin]

( I know, I know. I'm hopelessly postmodern is some respects)

[ 25. June 2014, 11:52: Message edited by: Evensong ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
You really shouldn't.

Live what you believe until experience tells you otherwise.

( I know, I know. I'm hopelessly postmodern is some respects)

It's quite interesting to live without any beliefs. Some people argue that this is impossible, since, for example, I have to believe that my experience is real. I'm not sure, but I think that there are a few moments in every day, when I am relatively belief-free. I suppose spontaneous actions fit this quite well. As my old Sufi friend used to say, just try not trying. Ha ha ha.

But this can be important in some Eastern religions, as without belief, one is 'suspended between heaven and hell'. Other beliefs are available!

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Any time you take any action, it presupposes belief. If I reach for the salt, there is a presupposition, whether conscious or not, that I will end up grabbing a salt shaker that I can then use to dump sodium chloride on my food.

It seems to me the best philosophies are the ones that require the fewest jarring inconsistencies between the beliefs we act upon daily, and the beliefs we officially tell ourselves we hold.

Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
You really shouldn't.

Live what you believe until experience tells you otherwise.

( I know, I know. I'm hopelessly postmodern is some respects)

I'm really only suggesting a useful discipline as part of that. When someone accused Keynes of changing his beliefs he replied "When the evidence changes, I change my mind. What do you do?" Many politicians in particular feel that admitting to changing your mind is an awful weakness - I'm with Keynes.

Since my beliefs, viewed philosophically, don't seem better or worse than yours or other peoples' I do try to keep them to some degree 'under review'. For example of the twenty or so people I know best only three have any religious views at all. So I come to SoF and see how others see/deal with the world.

Also I'm aware that an instinctive response to views we don't agree with is to bristle and think of counter arguments. Reminding myself that I could be wrong does (sometimes) make me listen better to what is being said and so learn more. I prefer dialogue to dialectics (wimp that I am).

But I do live my beliefs - it's just that one of them is recognising my fallibility.

And I changed my sig to be more positive (though I didn't realise it would be applied earlier posts - wrong again!). Thomas Browne has an easy way with belief which I admire. And the first few sections of Religio Medici are rather apposite to this discussion.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
But I do live my beliefs - it's just that one of them is recognising my fallibility.

I try to do this too. I think it's the only intellectually honest way to live.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
A proper definition of white is that it reflects all light. A proper definition of black is that it absorbs all light. As soon as you depart from those definitions, so that something reflects or absorbs a 'bit' of light in particular parts of the spectrum, then I would argue that you no longer have something that is literally 'white' or 'black'. You have something that is very slightly blue or red or whatever.

In the context of this discussion, the whole freaking point of talking about "black and white minds" is that they deal in absolutes.

A color system may describe a "white" but there are many color systems. Colors in the real universe are limited by both the finite set of wavelengths that matter produces and the limitations of the filters of our eyes in detecting them. Is this absolute white really limited to the spectrum that is visible to most human eyes?

When you talk about reducing the colors of the real world, are you reducing them to a color system, or to a member of a representative sample set of the real world you have viewed before? I don't see any universal agreement about a single color system or that the reductions are not samples.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
On one hand, there is what I would call passive B&W, or limited perception / cognition. In this case somebody is either incapable or unwilling to recognise nuance and grading concerning something beyond two kinds.
On the other hand, there is what I would call active B&W, or the imposition of principle / thresholds. In this case somebody consciously and intentionally divides the nuance and grading concerning something into two kinds...

... It is entirely possible for example to see a wide spectrum of racism and yet to propose clear principles and thresholds concerning what shall be rejected as racism, and what can be tolerated. In fact, in order to provide reasonable and sensible rules and judgements that instantiate such a binary discrimination ("no racism") one has to be keenly aware of the wide spectrum. At whatever point one "draws the line in the sand" there will be questionable cases and indeed disagreement about some cases even among those who in general have agreed on that line. These matter can be resolved only with considerable insight, and this applies whether we are talking about applying a complex rule system or "wisdom".

Seems to me that black & white thinking is precisely a denial of middle ground between good and bad.

Agree that good laws overlay complex reality with a clear line of demarcation, so that it is evident whether a particular act is in breach of the law or not.

But the process of drafting a good law involves recognising the intermediate cases and wording the statute in order to rule them in or out of the definition of the offence. So B&W thinking is bad, even for the purpose of making a law that is B&W.

Maybe B&W thinking flourishes where people confuse such laws with reality ?

Best wishes,

Russ

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
But in so doing, it succumbs to the very thing it despises: an absolute in that there is no "truth".

FWIW, I'm not convinced that a rejection of truth-claims is itself a truth-claim. That seems rather akin to suggesting that a vacuum can't exist because any hypothetical void would actually prove to be full of emptiness.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
At whatever point one "draws the line in the sand" there will be questionable cases and indeed disagreement about some cases even among those who in general have agreed on that line. These matter can be resolved only with considerable insight, and this applies whether we are talking about applying a complex rule system or "wisdom".

Yes. It also seems to me that in many cases the difference is really about precision rather than binary thinking.

e.g. Suppose you think assisted suicide is always wrong, and I think it is acceptable in certain circumstances. A lazy mind might suggest that your thinking is binary and mine is nuanced. But in fact the concept of 'in certain circumstances' suggests that if you made a list of the different conditions under which someone might be tempted towards assisted suicide, for each item on your list I would give a binary response of either 'Right' or 'Wrong', which would make me just as binary as you, but working on different parameters.

[ 25. June 2014, 22:23: Message edited by: Ricardus ]

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Yes. It also seems to me that in many cases the difference is really about precision rather than binary thinking. e.g. Suppose you think assisted suicide is always wrong, and I think it is acceptable in certain circumstances. A lazy mind might suggest that your thinking is binary and mine is nuanced. But in fact the concept of 'in certain circumstances' suggests that if you made a list of the different conditions under which someone might be tempted towards assisted suicide, for each item on your list I would give a binary response of either 'Right' or 'Wrong', which would make me just as binary as you, but working on different parameters.

Indeed. And in practice, it is the necessity of action which often de facto reduces attempts at gradation to a black and white pattern. Are you going to prevent that particular suicide, or not? There often is no useful answer "I'm going to intervene a bit." And even where there are graded responses (say in the punishment for various crimes) there usually is a threshold (whether something is a crime the legal system cares about, or not).

One interesting question then becomes whether there is a "deeper reason" behind such black and white ordering, and whether having such a deeper reason is important or not.

Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

A lazy mind might suggest that your thinking is binary and mine is nuanced. But in fact the concept of 'in certain circumstances' suggests that if you made a list of the different conditions under which someone might be tempted towards assisted suicide, for each item on your list I would give a binary response of either 'Right' or 'Wrong', which would make me just as binary as you, but working on different parameters.

Except the list may be arbitrarily long. You cannot in advance identify all particular situations - some of them may be combinations of circumstances which occur only once in the history of the universe.

If you assume that each situation can be reduced to one of a fixed number of pre-decided alternatives I would say you still have binary thinking.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

I believe that's called "situational ethics".

But you still have to have an ethic on which to base and judge the situation.

And that may be called binary thinking.

Inescapable however. Unless you never judge and leave everything to play out as it will.

But that itself is a judgement IMO.

[ 26. June 2014, 11:32: Message edited by: Evensong ]

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
But in so doing, it succumbs to the very thing it despises: an absolute in that there is no "truth".
FWIW, I'm not convinced that a rejection of truth-claims is itself a truth-claim. That seems rather akin to suggesting that a vacuum can't exist because any hypothetical void would actually prove to be full of emptiness.

Doesn't it? Prove it to be full of emptiness?

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
Except the list may be arbitrarily long. You cannot in advance identify all particular situations - some of them may be combinations of circumstances which occur only once in the history of the universe.

If you assume that each situation can be reduced to one of a fixed number of pre-decided alternatives I would say you still have binary thinking.

Well, my point was that supposedly nuanced thinking may be binary thinking in disguise, so I don't disagree.

I think it would be possible to create a list that would cover all cases, e.g. "cases where the sufferer is under 80 = wrong; cases where they are 80 or above = ok" makes a list of two items into which all possible cases must fall. The question is then whether such a list is based on arbitrary principles or not.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0