D
DArtagnan
Guest
Sheesh… calm down, people.
I'm really quite relaxed, though I'm not sure about the other guy
Sheesh… calm down, people.
We'll get back to this. It's only the actual topic.I see no reason why we should feel pain, except if it helps us improve the world.
That said, I think that empathising with people who commit suicide can motivate a greater understanding - and perhaps even a contribution for change.
But I would never tell people that they should feel pain. I consider that beyond our own control, for the most part.
No, I KNOW at the bottom of my shrunken black heart that there's a correct answer. I also temper that with the realities of accuracy, precision, and negligible factors. Thus, 2+2 always and forever equals 4. "Roughly 2" + "Nearly 2" + "Something else we're going to ignore for now" = "Something in the neighborhood of 4" always and forever. Now, we can determine the exact answer if we take the time to properly define the inputs (accuracy), or we can assign a mutually acceptable tolerance to the answer (precision), and we can agree that it's truly OK to ignore that "other stuff" (negligible factors). If we can agree on the inputs and the flexibility we have with the output, there is one and only one correct answer.Not really. To boil down, you actually believe there's a correct answer. I don't believe we can establish the correct answer - but I'm ok with that. I can act without certainty - and I can admit uncertainty whilst doing so.
This is what makes my world a large grey area - and your world mostly black and white. Well, based on how you insist on presenting yourself.
That made me think. See above for my "tap dance", but score one for DArt.To rephrase: Yes, there can be a correct answer. But in the vast majority of cases - you need such a rigid articulation of the question that the correct answer becomes useless in its own rigidity and limitation.
This might not be an issue if we're arguing the same point. Allow me to wildly oversimplify: knowledge of the human condition + lots of other stuff that isn't nearly as important = DArt's view of suicide AND <> (or should it be =!) Fire's view of suicide. My gripe all along is really two-pronged: how do we assign a "value" to that knowledge when it's horribly fuzzy, and how can such a fuzzy input dominate the equation?I really have no idea what you're saying here. I don't know if I place "priority" on the "parameter" of the knowledge of the human condition.
Maybe I do, but a simpler way of putting it is that I'm talking about the knowledge of the human condition.
I have no idea why that's quicksand to you.
No, I KNOW at the bottom of my shrunken black heart that there's a correct answer. I also temper that with the realities of accuracy, precision, and negligible factors. Thus, 2+2 always and forever equals 4. "Roughly 2" + "Nearly 2" + "Something else we're going to ignore for now" = "Something in the neighborhood of 4" always and forever. Now, we can determine the exact answer if we take the time to properly define the inputs (accuracy), or we can assign a mutually acceptable tolerance to the answer (precision), and we can agree that it's truly OK to ignore that "other stuff" (negligible factors). If we can agree on the inputs and the flexibility we have with the output, there is one and only one correct answer.
Take the example of Thrasher. He might be a Little Red Book carryin' Socialist , but if you accept his view of the parameters for any given problem, it's highly likely that he's right. Similarly, were Thrasher to embrace proper, realistic parameters like I do, I don't doubt for a second that we'd be wearing matching jackboots because there's only one correct answer for any given set of inputs.
This might not be an issue if we're arguing the same point. Allow me to wildly oversimplify: knowledge of the human condition + lots of other stuff that isn't nearly as important = DArt's view of suicide AND <> (or should it be =!) Fire's view of suicide. My gripe all along is really two-pronged: how do we assign a "value" to that knowledge when it's horribly fuzzy, and how can such a fuzzy input dominate the equation?
We agree on that. I believe (and in this context "believe" would not be the educated guess definition but rather something more akin to a faith definition) that I have that capacity. While such capacity is in no way unique to me, I also don't think it's common to the "unwashed masses". Simply, that group of people share a broad knowledge base, the ability to organize a problem and develop a coherent approach for working with it, and clinical detachment. There's a certain level of ego in that hypothesis, although ultimately it's just another skill set no different than tying one's shoes is a skill set—there's no "rank" associated with having or not having that particular skill set.What you're saying is that you believe (or "know") our capacity to put questions of life into logical and cohesive systems - is sufficient for correct (and useful) answers.
That is what I don't believe - but you should probably know that I have very little faith in human mental capacity compared to that of most people.
Math and models tend to go hand-in-hand, but you could think of it as a black box process if a more "pliant" image tastes better to you. We throw a pot of "stuff" into the box, turn a handful of dials, and one and only one result pops out.Unfortunately, we can't translate questions of life into math. If we do, we invariably fail based on our lack of capacity to take into account all relevant factors.
Well, nobody said it was easy. After all, I've been solving weighty problems here for over 6 years and y'all still haven't gotten around to naming me Benevolent Dictator of the World.We can't even do a wholesome statistical analysis of the simplest things. How would we ever manage questions of life in that way?
You put a dial on the black box with the label "knowledge of the human condition". We have no idea what that dial does and we have no idea what turning it from 1 to 10 really means, but you're quite sure that the pie coming out of your black box tastes better. Perhaps it does, but we don't know what we've done and we can't replicate it. Tough to show that your pie is objectively better under those conditions.We don't have to assign value.
But I can clarify and specify as the exchange develops. I thought I'd done that as it relates to my problem with Firestorm's position on suicide.
I get that. Navel gazing that deep and that long would probably glaze me over anyway, so I'm fine with shorthand.We don't have time in this life to go through the entire subject of the human condition.
That's always what the losers say.That's because I consider any serious exchange to be about precisely that, an exchange. Not a debate with a winner or a loser.
We agree on that. I believe (and in this context "believe" would not be the educated guess definition but rather something more akin to a faith definition) that I have that capacity. While such capacity is in no way unique to me, I also don't think it's common to the "unwashed masses". Simply, that group of people share a broad knowledge base, the ability to organize a problem and develop a coherent approach for working with it, and clinical detachment. There's a certain level of ego in that hypothesis, although ultimately it's just another skill set no different than tying one's shoes is a skill set—there's no "rank" associated with having or not having that particular skill set.
Math and models tend to go hand-in-hand, but you could think of it as a black box process if a more "pliant" image tastes better to you. We throw a pot of "stuff" into the box, turn a handful of dials, and one and only one result pops out.
For any given problem, there's ultimately only a handful of factors that are statistically significant. The other bazzilion aspects can safely be lumped into a noise factor. That's where the need to determine negligible factors comes into play—all sides have to agree what makes up the significant handful, otherwise the problem becomes unwieldy and discussion becomes pointless.
You put a dial on the black box with the label "knowledge of the human condition". We have no idea what that dial does and we have no idea what turning it from 1 to 10 really means, but you're quite sure that the pie coming out of your black box tastes better. Perhaps it does, but we don't know what we've done and we can't replicate it. Tough to show that your pie is objectively better under those conditions.
That's always what the losers say.
Since neither Dart nor dte care about Thrasher's or my opinion, you can remove that from the equation.
However, we're all capable of approximating answers that might be reasonable in many scenarios.
I'm of a third viewpoint then. There are more than one correct answer to many questions. There are many approximations to correct answers to most questions.
So back to my models. Models can give you a good approximation to most questions.
This explains how you get from your "infinite variables of human emotion" down to something more manageable. You'll also note that the rankings are individualized and opinion-based. This partially explains how different people can look at the same situation and come up with different answers—they choose different critical inputs based on what's important to them.
For example, a religious zealot might go so far as to condemn Amanda Todd because suicide damns the soul. The biblical factor carries a high importance value to the zealot, a 10 on the matrix. As an aggressive agnostic, I couldn't give two hoots about her soul so that doesn't even figure into my analysis of the situation, a 0 on my matrix. Different people will have different inputs.
Once you establish the inputs that matter, you can (mis-, technically)use the same matrix structure to determine the one and only one correct answer by assigning weight values. It works out much like an FMEA, although the structure and intent is a little different. So you look at your criteria, and define how well each input satisfies those criteria to you. Multiply it all out. High score wins and that's your one and only one answer. Now, tomorrow your weighting factors may change, or your "satisfaction" values may change, and it's entirely possible a different answer gets the high score. Generally, if you've done things right that won't happen, but if it did that would reflect a situation that's really, really grey for you. Similarly, my matrix is going to look different from yours, so the answer spitting out of my matrix might look different as well.
To some extent, it reflects our differing outlooks. You like to think of "life" as a big ball of chaos sprinkled with pixie dust that demands and deserves a sense of overwhelming wonderment. I like to think of "life" as a wildly complex puzzle sprinkled with hidden pieces that demands and deserves a resolve to solve it. My approach will appear to you as wildly arrogant and "spoiling the magic". Your approach will appear to me as a bit of a copout and "manufacturing mystery". Not that either approach is necessarily wrong, they're just different.
But I do use a kind of model when I approximate answers. It's based on my experience, intuition, empathy and stuff like that. Something that I wouldn't even attempt to formalise and systematize. I wouldn't know how or where to begin. But I'd certainly be very curious to see someone try.