Given what you are saying here, it sounds like you are saying something different from what Corvus was saying earlier. He was using logic and what gets called a fallacy of denying the antecedent to demonstrate the cogito is false. Here you are saying that a premise in the cogito is false. That's a completely different argument and one I tend to agree with.

One way to look at the issue, is that, really. we all have this issue. We are all stupid/stuck in certain areas. It could be reasoning about people, or certain cognitive skills that are covered by IQ, or in certain fields, or in chess or something similar. If we just compare ourselves to peers, we may seem fine. But the moment we try to work on one of our weak areas or run up against someone who is a real expert or genius, it's a different story. And do we know we are weak? I would guess pretty much everyone mis-evaluates themselves on certain cognitive skills. Either too positively or too negatively or both.

I understand that someone with global deficits, then has a better chance of not noticing problematic feedback from life and other people. But really, we are all in this boat, I think.

We may be solid enough coasting on what we are, in fact, correct in thinking we are good at. But somewhere, at edges of our skills, we may not know we have a problem and, if we decided to try to improve, might not do the right things to achieve that.

I have my guess, like others, where this thread came from. I think we are dealing with an over-creative approach, combined with a dislike of what most people think of as authority. Or perhaps better put, a joy in challenging what seems obvious to others. This may lead to some real stubborn mistakes. I could be projecting, since I have had both of these problems myself.

Another way to extricate oneself might come when one realized what is actually going on in interpersonal, global personality drive ways and how these affect reasoning. There are many ways like can come and smack you upside the head (don't I know it) and get one to start noticing bad habits that affect cognition and reasoning.

One has to, I think, actively stifle moments of awareness that something is off. In a way, all the person has to do is to start is to let those flashes of doubt and insight get more light and air.

I do get the idea. Any feedback (from others, from life) can be ignored, given the problem. And any attempts to fix the problem can be bad attempts...given the problem.

In specific they can choose someone well regarded by expert peers. Of course, this is no guarantee, but what else can one do, but do one's best, in part based one what seems to be the best suggestions from others.

I think most people can improve, once they realize there is a problem.
And I think it is possible for anyone to get a sense there is a problem, if only for a few moments.

If this persons truth-discovering tools like reason and logic are compromised in such a way, how could this person *discover the truth* that his truth-discovering (or filtering instead of discovering, if you prefer) tools are compromised and unrelaible? — flannel jesus

If they are an armchair philosopher, rarerly interacting irl with other philosophy hobbiests, that there's little blowback from abstract arguments,even if everyone disagree with this person.

But we use logic and reason at work, in the family, in life in general. You rule something out, 'logically', and it turns out to be what happened, that's blunt feedback. You spend your boss' money based on 'logic and reason' that may well ending earning some blunt feedback.

Of course I think humans are capable of denying pretty much anything, so there's no guarantee for the hypothetical person.

But there are many ways feedback can come and be hard to be ignored.

If he still cares about the truth, but he has come to accept that his tools for discovering or filtering truths are compromised, what should he do? — flannel jesus

Apprentice (verb). And for the mentor, a tried and true method of teaching is for the mentor to use whatever the skill being passed is and think out loud while doing it.

Yes, but your example and the other's examples are the case of categorical mistake. This is the problem with the symbolic classical logic. Because it uses variables instead of the real objects and cases in the world, they think they can use any irrelevant items and cases into the variables, which looks like the general rules doesn't make sense. That is why sometimes you must investigate the content in the propositions to see if they make sense. — Corvus

That's fine, but then both sides of the use of denying the antecedent here are arguing using symbolic logic. If we need to look at the individual case, then we can skip either use of the the rule (the symbolic logic) and just make the case focused on individual qualities and categories.

Maybe this was done earlier in the discussion and I missed it, but it would seem to me that your argument here would be that both sides stop using symbolic logic.

Having said that, I agree with your point, that this particular case would have done with more stringent conditionals on the premise and also the assumptions. — Corvus

Or, yes, one could do that.

Cogito could have been not a statement that can be proved logically first place. Because it was never a logical statement. So, if we agree that Cogito is an epistemological issue, then it still is absurd to say Cogito necessitates existence. It would be rather perception, memories, imagination and sensations as well as reasoning and all the rest of the total mentality which grant one's own existence, I believe. — Corvus

It does matter what the Cogito is trying to demonstrate. I think 'experiencing is happening, something exists' is less troublesome, though it's almost redundant: what is before the comma is a paraphrase of what is after the comma.

Good point. I am not going to deny your point straight away. I wouldn't be that rude.
But it seems that you talking about again totally different case in your example. Why it is irrelevant, if you want know, then let me know. — Corvus

OK, I was under the impression you were arguing with only the general rule. IOW using a general rule that shows the cogito is false. I don't think it's a good rule, for reasons/examples given by others. But here you say it is a different case. Well, then it doesn't like a rule is being used.

In that case it is not the rule the is running the argument but something more complicated.

IOW if I look at many of your posts it seems like you are saying the rule shows that it's false. But the moment you indicate that it works 'in this case' (but not in others), it seems to me, this is directly acknowledgement that it's not the rule. It's a specific situation or a specific condition, for example the 'if and only if case' special condition.

And, hey, post a picture of the textbooks. If it's there, that will surprise people and might move things forward.

Oh, and this isn't because I buy or like the cogito. I actually don't.

I robbed a bank, therefore I committed a crime.
I did not rob a bank, therefore I did not commit a crime

argues the man accused of rape
after the video of him raping the victim is shown

Of course, there can be situations where denying the antecedent can also be true. But if it is presented as a logical necessity, it doesn't hold. It's not enough. Throw in an if and only if, and it can work, but that's a different condition.

Right. And my point was that sexual preference has been treated much more harshly and in a different light than transgender. There is tacit acceptance of transgender actions up to a point. Even a hint of an incorrect sexual preference was often extremely villified. The grander point is they are two separate topics, so lets keep it that way if possible. — Philosophim

But no one thought the people called dykes or fags were homosexuals. My point wasn't that being transgendered was ok and showing it through terms that with those terms. My point was terms were flung at people with hate or more neutral classification. To get called 'fag' generally did not mean someone thought one was gay. It was just like saying weak, not boy enough - and it could be said even if one did not do anything transgender, let alone homosexual. My point was that tom boy was not used in this way. I can't even imagine a child or teenager calling someone a tomboy with hatred. They'd go for other terms.

That is determined by the culture you are in. If you are viewed as transgendered, then you are in that culture. You can try to change their minds, but its ultimately their decision. — Philosophim

I don't see how their belief changes me. Yes, it's their decision, thoughts arose in their minds. Nothing happend to me. I'd accept phrases like 'you will be thought of as _______' 'people will judge you for being what they consider______________' But that I have become transgendered, nah. Does it count if I walk into a bar in a wider culture that would not consider me something but when I walk in there, that subculture will judge me that way. What is the ontology of location? I'm giggle a bit as I write this, but I'm also serious. I don't grant changes in them to be considered a change in me, for example.

You became transgendered in that culture. I think this is the confusion some people have. You do not own gender. — Philosophim

Then I shouldn't get the label, in a context like this. IOW here we are talking abstractly from a metaposition. I understand that if I go to culture X I may be seen as category B. It has nothing to do with me is more or less my point. Also, gender tends to include not just visible/audible behavior but also attitudes and emotions. If they never notice, but I walk around having the attitudes that the other biological sex is supposed to have to the degree I have it, am I transgendered, suddenly because I am there, or not. I, personally, cry more than most women - I'm a guy. But I don't do that on the street. I doubt I would if I was a woman - though that's speculation of course (snorting a bit with laughter again.) But at home, sure. So, at the hotel, in Sicily, sure. Am I transgendered? Or am I not transgendered because they didn't notice and they couldn't see when I walk around or am at the beach that my attitudes and the way I talk to the people I am with are supposedly traditionally female? I'm not hiding, per se. Is it only the act of judgment on their part that makes me suddenly be in a new category? mere presence where the other views hold sway, though clearly not everywhere, even there?

Further I'm not sure there is agreement that others own the judgment:

How does someone know that they are transgender?
People can realize that they're transgender at any age. Some people can trace their awareness back to their earlier memories – they just knew. Others may need more time to realize that they are transgender. Some people may spend years feeling like they don't fit in without really understanding why, or may try to avoid thinking or talking about their gender out of fear, shame, or confusion. Trying to repress or change one’s gender identity doesn’t work; in fact, it can be very painful and damaging to one’s emotional and mental health. As transgender people become more visible in the media and in community life across the country, more transgender people are able to name and understand their own experiences and may feel safer and more comfortable sharing it with others.

For many transgender people, recognizing who they are and deciding to start gender transition can take a lot of reflection. Transgender people risk social stigma, discrimination, and harassment when they tell other people who they really are. Parents, friends, coworkers, classmates, and neighbors may be accepting—but they also might not be, and many transgender people fear that they will not be accepted by their loved ones and others in their life. Despite those risks, being open about one’s gender identity, and living a life that feels truly authentic, can be a life-affirming and even life-saving decision.

Do I become transgender if I get off a bus in the midwest, but stop being transgender when I get back on the bus since the other passengers are, like me travelling through the midwest? I we have a stop in a little town in the Midwest, say a bus trip, and I walk into a diner where everyone has different ideas about gender than the rest of the county, am I transgendered or not during my bus trip breakfast?

How do we know if someone is transgender? Must others in the dominant cultural group openly express the judgment? Do we assume they have it but haven't said it, given what we now about that culture or think we know?

If you understand those expectations, and go against them in public, then you are transgendered in your explicit violation of the cultural norms. — Philosophim

So, if I don't know, then I am not transgendered while I am there? But then I at least partially own my gender. It would be part of my identity.

And the person who goes and knows part or a little of the other culture?

Again, this is all part of a more general issue. I think that when the changes are not in the self, but primarily have to do with beholders' judgments (and even this may not exist in your schema - they may be inured to tourists and their difference and no longer notice it, or just be thinking about other things) then it is better to label the scenario and not me.

If people are judged mentally ill in a certain culture for doing things considered within the range of the normal in my culture, and I go there and do them, I am not mentally ill suddenly. Perhaps I am rude not to respect their traditions, given I know it, but I am not mentally ill suddenly then healthy when I get back on the plane.

It's the use of language here and what it implies ontologically.

Gender owns you because it is an expectation from people other than yourself that they expect you to comply with. — Philosophim

I don't think there is consensus at all about how transgendered is used. But further I'm with the Scotting guy.

So if you're a Scottish man and get told you're "Dressing like a woman," you would claim, "No I'm not! This is a kilt that men wear!" — Philosophim

I'd leave off that last sentence, since I'd know not all men wear kilts. Perhaps, adding, yeah, here. I mean, if I actually got into a conversation with someone. But I guess on some level I grant them no expertise. You and I, having this discussion, are in a metaposition. And it sounds like neither of us cares that much how other people behave in relation to gender. In other countries, whatever my challenging personality traits, they tend to be the less visible ones when I am in public regardless of country - that's me, others have different situations. But my attitude on some level is, no, your not some objective expert on what a man or woman is what gender is and so on. I don't consent to the judgment or because I am here you are now suddenly right about my behavior. I do have a when in Rome attitude about many things. I don't point my feet at people in Thailand or make fun of the King. And there are many even fairly subtle things I adjust to when I even go to someone's home for dinner. But I don't grant the objective expertise that seems implicit, even in their country. I don't want to be rude. I've put on kippah in orthodox schools, taken off shoes in mosques and temples. And all sorts of what I would call polite. But that tends to be specific to entering houses and buildings and that's true in my home countries also. All the darn subcultures - including things like corporate and government agency subcultures - where I do some adjustment, though often because of power or not wanting the hassle of dealing with irritated people. It's not like I'm advocating spitting in the face of local traditions.

But yeah, if someone says to me in my kilt that I am dressing like a woman, I'd probably say, 'Actually no. I'm not. But I know men here don't do this.' Unless I thought a crowd was ready to beat the hell out of me. But I wouldn't grant that the person was correct, except for self-protection and then I'd be lying.

From my perspective anyone who can be in a position to become president is an elite. Left and right mainstream are just differently wings of the same neoliberal elite. — Tom Storm

I hoped I got that idea across also, but in any case, I agree. I don't think of them as the core of the elite and I am not sure how organized the elite is, but they need elite approval to get in and they have obligations to (and common interests with) the elite.

I'd say, looking at the current situation, the idea that there are elites who are getting more and more power and undermining democracy is correct. The problems with populism can coexist with this being true. IOW the situation could be populism leads to bad and things and the analysis is wrong about the current situation. Or it could be that populism leads to bad things, despite the analysis being correct.

A disorganized response:
1) as said I think the analysis is correct. There is more and more concentration of power in government, media corporations, banks and other financial institutions and corporations in general. Power and money are getting more concentrated and things like government oversight of industry, for example, or equal treatment under the law are now going back to less fair times and practices.
2) populism is not restricted to the politicians who get labelled this way. In the US both Republicans (who were career politicians and not considered fringe by most) and Democrats (also having those characteristics) have run with significant degrees of implied or stated populist rhetoric.
3) which hints at the problem for me: the people running as populists are part of the elites. They may claim outsiderness, but at most their sort of black sheep of the elites. Trump and Clinton for example have been attending the same events and power groups for decades. So, you get a slightly to significantly loose cannon elite member when you vote for a populist. Why is this so? Well, you just can't be some kind of (merely seeming) outsider with any chance of winning without having tremendous power and connections. But given the myth of outsiderness, now you have a mandate to make changes, sweeping and deep changes. Well, that's autocratic. Of course, it could be a benevolent dictatorship and there are a few rare instances where people came in made big changes and allowed other factions to take over when voted in. But it's rare.
4) Not enough people are willing to face the fact that the system is messed up and getting worse. Which means that how to make fundamental changes and all the negotiation and analysis that needs to go into that, and a broad set of players engaging in the process is ruled
out.
5) And then we want to get rescued by a strong daddy (or, now, potentially, mommy).

I think because you were not a tom boy, that you don't have the understanding of what tom boys went through. — Philosophim

I know what the one's called 'dyke' went through. I know what the guys called fag went through. Remember these names are not meant just for the target. They are meant as open gossip, telling others what to think of that person. I don't remember pressure to think there was anything wrong with tomboys. I certainly did with other names, even milder stuff like wimp.

Calling someone a tom boy is expressing publicly that a woman is not behaving within the cultural gendered norm of their sex. — Philosophim

Well, again, all I can say is it did not have a 'calling out' quality and there were terms that were a calling out and criticism.

No denial that she's hiding what she is. Gender often asks us to behave, act, and dress in ways we would rather not. Much of gender is a holdover from a less technologically advanced and enlightened society, and is too often an undercurrent of sexism. Gender is a social construct, and a social construct that pressures you to act, dress, or behave a certain way. — Philosophim

To me it then has little to do with the self. Unless it does. But if it doesn't. My wife wore a headscarf in one country, but she hadn't changed. Just a practical and perhaps safety issue. Some people on the other hand are transgendered. IOW for them they decide to shift over on what for them is an essential level and or they feel like 'really' they have been but his this essential nature. In those situations I feel comfortable given them a name that implies something essential. I just don't think it makes sense when most of what happens is in other people.

Same with calling someone else's son a girly man or mama's boy. Being transgender doesn't have anything to do with your sexual orientation. — Philosophim

-Sure, my point was that with names like these there is anger and negative judgment.

To be clear from earlier. Everyone makes transgendered actions. To be identified as 'transgendered' you must be someone who willfully violates gender norms consistently and willfully. — Philosophim

Well, we're all doing that, we're just at varied distances from the places that see them this way. And given subcultures and individuals, we're all probably near people who do this. Stuff happens when they see me. The do/feel/react in certain ways.

Viewing you as transgendered doesn't make you differently sexed. — Philosophim

Nor does it make you differently gendered. It doesn't do anything unless it leads to action on the part of that person making the judgment.

Viewing you as transgendered doesn't make you differently sexed. Being transgendered by definition, is committing actions associated with the cultural expectations of the other sex, and not your sex. You do not own gender. Culture does. Gender is not genetic. You can be a girly boy or a manly man. Neither is gender. You can like painting your nails or not as a man. That is not gender. Gender is culture's expectation of how you should act based on your sex. — Philosophim

That last sentence says it for me. The actually event is in the beholders. I act in way X in my city and people don't see me as transgendered, except in some neighborhoods. I travel to another land or enter a subculture's turf in my country or meet by partner's parents and her big family. They judge me differently. I didn't become transgendered. What I am like triggered a set of thoughts in people. Something happened in them. Their expectations got contradicted and this led to irritation, fear, confusion, hatred, whatever....in them. They changed. They didn't change gender. But something occurred in them.

My point isn't restricted to this term 'transgendered'. It would hold for many other terms where I would say that reifications of procceses into nouns coupled with misapplying the reification (the label) is aimed at the place where actually there was no change. Where the change process happened elsewhere.

Good conversation Bylaw, I really appreciate you digging in. :) — Philosophim

Thanks. I think we actually agree about many things, but, yeah, I'm being stubborn about a few points.

Perhaps they are all worried that the other side will convince you that your sins are virtues. — substantivalism

There seems a strong urge to define me (along with everyone else) and oversimplify me (and everyone else) on both sides.

Instead of having to learn via intuition and experience, everyone wants an adhered to label. One side thinks you can change your label, but once you have that label on your head we know you.

I think there's a huge fear of having to navigate reality, which is concrete and specific and detailed.

At this point she understands within that culture that her behavior is seen as belonging to the male gender, not the female gender. If she says to herself, "I don't care, I'm still going to be me." she is transgendered in that culture. — Philosophim

I'd still quibble over the language. I'd say now she knows how she's going to be judged there. And she doesn't really have a way to not be her, at least in the short term. She'd just be hiding who she was, and like feeling the aggression and hiding it. So, if the views make her something, she's still that something, but managing the camouflage it. If we shift to morals, for a moment. Morals vary culture to culture. I go somewhere where oral sex is consider immoral and in my hotel room engage in oral sex. Even though I am in that country and know their views, I wasn't immoral.
Or, at least [to black box moral realism/antirealism]I would not now be an immoral person, but back home I'm not. I'd rather couch the issue as I would be seen as immoral there. And even if housekeeping came in and caught us, I don't think I am now an immoral person. But, yes, absolutely, I will be seen as such. It's a kind of reification and simplification of the more complicated process. Or to shift to emotions. If I go from my usual day to day contacts with people who have some broad common views of how one interacts. I then end up at a wedding reception with people from a culture where insults are part and parcel of all rites of passage and they aim a lot of at me. I don't think it makes sense to say 'I am an angry person.' Better to me: I get angry when insulted. Insults mean something different to me which leads to......

Yes. To be a transvestite is to dress in the manner as the opposite sex that clearly conveys this to other people. This does not mean they are transex, just transgender. — Philosophim

So, are you transgender as a transvestite when you dress that way, or all the time? What if you are traditionally male in your culture 99% of the time, but once in a while you dress up as a woman to get sexual pleasure? But then otherwise a violent, womanizing professional rugby player (on a men's team) who only talks about cars, sports and how to fix things with tools around the house. :grin: Apologies to anyone offended by my tongue in cheek ethnology example. And in a sense the reason it works is the sexual frisson this occasional behavior creates due to the contrast with his usual way of being. It's not finally showing his true nature in secret. Or, the same man otherwise who instead likes to be dominated sexually, sometimes. I suppose I am probing here because I think it might be better not to label people and in a binary way (not just that it's binary between male and female, but also binary between being transgender or not.) Not that it has the horrific moral overtones of the one drop of blood determination of race, but perhaps has a similar misleading binariness.

Just because we use the term transgendered more today doesn't mean it can't be applied retroactively to the past. Telling someone, "You're acting like a boy," is telling someone, "You're acting like the wrong gender". — Philosophim

But that's just the thing: to me, at least in general, they were not told that. It was not a term of insult, nor was it part of getting them back on the right side of the gender fence. It was a kind of minority normalness. Oh, she's a tom boy. Now that might have been in the subculture I was in, loosely urban U.S. But it was a fairly diverse group of children and people - well, that's urban. There was a qualititative difference between being called a tom boy and being called a 'fag' say. One could say, parent to parent, Oh your girl's quite the tom boy and not get into a fist fight.

To be clear, being transgender does not mean you've changed your sex. You have not become, "Something else". You are simply dressing, acting, or behaving in a way that a particular culture expects people of a particular sex to do. If I'm a male that likes putting on nail extenders and painting them hot pink, I'm still a male. The action I'm doing is transgender, as normative American culture expects that only women do this. — Philosophim

My quibble has less problem with this last description - the actions are transgendered there, which they would be even if I never realized during my whole stay. Rather than become transgendered. And natives often understand that that's just the way people are from other cultures.

As you can see the colors which are escribed to modern genders were once reversed. Did men suddenly become women and vice versa once we switched colors? Of course not. — Philosophim

I did understand that one wasn't changing sex in this situation. I just don't think you're changing anything at all. The new situation is what is happening in the way you are viewed. Just as the viewing one as male - if the other group thought you were actually male when you're not - doesn't make you male, the viewing you as transgendered doesn't make you differently gendered. I understand that the two judgments/situations are not the same, but me, I'd avoid labeling the person as going from X to Y, and rather describe it in terms of how the different players are viewing the situation.

I agree! I think we can take questions of 'transgender' and look at them more in depth. If your boy is open with their feelings, why do you think that shouldn't be? They're still a boy whether they hide their feelings or not, so what's the reasoning behind a gendered idea that they should be stoic and unsharing? — Philosophim

One could, I suppose come up with arguments why emphasizing statistical tendencies (different tendencies the different bodies have) might have been useful in tribal situations. But I'm not even sure that holds.

The only way this is possible is if only a man, or only a woman, could exhibit a personality trait. If even one man or woman exhibited a personality trait that we associated only with the other sex, then that would dispel the notion that that particular personality trait was derived from being that particular sex.

To say otherwise is sexism. — Philosophim

I think I agree with this. It makes me think of how people who have very rigid ideas about what a boy then man should be like and what a girl then woman should be like often put in a lot of effort training boys and girls to fit their roles. If they are right that boys are like X and girls are like Y you shouldn't need all that training. Boys will be boys and girls will be girls. All the training and shaming to form correct roles is a sign that they are precisely NOT natural, or you could let nature take its course.

Then let me clarify. It is intentional and continual exhibition of cultural actions within one's culture that defy the cultural expectations of their sex. For example, If in a culture it is acceptable for men to wear a particular type of skirt, a kilt for example, but a woman decided to wear one, she would be making an intentional transgendered action. — Philosophim

So, if it is not intentional then it's not transgendered? Do we mean intentionally deciding to cross gender traits or intentional in any way? And, not an example of the same question, is a transvestite, transgender?

n America there is a term for women who act like men in terms of aggression, actions, and language. Its called a "Tom Boy". That's a transgendered woman in her actions.

Perhaps today some people would call a Tom Boy transgendered, but when I was growing up those girls were not considered transgendered and things were vastly more conservative about gender roles then. It was one of the types of normal girls. If someone had thought they were truly transgendered they would have used a much harsher name.

Yes, you would be transgendered in that culture. You would not be transgendered in your culture. Anytime we talk about culture, we involve at least one other person, or observer. The only way we remove other people from culture is if we have a completely personal opinion as to what a gender is. So for example, lets say that I believe wearing a dress as a woman is transgender. In my culture, every woman wears dresses. But in my mind, only boys should, so I say that all women are transgender. This is fine for my personal idea of transgenderism. But the moment I involve one other person, my own personal identification can be disagreed with by other people. — Philosophim

Of course other people can disagree. But saying that the Malaysians disagree, doesn't mean I am transgendered. I haven't become something else. I am in a place where some people would think I am outside the proper role/set of traits. I'm not saying they are wrong and I am right. I may not even be thinking I am anything in particular. But I don't become something else because of how they see me.

Do you think that if men and women, boys and girls, were all freely allowed to behave in "masculine" and "feminine" ways without any massively negative social consequences, that the transgender issue would disappear? — flannel jesus

No, but I think that would protect some children from thinking they have to make a choice that involves hormones and surgery, for example. I think it also would remove a mixed message aimed at children by the people on one side of the debate: one message coming from traditional feminism, the other coming from current a lot of trans-supportive rhetoric.

I don't consider trans people to all be confused. I actually think some are right. I don't think that's actually well supported by science, but I nevertheless believe it.

But I think currently it has become a very confusing movement and misleading people into problematic outcomes. Not all of them, but many of them.

Would that be an alternative world, you think, where the people who are currently transgender wouldn't feel the need to identify as transgender, and take HRT or do other sex-change type decisions? — flannel jesus

I think their would be a huge reduction. I also think that many of the people who end up now identifying with the sex they weren't born as AND who don't take hormones or get operations would now not really have to make a decision. They could do what they want without the need to decide they are the other sex. I think there would be beneficial side effects for people who never consider themselves trans. Many of these people may feel ashamed of certain facets of their personality or their interests or the way they move. Let's throw that out the window.

When I was a kid, boys did not want to be seen as/called 'fags', for example, regardless of whether they were homosexual or not. These rules about what a boy or girl should be and should not be cause everyone problems, limit everyone. I think the current, often well intended messages, are actually pushing us back in time in some ways. And that's from the Left. There is an essential gender. There is not an essential gender. The messages get sent out by the same people depending on the conversation.

I can easily imagine I might have wondered if I was 'really' a woman at times due to this or that facet of me. I had enough hallucinated fears and real fears. Hey, let's throw another one on top. Add in the mixed message and it's actually quite a damaging situation.

-- Whos fault is that? I cant ask the people in that scenario can I? Get the prove then...how about find a scene where they do have the proof, who could be bothered to care? — Kizzy

It's no one's fault.

i will not question your faith — Kizzy

What faith is that?

Carry on, sounds like you are really getting somewhere with your demonstrations to THOSE other people...fun its fun right? — Kizzy

Oh, I think I can demonstrate it to you not just those people. I suppose it might be fun, but generally pretty neutral. I'm sure you believe some things have happened to you and you are correct and yet you can't demonstrate this to others. Or can you demonstrate everything that has happened to you, has happened to you? Can you demonstrate all your beliefs are correct?

Do you think that if you can't prove something to others, then you shouldn't believe it?

Is that the rule?

A transgendered person exhibits cultural actions that defy the cultural expectations of their sex. — Philosophim

That, then, would be everyone, given that different cultures and individuals have different criteria and also given that pretty much everyone will have exceptional moments in their lives where they exhibit 'out of character' traits (in crisis, when tired, for fun, in private with someone they trust and so on.)

I also feel like we are giving to much power to the observer when we say someone changes gender when others judge that they have done something that doesn't fit cultural expectations. Like if I take a trip to Malaysia and suddenly on a street in a village I become a transgendered person. I don't think that makes sense. I get what you mean, but nothing happened to me. Other people had judgments in their minds, that doesn't make me move from being male to transgendered. This could be simple language misuse, but since that's the topic, I thought I'd mention it.

I think one problem out there in this debate, in some minds, is that sometimes genders are fixed. Oh, I have these traits, I am really male.
But in other instances they are not fixed.
Sure, I did that and I am a woman. Women can do that and feminine people can do that.

Are there personality traits that entail one is REALLY a woman or REALLY a man, or not?

I think there are a lot of mixed messages about this and in some ways fueling rage on both sides for what I think is no reason.

The old rigid sex and gender stereotypes were limiting for both sexes.
Some people hang onto to those.
And now, oddly, the Left has a mixed message about these.

I see no safe haven to be ourselves on any part of the political spectrum.

Yeahhh that may be correct right now but TIME and position and grounds and forces may have tolerances of worthy strength to consider further... — Kizzy

I don't understand what that means.

I guess thats right and fine with me but thats if you are choosing to only look backwards...you said "happened" meaning you think it has? How sure are you here? — Kizzy

I am talking about situations where something happens to us or we experience something or do something, and it is rational for us to believe we did it, but we can't prove it happened. So, yes, I am presuming in that scenario, which I think is common, that something happens to us and yet we can't prove to others it did. I am very sure. As sure as I get. That happens. And if you live alone, it happens every day many times a day.

if you can only do that for this better look backwards closer and forwards wider and inwards...wiser. Its limiting this view or take you share that still seems to me right now to be short of something. We have a bit more room, space is available still. Go on! Take up the space. No rush. No harm, just a thought i had and felt moved enough to share. Thanks to you! I am with you though, no problems here. The direction is good and set in stone. Paint, clay, ink its dries quick...Cant we burn the evidence? Cant we hide things? — Kizzy

I'm not sure what you mean here either.

how certain are you here?
but we cannot prove the exact instance happened. But given that beliefs can form rationally from individual experiences, not all rational beliefs are going to be demonstrable to others. — Kizzy

Extremely certain. I'm even very confident I can demonstrate it to most people.

Not so much that it shouldn't be brought up, after all I am bringing it up here. What I want to convey is that if one believes in such things literally, then I think the arguments given for such views should be quite strong, considerably beyond say, demonstrating the existence of a tree or a river. — Manuel

OK, I was just going by your earlier wording. Sure, for people who do not have the belief they would likely need strong support for the assertion. And this applies in situations where someone who believes in ghosts makes the assertion and perhaps includes an argument, and expects that others should agree, now, that ghosts real.

I'd like mention a related though perhaps side issue. Often, I think, it is assumed that if a belief is rational, then one can present enough evidence to convince people in general. I don't think that holds. We all have rational beliefs in things that we cannot demonstrate are correct to others. Of course, for many people these are things that others might consider possible, but we cannot prove the exact instance happened. But given that beliefs can form rationally from individual experiences, not all rational beliefs are going to be demonstrable to others.

Obviously this doesn't mean that now we must accept any assertion, just that we can have more than two reactions to someone who believes something.

Yeah, it's already complex. In one crucial respect, the vast majority of adults do not literally believe in Santa Claus.

In another respect, they do (or pretend to) and they have seen him numerous times, at malls or shopping centers of Christmas festivals and whatnot.

We can then clarify, they have not actually seen him, but they have seen people dress up to imitate how he looks like in our common mythology. — Manuel

Sure, and they aren't going to assert that Santa Claus is real - in the sense relevant here.

With free will, we do have a very long and distinguished tradition going back to Classical Greece and even before that time. And it's very much pertinent today. — Manuel

It's a popular issue, yes. But the attitude many determinists have in relation to free will matches the attitude of those who disbelieve in ghosts. They dynamic is the same. And, again, this was in relation to the idea that we shouldn't discuss this issue. You've now clarified that you don't believe that.

To reiterate all beliefs should be looked at in philosophy and evaluated. — Manuel

OK, now we're on the same page.

I mean I see the intuitive appeal but, are we then going to say: ghosts are real and so are trees and rocks? — Manuel

I'm still responding to your saying they shouldn't bring it up in philosophical contexts. I haven't said that you, for example, should say they are real.

You can take that stance. The issue here is that, despite the numerous reports on such things, when they are investigated seriously, the evidence in favor of these accounts tend to be very thin or non-existent. — Manuel

Which has been true for things that turned out to be real and then also for things that so far have not been confirmed by science.

We should keep doors open, but it's tricky to do so, given what investigation into these things tend to show. Also, if we do this with ghosts, should we also keep the door open to fairies and gnomes? What about Santa Claus? — Manuel

Again. I am responding to you saying that in philosophical contexts believers shouldn't bring it up. You seem to be taking this as me telling you what you should believe and do.

I don't intend to sound righteous or dismissive, but how do we differentiate between ghosts and Santa Claus? — Manuel

Well, this is moving away from the points we were discussing, but, ok: how many adults believe in Santa Claus and believe they have see him?

And note: you don't need to tell me I haven't demonstrated that ghosts exist.
But I don't think those two things are the same.

But to assert the existence of what is experienced, the way we assert the existence of a tree we can all see and touch, is quite problematic. — Manuel

Not all phenomena have been as fixed and solid as trees. But again. I don't see why this shouldn't be brought up in a philosophical context.

Many people think the way you do about ghosts about free will. Would it make sense for them to say that free will shouldn't be brought up in philosophical contexts? There have been phenomena that were dismissed as the conclusions of people being irrational that later turned out to be true. On what grounds do we decide what should be talked about or not in a philosophical context?

But if they would like to have a more securely anchored system of belief, then the reasons for believing in literal ghosts and spirits should be extremely strong, otherwise I think we are not being critical enough of what our perceptions are informing us. — Manuel

This would be true for any belief, it seems to me, regardless of ontology. But yes, in a philosophy context, generally, people are expected to back up assertions with some justification, and then they should expect that if their justification doesn't seem strong enough, others will be critical of that justification and perhaps the belief.

Let me rephrase, for someone interested in philosophy, I think it would be a mistake to postulate things such as ghosts, unless that person accepts supernaturalism. If they do accept this, then there is no reason to tell them not to believe in anything.

Well, they could accept naturalism, but think that ghosts are a natural phenomenon. Something not yet confirmed via science, or perhaps they think there is enough evidence in parapsychology to take the possibility seriously and this fits with their experiences. IOW the discussion could be framed as, hey let's not close the door on this. Or one could be arguing against specific reasons people assert one can rule them out.

There are always going to be experiences, correctly interpreted, which we cannot demonstrate to others happened and we correctly interpreted them. Here we have a phenomenon that some subcultures in the West accept as real, so in a philosophical conversation in those subcultures there wouldn't be a problem asserting the belief. Then we have subcultures where it is not accepted as real, sometimes even not accepted as possible, period. There the believer will meet more resistance, even when claiming, for example, that dismissing the idea of ghosts in a specific way is not a sound dismissal. Let alone trying to convince people that they exist. But again, it seems to me it's an odd idea to say they should make their assertions.

For if they are taken literally, I think they are making a mistake. — Manuel

Sure, and this is fodder for nearly all philosophical discussion. If one looks at most threads here you'll find people thinking other people are making mistakes in their beliefs. It would be wonderful if there was more collaborative, exploratory philosophical discussion and of course the two are not mutually exclusive, but it's a common phenomenon. In other words it seems like you are considered your ontology as the base. From that base, you think that people shouldn't assert the existence of ghosts or their belief in them, because they are mistaken. And then someone else thinks that free will is mistaken, and perhaps also ruled out by naturalism or scientific ontology. And a liberal thinks that a conservative idea is mistaken....and so on.

It's somewhat analogous to telling a person living with schizophrenia that they should be extremely scared about this monster that are currently seeing. I think we should aim to the opposite, as it could help such people. — Manuel

Right, but I'm not suggesting that one support the claim, unless you believe in the claim, or want to explore the possiblity. Also the schizophrenic hallucinating something terrifying is in quite a different situation from someone coming to a philosophy forum and making their case for the existence of ghosts or in a thread about ghosts saying, hey your psychoanalysis of believers isn't justified or doesn't fit me. Or such a person might criticize a dismissal. And so on. If they seem to be suffering immensely and their belief in ghosts - or free will, or determinism, or Hell, or no afterlife, or The Ship of Thebes argument against the persistent self or whatever, iow regardless of the content of the belief, then we might tread lightly. But otherwise why not simply engage in the discussion like one might any discussion focused on a belief one disagrees with? Or is curious about, etc.

I don't doubt the veracity of the perception they had, nor even the epistemology in some cases. The issue become problematic when we make metaphysical claims from perceptual judgements, such that if one says one sees a ghost, then it follows, that there are such things as ghosts in the world.

It's in this part that it becomes difficult. — Manuel

It depends on the context, but people assert things all the time based on faulty epistemology/self-knowledge/rushes to judgment and so on. This includes assertions about people, politics, reality, morality. I'm not saying we need to accept their account or we shouldn't question or challenge. I'm questioning the idea that they shouldn't say it. Say it to whom? To their friends? Tell strangers the truth that they believe in ghosts?

What's the rule about when people should say what they believe?

But then there's also the issue raised here by others, suppose we don't believe such things exist, such is my case. Do I say, "I thought I saw a ghost, but instead saw a hallucination."? — Manuel

One can certainly decide it was a hallucination. Or a less charged way to think of it would be that one mistook a shadow, plus a sound, and formed a pattern in the mind, perhaps given one was afraid at night and it seemed for a second like the shape of a transparent person. IOW hallucination is a pretty strong word. It implies that there was no visual trigger at all. I think we have all had experiences when our brains form patterns that aren't there, but they aren't hallucinations. Oh, that's Dave, but actually it was a woman, who walks a bit like Dave and has the same color hair. That's not a hallucination. Where the exact boundary is between mistaken pattern recognition and hallucination is unclear I think, but generally I'd go for the softer judgment, unless someone is in psychosis or seeing things regularly that are not there.

Or the topic of, ghosts aren't real, ok. But then people who do see them (or any other related phenomenon) see fake ghosts? Some have suggested that they shouldn't claim they've seen a ghost or spirit, only that they have misinterpreted what they've seen. — Manuel

Yes, they say that. But we have instances in the past where people were told, even by experts that they did not experience X (and they were being irrational, or delusional, or hallucinating), when it turned out later they were actually not only experiencing what they said but correctly experiencing it.
So, to me unless your grandma is spending her entire savings on exorcists or hasn't slept for weeks, but is simply someone you disagree with, I don't see why they should state their beliefs. We can be technically agnostic, or say we doubt that, but I see no reason to tell them they are doing something wrong when they assert their beliefs.

Taking superstition broadly we could say it is when we think, consciously or unconsciously, that certain behaviors/rituals/thoughts prevent bad things or increase the chances of bad things AND there is no known causal coupling between those behaviors/rituals/thoughts and the desires effects.

I would say that everyone is superstitious in my broad sense of the idea.

We may have beliefs about guilt. That feeling guilty protects us from punishment. This need not be even consciously thought out.

We might have beliefs that certain types of stifling emotions around other people leads to a better life or prevents bad things from happening professionally, inter-personally, even when alone. These would count if this has actually not been demonstrated to us.

There might be beliefs about how a man or woman should act - and the sense that if we don't act 'properly' in these categories we will be less well off in some way.

I would think most people have confused notions about what exactly leads them to love or prevents the loss of love, and behave in ways that supposedly prevent problems or elicit love where we might not get it or as much.

Even secular people may feel like certain kinds of behavior or even attitudes draw punishment, even when they do not. Obviously I am not talking about criminal behavior or obvious social taboos, but rather subtler things we either try not to show/express or even feel. For example we might feel that feeling superior to someone who makes mistakes or makes a mistake in a given instance would lead to negative outcomes, even if someone suggested this idea out loud to us, we would deny any causal link, as long as no one noticed it. Despite this we may have learned patterns in childhood where we are phobic even to the hidden attitude or thought. (and the precise opposite superstition might be in place where a not having a superior attitude is seen as detrimental - not this would be different from merely being aware of a greater skill in a certain area)

There are cultural versions of these things. Some cultures have value judgments about how expressive one can or should be. And it can feel to members of that culture that more expression or less expression is wrong and detrimental, when in fact there is much more flexibility, even in one's own culture and one is not punished for moving away from the center of the bell curve.

Any thoughts on this topic? — Manuel

We could call this a proposal.
Those people who have not experienced ghosts, or something that for a moment or for a time, they thought either 'that was a ghost´ or 'perhaps that was a ghost', but later decided such things do not exist, remain at least technically agnostic about the existence of ghosts. The doubt they exist, in the extreme or not. But they don't rule it out, given that phenomena out there may not fit current paradigms that they use as models for reality.
Those who have experienced phenomena that they consider to be ghosts accept their current belief. They (should) understand that for non-experiencers the belief may seem to likely (perhaps extremely likely) unfounded.
Either side can speculate (in ad hommy and psychoanalyzing ways the reason the other has the belief or lack they have) but avoid it.
Those non-believers who have experienced something that they think matches the experiences of believers can instead be cautious about assuming they know, in fact, what the others have experienced. Perhaps they are correct, perhaps not.

Mental states are not identical to brain states. If they were, ancient peoples would have been coherently talking about brain states when they talked about mental states, but ancient peoples had almost no idea what the brain did. — RogueAI

If we are assuming that mental states are the same things as brain states, we are nevertheless talking about different aspects of the same thing. So, the ancients were in fact talking about brain states, but those aspects they experienced. Those who have studied brains or read literature on neuroscience might well talk about other aspects of the very complicated brain/mental state phenomenon and they might on other occasions talk about another aspect of that complicated phenomenon.

A lay person talking about brain states, using knowledge that an ancient person didn't have, but at a lay level, might very well be utterly perplexed by a neuroscientist discussion of neurotransmitters. This doesn't entail that they are talking about two different 'things'. They just know different aspects of the same 'thing'.

I'm thinking there are perhaps situations where you can rationally believe something based on your personal experience, and also accept that you can't convincingly communicate that experience to someone else so you should allow them to rationally reject the thing you rationally believe. — flannel jesus

I'd say I'd certainly understand their not just accepting my belief. It depends a bit what one means by 'reject'. If this means, they don't accept that it's true, fine. If they want to tell me the belief is false, period. Well, I wouldn't accept that - unless of course, their explanation for this convinced me.

And then of course there's always room to question your own memories. Did I really experience that the way I remember? Memories are very malleable things, I find that quite interesting. — flannel jesus

Sure. I think that's healthy in general. Up to a point. I think skepticism can reach toxic levels. But if this kind of reflection never happens, where you question your memories, or for me more often my interpretations, then that's also likely to be toxic.

In all such discussions, I think it is important to consider that it can be rational to believe in things that cannot be demonstrated to be true to others. I think you are touching on this area. We all believe we have experienced certain things that we cannot demonstrate happened to others. For those without beliefs in ghosts and the like, these experiences may have components and only components that are generally accepted to be real. So, the particular event cannot be demonstrated, but at the same time the various components themselves are consider real. There is a potential for many to believe what you experienced is possible. Though if you got kissed, supposedly by Scarlett Johansen, we are starting to move into gray areas.

I think there is an assumption that many people have that they would not believe in something that cannot be demonstrated to others. But there's an element of speculation in this. It is as if the problem of other minds is, well, not a problem. I know that whatever you experienced wouldn't convince me, and it's irrational for you to believe in X (and you are mistaken). I think there are a lot of assumptions in that.
I think you are touching on areas like this in your posts.

There are always three options at least.
Only beliefs that can be demonstrated are true.
Some things that cannot (now) be demonstrated to be true may later be demonstated to be true - for example, when technology changes - and/or are true but will never be able to be demonstrated as true to non-experiencers.
A kind of cautious agnosticism: I don't know if what that person believes is true or not, but I don't see any good reason for me, to believe it.

Often we get statements like this from an earlier post:

From a scientific epistimology, ghosts surely don't exist.

Well, no. We just lack in science, right now, enough evidence and/or the kinds of evidence necessary. Parapsychologists might consider this assessment incorrect and would argue that paradigmatic biases are leading to poor evaluations of what they consider sufficient evidence, those parapsychologists who think the evidence is sufficient. But my saying Well, no is not based on their position but rather that scientific epistemology doesn't weigh in like that. It can weigh in on the current evidence and saying it is lacking.

But it seems like there is this assumption that if something cannot be demonstrated to others it is per se irrational to believe it. I don't think that's a good position. And there are historical examples, within science also, where this doesn't work.

s it not the case that every worldview is located in some form of metaphysics (the nature of reality)? The extent of awareness of this varies. Some scientists, for instance, may posit that they don't do metaphysics, but the notion that reality can be understood is a metaphysical presupposition. — Tom Storm

I agree. Materialism/physicalism fall under metaphysics. Unity of nature, causality are a couple of others, I would say. All systems of belief have some generalized assumptions - or, for the cautious, working hypotheses about ontology - it seems to me, that cannot be demonstrated to be true.

I can't really see how physics can avoid ontology and that's part of metaphysics.

Of course metaphysics, the word, has been used a lot pejoratively and is associated by some with certain kinds of ontological claims and not others.

So this is the doubt which flannel jesus is obsessed with. Flannel seems to think that the doubt created by all that "incidental evidence" implies that when I judge my experience of the empirical object, either "evidence of John", or "not evidence of John", I am assuming that the one judgement is compatible with the opposing judgement. — Metaphysician Undercover

It's not the judgments are compatible, its that the experience is compatible with both conclusions. If it was not compatible with both conclusions, then there would be no doubt.

The parts of the experience that might lead you to think John is approaching
are hard to consider evidence that John is not approaching.

But in in a situation where you are not sure John is approaching, but you think he is, the overall experience you are having contains evidence that he is not approaching. There is something about the entire experience that leads to doubt.

If there was nothing about the experience, nothing at all, that gave any indication this might not be John, well, that's a different situation.

So, there must be elements of the experience that FIT with it not being John approaching.

(and for what it's worth, it seems to me FJ has been fairly patiently trying to get his point across and felt it was important that you come up with the scenario and also that the scenario had specific features. I certainly could have missed things, but it seemed like your reactions included some negative assumptions about his attitudes and intentions which did not help the discussion. )

This is not the way to escape the accusation of selfishness. No matter how intense and unendurable the pain may be, to put one's own interests, (to end the pain), as having priority over the interests of others, is the very definition of "selfish". — Metaphysician Undercover

Which is precisely what the others are expecting if they believe this. We would allow this kind of thinking for many decisions. They will be disappointed if I don't [go to the wedding, movies, Friday bowling, whatever] but I had a bad fall and it would cause me a lot of pain just to go and watch] The criticism eats itself and as I said after what you quoted, it add a guilt to an already painful situation. We are constantly making decisions out of our own needs and taking care of ourselves in ways we certainly do not for random neighbors and distant cousins, but even, because we are closest to ourselves, responsible for ourselves, making decisions that may not please others, but because of what we want and don't want. Selfish is pejorative. It is certainly a decision to do something that one wants to do that others may not want. And if one has lived with some love, then most will not like it at all. Nor would they if you moved to France, probably either, because of modelling or it was the dreamt of home you always wanted. A woman wants a career and her boyfriend and parents want her to have a kid. Someone leaves a sect they are in and every single person they have know is sad and upset. Are these situations also the definition of selfishness because they put their desires and wants before those of the people they know, even love? It's certain self-oriented to make these decisions. And these outcomes may seem positive or neutral - at least to some - so, they're ok. Move to France and you may be permanently removing yourself from people's lives. And in the main were before the internet.

But the judgment there seems to just sidestep the issue: is it a good decision for that person. If it isn't then to me that's the focus. I certainly don't think the argument that 'you should continue to suffer in a life you hate for my sake and other people' is a compassionate attitude.

Yes, I would likely get angry if someone I loved killed themselves. But I'd assume they hated life and wanted it to stop and it was the best solution. My frustration that lasted would likely be over the it not being the best solution, not the pain it caused me.

I don't want people staying in agony for my sake. If there is a solution, however, that they are missing, that can alleviate their pain, THAT's my focus. Not telling them to live for my sake, however it feels, which is selfish. And I understand that the people saying this here are saying it in a general, non-specific way, but this meme goes out and adds a layer of guilt.

If we really believe they had a better choice, well let's tell them that. If we don't know, and they are in agony, out there, throwing guilt on top of their agony might work for a short time. MIght have the opposite effect. While they'll feel guilty for the successful act, now they can feel bad about considering it.

Sorry, thought it was a different thread.

But this only happens if there is such a controversial relationship between the suicidal and the rest. — javi2541997

I don't know. I mean, I think most of us can, at least in down or cranky moments, feel blame for others around us. We may question this and shift out of it in a later mood. We may think we have a bad attitude, but it's a fairly common attitude. Someone who is mightily depressed or suffering from PTSD may experience what is passing and mood dependent in others, much more deeply and for longer periods of time. Again, this doesn't mean any specific suicide has this attitude.

Yet, it can be the scenario where a suicidal decides to commit suicide because he is bored of life or he feels depressed for some reasons which are not necessarily caused by others. I attempt to explain with these examples that suicide is an individual act that sometimes can affect others... — javi2541997

Sure, this can certainly be the case also.

Or a mixture of the two. Or there is physical pain and long term illness involved. Or there are economic issues involved. And so on.

Although I agree that the hurtfulness of suicide cannot be removed, I still don't see why this act (plus the suicide note) can increase the hurt. — javi2541997

It depends on what is in the notes. For example, if there is blame
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32343168/
And from another study, with my emphasis:

Presents a discursive analysis of 172 suicide notes left by 120 suicide victims. Instead of searching for the underlying psychological reasons for suicide in the content of notes, the authors argue that such notes should be viewed as acts of communication which serve to manage the blame accorded to both author and recipients of the suicide note. Consequently notes may provide evidence of socially shared beliefs as to when suicide is more or less acceptable. The analysis largely confirms this approach. It is found that matters relating to blame are referred to more frequently than any other issue (87% of notes). The precise arguments which are used to justify the actions of both self and others are then described in detail and some evidence is provided that the nature of these arguments may vary as a function of the social position of the author and also the identity of the recipient. The implications of these findings, and for a general use of a discursive approach to suicide, are then discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)

No one should assume that suicide is an act of anger or intending to hurt someone. Clearly some people are just trying to end pain they find unedurable and see not other way to do this.

But as social creatures it can also be - again, not necessarily - an act that is in part revenge. Or showing others what they have done. Or showing others that they no longer have the person - 'feel that loss of me'. If any of these are put in a note, and these all can be implied also, then this can certainly add to the hurt of survivors.

That's why it is often argued that suicide is extremely selfish. — Metaphysician Undercover

And this, I think is an oversimiplification in the other direction. People who commit suicide may be in what they consider unendurable pain with no way out. Could be physical, more often emotional. I wouldn't want someone to cling to a nightmare for my sake. And that's not how I would try to talk them out of it. I think adding guilt on top of someone's suicidal ideation isn't really helpful, much less somehow correct.

Well what we hear from the outside is heard by us in the auditory centers of the brain. So the actual experience of the sound is not sound bouncing around in the skull. These other things I hear, I think, are neuronal processes from other parts of the brain stimulating the same centers without outside stimulation of the inner ear. But in the end sounds with outside origins in the causal chain and sounds from the inside end up as non-sounds which we hear or 'hear'.

I have always been afraid of authorities such as teachers. I believe some folks were just pretending they were embarrassed or afraid, but for those who are genuinely afraid of authorities, going to school was a nightmare. I suffered the same fear when Fosse was a kid and he ran away from class because he was afraid of standing in class, with the teacher and the mates looking at him. — javi2541997

I mean, my background is nearly entirely progressive education. As in, the students bear all the responsibility. But here I am dealing with immigrants coming from cultures where their teachers were like Lords and they were peasants. If I could get every teacher to go the progressive route, I'd back off and just let these students fail until finally the rumor got around that you just had to be your own boss and fast. My style is a compromise between giving them the opportunity to learn and the smell of an authority. They are adults and I have no real power over them except the grade at the end (pass or fail). And unfortunately conveying expectations in a nebulous context does actually help them. The most successful teachers, with better statistics than me are much tougher. Which then gets these people into universities or jobs faster. So, I've learned to go against my habit, philosophy and even values.

Do you think our exchange through TPF would be different if we used pictures with our real identity rather than logos? — javi2541997

A bit. I have distance students and I knew that a certain kind of reality was missing for them. Generally they get feedback from me on their homework via text. But after the pandemic people started taking distance classes who should not be taking distance classes. Less discipline, less skills, poor time management and so on. Also, I think they were people who needed to be embarrassed or afraid of the teacher. Before the distance students I have were highly motivated and driven. So, I started sending them feedback as audio files online. They hear my voice. I considered videos, but frankly that requires more fussing on my part. Anecdotal evidence: I noticed an increase in completed homework. I ended each message with a clear 'and I expect next time that.....*

I think I became more real to them.

Nonetheless, Fosse highlighted something very important: He started to feel more confident and comfortable writing drama thanks to the use of 'pauses', because he interpreted this as a silent language. Do you agree? How do you improvise pauses in your room or wherever you do this? — javi2541997

Pauses are interpersonal. I mean, they are part of the lived experience of another person. We pause to find the right words. We pause when we are not sure. Online we present this well or at least better organized flow of words. That's not as much us as when we talk.

Pauses in improv. Well, it's a sign of strong improvisers that they can pauses. In the beginning there's this feeling like you have to go fast, to show you're not thinking. And then the panic. Because most people go through some panic in improvisation. But you can see the better improvisers interersperse pauses: because they are more relaxed, because they are more connected to their characters, and people pause. There are exercises that can train this.

So, yes, pauses are part of the complete person communicating.

And you can put pauses in literature, but it's not the same thing and it's not more social than the rest of the writing process, which isn't very social.

In other less moderated forums, I encounter a wide range of jerk-like behavior. And I often think they'd never manage to pull this off in-person, because in person you would notice paused, nervous ticks, the eyes flicking to the side nervously, unexpressed emotions, tone of voice. Online you can always pretend to be calm, confident, unmoved by the others argument or comments. That facade is much harder to hold together live.

Oversimplification is a way to control the discourse. — ssu

Yes, and it's easy. You have one main reaction and you aim it at anything, those who agree, those who don't, those who see it as more complex. No nagging doubts, nothing of importance to work out. And then in today's climate, you divide the world into Team A and Team B, with me or against me, evil or good, sane or insane, smart or a moron. Of course there have always been these tendencies and certainly for many who are directly involved in an issue or conflict. But now all the armchair generals and couch potatoes have the same utterly clear binary choice well and good made. And there is no possible Team C or D in the schema.

When you say that you write less because you want something more social in experiencing, are you referring to acceptance or interaction? — javi2541997

Interaction.

And yes, one is writing to be read, at least in part, and not just by oneself. I think it is a kind of social communication. I do think of myself as communicating with others when I write. I think sharing culture, say, still has a social element, but mainly it is in isolation. I see no body language, here no voices, see no faces reacting. Nor does the reverse happen.

Even here, in a much more direct form of writing communication than in writing a novel, say, where I may get a response in an hour and we can say all sorts of things to each other, even this at the social level is a shadow of a face to face meeting. And it's a lot more direct than a novel.

There's also a way, for me, that writing literature leads to a kind of ongoing self-relation that interferes with social interaction. I am all the time noting language, dialogue and possible phrases pop up and I want to notice them as a writer.

It's a bit like being at a wedding as a guest and being at a wedding as a guest who has been asked to take both formal and informal photos for the couple. I am now experiencing the wedding through the lens, even if the darn thing isn't in front of my eyes the whole time. I am scanning for good images of people, not connecting with people as much as I would have.

And there, as the wedding photographer, I am still in the room. I can be social, but there is interference. People are aesthetic phenomena in a way they are not if I don't have that task. Writing a novel, the task is always there, at least for me, and there is a kind of distancing and obsession, which I think pulls one into oneself.

I do improv (improvisational theater) now, and that's very social. Of course there are aspects of the interactions that are distances, like the wedding photographer/friend. But before and after and in between it is much more social. Further when I'm not in the room doing improv, there is no interference when being social with others.

Music I find is somewhere in between. There are more social aspect and these can be very intimate, but I also find the secondary obsession is in the back of my mind all the time. But this could be just me. And I did much of my music on my own. I didn't have the full band experience.