I just posted a bit called “Beliefs as Body Language.”
I explore the idea that most people basically do not have beliefs, and are essentially incapable of thinking in terms of beliefs. You cannot tell them what you want them to hear, because what you want them to hear is a proposition about reality, and they are only capable of hearing signals of tribal affiliation or personality traits.
I definitely see some flaws with Adams’ methodology, but a few of the things he says that are identified as epistemologically unsound, I understand in terms of communicating with the average person, who is not a nerd and doesn’t deal with propositions about reality much. It’s implied that Adams should instead make a sentence the words in which symbolize a model about reality that matches the way reality really is, ie, say true things.
The problem is that he can say that, and we nerds can understand it and applaud him for it, but most people are incapable of receiving the message. At which point, it becomes a question of picking your poison. If you can’t communicate accurate proposition about reality to people, what can you do?
This is where Adams’ idea about Trump’s statements being “emotionally true” comes in. The way that most people think, which can be very difficult for us nerds to understand, means that certain factually inaccurate statements communicate truth in the only or the best way they are able to receive it.
It’s a mixed bag; some of this stuff is flat-out deceptive, whether viewed “emotionally” or epistemologically. But there are some parts here that are “accurate” in the emotional sense. I’m more fluent in epistemological thinking, and would prefer people talked that way. But for those who can’t, I don’t begrudge them trying to be honest in the way that they do think, even if that doesn’t mean trading propositional statements about reality.
I just posted a bit called “Beliefs as Body Language.”
I explore the idea that most people basically do not have beliefs, and are essentially incapable of thinking in terms of beliefs. You cannot tell them what you want them to hear, because what you want them to hear is a proposition about reality, and they are only capable of hearing signals of tribal affiliation or personality traits.
I definitely see some flaws with Adams’ methodology, but a few of the things he says that are identified as epistemologically unsound, I understand in terms of communicating with the average person, who is not a nerd and doesn’t deal with propositions about reality much. It’s implied that Adams should instead make a sentence the words in which symbolize a model about reality that matches the way reality really is, ie, say true things.
The problem is that he can say that, and we nerds can understand it and applaud him for it, but most people are incapable of receiving the message. At which point, it becomes a question of picking your poison. If you can’t communicate accurate proposition about reality to people, what can you do?
This is where Adams’ idea about Trump’s statements being “emotionally true” comes in. The way that most people think, which can be very difficult for us nerds to understand, means that certain factually inaccurate statements communicate truth in the only or the best way they are able to receive it.
It’s a mixed bag; some of this stuff is flat-out deceptive, whether viewed “emotionally” or epistemologically. But there are some parts here that are “accurate” in the emotional sense. I’m more fluent in epistemological thinking, and would prefer people talked that way. But for those who can’t, I don’t begrudge them trying to be honest in the way that they do think, even if that doesn’t mean trading propositional statements about reality.