For someone [with at least a shade of Asperger’s Syndrome], it may be important to get in touch with their inner moralizer!
Agreed, although I don’t know that I have any Asperger’s. Here’s a sample dialogue I actually had that would have gone better if I had been in touch with my inner moralizer. I didn’t record it, so it’s paraphrased from memory:
X: It’s really important to me what happens to the species a billion years from now. (X actually made a much longer statement, with examples.)
Me: Well, you’re human, so I don’t think you can really have concerns about what happens a billion years from now because you can’t imagine that period of time. It seems much more likely that you perceive talking about things a billion years off to be high status, and what you really want is the short term status gain from saying you have impressive plans. People aren’t really that altruistic.
X: I hate it when people point out that there are two of me. The status-gaming part is separate from the long-term planning part.
Me: There are only one of you, and only one of me.
X: You’re selfish! (This actually made more sense in the real conversation than it does here. This was some time ago and my memory has faded.)
Me: (I exited the conversation at this point. I don’t remember how.)
I exited because I judged that X was making something he perceived to be an ad-hominem argument, and I knew that X knew that ad-hominem arguments were fallacious, and I couldn’t deal with the apparent dishonesty. It is actually true that I am selfish, in the sense that I acknowledge no authority over my behavior higher than my own preferences. This isn’t so bad given that some of my preferences are that other people get things they probably want. Today I’m not sure X was intending to make an ad-hominem argument. This alternative for my last step would have been better:
Me if I were in touch with my inner moralizer: Do I correctly understand that you are trying to make an ad-hominem argument?
If I had taken that path, I would either have clear evidence that X is dishonest, or a more interesting conversation if he wasn’t; either way would have been better.
When I visualize myself taking the alternative I presently prefer, I also imagine myself stepping back so I would be just out of X’s reach. I really don’t like physical confrontation.
My original purpose here was give an example, but the point at the end is interesting: if you’re going to denounce, there’s a small chance that things might escalate, so you need to get clear on what you want to do if things escalate.
Me: Well, you’re human, so I don’t think you can really have concerns about what happens a billion years from now because you can’t imagine that period of time.
In what sense are you using the word imagine, and how hard have you tried to imagine a billion years?
In what sense are you using the word imagine, and how hard have you tried to imagine a billion years?
I have a really poor intuition for time, so I”m the wrong person to ask.
I can imagine a thousand things as a 10x10x10 cube. I can imagine a million things as a 10x10x10 arrangements of 1K cubes. My visualization for a billion looks just like my visualization for a million, and a year seems like a long time to start with, so I can’t imagine a billion years.
In order to have desires about something, you have to have a compelling internal representation of that something so you can have a desire about it.
X didn’t say “I can too imagine a billion years!”, so none of this pertains to my point.
My visualization for a billion looks just like my visualization for a million, and a year seems like a long time to start with, so I can’t imagine a billion years.
Would it help to be more specific? Imagine a little cube of metal, 1mm wide. Imagine rolling it between your thumb and fingertip, bigger than a grain of sand, smaller than a peppercorn. Yes?
A one-litre bottle holds 1 million of those. (If your first thought was the packing ratio, your second thought should be to cut the corners off to make cuboctahedra.)
Now imagine a cubic metre. A typical desk has a height of around 0.75m, so if its top is a metre deep and 1.33 metres wide (quite a large desk), then there is 1 cubic metre of space between the desktop and the floor.
It takes 1 billion of those millimetre cubes to fill that volume.
Now find an Olympic-sized swimming pool and swim a few lengths in it. It takes 2.5 trillion of those cubes to fill it.
Fill it with fine sand of 0.1mm diameter, and you will have a few quadrillion grains.
A bigger problem I have with the original is where X says “It’s really important to me what happens to the species a billion years from now.” The species, a billion years from now? That sounds like a failure to comprehend just what a billion years is: the time that life has existed on Earth so far. I confidently predict that a billion years hence, not a single presently existing species, including us, will still exist in anything much like its present form, even imagining “business as usual” and leaving aside existential risks and singularities.
First, I imagine a billion bits. That’s maybe 15 minutes of high quality video, so it’s pretty easy to imagine a billion bits. Then I imagine that each of those bits represents some proposition about a year—for example, whether or not humanity still exists. If you want to model a second proposition about each year, just add another billion bits.
That’s maybe 15 minutes of high quality video, so it’s pretty easy to imagine a billion bits.
Perhaps I don’t understand your usage of the word ‘imagine’ because this example doesn’t really help me ‘imagine’ them at all. Imagine their result (the high quality video) sure, but not the bits themselves.
Well, you’re human, so I don’t think you can really have concerns about what happens a billion years from now because you can’t imagine that period of time.
I can’t imagine the difference between sixteen million dollars and ten million dollars—in my imagination, the stuff I do with the money is exactly the same. I definitely prefer 16 to 10 though. In much the same way, my imagination of a million dollars and a billion dollars doesn’t differ too much; I would also prefer the billion. I don’t know if I need to imagine a billion years accurately in order to prefer it, or have concerns about it becoming less likely.
Agreed, although I don’t know that I have any Asperger’s. Here’s a sample dialogue I actually had that would have gone better if I had been in touch with my inner moralizer.
One of the great benefits that being in touch with the inner moralizer can have is that can warn you about how what you say will be interpreted by another. It would probably recommend against speaking your first paragraph, for example.
I suspect the inner moralizer would also probably not treat the “You’re selfish” as an ad hominem argument. It technically does apply but from within a moral model what is going on isn’t of the form of the ad hominem fallacy. It is more of the form:
Not expressing and expecting others to express a certain moral position is bad.
You are bad.
You should fear the social consequences of being considered bad.
You should change your moral position.
I’m not saying the above is desirable reasoning—it’s annoying and has its own logical probelms. But it is also a different underlying mistake than the typical ad hominem.
One of the great benefits that being in touch with the inner moralizer can have is that can warn you about how what you say will be interpreted by another. It would probably recommend against speaking your first paragraph, for example.
If it works that way, I don’t want it. My relationship with X has no value to me if the relevant truths cannot be told, and so far as I can tell that first paragraph was both true and relevant at the time.
Now if that had been a coworker with whom I needed ongoing practical cooperation, I would have made some minimal polite response just like I make minimal polite responses to statements about who is winning American Idol.
...But it is also a different underlying mistake than the typical ad hominem.
Okay, there might be some detailed definition of ad hominem that doesn’t exactly match the mistake you described. I presently fail to see how the difference is important. The purpose of both ad hominem and your offered interpretation is to use emotional manipulation to get the target (me in this example) to shut up. Would I benefit in some way from making a distinction between the fallacy you are describing and ad hominem?
Agreed, although I don’t know that I have any Asperger’s. Here’s a sample dialogue I actually had that would have gone better if I had been in touch with my inner moralizer. I didn’t record it, so it’s paraphrased from memory:
X: It’s really important to me what happens to the species a billion years from now. (X actually made a much longer statement, with examples.)
Me: Well, you’re human, so I don’t think you can really have concerns about what happens a billion years from now because you can’t imagine that period of time. It seems much more likely that you perceive talking about things a billion years off to be high status, and what you really want is the short term status gain from saying you have impressive plans. People aren’t really that altruistic.
X: I hate it when people point out that there are two of me. The status-gaming part is separate from the long-term planning part.
Me: There are only one of you, and only one of me.
X: You’re selfish! (This actually made more sense in the real conversation than it does here. This was some time ago and my memory has faded.)
Me: (I exited the conversation at this point. I don’t remember how.)
I exited because I judged that X was making something he perceived to be an ad-hominem argument, and I knew that X knew that ad-hominem arguments were fallacious, and I couldn’t deal with the apparent dishonesty. It is actually true that I am selfish, in the sense that I acknowledge no authority over my behavior higher than my own preferences. This isn’t so bad given that some of my preferences are that other people get things they probably want. Today I’m not sure X was intending to make an ad-hominem argument. This alternative for my last step would have been better:
Me if I were in touch with my inner moralizer: Do I correctly understand that you are trying to make an ad-hominem argument?
If I had taken that path, I would either have clear evidence that X is dishonest, or a more interesting conversation if he wasn’t; either way would have been better.
When I visualize myself taking the alternative I presently prefer, I also imagine myself stepping back so I would be just out of X’s reach. I really don’t like physical confrontation.
My original purpose here was give an example, but the point at the end is interesting: if you’re going to denounce, there’s a small chance that things might escalate, so you need to get clear on what you want to do if things escalate.
In what sense are you using the word imagine, and how hard have you tried to imagine a billion years?
I have a really poor intuition for time, so I”m the wrong person to ask.
I can imagine a thousand things as a 10x10x10 cube. I can imagine a million things as a 10x10x10 arrangements of 1K cubes. My visualization for a billion looks just like my visualization for a million, and a year seems like a long time to start with, so I can’t imagine a billion years.
In order to have desires about something, you have to have a compelling internal representation of that something so you can have a desire about it.
X didn’t say “I can too imagine a billion years!”, so none of this pertains to my point.
Would it help to be more specific? Imagine a little cube of metal, 1mm wide. Imagine rolling it between your thumb and fingertip, bigger than a grain of sand, smaller than a peppercorn. Yes?
A one-litre bottle holds 1 million of those. (If your first thought was the packing ratio, your second thought should be to cut the corners off to make cuboctahedra.)
Now imagine a cubic metre. A typical desk has a height of around 0.75m, so if its top is a metre deep and 1.33 metres wide (quite a large desk), then there is 1 cubic metre of space between the desktop and the floor.
It takes 1 billion of those millimetre cubes to fill that volume.
Now find an Olympic-sized swimming pool and swim a few lengths in it. It takes 2.5 trillion of those cubes to fill it.
Fill it with fine sand of 0.1mm diameter, and you will have a few quadrillion grains.
A bigger problem I have with the original is where X says “It’s really important to me what happens to the species a billion years from now.” The species, a billion years from now? That sounds like a failure to comprehend just what a billion years is: the time that life has existed on Earth so far. I confidently predict that a billion years hence, not a single presently existing species, including us, will still exist in anything much like its present form, even imagining “business as usual” and leaving aside existential risks and singularities.
Excellent. I can visualize a billion now. Thank you.
First, I imagine a billion bits. That’s maybe 15 minutes of high quality video, so it’s pretty easy to imagine a billion bits. Then I imagine that each of those bits represents some proposition about a year—for example, whether or not humanity still exists. If you want to model a second proposition about each year, just add another billion bits.
Perhaps I don’t understand your usage of the word ‘imagine’ because this example doesn’t really help me ‘imagine’ them at all. Imagine their result (the high quality video) sure, but not the bits themselves.
I can’t imagine the difference between sixteen million dollars and ten million dollars—in my imagination, the stuff I do with the money is exactly the same. I definitely prefer 16 to 10 though. In much the same way, my imagination of a million dollars and a billion dollars doesn’t differ too much; I would also prefer the billion. I don’t know if I need to imagine a billion years accurately in order to prefer it, or have concerns about it becoming less likely.
One of the great benefits that being in touch with the inner moralizer can have is that can warn you about how what you say will be interpreted by another. It would probably recommend against speaking your first paragraph, for example.
I suspect the inner moralizer would also probably not treat the “You’re selfish” as an ad hominem argument. It technically does apply but from within a moral model what is going on isn’t of the form of the ad hominem fallacy. It is more of the form:
Not expressing and expecting others to express a certain moral position is bad.
You are bad.
You should fear the social consequences of being considered bad.
You should change your moral position.
I’m not saying the above is desirable reasoning—it’s annoying and has its own logical probelms. But it is also a different underlying mistake than the typical ad hominem.
If it works that way, I don’t want it. My relationship with X has no value to me if the relevant truths cannot be told, and so far as I can tell that first paragraph was both true and relevant at the time.
Now if that had been a coworker with whom I needed ongoing practical cooperation, I would have made some minimal polite response just like I make minimal polite responses to statements about who is winning American Idol.
Okay, there might be some detailed definition of ad hominem that doesn’t exactly match the mistake you described. I presently fail to see how the difference is important. The purpose of both ad hominem and your offered interpretation is to use emotional manipulation to get the target (me in this example) to shut up. Would I benefit in some way from making a distinction between the fallacy you are describing and ad hominem?