Yeah I expected that it had some reason why it was used like that. I didn’t think it was arbitrary.
I just found this definition (3rd) in Merriam-Webster and it actually seems like exactly how it’s being used. It comes before a participle (which in their example is in turn followed by a preposition.):
For that example, my thoughts are that ‘as’ is a child of ‘distinguished’ and ‘distinguished’ a child of ‘opinion’.
yes
yes
Good brainstorm. One way to think about those is applying them to debate with another person. E.g. Joe says “DDT is poison” and you reply “You only think that because you have an addiction to the vice”. Is that a rational rebuttal?
Maybe you could do them one per day.
Hmm I don’t get this yet. I think that no, that that isn’t a rational rebuttal. For one, it’s not an explanation of why DDT isn’t poison. It doesn’t explain something wrong with Joe’s position. That I get. But there is something else I don’t get here. I don’t consider Joe’s position and the things I brainstormed to be alternative explanations for the same problem, and so setting them against each other like you’ve done isn’t making sense to me. So I’m not sure what I’m meant to learn from seeing these positions set against each other in a debate.
Is Joe’s position similar to the “you have a disagreement” position in a way I don’t understand? Hmm. Maybe in your example Joe’s position doesn’t play the role of the theory “you have a disagreement” but the position “being on my phone is bad (or good)”.
Another problem with that rebuttal is that it’s dismissive. It is trying to explain away the fact that Joe and Joe’s debate partner disagree. It’s just telling Joe he only holds a position for some personal reason that isn’t rational (that has he an addiction.) Perhaps that has something to do with what I’m meant to learn from this example?
Sure, it’d be cool to get through them.
Okay so to refresh: Q: why do I spend time doing things that I apparently don’t think are good to do? A: You lack motivation to do other things.
Lacking motivation is usually used to explain why one doesn’t do something that one apparently thinks is good, and not for explaining why someone does do something that one apparently thinks is bad. But it seems they’re like different ways of looking at the same thing.
If I don’t do X (e.g a thing I apparently think is good) I have to do something else instead. You can’t do nothing, you have to do some alternative thing. So if I fail to do X, I do Y. If X is something I ostensibly want to more than Y, then when I fail to do X, it’s going to either look like I’m ‘lacking motivation’ to do X, or I’m ‘lacking the self-control/willpower’ to not do Y. I think then the discussion above about willpower is kind of the same for this one.
“Scrolling Facebook is bad” and “Scrolling Facebook is good” are a pair of conflicting, disagreeing positions that could be debated just like “DDT is poison” and “DDT is safe”.
One difference I’ll mention is that the Facebook scrolling debate would vary more by context – it’s about whether it’s good or bad for you, in your current life situation, not whether it’s good or bad for people in general (which would be a separate and also valid thing to debate). Whereas DDT is presumably being claimed to be poison for approximately all humans in all past and present contexts and many future contexts.
Is “You only think scrolling Facebook is good because you have an addiction to the vice.” a rational way to debate? I see it as similar to making the vice claim about other topics, like DDT, but maybe you don’t.
It’s possible to rationally bring up an addiction or vice claim in a debate on any topic. But in general that requires first discussing the topic directly, and then bringing up that sort of meta claim later, after at least one thing (often a bunch of things) has gone wrong in the debate. And the meta claim should be brought up in a way involving plenty of explanation, reasoning and evidence, not as a dismissive assertion. And the person/side bringing up that sort of meta claim should acknowledge that it’s risky: when people do that, they’re often doing something wrong (their claim is wrong, they’re derailing the original conversation, and/or they’re being a jerk). (Other meta claims which are milder than “addiction” or “vice” can be brought up with less caution, explanation, etc., though still some.)
Also, in general, even when meta problems are present, topical problems are also present. If someone had full, complete, correct topical knowledge, their meta errors usually wouldn’t cause their conclusion to be wrong. So just sharing meta criticism and meta knowledge usually won’t solve the whole problem even if it goes well. Even if the meta discussion is useful, some topical criticism and new positive topical knowledge will be needed too.
Okay, I get you.
My thought is that no it’s not a rational way to debate. It doesn’t debate whether scrolling facebook is bad or not. It’s also just assuming that it’s bad and dismissing the disagreement. It’s begging the question, it’s assuming as a premise what is in dispute (whether scrolling facebook is a vice or not).
As for seeing it as similar to the DDT one, yeah I think if someone said “You only think that DDT is good because you are addicted to using it” then it would have the same problems as the facebook one. It’s not discussing the issue, it’s assuming a side is right. (Is that the issue you see with it?).
Am I right that you consider the idea of ‘addiction’ problematic too? I’m unsure whether that has any bearing whether you find those examples of rebuttals bad. It seems to me that even if you grant the idea of addiction it’s still a bad way to debate.
Is the claim that one is addicted to the behaviour in question, kind of like claiming that one is being biased? I think that would require a lot of thought and explanation because yes it’s plausibly very derailing and something that someone could do for irrational debate reasons (like trying to sabotage a debate, so they don’t change their mind).
yes
yes. it’s not treating it like a disagreement between ideas to be resolved with truth-seeking.
yes it’s bad debate either way.
the concept of “addiction” has problems but just dropping it also has problems.
I wrote comments on your brainstormed views. Feel free to ignore this.
(I read @LMD’s answer, but I have forgotten it by now)
If we take the view that there are two ideas in your mind that are in unresolved conflict, then this simply means that the part of you that likes the one idea (often the explicit idea) is unable to coerce the part of you that likes the other idea (often the inexplicit idea).
If you are super hungry and there’s some free food (that you like) given to you then you won’t need much self-control to start eating (also you’re not busy with other things, etc.). There is some effort in eating the food, you have to lift the food to your mouth and chew it, but really you don’t see this as a downside at all. You view it as pretty much only positive, so there are no conflicts of ideas, so you just do it without any hassle, no issue of control.
If you think of it as self-control rather than self-coercion, then it’s implied that the idea you like is what truly represents you and your desire, while the other idea is some outside force that coerces you. The outside force might be a virus, a demon, or an irrational inborn primal emotion.
In the self-control view you are at war with your other part. In the self-coercion view you should have rational debate and end the conflict peacefully. Reality is better if the self-control view is false, since we prefer rational persuasion over war.
How can I know the other part isn’t a mind virus, a demon, or a primal inborn emotion? What makes people act are ideas, and ideas are:
the smallest unit of coherent thought.
(Okay way to transition into quote? The quote starts with “An idea is”)
Joe: DDT is poison
Me: You only say that because you lack the self-control to use DDT
Joe: Why would it be due to lacking self-control? I don’t want to do use it because I think it’s a bad idea. I think it’s bad idea because DDT is poison, which is bad, so I have no desire to use it.
Joe might think there are some upsides to using DDT (for agriculture perhaps), it has some conveniences, but the idea is refuted because DDT is poison. So Joe has no conflict of whether or not to use DDT regardless of its pros so long as it has this one con.
So saying you lack self-control doesn’t address criticisms of why the idea is bad, which is the actual reason for the inaction.
(I didn’t read @LMD’s answer to this one, but I had read the other posts on this topic.)
In the self-control view things that are easy to do are things that you have motivation to do. In the conflicts-of-ideas view things that are easy to do are things that you have no conflict over doing (and a reason/idea to do it).
In the self-control view you have to use discipline to do the things you know are good but don’t have motivation to do. The idea you “know” to be good is treated with authority, you might not have put it test much. Perhaps it is universally regarded as true and good in your culture, so you assume it must be true. In the conflicts-of-ideas view you have to resolve the conflict of the ideas with rational debate. The ideas shouldn’t go unchallenged, they should both be subjected to criticism.
Facebook, can distract you, however if the other thing you were doing was really interesting and/or you thought it was important, then you wouldn’t be as easily distractible.
If you got distracted you’ll probably realize that you were distracted and then remember what you were actually doing. And then it’s more of a choice of whether to continue with scrolling or go back to what you were doing.
A distraction might offer you an excuse to not do the other thing. Perhaps you were not convinced of the thing you were doing and looking for an excuse not to do it. If you’re not convinced you should do the thing you’re doing, then making an excuse doesn’t necessarily mean laziness.
I guess it’s possible to be a more distractible person. You could maybe do mediation, or some other self-improvement to improve your focus. If Facebook is especially distracting you turn off notifications or do some other practical strategy. Though mostly I would think people are easily distracted when they’re doing things they don’t really want to do.
I need to read Szasz closer. But I’ll say mental illness isn’t real, so an attention disorder is no different than being distractible or looking for an excuse to not do what you’re currently doing.
Perhaps you are. You should check. If you find yourself procrastinating something you thought you wanted to do, then you can check whether it’s because of a conflict of ideas, then if it seems there’s no conflict, check if you were lying about the thing you think is good.
Don’t assume it outright that the behavior is a vice. Figure out what you like about the ‘vice’, i.e., figure out what makes you ‘addicted’. When you’ve figured out the pros and cons of the behavior, then can you figure out whether it really is a vice.
It’s not like just anything distracts you though. At any time, there are numerous, perhaps countless things you could decide to shift your attention to, that you don’t get distracted by. It’s usually specific things that you get distracted by, or get distracted from. So I don’t think distractibility is some sort of trait. It’s selective and task dependent. There are things I do that I don’t get distracted from, and there are situations where I become prone to distraction, and there are patterns to that. I suspect that’s the same for everyone else. The issue is: what is the explanation for the pattern of the things that distract me?
From The Mystery of ADHD Motivation, Solved by Thomas E. Brown
Despite the many differences among children and adults with attention deficit disorder (ADHD or ADD), there is one similarity shared by virtually all of them. Although they have considerable chronic difficulty in getting organized and getting started on many tasks, focusing their attention, sustaining their efforts, and utilizing their short-term working memory, all of those diagnosed with ADHD tend to have at least a few specific activities or tasks for which they have no difficulty in exercising these very same functions in a normal or an extraordinary way.
The inconsistency in motivation and performance is the most puzzling aspect of ADHD. It seems like the child or adult with the disorder who can show strong motivation and focus very well for some tasks should be able to do the same for most other tasks that they recognize as important. It appears as if this is a simple problem of lacking “willpower.” If you can do it for this, why can’t you do the same for that and that, which are even more important? However, ADHD is not a matter of willpower. It is a problem with the dynamics of the chemistry of the brain.
Recent research offers considerable evidence that ADHD is not a “willpower thing,” even though, in many ways, it appears to be a lack of willpower. When individuals with ADHD are faced with a task that is really interesting to them, not because someone told them that it ought to be interesting — but because it is interesting to them at that moment — that perception, conscious or unconscious, changes the chemistry of the brain instantly. This process is not under voluntary control.
It doesn’t make any sense to me that they could diagnose someone as having an attention disorder if it didn’t apply generally i.e to all activities they could in principle pay attention to. Because it leaves unexplained why for some activities they appear to not have the disorder they supposedly have. They don’t treat that fact as an argument that ADHD doesn’t exist.
They do offer an explanation later:
Recent research offers considerable evidence that ADHD is not a “willpower thing,” even though, in many ways, it appears to be a lack of willpower. When individuals with ADHD are faced with a task that is really interesting to them, not because someone told them that it ought to be interesting — but because it is interesting to them at that moment — that perception, conscious or unconscious, changes the chemistry of the brain instantly. This process is not under voluntary control.
Often, these unconscious emotions conflict and cause us to act in ways that are inconsistent with our recognized conscious intentions. An undercurrent of conflicting emotions is often involved in our failure to do tasks that we believe we want to do, or in directly or indirectly engaging in actions that we consciously believe we do not want to do.
Sometimes a person thinks of a particular task as important, honestly believing that he wants to give it immediate attention and sustained effort, yet he does not act accordingly. He may continue to procrastinate, busying himself with work on other tasks that are not as urgent, or he may actively seek out distractions by getting in touch with friends, surfing the Internet, getting high, or going to sleep. Such contradictions make sense only when we realize that the emotions that guide our motivations often are not fully conscious or conflicting. We may be influenced by emotions that we do not know we have
So their explanation is that people have internal conflicts! But they still insist it’s about brain chemistry. It seems like they’ve included a theory which actually explains the pattern of behaviour of ADHD, one which doesn’t require any recourse to brain chemistry, inside their theory in order to make “puzzling aspects” of their theory make sense.
It doesn’t make any sense. They seem to be assuming that someone without ADHD has no issues directing their attention to anything at all, regardless of whether they want to do them or not. I just don’t think that’s true.
Anyway, I think the attention disorder explanation has much of the same issues as the “you are distractible” explanation. They don’t explain why someone is distractible/inattentive in one situation and not another. So it doesn’t help us understand why someone behaves how they do in a particular instance.
The first sentence from this video
Restaurants that serve meals completely free of all animal products have opened all over New York, San Francisco and Los Angeles, and in Britain, the number of vegans, more than tripled in the decade from 2006, to 2016.
Here is Elliot’s tree:
And mine:
What are the differences?
Elliots tree is less detailed. He puts some long modifier phrases/clauses in as single nodes. This isn’t an important difference.
Elliot omitted the verb “have” from the first clause. It’s the finite verb in the clause, and I think should’ve been included. I had “have opened” as a single node, but I would’ve had “have” as the root node of that clause if I split them up.
Elliot has “all” as a child of “opened” but I have “all” as an adverb modifying the preposition “over”. I think mine is right. I think the prepositional phrase tells us about where the restaurants have opened, and not about “all”.
Second sentence from the same video:
Canadian consumption of beef and pork peaked in the 1980s, and has dropped sharply since.
Elliots Tree:
Mine:
Differences:
I had “has” and “dropped” as one node. I would’ve split them up the same way that Elliot did thought. Not an important difference.
I agree. You’re getting good at these :)
Third, create a folder for working on ruby stuff in.
So ‘in’ is a preposition, and requires an object. So it’s either implied, or it’s earlier in the sentence.
A guess is that ‘folder’ is the object. I don’t think there are other good objects.
I didn’t find an easy rewrite. This sentence doesn’t seem to fit the pattern of some sentences which end with prepositions that have easy rewrites like “What did you say that for?” which would become “For what did you say that?”
A rewrite I did was “Third, create a folder in which to work on ruby stuff”. “for” is dropped and “working” changes to “to work”. Th rewrite kind of indicates to me that “folder” is the object I’m looking for.
Here is how that tree would look:
It seems super clunky but it doesn’t seem like nonsense. It kinda makes sense that it would be clunky though because there is a reason it’s not actually used like that: to avoid the clunkiness.
What’s not used like what? Which version is clunky?
I think my original sentence is reasonably normal. I don’t know if you’re one of those people who thinks sentences shouldn’t end with prepositions, but I think that e.g. “What did you say that for?” is OK English.
I agree that “folder” is the object of “in”. Conceptually, the work happens in the folder. Your rewrite is a good way of double checking that.
I think your tree is fine. Just adding an implied object node is a short way to include the key information.
Oh I meant that the sentence with “folder” at the end, like in my tree diagram, was clunky. It was a comment on the sentence my tree would make if folder wasn’t implied. I think I was commenting on it in comparison with other rewrites of sentences like this that can often come out sounding super formal but not like, clunky.
Your original one was fine and seemed normal to me. I don’t have a prob with prepositions at the end of sentences.
I think you have a non-standard it’s all ideas attitude to these issues like ADHD, basically as advocated by David Deutsch. Although I learned his view and have written about it, I now think he’s wrong.
The attitude involves preferring to look exclusively at ideas for both the causes and solutions to these kinds of problems.
Is this something you know how to discuss explicitly? E.g. can you summarize your view or list some alternatives?
Yeah I agree that this is my attitude. It’s not something that I’ve written about a lot to formulate explicitly (though I have written some about it), and it’s not something I’ve sought criticism for. It’s been an implicit attitude that has made a lot of sense to me and seemed to explain better these issues than other attitudes. And it’s a view that seems to have upsides for personal progress that the mental illness view seems to block*. (I know people that are resigned to some of their problems as being due to mental illness, that to me seem plainly like they could be solved by ideas.) I’d be really interested in knowing in what sense you disagree with the view that it’s all ideas.
I see these issues as being very similar to the situations which you recommended viewing as disagreements. Am I making a mistake there?
So, is this something I know how to discuss explicitly? I am actually unsure. I can try:
ADHD and related mental illness don’t exist as normally understood but the problems that people use ADHD and related mental illness to explain are real. These problems are better understood as being due to ideas**.
*Edited
**Edited typo
Are you familiar with concepts like “gene-meme interaction” and “gene-environment interaction”?
Do you believe that if changes to ideas would solve a problem, then that demonstrates the problem was caused by ideas?
No I’m not.
Hmm. I think I do yes. I think because my conception of a problem is of a clash between ideas/knowledge.
I suppose the cause of a problem could be some feature of reality that isn’t an idea, like you break your leg and now you can’t walk normally. In that case the problem seems to be caused by reality being one way (broken leg) and your ideas about how to move around (you only know how to do it with your legs). So you need a new way, a new idea, of how to move around that accounts for the fact that your leg is broken because your old idea for how to move around (to walk) isn’t going to work in this context. But I’m tempted to say this is still a clash between ideas because your evaluation of yourself as having a broken leg is the idea that is now clashing with your old idea of how to move around. Hmm.
