Without errors (in judgment), some of us would not learn / create anything new (beneficial or not) to drive onward – ratchet-up – the rest of our hidebound herd.

The task may be to try to see beyond delusion, which may involve greater awareness of the processes of evaluating information, as a path towards a certain amount of critical awareness — Jack Cummins

More awareness? Zen folk might wanna have a word with you (mushin no shin aka mind without mind). Try that on for size! The choices, Jack, are

1. Madness

or

2. Madness

Enjoy!

Without errors (in judgment)[/i], some of us would not learn / create anything new (beneficial or not) to drive onward – ratchet-up – the rest of our hidebound herd. — 180 Proof

Cool!

I am sure that many of us make great errors in judgment. It may be that greater understanding of assumptions and premise of arguments may lead to greater understanding of thought. It may not be easy to filter out all biases and 'noise', but this awareness of the ways in which the various sources of distortion may lead to less distortion. I am not suggesting that all human beings may wish to get to the point of objective 'truth' it is possible that the breakdown of ideas of objectivity may be a catalyst for more careful, with more attention to the fine-tuning of detail.

There may be blindspots in judgments. — Jack Cummins

There are blindspots in everything - that's where the light gets in... (Sorry Leonard).

Think on this - how do you tell the difference between a blind spot and someone practicing discernment?

The experience of 'madness' may lead to many philosophy problems. Certain perspectives may viewed as 'realism', whereas others may he assigned to the lesser emphasis on mythic or narrative aspects of understanding. It is a grey area, especially as ideas about 'madness' and 'normality' may 6detrimental, especially in the conception of 'truth'.

I think those of us who do learn from our errors learn far more often from small errors than from "great errors". Just as walking is learned by falling and getting up again and not from climbing mountains or jumping out of windows.

Blindspots may be a problem and human beings may try to flee from them and hide in the shadows or under the duvet. It may be that the most strongest of perceived thoughts may be a source of delusions and blind spots. This is hard to work with though, and it could be that the greater entanglements of identity and quests for truth may enable a certain amount of demystification and more clarity about personal viewpoints.

The experience of 'madness' may lead to many philosophy problems. Certain perspectives may viewed as 'realism', whereas others may he assigned to the lesser emphasis on mythic or narrative aspects of understanding. It is a grey area, especially as ideas about 'madness' and 'normality' may 6detrimental, especially in the conception of 'truth'. — Jack Cummins

We're all a little mad is what I wanted to get across to you. Perhaps a better way of putting it would be we're all insane in our own way. Each one of us is unique, oui? Then we're all crazy, by definition. Another way of coming at the issue would be that we all want to be in patient in a loony bin! We just don't realize that's what we want!

Many people may learn from small errors. It may be best to make the smaller errors, but it is a continuum. Also, what appears to be a small error for some may be an atrocious one for some other people. In this sense, the whole art or science of judgments may be haphazard and something to be learned, in order to avoid being belled as a 'failure' or lacking in the attributes of 'beauty ' in evaluating taste and evaluation of where one stands in relation to categorisation of what is conceptualized as 'normal.

Well, IMO, exceptions don't prove the rule in most cases.

exceptions — 180 Proof

Wild cards! Spanner in the works!

Hello, hello, 911, I'd like to report a suspicious looking person near my house.

It may be worth asking where are the most erroneous judgments are made. Part of the problem may be about seeing the consequences of certain behaviours and decisions. That is even if the outcomes of action are problematic, if other opinions or choices could have made.

The various judgments and measures affect outcomes, but the internal perceptions or projections of 'evil' onto others may be in relation to fear of a 'judge' who may punish and reward. In speaking of this, I am not suggesting that changing other should always, but the creative exploration of possible futures Any thoughts?

Well, it looks as though the matter is complicated

1. He has good judgment

2. Don't be so judgmental!

This just crossed my mind. Maybe our poor performance vis-à-vis judgment (violating the proportio divina rule) isn't a bug but a feature. We must, in a sense, keep ourselves in the dark about our and others' true nature. If not we may all be a suicide risk! How bad does one have to be to not wanna live anymore (guilt is a known suicide inducer)? :chin:

You've complerely lost the plot (or just me), Jack.

It may be worth asking where are the most erroneous judgments are made. — Jack Cummins

It's probably worth thinking a bit about what a judgement is and when one makes one. It looks to me that judgement is what is called for when the limits of knowledge are reached. It's associated for example in driving skill with anticipation. One judges the speed of other traffic and anticipates where they will go and where one will be in relation. In the circumstance of driving, good judgement means not maximising correct judgements but minimising rather eliminating disastrously wrong judgements. But if you are playing a taxi computer game, a few lethal accidents more or less is unimportant. Thus good judgement is something different from getting it right all the time or even most of the time. this is what I was hinting at with my previous example.

question/comments prompts me to the famous story of the philosopher Thales (water of all things), who whilst looking at the stars fell into a well (not implying any users here! ). The below abridged passage is the earliest version for all to enjoy, for me it’s a reminder, a caution, at times not to take philosophers or philosophy too seriously.

From Plato’s Theaetetus:
Socrates and Theodorus in discussion…

SOCRATES: Well, here’s an instance: they say Thales was studying the stars, Theodorus, and gazing aloft, when he fell into a well; and a witty and amusing Thracian servant-girl made fun of him because, she said, he was wild to know about what was up in the sky but failed to see what was in front of him and under his feet. The same joke applies to all who spend their lives in philosophy. It really is true that the philosopher fails to see his next-door neighbor; he not only doesn’t notice what he is doing; he scarcely knows whether he is a man or some other kind of creature. The question he asks is, What is Man? What actions and passions properly belong to human nature and distinguish it from all other beings? This is what he wants to know and concerns himself to investigate. You see what I mean, Theodorus, don’t you?

Your point about avoiding drastic mistakes and consequences is important in relation to judgments. In this way, it is probably related to risk management, and the severity of what is at stake. It may be about the elimination of dangers with a certain amount of caution in preventing grave errors. Judgment is likely to be fallible, but the need for the utmost rigour is more important, especially in relation to life and death issues, including medical ones and legal ones. Some judgments are more important than others, so probably require far greater carefulness in weighing up all the intricate details.

but the need for the utmost rigour is more important, especially in relation to life and death issues, — Jack Cummins

What's interesting here is that you say 'utmost rigour' - which I do not disagree with. But what does utmost rigour look like in this domain? Judgements based almost entirely on... empiricism, perhaps? Life and death matters may not be found in Platonism, say, which is perhaps where we find consolation and myths to make life (seem) more meaningful. Not unimportant of itself, but a different job.

mistakes — Jack Cummins

Food for thought: We humans are mistakes (re random gene mutations)! Intriguing, si?

Forget Kahneman, what do you mean precisely by ",judgment", Jack? Seem a whole lot of equivocating going on ...

Your point about avoiding drastic mistakes and consequences is important in relation to judgments. In this way, it is probably related to risk management, and the severity of what is at stake. It may be about the elimination of dangers with a certain amount of caution in preventing grave errors. Judgment is likely to be fallible, but the need for the utmost rigour is more important, especially in relation to life and death issues, including medical ones and legal ones. Some judgments are more important than others, so probably require far greater carefulness in weighing up all the intricate details. — Jack Cummins

Error and mistakes are how we learn, so if we focus too much on avoiding the risk of mistakes, then we reduce the information we can gain from enacting a narrower range of fallible judgements. The trick in risk management, I think, is to understand our capacity for error-making within our particular relational structure. Recognising, for instance, that we’re capable of going weeks without food but only days without water enables us to push the body closer to its limits in pursuit of information, despite a rising fear of death.

Kant’s critique of the faculty of judgement explores its limitations within the human condition. When we refrain from enacting judgement and examine the relation between all three faculties at conceptual and imaginative levels, we can see that feeling, attention and quality necessarily affect how we can and do enact judgements.

Error and mistakes are how we learn — Possibility

:snicker:

life and death issues — Jack Cummins

:up: Spiderman let an armed robber escape and it ended badly - beloved uncle Ben was fatally shot! Life, if it is a game, is in hardcore mode! No second chances!

@Jack Cummins

There are no accidents. — Master Oogway

Everything happens for a reason.

God moves in a mysterious way. — William Cowper

Maybe

There is a Taoist story of an old farmer who had worked his crops for many years. One day his horse ran away. Upon hearing the news, his neighbors came to visit. "Such bad luck," they said sympathetically. "May be," the farmer replied.

The next morning the horse returned, bringing with it three other wild horses. "How wonderful," the neighbors exclaimed. "May be," replied the old man.

The following day, his son tried to ride one of the untamed horses, was thrown, and broke his leg. The neighbors again came to offer their sympathy on his misfortune. "May be," answered the farmer.

The day after, military officials came to the village to draft young men into the army. Seeing that the son's leg was broken, they passed him by. The neighbors congratulated the farmer on how well things had turned out. "May be," said the farmer.

Zero-Sum Games?!

:snicker:

It is a question whether everything happens for a reason or as a result of complex causations. How this is judged in the human mind may make a big difference. If someone believes that everything happens for a reason it may lead to a sense of fatalism and inevitability. However, if the multiple causal factors are taken into account it can lead to thinking about the future and how all the causes in the future may be determined by actions taken in the present.

Kahneman aside, there are so many different aspects of judgment, ranging from predictions about what is likely to happen, especially in relation to decisions made. Also, there is the way in which people judge, or prejudge other people. Judgments are made throughout life because they are at the centre of all choices in life, including who to associate with and weighing up information about the past. Judgment is at the core of thinking, involving reflective processes and without judgements people would be passive rather than able to make authentic choices.

Kant's ideas on judgment are useful for thinking about this various aspects of the process. It is likely that there are different levels of awareness and consciousness and the awareness, particularly in reflecting on mistakes is important. The reflection on mistakes is probably essential in learning from them but may not always mean that better choices are made in the future. I have come across the idea that the importance of studying history is in order to learn from mistakes made. But, it is not always clear that mistakes will be less likely because the variables being judged may change so much.

With risk assessment, that is so much of a current policy approach within organisations for making judgements and assessments. Sometimes it helps in looking at potential predictions. However, it often is less effective in practice due to the limitations of knowledge. One example which I give, and that is because it was what I used to be involved in judging risk in mental health care, is risk of harm to oneself and others. There were important aspects of guidelines as to how people had acted in the past, but the problem was that it was not possible to know people's plans and motivation.

The basis of evaluation is on knowing what is going on in someone's mind on the basis of what they say and do, which only gives a partial picture of intent. In all judgments involving human affairs the undisclosed truths of people, as well as general unpredictability make human judgments extremely difficult. Some people speak of intuition but that can even be subconscious bias, so there are likely to be restrictions in accurate judgments of events which have happened in the past, character and potential behaviour.

Yeah, but what do you mean philosophically by "judgment" in the OP? (I already know how the word is defined in various dictionaries.)

Really superb points. G'day.