The Bias of Buying.

MSC

A young man buys a collapsible Javelin.

Before trying it out, he reads the instructions on how to build, grasp and throw the Javelin.

He goes to try it out. He throws it a few times, the furthest he can throw it is 15 metres. Pleased with himself, he sets the Javelin down a moment, he spends the next few minutes day dreaming about throwing the Javelin even further next time.

When he reaches for the Javelin again, he finds to his surprise that it has been picked up by another young man.

Before saying anything, he decides to wait and see what the other young man will do with the Javelin. He thinks to himself "He probably doesn't even know it is collapsible."

The other young man throws the Javelin. It travels 50 metres.

At this point, the man who bought the Javelin is furious and he leaps up, saying "You weren't holding it right! You didn't even throw it right! If you want to learn how to use it properly, like me, then you should buy one for yourself! That throw doesn't count because you broke all the rules!"

He snatches his Javelin back, making it clear to the other young man that it collapses, just to show off and try to incite envy. He leaves angrily with his Javelin. Unable to believe how arrogant this other person was to think that they could throw his Javelin and have the cheek to not even do it properly.

After he has left, the young man who threw the Javelin the furthest, scratches his head, shakes it, then proceeds to make his own Javelin from a nearby tree, he carries on throwing his Javelin. When it breaks, he makes another and keeps on throwing.

Already back home, the young man who bought the Javelin decides that he doesn't need to throw it anymore. He puts it into a glass case and displays it over his mantle. He never uses it again, but he frequently can be found day dreaming about himself throwing it further than 50 metres. He can also be found frequently telling people about his amazing collapsible Javelin back home.

Outlander

I suppose.. in that random crazy scenario there's some point.

Can I steal your house or wife just because I can do something better with either than perhaps you can at present? Just curious.

I mean, who knows. Maybe he sacrificed time and energy that could have been used to build the strength and endurance needed to throw said item as far just so he could be able to purchase said item legitimately. What then?

MSC

↪Outlander

suppose.. in that random crazy scenario there's some point. — Outlander

Indeed. I purposefully left the meaning I put into the story vague and unaddressed. Just in case anyone took away another meaning from it worth investigating. Without being led to, or way from, it by me or my biases

Can I steal your house or wife just because I can do something better with either than perhaps you can at present? Just curious.

I mean, who knows. Maybe he sacrificed time and energy that could have been used to build the strength and endurance needed to throw said item as far just so he could be able to purchase said item legitimately. What then? — Outlander

No, I'd say that stealing is wrong most of time, unless you're stealing back something which rightly belongs to you or if you will die if you don't, then stealing is mostly wrong. In the story however, nothing is stolen.

It's interesting that you said "Purchase said item legitimately" because legitimacy is something the story examines.

Described in the story are three methods of acquisition. Purchasing, borrowing (remember that ultimately, the Javelin wasn't stolen) making. Is purchasing more legitimate than making? Doesn't someone have to first make, in order for the made to be bought?

Let's say I am the familialy legitimate heir to a throne. Yet the people tell me I have no legitimacy and get rid of the throne, in favour of a democratically elected government. I may have been the legitimate heir to that throne, but the throne itself was not given the status of legitimate right to govern.

That last paragraph is just a tangent really but it popped into my head so I obviously thought it might help.

Here is a question for you. In the story, which was the more legitimate throw? Should either of the throws made by either people be seen as illegitimate? If so, who's throw was more legitimate?

MSC

@JerseyFlight You'll probably enjoy the moral of this short story. :)

Srap Tasmaner

↪MSC

It looks like dueling fantasies to me.

I know the story doesn't come out and tell us what social class each belongs to, but we have one who buys -- and buys a relatively "fancy" collapsible model -- and one who makes his own from a nearby tree. Within the story, the rich one feels entitled and rationalizes away the superior performance of the poor one. But the story itself is a fantasy that the rich are all worthless and the only people with real value are not these elitist snobs ("You aren't even holding it right").

It's terribly sad, the way the boy retreats from the experience of throwing to fantasies and bragging. And his resentment of being shown up by a nobody is reminiscent of the tragedy of Salieri in Peter Shaffer's play and the film Amadeus. On the other hand, the story itself could be the kind of fairy tale you might tell to get Real Patriots to take back their country from the effete elite. The resentment in the story itself is palpable to me.

MSC

↪Srap Tasmaner

The resentment in the story itself is palpable to me. — Srap Tasmaner

Now, you're thinking about the psychology behind the philosophy! Yes, I'm resentful. Do I have reason to be? Maybe. Resentful toward an entire class? No, just the members of said class who behave like this. Ultimately I care more about individual behaviour. I have friends who come from higher socioeconomic backgrounds than myself but I don't resent them personally. One is a socialist, funnily enough.

What would you say of the story if the two individuals and been an older and younger sibling?

What would you say if I told you that the Javelin represents philosophy? Probably pointless questions but since they popped into my head, I'll ask and you answer what you want to answer.

MSC

↪Srap Tasmaner

On the other hand, the story itself could be the kind of fairy tale you might tell to get Real Patriots to take back their country from the effete elite. — Srap Tasmaner

Well I mean... It is shite being Scottish. What can I say? Haha

Srap Tasmaner

What would you say if I told you that the Javelin represents philosophy? — MSC

Well it's not like it was hard to guess what you were talking about!

Now, you're thinking about the psychology behind the philosophy! — MSC

Well I'm a person you know. I have a family and a job and everything. I can psycho-analyze total strangers all day long. I just don't see any reason to call doing that "philosophy".

MSC

↪Srap Tasmaner

it wasn't supposed to be hard to guess.

Well I'm a person you know. I have a family and a job and everything. I can psycho-analyze total strangers all day long. I just don't see any reason to call doing that "philosophy". — Srap Tasmaner

I never called it philosophy or suggested it was. It's just how I interact with people. I hope you know that my feelings that lead to writing this, are not directed at you? I don't need a proxy and I don't think it's fair to use one either. You've never harmed me and nobody with a degree has either.

Srap Tasmaner

I hope you know that my feelings that lead to writing this, are not directed at you? — MSC

I am genuinely glad to hear that. I seriously hesitated about talking about the story itself as resentful -- other people's lives, especially here, are none of my business. But you made it clear you wanted feedback. I seriously worried that it would be hurtful for me to say that.

MSC

↪Srap Tasmaner

I am genuinely glad to hear that. I seriously hesitated about talking about the story itself as resentful -- other people's lives, especially here, are none of my business. But you made it clear you wanted feedback. I seriously worried that it would be hurtful for me to say that. — Srap Tasmaner

Honestly, it was a little bit, but that's not your fault at all and when critiquing I feel it is almost unavoidable. Wait until my book comes out, because of the writing style it might as well be my personal diary. I'm an extremely open book with others engaged in philosophy and or psychology. Part of the reason I got involved with both psychology and philosophy was to help me figure out how to manage myself first and foremost. I didn't realise how much I'd grow to love both fields.

Ultimately I try to see, both myself and others as a fascinating object of study while trying not to objectify them but I probably have objectified myself more than others to some extent.

MSC

↪Srap Tasmaner

Just don't worry about hurting or offending me. Your silence did that more and it's not a problem now. I worry about hurting others all the time but I know that I personally would prefer to hear an ugly truth, than a beautiful lie.

MSC

I'd give a fortune(in knowledge, cuz I'm broke) here to anyone who can guess what it is I really resent the most, based on this short story.

Possibility

↪MSC

It’s not about the process of forming or acquiring the javelin that gives it value. Neither is the potential of the javelin necessarily a property of its ‘legitimate’ owner/creator. The javelin’s value and potential exists as a relation to one who perceives it, but is only manifest in the interaction.

To the young man who threw the javelin 50 metres, there is resentment for the javelin’s untapped potential, going to waste under glass, and the price he cannot afford to access it. And resentment for the javelin’s owner, who perceived the 50m potential demonstrated as humiliation, threatening his ‘legitimate’ relation to the javelin’s value as property. For me, there’s a certain sadness on behalf of the original creator of the javelin: whether or not he perceived the javelin’s potential as 15 or 50 metres, it was likely created more to be thrown than displayed.

There’s no reason why the young man can’t eventually fashion his own javelin to throw further than 50 metres - especially if he’s willing to learn from anyone. But I understand his frustration at the cost of acquiring pre-existing, proven knowledge and expertise.

BitconnectCarlos

↪MSC

The way I interpret this is that the first guy has a loser's mindset. He'd rather protect his own ego and simply follow what the instructions (i.e. learn the "right" way) say than actually learn how to do his craft better. Then when someone upstages him he just gets resentful and bitter instead of either trying to learn from the guy or look inward and critically examining his own approach to the javelin instead of just regarding it as flawless because he knows the instructions. He thinks he knows the craft because he seems to be possess a limited amount of knowledge that he gained from the instruction manual, it's classic amateur thinking he is expert.

I see this in poker a lot. Nobody cares how you think the game "should" be played - everyone thinks they're decent or an expert. Learn when people get the better of you and leave your ego at the door. At least that's the way I read it.

MSC

The way I interpret this is that the first guy has a loser's mindset. He'd rather protect his own ego and simply follow what the instructions (i.e. learn the "right" way) say than actually learn how to do his craft better. Then when someone upstages him he just gets resentful and bitter instead of either trying to learn from the guy or look inward and critically examining his own approach to the javelin instead of just regarding it as flawless because he knows the instructions. He thinks he knows the craft because he seems to be possess a limited amount of knowledge that he gained from the instruction manual, it's classic amateur thinking he is expert.

I see this in poker a lot. Nobody cares how you think the game "should" be played - everyone thinks they're decent or an expert. Learn when people get the better of you and leave your ego at the door. At least that's the way I read it. — BitconnectCarlos

I like this interpretation. Notice that all the rules the Buyer takes issue with are not really anything to do with the rules of throwing a Javelin. IE, don't step over this line, the person who throws furthest, wins. He doesn't even know if holding the Javelin a certain way yields better results. Maybe if he had asked the Maker character to throw it the way he had been taught, he could have found out if that was truly the best and only way to hold the Javelin. If the maker had thrown further than 50 meters that time, it was indeed the best way, if he couldn't repeat or beat the feat of a 50 metre throw, then it wasn't the best way. He'll never know now.

I liked how you brought poker into it. Any player worth his salt knows that even if given the worst possible hand, he can still bluff his way to a big pot win.

Mayor of Simpleton

... collapsible Javelin. — MSC

As someone who formerly threw the Javelin, you lost me right there...

MSC

↪Mayor of Simpleton

That's okay, all this suggested was that the Javelin is in three sections that fit into each other. Like a tri-partite staff.

I also used to do Javelin. I know as well as you know that a collapsible staff is completely immaterial to whether or not it makes an effective Javelin. It's more likely to reduce the effectiveness, if anything.

The reason I included it in the story was to illustrate that appearances and novelty matter to the buyer.

Mayor of Simpleton

The reason I included it in the story was to illustrate that appearances and novelty matter to the buyer. — MSC

OK... that I can 'buy' into a bit more. (pun accidental)

MSC

↪Mayor of Simpleton

Accidental pun appreciated! Made me laugh. :) Thanks for your contribution. Anything that helps to bring out the nuances of it is great!

Mayor of Simpleton

Made me laugh. — MSC

Wow! It feels kind of like the 'good ol' days'.

I'm a refugee from the old 'Philosophy Forums' and, where my philosophical skills lacked quite a bit, I often tried to lighten the mood with a bit of 'non-sequitur' humor. I kind of always sided with Ludi Wittgenstein who said, “A serious and good philosophical work could be written consisting entirely of jokes."

Not everyone appreciates my lousy humor, but I keep on anyway...

... so I suppose some folks can imagine me as happy. (unintentional intentional poker tell I suppose)

If you wanted me to I could kind of breakdown the allegory and write out my unqualified notions?

Other than watching my 3rd baseball game of the day, I've not a lot to do at the moment.

MSC

↪Mayor of Simpleton

I'm a refugee from the old 'Philosophy Forums' and, where my philosophical skills lacked quite a bit, I often tried to lighten the mood with a bit of 'non-sequitur' humor. I kind of always sided with Ludi Wittgenstein who said, “A serious and good philosophical work could be written consisting entirely of jokes." — Mayor of Simpleton

Couldn't agree more! If you listen to any decent comedian do stand-up for more than five minutes, this is extremely apparent.

I feel like stand-up comedians are extremely good at highlighting problems in many areas of life.

Question for you. Does humour ever shed light on philosophical problems? And yes. I'm testing you right now.

Mayor of Simpleton

Does humour ever shed light on philosophical problems? — MSC

Humour does quite often sheds unwanted light upon the 'agents' of philosophical problems who prefer to live in the shadow lands (or behind the curtain) and exposes supposed philosophical problems for being poorly asked questions or just statements being stated with a inquisitive tonality (conclusions wearing a questions clothing).

I do hope I failed... success is so boring.

I prefer fail again, try again, try to fail better over any participation trophies...

... or collapsible Javelins (most likely an impulse purchase one late night from the ACME Corporation as recommended by Wile E Coyote - 'Super Genius': https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHDO78QfLbE ) in a glass case (something only a helicopter mother can be proud of).

MSC

↪Mayor of Simpleton

Humour does quite often sheds unwanted light upon the 'agents' of philosophical problems who prefer to live in the shadow lands (or behind the curtain) and exposes supposed philosophical problems for being poorly asked questions or just statements being stated with a inquisitive tonality (conclusions wearing a questions clothing).

I do hope I failed... success is so boring.

I prefer fail again, try again, try to fail better over any participation trophies...

... or collapsible Javelins (most likely an impulse purchase one late night from the ACME Corporation as recommended by Wile E Coyote - 'Super Genius': https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHDO78QfLbE ) in a glass case (something only a helicopter mother can be proud of). — Mayor of Simpleton

You sir, are hilarious! I really mean that.

So your answer, if I am understanding it correctly is that there are no philosophical problems?

Mayor of Simpleton

So your answer, if I am understanding it correctly is that there are no philosophical problems? — MSC

Indeed there are philosophical problems... in fact, quite a large number of them.

What it is I find all too often are 'impostors'; extremely poorly asked questions or statements/conclusions that are designed to act as if they were indeed philosophical questions. These 'impostors' demand the attention rather than command attention. Still they tend to attract a good number of folks due to some sort of popular affinity one might share with the notions implied, yet have the implications pimped as 'harmlessly asked' or even worse 'the given without proof', all carefully veiled with a variety of confirmation biases to make them seem 'philosophicalisch'. Indeed they are popular as most are usually soft targets and require less critical thinking or critical self-evaluation.

Well... that didn't make much sense at all, so you see why I stick to the jokes. Believe me, no matter how far I toss this statement around (15 meters or more) I certainly won't be 'pleased with myself' or place it in a glass case.

MSC

Indeed there are philosophical problems... in fact, quite a large number of them.

What it is I find all too often are 'impostors'; extremely poorly asked questions or statements/conclusions that are designed to act as if they were indeed philosophical questions. These 'impostors' demand the attention rather than command attention. Still they tend to attract a good number of folks due to some sort of popular affinity one might share with the notions implied, yet have the implications pimped as 'harmlessly asked' or even worse 'the given without proof', veiled with a variety of confirmation biases. Indeed they are popular as most are usually soft targets and require less critical thinking or critical self-evaluation.

Well... that didn't make much sense at all, so you see why I stick to the jokes. Believe me, no matter how far I toss this statement around (15 meter or more) I certainly won't be 'pleased with myself' or place it in a glass case. — Mayor of Simpleton

Good news! You failed my test. That doesn't mean you're wrong, I wouldn't be able to make claims that I know you are wrong. I'm actually relieved, I thought I wss going to upset you if you had passed. :P

My claim is that there are no philosophical problems. Only problems of language, mathematics, ethics and logistics, to name a few. I would claim that there are no problems in philosophy, I would say philosophy is a problem of language.

Mayor of Simpleton

Only problems of language, mathematics, ethics and logistics, to name a few. — MSC

Good to know, except some folks (an appeal to an unknown authority - aka: 'weasel words') - get me criticizing my own post before I post it) might suggest that all of those are all subsets of philosophy; thus in the end... philosophical problems, but I suppose that's another 'philosophical problem' for another thread? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oShTJ90fC34

MSC

might suggest that all of those are all subsets of philosophy; thus in the end... philosophical problems, but I suppose that's another 'philosophical problem' for another thread? — Mayor of Simpleton

I'd say it's a linguistic problem. If the problems of objective sciences are grouped together, then aren't we just using the term 'sub-set' when really we are just creating a blanket term for those problems?

We could think of it like paternalism. If Philosophy is the parent and something like linguistics is the offspring. If linguistics buys a house and gets a mortgage, is that philosophies problem or does it only become philosophies problem if linguistics dies?

I guess I just find it strange that philosophy makes claims to the propriety rights to problems, that were always in the domains of those objective fields, even if the other fields were as yet unnamed? Would it better to say that both those fields and philosophy own those problems? Should we say that philosophy was just the proto-form of those fields?

I'll watch the video very soon. I may not reply as quickly as usual as I've got some things I need to do. I am enjoying this conversation though. I'll probably have to move it to a new discussion thread soon however.

@Pfhorrest I think you have some skin in the game here. Would you view something like the field of linguistics, mathematics or ethics as something that was created, or discovered, by philosophy?

Mayor of Simpleton

I'd say it's a linguistic problem. If the problems of objective sciences are grouped together, then aren't we just using the term 'sub-set' when really we are just creating a blanket term for those problems? — MSC

How about it being a genetic fallacy? (provided the genetic fallacy is a fallacy)

I'll watch the video very soon. — MSC

It does certainly encompass the magnitude of the gist of (probably all of) my posts. ;)

Outlander

Is purchasing more legitimate than making? Doesn't someone have to first make, in order for the made to be bought? — MSC

Not inherently. Generally yes, most items bought and sold are 'made' or 'processed' in some way.

Here is a question for you. In the story, which was the more legitimate throw? Should either of the throws made by either people be seen as illegitimate? If so, who's throw was more legitimate? — MSC

Before answering, the reason I consider the story a "random, ridiculous example" is because you made the guy who saved up enough money, purchased an item, read the instructions, and otherwise acts as a patient individual who knows the value of planning and research at first- into an arrogant, petulant, and unrealistically petty child- for no reason other than to do so. While the other man is for some reason valiantly humble and infinitely resourceful. These facts are what will effect the answer to the above questions.

By determining for us the purchaser of the javelin cares little about the art itself (distance throwing) and more about success over other people for purposes of patronizing his own ego- it casts him as the "lesser" or "less legitimate" person. Aside from the fact distance throwing is based on little more than physical strength, which is inexplicably linked to physical size/genetics. Not to say someone larger than yourself who just sits around all day will always be stronger than someone of smaller size who trains constantly with maximum effort- a smaller person can use leverage to topple a larger person who doesn't know what they're doing, but if that larger person uses the same tactic, that smaller person will likely get very hurt very quickly. Just how it is. In short, hurrah for firearms- the great equalizer!

TheMadFool

↪MSC

Reminds me of the saw the dog in the manger. To my surprise it has a sexual interpretation. "Collapsible...er...javelin" :wink:

The Bias of Buying.

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions