Post: #1

Quote:Surely you should be nice. Only a completely evil person, showing visible signs of his pact with Satan would say otherwise.

Err, those are from not getting enough sleep at night, I swear.

We are told constantly that it's important to be nice in general. Our default setting, or possibly our only setting should be "nice", even if it means causing ourselves a good deal of discomfort.

Yet, how does being indiscriminately nice affect the receiving party? Well, it turns out that being indiscriminately nice to someone is about as helpful to them as shoving a hot poker underneath their toenails.

When you are indiscriminately nice to someone, regardless of their behavior, you are stealing from them one of their most important tools of self-improvement. Contrary to Progressive theory, people cannot simply wish* themselves to improvement. They must receive the correct input from their family, friends, and peers. This means that they get hurt when they make a misstep. For humans, the most productive way to do this is via a visible loss of status. In other words, by being mean to them. This set of inputs, when used correctly, will automatically help improve the individual in question, and is necessary for turning incompetents into useful, respected members of the tribe. When this is removed entirely from the equation, the incompetents have no way to improve.

It gets worse. A Progressive might claim that while the incompetents in question are not being molded into effective individuals, they are at least happy. Bullshit! Just because you are being nice to someone does not mean your displeasure is not palpable. The incompetent will eventually pick up on your displeasure with his actions, and his actual loss of status (not simply what he's been privy to), and fall into depression because of it. Further, because you are de-facto expressing your displeasure by being nice, he comes to assign that as a negative input, meaning that any time someone is genuinely nice to him, he will suspect they are displeased with him, and that he has lost status. Because this process is gradual, not instantaneous, and because the input is nonvariable, and does not reflect any actual utility or incompetence, it does not even help him to improve, and simply makes him exceptionally depressed, and convinced of his irrevocable uselessness!

For the dispensing party, being indiscriminately nice poisons their attitude toward the receiver, as they are not able to vent their displeasure and must instead disguise it as pleasure. Thus the dispenser will resent the receiver, and animosity will form, where criticism (being mean) would have solved the problem and prevented any division between the parties.

Thus, Progressivism and its ilk has mutilated the act of being nice and turned it from a tool for positive reinforcement, to an underhanded, destructive act laced with venom. Who knew you could literally ruin someone's life by being nice to them!

Do someone you know a favor. Be hard on them when they screw up. Make their loss of status exquisite and sharp, pointed like a surgeon's knife. They will be better for it.

Post: #2

Status and courtesy are disparate things, and it seems problematic to conflate them. You can appreciate someone's effort while still letting them know how to improve and how their substandard performance will impact others. Negative feedback doesn't have to be antagonistic. Also, objective recording of results is one socially acceptable form of negative feedback. It's within the bounds of politeness to beat your friend at a game of basketball or scrabble, and this communicates in a friendly manner their lack of skill at those particular games.

I agree, though, that if you teach a dog not to bark that he's more likely to bite because you've robbed him of the more peaceful shades of nuanced communication. I think a similar problem contributes to "road rage."

A deeply dogmatic progressive ( I don't want to paint with too broad a brush. There are plenty of reasonable people across the political spectrum) may believe that any competition and discourtesy leads to warfare and violence and that their elimination leads to increased peace.

The contrary view is that communication and peaceful displays of discourtesy are superior means of resolving conflicts before they escalate.

Post: #3

Manners can degenerate such that polite behaviour becomes mistaken for appeasement - particularly in a society with deep roots in frontier mores but that no longer allows duelling or fisticuffs. Observe, for example, the disdain with which many Americans today regard the term 'gentleman' - it's something of a two-edged sword, and certainly not an aspiration universally shared by young men coming of age! If one inhabits a coarse society, one will have to adapt one's behaviour to function and to make oneself understood, whether or not that is one's preferred manner of conducting oneself.

Objective recording of results has its place, but there is also a danger to the trend towards pretending to make every kind of assessment objective because in reality many important things cannot be measured and whilst this approach is fashionable today, it tends to strip organisations and groups of their vital spirit and tends to coarsen standards (since there is often an associated appeal to popularity and the evidence of the senses rather than to genuine expertise and authority).

And sp I think the author of the original post made a vital point about the priority in situations where one wants to accomplish something of maintaining standards over beeing agreeable

Post: #4

(06-10-2012 6:32 PM)Pheroquirk Wrote:  Manners can degenerate such that polite behaviour becomes mistaken for appeasement - particularly in a society with deep roots in frontier mores but that no longer allows duelling or fisticuffs. Observe, for example, the disdain with which many Americans today regard the term 'gentleman' - it's something of a two-edged sword, and certainly not an aspiration universally shared by young men coming of age! If one inhabits a coarse society, one will have to adapt one's behaviour to function and to make oneself understood, whether or not that is one's preferred manner of conducting oneself.

Objective recording of results has its place, but there is also a danger to the trend towards pretending to make every kind of assessment objective because in reality many important things cannot be measured and whilst this approach is fashionable today, it tends to strip organisations and groups of their vital spirit and tends to coarsen standards (since there is often an associated appeal to popularity and the evidence of the senses rather than to genuine expertise and authority).

And sp I think the author of the original post made a vital point about the priority in situations where one wants to accomplish something of maintaining standards over beeing agreeable

If you're saying that people can fail to communicate; sure, that's possible. And? I can hardly imagine a situation where miscommunication is a requirement. You seem to have gone from quoting someone who says "progressivism causes people to miscommunicate" to "changing norms of punishment for social offense in a frontier society (a "culture of honor," presumably) can lead people to miscommunication." I'm not sure either form of miscommunication, true or false, is really relevant to my point.

Observe, for example, the disdain with which many Americans today regard the term 'gentleman'

A person can be coarse and still argue towards a fair standard or avoid antagonism. So I'm not sure how your reply addresses my post.

coarsen standards

Sorry, I don't know what a "coarse standard" is.

(since there is often an associated appeal to popularity and the evidence of the senses rather than to genuine expertise and authority).

I'm not quite clear what you're trying to say here, in part because I think you're using terms of art that are not part of the common lexicon, but if "genuine expertise and authority" is not based at some point along the line on objective standards then it seems you're easily back to an (indirect) appeal to popularity in any case. Or else an appeal to false authority.

I'll agree that maintaining standards can be more important than "being agreeable" in some situations. My issue with the original post was that they didn't set up that dichotomy. Instead, they wrote "Make their loss of status exquisite and sharp." Such a response can create defensive behavior and can put a person's ego at stake, creating more trouble than it solves. My point was that we don't have to choose between being "mean" and being "nice." The original author is promoting a false dichotomy in that regard. Because arguing towards a fair standard (while being as diplomatic as we can be and still addressing the problem) allows us to solve problems without either being divisive or appearing weak, and is also often socially acceptable.

Post: #5

Suppose you have a culture where duelling still happens now and then, there is a monarchy that is not quite a pure figurehead, there are few restrictions on firearms, boys are taught to box at school and are regularly sent off to risk their lives in old-fashioned wars and in colonies abroad. Politeness and gentleness in this context will be seen as agreeable restraint - the ideal of the gentleman is that he is somebody who has the power to be very violent when needed in defence of those who depend on his protection, but chooses to restrain those energies in other circumstances in order to further the development of civilization. And suppose you have a shared culture of politeness and chivalry as the norm (shared equally by women in their regard for men, as by men in their regard for women). Nobody would then mistake gentlemanly behaviour in such a man for submissiveness or kow-towing to the perceived superior status of a woman, or another man.

In a society where every man more or less is potentially violent, and that is oriented towards shared high cultural values, then this refinement of the gentleman becomes something for young men to aspire to. No young man is going to draw the attention of young women by behaving like an uncultured thug; the competition runs in a different direction.

But change a few key parts of this social picture, and let a few decades go by, and old forms can degenerate. Politeness by men, originally developed in the context of man's previously greater standing (because he could do many things women could not), and greater capacity for legitimate violence in retaliation (since duels and fisticuffs were at one point not uncommon) can become perceived as something entirely different once the backdrop changes. The excessive niceness perceived by some observers of American society is arguably a degenerate form of this gentlemanly ideal.

The author was arguing that society has indeed reached a stage such that this excessive niceness is degenerate, and that it wasn't producing useful results either for actor or recipient of such 'niceness'. Of course there isn't really a dichotomy the way he presented it (life is usually shades of grey), and there is no need to be as coarse as he suggests, but observing that he simplified things does not really change the basic and essential validity of his point.

The question of legitimate authority is an interesting one. Americans, infused with the revolutionary spirit of the Founders and some of their French ideals, tend on the whole not to be big on recognizing authority outside of the state. However this is a peculiarity of a particular culture, and may not correspond to the world as it is.

Suppose you just heard of the products, and wanted to figure out who knew their stuff on a pheromone forum - let's say the androtics forum, because in many ways what has happened their illustrates my point. How would you figure out whose advice to take? You could ask the people who seem to be running things, and that would give you one perspective - possibly incomplete. You could set up a vote, and ask all the members who is the most expert. But, chances, are this would tend to be more of a popularity contest, and the blind leading the blind, than a well-founded assessment. You could look at reputation, and that might tell you a little - but it would be heavily weighted to people who post a lot, and recently. The two best choices though would be to ask a friend that has been around a while and knows a little about mones whose judgement you trust who is really expert; and eventually as you learn more and more you would start to discern subtle differences between peoples knowledge, expertise, and judgement in different areas.

This is how legitimate and natural authority arises. No voting, no credentialism (no PhD in applied pheromone science). But I bet if you approached the problem in this manner, you would come up with a list of the ten most knowledgeable people on the topic and there would be a kind of natural objectivity to it. Somebody else might get a slightly different list, but chances are you would basically arrive at similar answers.

In some fields one can appeal to an 'objective' yardstick. But in many fields where quality really matters, it is often only someone with genuine expertise that can tell the difference between good and bad work. And then people need at some point to recognize that the judgement of the one with expertise is likely better than their own, even if they can't see why. Actually the Dunning Kruger findings point out that people without expertise fail to appreciate their lack of expertise. In this scenario, if you are running things, better be honest with people about their failings - with kindness if appropriate - then pretend like everything is great when it is not... (Yes, this is a distinct subset of the original discussion, but we have drifted quite a bit). This has always been the culture in fields such as classical music tuition, Alexander Technique, instruction in acting. and the like but does apply more broadly.

Post: #6

(06-10-2012 10:15 PM)Pheroquirk Wrote:  "Nobody would then mistake gentlemanly behaviour in such a man for submissiveness or kow-towing to the perceived superior status of a woman, or another man."

Sure. I never questioned that. I understand what a culture of honor is and the environments which tend to promote them. Specifically, they exist in cultures which lack the benefit of the rule of law, whether monarchy or democracy.

(06-10-2012 10:15 PM)Pheroquirk Wrote:  The question of legitimate authority is an interesting one. Americans, infused with the revolutionary spirit of the Founders and some of their French ideals, tend on the whole not to be big on recognizing authority outside of the state.

Hm? The way this is phrased implies an unusual definition of authority. The American revolution included the notion of Natural Rights as presented by Locke. Natural rights impose limits on government authority. Power being a zero sum game, this suggests Americans are more likely to recognize authority outside the state. Religious authority as well as the expenditure of wealth are both forms of authority (used to voluntarily, not coercively, influence actions) outside of the state.

(06-10-2012 10:15 PM)Pheroquirk Wrote:  "The author was arguing that society has indeed reached a stage such that this excessive niceness is degenerate"

The author was blaming "progressives," not those who were opposed to change in a pre-existing standard. I think you're presenting a different argument here than the author was.

(06-10-2012 10:15 PM)Pheroquirk Wrote:  This is how legitimate and natural authority arises

An anecdote; my father had a personality test (which was a simplification of another personality test, I'm not sure which one, ) which separated people into four groups; Results (focused on outcome.) Process (Focused on how things work.) Social (Focused on popularity.) and Relationship (Focused on the opinions of those they trusted.) A person could be any mix of the four. The type of person you were determined how you decided to trust others.

After the test was administered among friends, people would immediately start poking fun at the people who were not their type and sincerely believed that other types of people were inferior. This was true for everyone except the results people, who were used to relying on the people of other types.

All four reasons for trusting others can be adaptive in the appropriate situation, however. I'm going to use what works, with reproducable positive outcomes (results) I'm going to try those things which should work (process) I'm going to consider and test those products which are widely used (social) and I'm going to consider the opinions of people who I consider knowledgable/honest/successful/compassionate or what have you (relationship)

"Legitimate and natural" are highly loaded terms, and potentially precarious since they allow us to conceal our biases from ourselves.

(06-10-2012 10:15 PM)Pheroquirk Wrote:  But in many fields where quality really matters, it is often only someone with genuine expertise that can tell the difference between good and bad work.

In most industries, a thing exists only to the extent that you can measure it. That person with "genuine expertise" has to be tested against some kind of objective standard at some point. If they can't be, then there's no reason to believe that they have "genuine expertise." If noone notices that the stitch work on my pants is bad and they last as long as "better" stitching would then there's no basis for claiming that the stitching is inferior. A person's authority is no better than the value of the objective standard that they can be tested against.

(06-10-2012 10:15 PM)Pheroquirk Wrote:  And then people need at some point to recognize that the judgement of the one with expertise is likely better than their own, even if they can't see why

Sure, a person claiming authority can make the case for their authority, usually by making predictions that a less experienced person could not make, but whose results can objectively be observed to be true (eventually) by people with less expertise. Once this is done, the person's expertise might be relied on even if their methods are not understood or their opinions seem subjective in the moment based on the more limited expertise of other observers. That's still precarious, (since we don't know the limits of their predictive model) but it can work in some situations. A more reliable but less comprehensive method is testing for deficiency (we can weed out the lower 50% but not distinguish among the upper 50%.)

(06-10-2012 10:15 PM)Pheroquirk Wrote:  Actually the Dunning Kruger findings point out that people without expertise fail to appreciate their lack of expertise.

I've heard this a few times but never examined the methods of that study. If true, there are a lot of different ways to interpret the results.

In some situations, ego deflation of others may help promote learning. In others, it's just as likely that such a technique could cause people to tune out the speaker or engage in some other form of ego defense.

Post: #7

Quote:In most industries, a thing exists only to the extent that you can measure it. That person with "genuine expertise" has to be tested against some kind of objective standard at some point. If they can't be, then there's no reason to believe that they have "genuine expertise." If noone notices that the stitch work on my pants is bad and they last as long as "better" stitching would then there's no basis for claiming that the stitching is inferior. A person's authority is no better than the value of the objective standard that they can be tested against.

As someone who invests in public markets I find this response, which is typical in the modern world, highly amusing. Those with 'objective' 'genuine expertise' created the financial crisis and the risk managers with 'genuine expertise' completely failed to see it coming. Many of those who managed to predict it were those without any kind of recognised expertise as being outside the system helps one recognises the failings thereof - think of the emperor's new clothes story.

The problem here is an underlying belief in the existence of objectivity (which is false) and a desire to categorise and control which is described by Iain McGilchrist as a bias to the use of the left hemisphere of the brain in his book "The Master and his Emissary". Pheroquirk's point about how one determines those who know what they are talking about on the internet is spot on in this regard.

Further, I would note that the other aspect of the excess of niceness is that many have become overly emotionally sensitive and so unable to cope when others are not nice - I've seen this a few times on this forum.

Post: #8

Quote:Pheroquirk Wrote: "Nobody would then mistake gentlemanly behaviour in such a man for submissiveness or kow-towing to the perceived superior status of a woman, or another man."


Sure. I never questioned that. I understand what a culture of honor is and the environments which tend to promote them. Specifically, they exist in cultures which lack the benefit of the rule of law, whether monarchy or democracy.

That might be a peculiar way of looking at things, given that the concept of the gentlemen is in large part of English origin, and up till 1900 if there was one nation in the world that exemplified the rule of law rather than the arbitrary rule of man, it would be England. Honour is really about your reputation amongst other men, and different cultures have different values and emphasize different traits. To be an honourable man in Afghanistan of 1870 would mean a very different thing from being such in England of the same era.

Quote:Pheroquirk Wrote: "The author was arguing that society has indeed reached a stage such that this excessive niceness is degenerate"


The author was blaming "progressives," not those who were opposed to change in a pre-existing standard. I think you're presenting a different argument here than the author was.

The author considered the false niceness of today to be of Progressive origin, and I have the same opinion, although it was not my intention to speak of political values in this forum. So I do not think that I am making a different argument - just putting his into a fuller historical context.

Quote:"Legitimate and natural" are highly loaded terms, and potentially precarious since they allow us to conceal our biases from ourselves.

If we are speaking of authority - an essentially political concept (political in the sense of relating to power and group dynamics, not in the sense of party politics) - it is not possible to discuss it in an entirely value-free way. The concepts of legitimate and of natural authority have a certain shared meaning amongst those who have considered the topic, and should be understood in that context.

Quote:In most industries, a thing exists only to the extent that you can measure it. That person with "genuine expertise" has to be tested against some kind of objective standard at some point. If they can't be, then there's no reason to believe that they have "genuine expertise." If noone notices that the stitch work on my pants is bad and they last as long as "better" stitching would then there's no basis for claiming that the stitching is inferior. A person's authority is no better than the value of the objective standard that they can be tested against.

This is a metaphysical and metapolitical belief. I don't particularly wish to persuade you that you are wrong, but one should note that this is distinctively a modern Western thing (and particularly an American belief), and other cultures have a different opinion about that.

The ethic of craftsmanship is certainly quite different from the mass commercial ethic, I agree. I would not have used your example to make your point. One may buy a nice suit at Barneys in New York, and it will be a perfectly wearable, reasonably-made suit. One may have a suit made at Savile Row in London, or in Naples. It is entirely likely that in many circles nobody who matters may be able to tell the difference. You may say that I have no objective basis for believing the Savile Row suit superior. But on the whole it is very likely to be, whether or not you can tell.

In many domains, quality is wasted beyond a certain point. Certainly for a market without a cultivated taste, that may seem to be the case. But it is much less wasted than those brought up in a society where a mass commercial ethic prevails would like to believe.

One of the great things about the internet is the way that it brings together people who have discerning and cultivated tastes in certain areas, and allows collaborative development of very high quality products whose true quality is initially only apparent to such cognoscenti and could not be discerned by a mass audience heavily influenced by marketing. This forum is a perfect example of this phenomenon.

Quote:Pheroquirk Wrote: And then people need at some point to recognize that the judgement of the one with expertise is likely better than their own, even if they can't see why

Sure, a person claiming authority can make the case for their authority, usually by making predictions that a less experienced person could not make, but whose results can objectively be observed to be true (eventually) by people with less expertise. Once this is done, the person's expertise might be relied on even if their methods are not understood or their opinions seem subjective in the moment based on the more limited expertise of other observers. That's still precarious, (since we don't know the limits of their predictive model) but it can work in some situations. A more reliable but less comprehensive method is testing for deficiency (we can weed out the lower 50% but not distinguish among the upper 50%.)

Authorities become such because they are recognized by others as such, not because they claim to be one. I have been slow in experimenting with many of the newer molecules, and don't know much about them. If Pago on this forum says androsterone sulfate is great stuff socially, I am not going to ask him for his track record, and affidavits from others. I am going to order the stuff when it becomes available, because this man knows his onions. And if my friend asks, what is the best product for XYZ situation, I might say "ask on the forum - Pago knows his stuff especially in that domain". Please don't ask me to prove to you that he knows his onions. This is how authority works.

Planchet Wrote:Further, I would note that the other aspect of the excess of niceness is that many have become overly emotionally sensitive and so unable to cope when others are not nice - I've seen this a few times on this forum.

This is spot on.

Post: #9

@Planchet

First, I agree that focusing on 'being positive' or 'being nice' to the detriment of being honest is problematic.

(06-11-2012 8:21 AM)Planchet Wrote:  As someone who invests in public markets I find this response, which is typical in the modern world, highly amusing. Those with 'objective' 'genuine expertise' created the financial crisis and the risk managers with 'genuine expertise' completely failed to see it coming. Many of those who managed to predict it were those without any kind of recognised expertise as being outside the system helps one recognises the failings thereof - think of the emperor's new clothes story.

The problem here is an underlying belief in the existence of objectivity (which is false) and a desire to categorise and control which is described by Iain McGilchrist as a bias to the use of the left hemisphere of the brain in his book "The Master and his Emissary". Pheroquirk's point about how one determines those who know what they are talking about on the internet is spot on in this regard.

Further, I would note that the other aspect of the excess of niceness is that many have become overly emotionally sensitive and so unable to cope when others are not nice - I've seen this a few times on this forum.

I don't think your reply demonstrates an understanding of what I've written. Neither have I found my beliefs to be common or typical in the general population.

First, note that "genuine expertise" was in quotes for a reason. I was using the term that pheroquirk had provided. I quoted it because I saw it as a tautological argument (we believe who we believe) which neglected to explicitly state the ultimate basis of its epistimology.

I'm not criticizing his basis for trust. I'm questioning his objective assertion that his process should be the exclusive basis, when he isn't explicitly stating his process and perhaps is not able to. There are various processes for establishing trust, and all have flaws that can be balanced against other methods.

Quote:But in many fields where quality really matters, it is often only someone with genuine expertise that can tell the difference between good and bad work. And then people need at some point to recognize that the judgement of the one with expertise is likely better than their own, even if they can't see why.

His definition of the process by which 'genuine expertise' arises is, essentially, "trust your friends and then gain your own expertise." Sometimes that works, but that also gave us Bernie Madoff. There are issues with any particular basis for trust in certain circumstances. And given that many insider investors lost their own shirts, we might infer that it didn't work that well for them, either. After all, weren't many of them trusting their friends and their own expertise? If the notion is that we should preference opinions of people who are not biased, great. That then becomes a part of an explicit process which can be tested. And don't many deeply religious people (of divergent religions) also base their views on their trust of their friends, lack of obvious bias, etc.

As for objectivity; The tendency of appraisers to inflate estimates of house value was hardly a secret. Similarly, the notion of liars loans undermined informed consent, not to mention mathematical models. People trusted politicians (from both sides of the aisle) who promised them that the government could effectively mandate cheaper housing and promote home ownership. When has that model worked in the long term? Yes, I'm simplifying tremendously here.

And yes, Countrywide was happily complicit in the meltdown, but so were the government-mandated ratings agencies. A model based on bad data, such as was provided by the 'liars loans' is not going to work. A poorly designed and biased study is a horrible example of 'objective' data and is certainly not a refutation of the scientific method in general. Just because someone claims objectivity based on data doesn't mean you give credence to their claims. Further, you'll note that my response noted that if you chose to trust a person without understanding the basis of their model that you wouldn't know the limits of their model. Which is exactly the problem that hit models based on "the last 10 years of data" in regards to the housing crisis. They were predictive only within a limited range, and didn't understand the weak base their model was built on.

Quote:The problem here is an underlying belief in the existence of objectivity (which is false)

To claim authoritatively that objectivity is false is to make an objective statement. In any case, you have to at least allow an imperfect measure of objectivity, or else the notions of true and false in general become meaningless. If really don't believe anything is objective then you don't get to claim that anything is false.

I agree with your assertion that we should prefer unbiased individuals over biased ones as a heuristic, especially if we lack the capacity to understand their mental models.

Of course, most High School and even most college education isn't teaching kids about anything so poorly understood as economic theory. Objective standards work a lot better in regards to teaching material which is well understood.

@Pheroquirk - "if there was one nation in the world that exemplified the rule of law rather than the arbitrary rule of man, it would be England."

I'm not sure I agree with that. Modern America, for example, is far more legalistic and lawsuit happy than England was. It is also more focused on equality before the law. England had dueling, the feudal notion of Nobless Oblige, etc. The peerage system didn't typically create explicit legal requirements, it created social obligations. Not to mention that the pasturelands of Ireland and Scotland were noted as being difficult to defend against theft, which seems to contribute to cultures of honor.



My views on this point may be correct or incorrect, but they don't seem uncommon.

Quote:Honour is really about your reputation amongst other men, and different cultures have different values and emphasize different traits.

Agreed. And the core of a culture of honor is respect, reputation and enforcement of these things through extra-legal punishments. The particulars can differ widely.

Quote:If we are speaking of authority - an essentially political concept (political in the sense of relating to power and group dynamics, not in the sense of party politics) - it is not possible to discuss it in an entirely value-free way.

I'm not saying that we should discuss this topic in a value-free way. What I'm suggesting is that we make our values, biases and epistimology explicit. Assuming shared meaning in the context of this discussion ammounts to assuming what one is trying to prove, and is an appeal to popular opinion.

Quote:The author considered the false niceness of today to be of Progressive origin, and I have the same opinion

I agree that the current push for "niceness" in the context of this conversation is progressive in origin. I disagree that modern 'niceness' is an anachronistic preservation of an older standard. Modern "niceness" seems to correspond, in part, to a decrease in power distance over the past generation or so.

Quote:This is a metaphysical and metapolitical belief. I don't particularly wish to persuade you that you are wrong, but one should note that this is distinctively a modern Western thing (and particularly an American belief), and other cultures have a different opinion about that.

I agree that it's a particularly western belief. It tends to be strongly favored by Western business managers (and Eastern managers who have been influenced by the West) because it's demonstratably effective in an industrial context.

Quote:You may say that I have no objective basis for believing the Savile Row suit superior. But on the whole it is very likely to be, whether or not you can tell.

What does 'it is very likely to be' mean here? If there's no objective basis for quality, then quality is subjective and relative and should be discussed using appropriate terms. Terms of preference ("I like") would be more suitable than statements of absolute fact ("It is"). Unless, of course, you think the product has some absolute quality which is universally preferred even if you personally lack the ability to measure that quality.

This seems to be a common epistimological mistake; people claim that matters are subjective but still wish to discuss them using objective terminology. They don't just assert that their opponents have a different preference, but that their opponents are "wrong." To say that a thing is wrong requires some universally legitimate objective standard.

Quote:Authorities become such because they are recognized by others as such, not because they claim to be one. Please don't ask me to prove to you that he knows his onions. This is how authority works.

The problem is that this doesn't explicitly state how you determined that Pago "knows his onions." (your epistimology) There's a process at work there, whether you're cognizant of it or not, whether I accept your process or not. This is what I'm referring to when I say that you're using loaded terms. I'm not criticizing you for being biased. We all are. I'm saying that the words that you use gloss over that crucial process that you use to determine if things are valid or not, and then you end with an objective assertion.

Post: #10

Perhaps I misunderstood. In any case, there is no substitute for judgment. It is appealing to try to determine objective standards, and in some cases these may be a proxy that work to an extent, but it cannot properly replace a finely tuned ability to judge.

I'd also point out that in discussing the Savile Row example, the dichotomy drawn is a false one. McGilchrist also discusses what he terms the either / or fallacy - this is the tendency to see things in balck and white, to miss the unavoidable complexity. It is not the case that it must either be objective and conforming to a certain measurable standard, or subjective. There exist categories inbetween; in fact, these are so well known to us that we hardly recognise them - again, the example Pheroquirk has given, twice, of this forum demonstrates this very well.

I have found the following of interest, although I have not fully understood the concept and its implications yet: