It does not address it when it was brought up multiple times before. So, your tardiness to the issue it a result of what? — moo

I thought I had already addressed your question with this: "If one barely has the belief that they have a responsibility to take someone to the doctors, then for example they may think that they maybe dreamed that they made an arrangement to drive them, and they will probably try to increase their confidence by calling the person or something." That was written right before you asked your question again, and thus your restated question shows a lack of comprehension on your part, right? I then addressed your question again because you didn't comprehend it the first time apparently, and you wrote:"I asked you to quote where you address what I have asked you again and again, could you not find it?", and that indicates to me you probably didn't even comprehend that I addressed your question again, which is consistent with your lack of comprehension from the first time. All of this is consistent with your lack of comprehension of my argument when you requested for me to give the clear logic when I already provided it, and your lack of comprehension when I had to quote for you the following on another matter: "I currently think assent to a belief happens has soon as something is perceived to be more likely the case than not (51%). So, one trusts in it more than not, but a handshake puts another condition on it, so that one must trust more than not that they will likely not jeopardize their perceived integrity with the handshake, so to reach that 51% may require something like 90% confidence with the other belief." So, it seems you are the one who is tardy. Please confirm this, or if you disagree then please explain why.

I disagree with contradictory terms, and if you understood you own logic you would see that. If one needs high confidence to assent to a particular belief, like taking someone to a medical appointment, then the high confidence necessary to cause one to assent to the belief that they can take on the responsibility is marked by what? 51% on your own terms! Right? — moo

Wrong. Again, you fail to comprehend.

I wrote this: "Your opening post presents one belief that is assented to at the lowest threshold of belief. I think the lowest threshold to any belief is always 51%. So, I think there is no context relevant to your position that changes things. Again, your position holds one can always shake on one's belief, even if they barely believe it, and it is valid behavior to do. That is what the disagreement is over. Please confirm this, or if you disagree then please explain why. If you agree that is what the disagreement is over, then hopefully you can see how you are straying away from your stated position when you state now: "see how in some contexts one may need as little as 51% to shake on something, just as other contexts may need 90%, and other contexts 99% confidence in their belief?". Again, the lowest threshold to assent to any belief is always 51%. If you disagree with that premise, then please explain why."

So, as I've already stated, any one belief can be assented to at 51%, and so your statement, "If one needs high confidence to assent to a particular belief ...", is I believe a mistaken notion. Please confirm this, or if you disagree then please explain why.

Is not the original question asking someone if they can take them to the doctors tomorrow? Does that question not deal with the idea of responsibility?????? — moo

I have already clarified the matter, and so your question shows a lack of comprehension. I wrote this: "I tried to give an example with the ride to the doctor, and unfortunately, the way I wrote things conveys that one is giving a promise when they say "yes", so I think that confuses what I'm trying to show. However, if one has a belief that, "I will drive this person to the doctors tomorrow", and it's at the lowest threshold of assent, it is by definition at the lowest confidence level possible, meaning, it is held with little confidence (51%). If the one needing a ride asks, "is that a belief that you have", and the person simply responds "yes", and the other person says shake on it, and they do, I imagine you can see how that situation may jeopardize the relationship, and I think that goes against the function of the handshake, which again, I think is to engender trust. That is why I believe your position is unsound."

And I wrote this:"The opening post speaks of beliefs, and it's not clear to me if one can choose a belief, but I think one can choose to take on the responsibility of something. So, I currently think a belief is always assented to by a feeling of confidence when it's at 51% or more, but assenting to take on a responsibility depends on how responsible the person is; the more responsible they are, the more confidence I think they require to take on a responsibility. Again, the opening post speaks of assenting to beliefs, not to assenting to take on the responsibility of something, so please keep that in mind. As I conveyed in my other post, I adjusted the scenario of driving someone to the doctors as not involving making a promise."

So, hopefully you can see that your question does not push the conversation forward, but just conveys your lack of comperhension. Please confirm this, or if you disagree then please explain why.

I have shown you again and again, that assenting to a belief takes a certain level of confidence, and you can then stand behind that confidence with a handshake. I think I have shown you again and again that if one is not willing to stand behind their belief with a handshake, which is a symbol of trust, then why would they put trust in a belief that they have assented to, but won't stand behind it with a symbol of trust like a handshake? The only way I see that making sense, is that a handshake is not simply a symbol of trust, but a symbol beyond just trust. — moo

I think one can have a weak level of trust in a belief they have assented to, but they would not necessarily want to simply shake on it. I think at least generally the handshake is a symbol beyond mere trust; it is a symbol of a high level of trust or confidence, as I have been putting forth. I think all you do above is restate your position without confronting my argument, and so my argument still stands. Again, please confirm you failed to show my argument as unsound, and you continue to do so, or if you disagree then please explain why.

You indicated my second premise and my claim in my conclusion are incoherent with each other, and I conveyed that they are coherent, and requested for you to confirm this, but you did not. Please confirm you failed to fulfill my request, and then please address it.

But what is the route of mistrust? If they are not making the wrong assumption, then fine. It just means that a handshake is not simply a symbol of trust. Please confirm this. — moo

I confirm this.

A handshake is a social norm, and I believe it operates with in a framework, and just because there are perhaps strong associations with it in a particular manner, does not mean those associations are the complete picture, and if one is blinded by such association's/social norms, then that is on them for neglecting the truth of the situation. The way you're thinking seems to go, is like this, social norms rule, bend to them, or you're in the wrong, unless you're not. Well, I think I'm not in the wrong and am operating within the framework. — moo

What is your framework? If your framework is not from a shared understanding, then it will not serve a shared meaning, correct? If it will not serve a shared meaning, then what function does it have? You have stated that you think it's purpose is to be a symbol of trust, and I have put forth that, to fulfill your own notion, the handshake needs to carry a shared meaning with others, and that trust is naturally associated with high confidence, and so confusion and mistrust can happen with the way you have things, and that goes against your own premise that the handshake is a symbol of trust. Therefore, you're not operating coherently within your own stated framework. Please confirm this, or if you disagree then please explain why.

I asked you to quote where you address what I have asked you again and again, could you not find it? — moo

Okay, so you asked: "If you think it's a contradiction then please explain why, for I ask you again and again why would someone assent to a belief that they can do something for someone else when they have hardly any confidence that they can do it? Where do you respond to that, quote it!"

I wrote:"I currently don't think their assent necessarily includes the belief that they have a high likelihood of achieving it, for I believe they may think their funky car engine may finally die, and one of their panic attacks may happen, and so on, where they believe they can drive the person to the doctors, but they barely believe it."

It was not a quote, but so what? It addresses your question, doesn't it? As far as the contradiction part, I already expressed: "When you state they may need a high level of confidence to assent to a particular belief, which is then marked by 51%, that seems to me to be a contradiction of terms; you cannot have a high level of confidence when you are at the lowest confidence possible. Please confirm this, or if you disagree then please explain why."

To you first question, it can happen, but all that means is they have assented to a responsibility they have low confidence in, so they MUST think they don't need more confidence for they have assented to the idea that they don't need anymore, right? — moo

You have injected "responsibility" when I have already told you that is not part of the situation, so you are mudding things up when I've already clarified things.

I think they have assented to a belief that they have low confidence in, so they don't need more confidence to have the belief, but they may need more confidence to take on a responsibility, and to not cause confusion by merely shaking someone's hand on the belief. Do you agree? If you disagree then please explain why.

Your first premise, I agree with.
Your second premise is ambiguous as "more" is a relative term.
Your third premise has the term "high confidence", but your second premise just has the term "more confident" and thus is incoherent with your claim. — moo

My third premise does not state anything about high confidence.

If one trusts in things they are more confident about, then that naturally leads trust being highly associated to high confidence rather then low confidence, and so my second premise is not incoherent with my claim stated in my conclusion that, "trust is naturally associated to high confidence (premise 2)". Please confirm this, or if you disagree then please explain why.

Please confirm you have failed to show my argument as unsound, or if you disagree then please explain why.

One trusts in things they believe! Sure, the more trust one has, the more confidence, but that does not mean one cannot shake on what they believe! For if they believe in it, that represent a degree of trust, and they can give a symbol of trust on that degree of trust. That degree being the assent to belief. If someone reads something more into the situation then there really is, that is on them with their wrong assumption about the situation. One may be understandably confused because of social norms or other means that mislead them, but their confusion does not mean the other person was technically wrong, does it? — moo

I think by not going along with the social norm, and not qualify what one is doing, it can cause confusion and mistrust, which I think goes against the function of the handshake, and thus it is technically wrong if you want the handshake to function as a symbol of trust. With what you said about them reading into the situation, how are they making a wrong assumption? Can they not be making the right assumption, or presumption, giving the social norm, and it is your responsibility to try to clarify things if your intention does not align with their foreseeable expectation?

If confusion happens, why? Because of the influence of an incoherent mob of people with their wrong assumptions? Trust may be associated with high confidence, but so what? The person didn't shake on something they claim they have high confidence in, only on the confidence that they believe in something. If everyone in the world is confused by you and your beliefs and think your wrong, does that make you actually wrong? If not, then how do you think you have coherently argued against my logic when your logic as I have pointed out again and again seems to be dependent on the social norm of wrongly assuming something about a situation? Your logic depends on social norms, and with that type of thinking one can ultimately fault you for whatever the society norms are. But are they in the right for doing such? — moo

Again, I think the handshake is a social norm, so to take issue with my argument because it's based on a social norm is incoherent. Please confirm this, or if you disagree then please explain why.

I think whether or not someone can justly fault someone by a social norm depends on the situation.

If they assent to the belief that they can take them to the doctors, does not that assent include/imply the belief that they have a high likelihood of achieving it? — moo

I currently don't think their assent necessarily includes the belief that they have a high likelihood of achieving it, for I believe they may think their funky car engine may finally die, and one of their panic attacks may happen, and so on, where they believe they can drive the person to the doctors, but they barely believe it. It may be very rare to assent to such a belief at such a low percentage of confidence, but I don't know why it can't possibly happen. If you believe it can't happen then please explain why.

What is the logic behind the opening statement that you think is flawed. The logic please, not some examples that you think somehow showcases the logic of your argument, but the actual logical flaw clearly expressed! — moo

1. The handshake, in this context, is a symbol of trust (you have stated this is your belief)
2. One trusts in things they are more confident about.
3. If confusion happens, then that can lead to mistrust, which goes against the function of the handshake.
Therefore, given that trust is naturally associated to high confidence (premise 2), the handshake can lead to confusion if the confidence behind it is lower than the normal expectation, which can cause mistrust, and that goes against the handshake's function of being a symbol of trust.

If one barely has the belief that they have a responsibility to take someone to the doctors, then for example they may think that they maybe dreamed that they made an arrangement to drive them, and they will probably try to increase their confidence by calling the person or something. The opening post speaks of beliefs, and it's not clear to me if one can choose a belief, but I think one can choose to take on the responsibility of something. So, I currently think a belief is always assented to by a feeling of confidence when it's at 51% or more, but assenting to take on a responsibility depends on how responsible the person is; the more responsible they are, the more confidence I think they require to take on a responsibility. Again, the opening post speaks of assenting to beliefs, not to assenting to take on the responsibility of something, so please keep that in mind. As I conveyed in my other post, I adjusted the scenario of driving someone to the doctors as not involving making a promise.

So back to this again:"When you state they may need a high level of confidence to assent to a particular belief, which is then marked by 51%, that seems to me to be a contradiction of terms; you cannot have a high level of confidence when you are at the lowest confidence possible. Please confirm this, or if you disagree then please explain why."

If the person agrees at the lowest threshold of assent, then they have met the necessary confidence to assent to that belief. You act like that is low confidence, but how??? Why do they think they have met the threshold of assent when they cannot rightly offer a symbol of trust in relation to the belief they have assented too??? Quote where you deal with that logic! — moo

I believe I have already dealt with it here:

I currently think assent to a belief happens has soon as something is perceived to be more likely the case than not (51%). So, one trusts in it more than not, but a handshake puts another condition on it, so that one must trust more than not that they will likely not jeopardize their perceived integrity with the handshake, so to reach that 51% may require something like 90% confidence with the other belief. — DreamCatcher

The confidence needed I think is defined by the individual, and thus your notion that 51% is inherently weak seems wrong to me. For example, if one believes that taking someone to the doctor is something that requires a high level of confidence, then to reach that belief you must reach that required level of confidence. Once you reach that high level of confidence, then you assent to that belief, which is marked by 51%. Anything above 51% is surplus, and only further strengthens what was already strong enough to assent to. — moo

When you state they may need a high level of confidence to assent to a particular belief, which is then marked by 51%, that seems to me to be a contradiction of terms; you cannot have a high level of confidence when you are at the lowest confidence possible. Please confirm this, or if you disagree then please explain why.

With your Santa example, there is an issue being made about lying, so when one is not lying about believing is Santa, it perhaps does make it truly fine to shake on it in that situation, however, all you need is one counterexample to show if what you are putting forth in the opening post is unsound. I tried to give an example with the ride to the doctor, and unfortunately, the way I wrote things conveys that one is giving a promise when they say "yes", so I think that confuses what I'm trying to show. However, if one has a belief that, "I will drive this person to the doctors tomorrow", and it's at the lowest threshold of assent, it is by definition at the lowest confidence level possible, meaning, it is held with little confidence (51%). If the one needing a ride asks, "is that a belief that you have", and the person simply responds "yes", and the other person says shake on it, and they do, I imagine you can see how that situation may jeopardize the relationship, and I think that goes against the function of the handshake, which again, I think is to engender trust. That is why I believe your position is unsound.

I think my last response still holds. Please reread it.

Your opening post presents one belief that is assented to at the lowest threshold of belief. I think the lowest threshold to any belief is always 51%. So, I think there is no context relevant to your position that changes things. Again, your position holds one can always shake on one's belief, even if they barely believe it, and it is valid behavior to do. That is what the disagreement is over. Please confirm this, or if you disagree then please explain why. If you agree that is what the disagreement is over, then hopefully you can see how you are straying away from your stated position when you state now: "see how in some contexts one may need as little as 51% to shake on something, just as other contexts may need 90%, and other contexts 99% confidence in their belief?". Again, the lowest threshold to assent to any belief is always 51%. If you disagree with that premise, then please explain why.

It is not inconsistent, nor do I think you have you given coherent logic to how you think it's inconsistent. Here is what I wrote you earlier-
"In your example, the person must assent to the idea that barley believing that they can give someone a ride to the doctors, yet agree to do so is proper behavior, for if they don't, then I don't understand how they met the threshold to assent to such, and thus your example to me would not seemingly be sound in proving your point."
— moo
Now please quote where you explain why someone would agree to such. I think you have created a false scenario where one wouldn't agree to such, yet your argument seems to depend on such errored example to make your point. It does not reflect my logic! If the person agrees at the lowest threshold of assent, then they have met the necessary confidence to assent to that belief. You act like that is low confidence, but how??? Why do they think they have met the threshold of assent when they cannot rightly offer a symbol of trust in relation to the belief they have assented too??? Quote where you deal with that logic! — moo

I believe I have dealt with your logic here:

I currently think assent to a belief happens has soon as something is perceived to be more likely the case than not (51%). So, one trusts in it more than not, but a handshake puts another condition on it, so that one must trust more than not that they will likely not jeopardize their perceived integrity with the handshake, so to reach that 51% may require something like 90% confidence with the other belief. — DreamCatcher

So, I think the statement,"Will you give me a ride to the doctors tomorrow", can be assented to at different degrees of confidence, and unless one believes that they know exactly what the future will bring, it will be at a probability less than 100%. And I think it could be as low as 51%, which is the lowest threshold of assent. Now, supposing it is at 51%, can they not on your own terms simply share their belief, and if the other person assumes that their confidence was higher in saying "yes", then that is the other person's own fault? If not, then please explain why. With what I quoted above, I think I conveyed that "proper behavior" is another condition placed upon their belief, and to "reach that 51% may require something like 90% confidence with the other belief." So, I think your concern here of proper behavior and assent conflates two beliefs, and if you think they need high confidence to properly give their word, then shouldn't that type of thinking also apply to the handshake?

Ok, but isn't the social norm in relation to taking someone to the doctors mean one should only assent to taking one to the doctors when they are confident enough to do such?? To me it seems you have created a false context to try and defend your position! Please argue with strict logic against my position without bringing in other contexts to muck up the clarity of things. — moo

Yes, I think one should only assent to taking one to the doctors when they are confident enough to do such, so if they are at 51% confidence that they will give them a ride, then they have likely not reached at least 51% that they will not harm the relationship in simply stating their belief, so if they care about the relationship, they should not do it, and likewise, you should probably not shake on the lowest threshold of assent to a belief, but only shake on high confidence.

Un, I'm confused, I never said that there is nothing to jeopardize, I wrote you this:
"The right assumption? I agree that one might jeopardize trust in those who only use social norms, oppose to those who also use logic and coherency to map the world for themselves, but that does not make you right in thinking I'm wrong on this issue, does it? If so, how?"

Please confirm you have misrepresented my beliefs here, or if you disagree, then please explain why. — moo

I don't think I misrepresented your beliefs; I'm saying you don't seem to think you are jeopardizing your integrity by doing such behavior, and you are blaming others for their "wrong assumptions". Yet, when it comes to one stating that they can give someone a ride to the doctors when they barely believe it, it seems you want trust or high confidence in that belief before one simply states it to another, but this seems to me inconsistent with your position with regards to the handshake.

To your second question, I think context matters, which I already expressed earlier in this discussion. Just because you can shake on something that you barley believe in one context, does not then mean you can do the same in all contexts, as the contexts can change what one will be willing to assent to, which has already been communicated to you in this discussion. Have you opposed that with logic??? If you think you have, then please quote such. — moo

Your position seems to hold that in any context if one barely believes something then they can shake on it (see your opening post). If someone misconstrues it, then you seem to hold that is their fault, and they are mistreating you, as you believe the behavior is valid. So, what logic is there to oppose with regards to context? Again, "if you have issue here that one shouldn't just simply state that they can give someone a ride to the doctors when they barely believe it, then why doesn't that type of thinking also hold in your mind for the handshake?" I think you're undercutting your position and don't realize it.

Again, you bend to the social norms and wrong assumptions, opposed to strict logic and coherency of what a handshake represents, a symbol of trust, correct? — moo

Once again, I think one trusts in things they are more confident about, meaning, they have high confidence about it, and I believe that is what the social norm of the handshake is. So, I believe it is a symbol of trust, created by a shared meaning, and it does not hold a wrong assumption, but you are the one holding a wrong assumption in thinking that you do not need to bend to the social norm in creating a symbol of trust.

So, a handshake is not a symbol of trust, but whatever the social norm has it be, even if that social norm is incoherent with what they claim it represents? Do I understand you correctly? Do you agree that there can be a justified position represented by logic and coherency that one can act on and be in the right in doing such, despite if it goes against the social norm on such an issue? If so, then what is your problem with my stance here? — moo

I currently believe the handshake is whatever the social norm has it be, for its use comes from a shared meaning. If the social norm is incoherent, then I think it will probably quickly vanish being put into practice as I think it can't clearly carry out a function. And I have already conveyed that one can have a justified position represented by logic and coherency that one can act on, but if they do not make it known that it goes against the social norm, then it will probably cause confusion and not convey to the other what they wish for it to convey.

In your example, the person must assent to the idea that barley believing that they can give someone a ride to the doctors, yet agree to do so is proper behavior, for if they don't, then I don't understand how they met the threshold to assent to such, and thus your example to me would not seemingly be sound in proving your point. — moo

It seems to me you are undercutting your position here. As I already conveyed, I think their assent to a belief is different than expressing that belief to someone and doing so in a proper manner. If you believe that, "there is nothing to jeopardize by shaking on what one believes", then why doesn't that type of thinking also apply in simply stating what they believe? If you have issue here that one shouldn't just simply state that they can give someone a ride to the doctors when they barely believe it, then why doesn't that type of thinking also hold in your mind for the handshake?

To me, you are using the potential future to denounce the now, but the handshake is in the now, and it is a symbol of trust in the now, so I don't understand how bringing in the potential future denounces the reality of the now. But you think it does, correct? — moo

The handshake is given in the now, but I think it can carry with it expectations that proceed into the future, as well as expectations of what it means in the now, which again, I think is high confidence given the present social norm.

The right assumption? I agree that one might jeopardize trust in those who only use social norms, oppose to those who also use logic and coherency to map the world for themselves, but that does not make you right in thinking I'm wrong on this issue, does it? If so, how? — moo

I currently think you are wrong on this issue as again I think the handshake's meaning is derived from the social norm (a shared meaning), and if you violate that norm without expressing the logic and coherency you have in mind, then it puts into practice a deviant use of the handshake that can erode the trust that the handshake at present is supposed to engender.

DreamCatcher, you didn't respond to my last posts questions, why?? — moo

I thought my other post addressed your question, but I'll go over it.

I think it does not invalidate it. If one has agreed to something such as taking someone to the doctors, then I imagine it's because they're confident that they can likely achieve that, for if they are not confident that they can likely achieve it, then how have they met the threshold to assenting to such?

It seems to me you are conflating belief with trust here. I think they can believe that they can give them a ride with low confidence, and you are assuming that they need high confidence (trust that they can do it) to meet the threshold of assent.

Can one trust, in that they believe something at the lowest threshold of assenting to that belief? If not, then why are they assenting to such a belief? If they can trust it, then why can't they evidence their trust in such with a symbol of trust, such as a handshake? — moo

I imagine it may be hard to trust that one believes something when they are at the lowest threshold of assent to that belief, because they may question if they have good reasons for it, or if something like the nacho's they ate are having them pass the threshold of assent. However, I think in a sense assent is assent, and if one has assented, then they can trust that's where they're currently positioned, but they may not trust that they'll be there for long. And I think it's this lack of trust in the stability of their belief that should prevent them from giving out symbols of trust such as a handshake.

My claim is that there is nothing to jeopardize by shaking on what one believes, other than perhaps people making wrong assumptions about you. If one believes in bending their beliefs or behaviors to maintain perceived perception of integrity with people who are wrongly assuming things about you, then so be it, but it doesn't make the act of shaking one's hand wrong because they have made wrong assumptions about you, does it? — moo

If they're wrongly assuming something then I think that doesn't make the handshake wrong, but I currently think that the right assumption, the social norm that constitutes the practice of a handshake, can jeopardize trust if one shakes on something at the lowest threshold of assent (again, see the counterexample I gave).

I currently think assent to a belief happens has soon as something is perceived to be more likely the case than not (51%). So, one trusts in it more than not, but a handshake puts another condition on it, so that one must trust more than not that they will likely not jeopardize their perceived integrity with the handshake, so to reach that 51% may require something like 90% confidence with the other belief.

I don't understand what you mean with, "as revealed with the counterexample I gave with the ride to the doctor." If they are technically wrong, then how is my argument flawed? — moo

I meant to write "yes", so if asked, "can one simple shake on something they believe to be true", and if one says "yes", I think they would be technically wrong if 'belief' is viewed in a general sense, as I think belief can be had with low confidence.

I asked you this,
"Should one bend to what most people believe because of their wrong assumptions?"

but you did not reply to it, why? — moo

I guess I overlooked your question. To answer it, I think it depends on the context. For example, if most people give a different meaning to a word or phrase by way of a wrong assumption, the word or phrase gains a new meaning, and one should bend to it if they wish to relate to most people.

Yeah, so? Do you think you have made an argument here? Everything depends on context, right? — moo

I think I have conveyed an argument by showing that you seem to contradict your stated position. I think meaning is dependent on context, and I have given a counterexample that I think invalidates your stated position. How does it not?

But I don't see where you argue for such other than you seemingly trying to do so through creating a specific context so as to make it seem or cause it to be illegitimate behavior. If I believe so and so, and you want me to shake your hand so as to evidence that I stand by it, and I shake your hand on it, what have I done wrong, how is that not legit behavior to do? How is it logically flawed? — moo

Again,"The handshake and pinky promise are about trust, and you trust in things you're more confident about. So, I think the social norm is to convey high confidence, and to move outside of that by shaking on low confidence can cause confusion and mistrust, which goes against its function."

I think if they answered your question with a "no" they would be technically wrong, as revealed with the counterexample I gave with the ride to the doctor. You yourself state, "The eroding of trust you speak of I think depends on the context, and if the handshake was meant to mislead or represents an act of being negligent or something else like that. I think depending on the stakes involved, different degrees of assent may be needed to justify one's behavior". So, if as you state,"different degrees of assent may be needed to justify one's behavior", then merely passing the threshold of assent may not always justify the behavior of a mere handshake.

I believe simply shaking your hand on something you believe to be true, is offering a symbolic act of trust, yet you deny it as communicating such. If you have people think carefully and ask them, "can one simple shake on something they believe to be true", the typical answer from people should be "no" if this social norm you speak of is true. Correct? — moo

I think the question you offered will have people probably assume that 'belief' means more than merely 51%, so they probably will not say "no" to your question. However, if you ask them, "can one simply shake on something when they barely believe it without letting the other person know that they barely believe it?", I bet most will say "no", as in many contexts it will go against the social norm of the handshake, which I think is about trust. So, depending on the context, I think shaking hands as you have it can erode trust, as with the doctor example I gave earlier.

Social norms, can they not also hide or confuse people from the truth?

I think so.

Maybe social norms could confuse or mislead one in their understanding of what really qualifies has a valid handshake, right?

Yes.

If that is right, then how do I undercut what I say about not caring about the social norm?

Perhaps you did not undercut yourself, but I think what you wrote conveyed that you did.

In your mind, how does a handshake put more at stake? If one makes a statement, it is normally assumed that they believe it, and so it's at least at 51% from the get-go. If they shake on it, your position holds that one is mistreating them in expecting anything higher than 51%. So, if all the handshake can offer is 51% confidence, then how have they put more at stake?

---

Rarely, if ever, could someone claim to be !00% certain. And, we assent to belief for all sorts of different reasons, making any specific numerical percentage not at all consistent for the same person. If someone you know offers to help you for example, you might assent with a very low degree of certitude. Consider faith and religion for some. But if someone you do not really trust offers you something, assent would require a much higher degree of certitude. This is why I argued that we cannot claim any "threshold of assent". It makes no sense, because if certitude is used to evaluate the threshold, for example, it varies within the same person, depending on circumstances. Therefore we cannot determine any specific threshold for any particular person, assent depends on too many different things. — Metaphysician Undercover

I think once you get enough certitude, which as you've noted, may vary according to the situation, then you've crossed the threshold to have whatever particular belief, for instance, the belief that it's okay to accept something from a stranger, but that does not mean you cannot perhaps have greater confidence in accepting it. Again, I currently think people can have different degrees of confidence when they assent to a belief, and moo is proposing his position is sound when using the lowest confidence possible. Knowing if you yourself, or another, is at their lowest point, or at a 100%, or anything in between, is not necessary I think to analyze the function of the handshake, and if the situation proposed seems improper or not.

I think that's an arbitrary threshold. It might work as a guide as to when you've crossed the threshold, but it's useless as a guide as to whether or not someone else assents. Personally, I cannot judge my confidence by percentage, and I don't even really understand how confidence relates to assent, so your post is useless to me. — Metaphysician Undercover

I do not understand why you think it is an arbitrary threshold, and I think nowhere in the opening post does the situation require for one to need it as a guide as to whether or not someone else assents, nor do I think it is required of you to judge confidence by percentage precisely, but to know that people can have different degrees of confidence when they assent to a belief, and moo is proposing that his position is sound when using the lowest confidence possible.

I think confidence relates to assent in that I currently think confidence is assent, and a belief is known to a person by their feeling of confidence. If you had zero confidence with regards to an idea, then I think you would not have it held as a belief, as you would not have any feelings towards it as being the case.

If my post is still useless to you, then please explain.

Can one always simple shake on something one believes? Your answer Dreamcatcher, I believe, must be, "no", if you want to stay consistent with your thinking shared above. If it's something I believe, then I can shake your hand on it, because I believe it! What risk will unfold other than someone mistreating me for shaking their hand on something I believe? I don't care about the social norm of behavior, I care about the willingness to stand behind something you believe, and you can display that willingness by shaking one's hand on it if you want, despite whatever potential risks there might be. — moo

In the context of this thread of doing it in a valid way, then as I've conveyed, the answer is no.

You wrote to Vera Mont:

To shake hands is an act of trust in this example, just as a pinkie promise is. A social construct that symbolically puts more at stake in the relationship between the individuals and their trustworthiness.

Here, I think you undercut your position because you grant that trust is the handshakes function. You state you don't care about the social norm, but what is a handshake but a social norm? And if you don't care about the social norm, then you may cause confusion, and how does that establish or maintain trust?

Moo is my brother.

We get in a lot of painful disagreements, and it seems at least one of us is unamenable to reason or something, and so we hope to gain some insight if one of us is right or wrong on this issue by way of social proof. I hope some of you will weigh in.

Assent is assent. There is no distinction to be made between the lowest threshold and the highest threshold of assent. — Metaphysician Undercover

I currently disagree. I agree with moo that there is a distinction to be made.

If one's confidence is at 50% on something, then I think they have not assented to a belief. They do not believe either way. If they past 50% confidence on something, then they have assented to a belief, but their confidence may be extremely low. Without using decimal numbers, the lowest confidence is 51%.

So, my bro moo states in the opening post:

I think as soon as the lowest threshold of assenting to a belief is had, and if asked, "Do you believe such and such?", and you say "yes", and then they say shake on it, and you do, I think it is legit behavior, a valid handshake.

And I currently disagree.

If one is at the lowest threshold (51%), then their confidence is weak. The lower the percentage, the more doubt one has, thus when one questions or cements the persons stance with a handshake or pinky promise, one's integrity is challenged to be reflective if it's something one will hold to. 51% is hardly anything to hold to, and they probably would not risk their perceived integrity on it unless they explicitly state it's at 51%. That is not the usual social norm though. I think the norm is that the handshake has more than 51% in support of it, and thus they do no need to explicitly state the confidence level. The handshake and pinky promise are about trust, and you trust in things you're more confident about. So, I think the social norm is to convey high confidence, and to move outside of that by shaking on low confidence can cause confusion and mistrust, which goes against its function.

An example:

"Will you give me a ride to the doctors tomorrow?"
"Yes."
"Shake on it?"
They Shake.
Tomorow comes, and the person doesn't give a ride.
"What gives?"
"I was only at 51% confidence, I hope my handshake didn't convey otherwise, I don't see how it validly would."
Mistrust, plus maybe punch.

In summary, when the lowest threshold of assenting to a belief is had, and if asked, "Do you believe such and such?", and you answer "yes", and then they say shake on it, and you do, I currently think it is illegitimate behavior.