The definition of the head as I understand it, is the head of the lord(god), the king of kings, or some shit like that. Am I wrong in my understanding? Why do you ask? Oh wait, I'm not asking on a Saturday, I guess I'll get no response from you, unless you're a hypocrite to your own stated intentions, which would also be a display of a lack of organization of power on your own terms it would seem. You and time itself invalidates your argument. Your malice is on full display, and I oppose it.

Please someone give feedback to Dreamcatcher in what you are thinking of his claims.

You wrote,

This is my command:

Do not depend on your own
understanding, but lean on me,
and I will show you the way. — DreamCatcher

I asked you questions for a better understanding, but you do not show me the way. Why? Because it's not on a Saturday? How it that not a trivial stipulation? Explain.

If I request others from this forum to chime in on our handshake discussion, to request them to whip me raw with reason, will you be down for such? I think not, and how can I predict such with so much confidence? Because you are a fake. And what you write here,

A politician is a representative, and they can be like a light that lights the way, and depending on where one is in their understanding, it may seem to them that they shed light on the situation, while for others, depending on where they stand, it may seem to cast shadows. When we take two sources of light, and focus them together, the light becomes brighter, with less shadows cast. Therefore, when we gather multiple sources of light, with our wings of thought outstretched touching round about in unity, reasoning together, it can help prevent greed and corruption from hiding in the shadows of each one of us. — DreamCatcher

Is something I think you will not embrace, as you are what I claim, a fake. Prove me wrong!

But you won't.

A testament to your fakery.
.

You think you have provided an argument Dream Catcher, right? I asked you this

Cool, so are things going as you plan king of kings, lord of lords? Tell the truth! Your will is being done!? And all credit is yours for what is, as this is your kingdom and your will is being done, right lord of lords, king of kings? — moo

but you do not respond, why? My questions relate to your argument, to see if you believe in your own argument and claims yourself, as if you do not respond in the positive to my questions, then it would seem to me you are a fake on your own terms in believing in your own arguments and claims. Your nonresponse reveals what? I think malice!

Do you think you are the first to claim lordship? If not, then seemingly on your terms you are making false claims, right?

It commands authority by the principle:
First come, first serve. — DreamCatcher

If I claim all the gold in the world, and am the first to do such, then is it all rightly mine under your own philosophy of first come, first serve?

You speak of accountability, you claim you are the head, and you speak of such things as this,

This is my command:

Do not depend on your own
understanding, but lean on me,
and I will show you the way. — DreamCatcher

yet on my thread of " The true value of a handshake", where is the evidence of you showing me the way, you ditched the argument. I think that shows your ill will.

No response from you DreamCatcher, why? Pull the log out of my eye, is that not one of your philosophies to live by? Integrity? NO.

Cool, so are things going as you plan king of kings, lord of lords? Tell the truth! Your will is being done!? And all credit is yours for what is, as this is your kingdom and your will is being done, right lord of lords, king of kings?

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

A lack of comprehension on my part? No, you have created two contexts, one context where it's just about a belief at the lowest threshold, and another context where it's not just about a belief but the responsibility of actually taking someone to the doctors, OK. The first if it's just about a belief at the lowest threshold, then why can't you shake on it? You have given no reason other than the other context where it's about taking on actual responsibility, which you claim needs more confidence, OK, but you have changed the contexts.

Wrong. Again, you fail to comprehend.

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

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

Yes, I believe on can always shake on what they believe. The other percentages I speak of relate to the confidence necessary to reach a threshold of belief. I can for example can have the belief that I will likely be able to take someone to their doctors appointment, and all I need is 51% confidence to meet that threshold of likeliness to form that belief, but if I want to meet the threshold to believe that I will be able to take someone confidently to the doctors, then I may need say 95% confidence to meet that threshold of belief, and when that threshold of belief is met, it's marked by what? 51%. As that is the threshold of assenting to a belief, right???

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

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

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

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

The person must believe the person is asking for just the belief of likelihood and not responsibility, or else why have they assented to respond to them in an ambiguous/ misleading way? You're jumping between contexts to try and make and argument. If the person question is just about a belief of likely hood, then why can't the person shake on that at 51% confidence? If the question is about taking them to the doctors tomorrow than why would the person assent to such responsibility at just at a 51% likelihood of achieving such in their belief???

why do you think a sense of responsibility is not a belief? I think it is. I don't think I lack comprehension, but you do, and I have made my case for such multiple times now. Read above again.

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

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

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

To have a high level of confidence is a belief, and that belief is marked by 51%, so your argument makes no sense on your own terms.

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

Premise one, I agree with.
Premise two, I agree with, which is marked by 51% right??? The trust causes the belief to form.
Premise three, I agree with, but the confusion is caused by what???? Not the shaking on what one believes, but rather a miscommunication. You have taken two contexts and danced between the two to try and make a case, but that behavior is incoherent as your changing contexts to do it.

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

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

I disagree! There is a shared meaning, and if I'm asked what I believe, and then asked to shake on what I believe, then I can do that, for it's what I believe, and I can offer a symbol of trust on what I believe, such as a handshake. How does that not register as being seemingly right to you? All your doing is changing contexts to try and create an unshared meaning to try and put me in the wrong and delude yourself.

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

It does not address it when it was brought up multiple times before. So, your tardiness to the issue it a result of what? I disagree with contradictory terms, and if you understood you own logic you would see that. If one needs high confidence to assent to a particular belief, like taking someone to a medical appointment, then the high confidence necessary to cause one to assent to the belief that they can take on the responsibility is marked by what? 51% on your own terms! Right?

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

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

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

My third premise does not state anything about high confidence.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you think it's a contradiction then please explain why, for I ask you again and again why would someone assent to a belief that they can do something for someone else when they have hardly any confidence that they can do it? Where do you respond to that, quote it! Your example I think is flawed. If they assent to the belief that they can take them to the doctors, does not that assent include/imply the belief that they have a high likelihood of achieving it? The person didn't ask them to agree to take them to the doctors if they believe they can do it more likely than not. I think your trying to take ambiguity of language and creating flawed arguments with it.

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

Mistake deleted

When I assent to something, like the taking on the responsibility of taking someone to the doctors, then why do I need any more confidence if I have already assented to the belief that I can take them to the doctors??? Why would one assent to taking on the responsibility of taking one to the doctors if they think they have only a fifty one percent chance of achieving such??? How is that making sense??? If one believes they need 90% confidence, then is that not the marker of assent, as that is what they believe they need( minimal) to assent to such belief? But I thought we were using assenting to a belief as being marked at 51%???

You I think have not dealt with this, here it is quoted

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

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

I think one can shake on what they have assented to. I'm not straying away from my position but trying to show you how what one assents to has different degrees of confidence depending on the context. You added context. So, in your doctor's appointment example, one probably needs a position of confidence at least 90% or higher in achieving of what is asked of them to meet the threshold of assent 51% that they are able to respond with a "yes", or to shake the other persons hand on it in a responsible manner. I think you think 51% equals weak or something, but it does not, for it has the strength to assent to it. This has already been brought to your attention.

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

I'm trying to show you what one assents to at the lowest threshold, directly relates to the confidence they require to assent to that belief which varies depending on the context. If I barley believe Santa clause exists, it still means I think he exists, and if you say to me "I think you lying that you believe in Santa!" and I say, "no I'm not!" and then you say, "shake my hand that you are telling the truth, that you believe in Santa", I will happily shake your hand, for I believe in Santa. Now later you find out that I barley believe in Santa and treat me like I shouldn't have Shaked your hand on it, but why? What have I done wrong? Betray your wrong assumptions??? What, you think only hardcore Santa believers can shake on their belief of him or something? WHY?

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

To your first question, the answer is "yes" if they assent to that being proper behavior to do, if they don't assent to such, then it does not reflect my position, which has be brought to you attention now several times. So, the question is, do they assent to saying "yes" given the context when they barley have any confidence in their belief, and if so, why have they assented to such, given that context?

To your second question, it does apply to the handshake, they need the confidence that represents assenting to that belief or behavior given the context.

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

Yes, they should not do it, for they have not assented to such a belief, but if one has assented to such a belief, then they can. Depending in the context, one may not assent to shaking one's hand with 90% confidence concerning their belief, but need for example something like 99% confidence to do such, don't you agree? For example, if the stakes where higher than just missing a doctor's appointment, than 90% may not be enough to shake one's hand on it. If you agree with that, then can't you see how in some contexts one may need as little as 51% to shake on something, just as other contexts may need 90%, and other contexts 99% confidence in their belief? The context changes what they are willing to assent to. And so, I think from a principled standpoint, one can rightly and coherently shake on a belief they have simply assented to, 51%.

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

It is not inconsistent, nor do I think you have you given coherent logic to how you think it's inconsistent. Here is what I wrote you earlier-

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

Now please quote where you explain why someone would agree to such. I think you have created a false scenario where one wouldn't agree to such, yet your argument seems to depend on such errored example to make your point. It does not reflect my logic! If the person agrees at the lowest threshold of assent, then they have met the necessary confidence to assent to that belief. You act like that is low confidence, but how??? Why do they think they have met the threshold of assent when they cannot rightly offer a symbol of trust in relation to the belief they have assented too??? Quote where you deal with that logic!

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

In regard to context; I think you have created an incoherent example so as to try and defend your position against mine, as stated above to you.

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

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

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

Un, I'm confused, I never said that there is nothing to jeopardize, I wrote you this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But the low confidence is only low on the spectrum of assenting to something. To achieve assenting to a belief, you meet the threshold of confidence needed to assent to that belief.

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

I think if they answered your question with a "no" they would be technically wrong, as revealed with the counterexample I gave with the ride to the doctor. . — DreamCatcher

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

I asked you this,

Should one bend to what most people believe because of their wrong assumptions? — moo

but you did not reply to it, why?

You yourself state, "The eroding of trust you speak of I think depends on the context, and if the handshake was meant to mislead or represents an act of being negligent or something else like that. I think depending on the stakes involved, different degrees of assent may be needed to justify one's behavior". So, if as you state,"different degrees of assent may be needed to justify one's behavior", then merely passing the threshold of assent may not always justify the behavior of a mere handshake. — DreamCatcher

Yeah, so? Do you think you have made an argument here? Everything depends on context, right? This is what you claim quoted below here:

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

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

Anyone else following this thread? Please give your thoughts.

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

But their assumption would be wrong, right? Thier response of "no" would put them logically in the wrong, correct? What you say about others might be true, but they would be wrong to think the other is doing a untrustful act, unless you think one cannot simply shake on what one believes to be true. The eroding of trust you speak of I think depends on the context, and if the handshake was meant to mislead or represents an act of being negligent or something else like that. I think depending on the stakes involved, different degrees of assent may be needed to justify one's behavior, but that does not then translate to the idea that one cannot back up their belief with a handshake as a symbol of trust, for there is no logical error I see in doing such. The only flaw you bring up is based off of people's wrong assumptions. Should one bend to what most people believe because of their wrong assumptions?

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

What is at stake, is trust. A handshake is a further action beyond words, a symbol of trust. It can bring a seriousness to the situation. The hand that you shake, could also be the same hand that potentially rings your neck. I think it can make you better aware of such things as that, especially when one gives you a firm handshake.

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

I believe simply shaking your hand on something you believe to be true, is offering a symbolic act of trust, yet you deny it as communicating such. If you have people think carefully and ask them, "can one simple shake on something they believe to be true", the typical answer from people should be "no" if this social norm you speak of is true. Correct? Social norms, can they not also hide or confuse people from the truth? Maybe social norms could confuse or mislead one in their understanding of what really qualifies has a valid handshake, right? If that is right, then how do I undercut what I say about not caring about the social norm?

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

In your example I would say "yes", that is correct.

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

Assent is used here to mean that you accept something as likely true. I believe there are higher and lower thresholds of assent, as I believe acceptance resides on a spectrum, and there is a threshold to be met to reach an acceptance of a matter, such as the belief someone raped someone. The lowest threshold being met is when you come to the belief that someone raped someone. The higher up on the spectrum of acceptance that someone raped someone, the stronger the belief you have that it's true.