Whatever happened to honesty?

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

tons of lawsuits are won everyday

baron max

Hmmm
WHERE!!???!!

 

[Tiassa]

Mod Hat - Why bother with that?

Mod Hat — Why bother with that?

Perhaps tiassa would be good enough to split off all the personal bickering post 59 onwards?

Unless of course, he thinks we are giving ample demonstration of what happened to honesty?

Oh, now why would I go and do that? Okay, okay, so that's not entirely fair. Given the headaches that come from quietly cleaning up messes, why not just call them out publicly?

I mean, if people want to wander around Sciforums for the express purpose picking fights everywhere he goes, that decision is to each. Obviously, it's not endearing.

Thus:

• (Q), you are following a futile course of action. Perhaps the crusades of personal zealotry are protected in other subfora, but this isn't World Events of Politics. We all know how blindly you hate S.A.M., and the regular reminders don't really serve any constructive purpose.​

As a general note:

• If people don't like having moderators hovering and micromanaging, the best thing to do would be to go longer than a day or two without demanding our involvement. Think about it: Four hours. Four hours yesterday I wasn't paying attention to this thread, and this is what happens? Now, I recognize that the vast majority of thread participants have and want nothing to do with such digressions. But I would urge members to consider the broader question. You don't like us getting involved, then don't give us reason to get involved. This is kind of like life, people. If you don't like the cops nosing around, don't go starting street brawls. It's not rocket science.​

There are zero complaints filed via regular channels. And that's fine with me. Although I admit I always find it interesting to contrast the things people complain about with the things that they don't. That's another discussion, though.

Now, since apparently our reminders every time various complaints arise are insufficient to make the point, if anyone should have any problem with this or any other moderator ruling, you know damn well where to find me. Thus, keep this thread on track and it ends here. If you want to muck up my thread complaining about my green ink, I'll throw your ass out of here for a day at least.

Sorry to be so harsh, but it has come to my attention recently that we need to be more explicit about these sorts of things.

Carry on.

 

[lightgigantic]

CRunchy Cat

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
hence calling upon an abstraction to use physical science to go deeper than an "abstraction" bears similarity to a burning ambulance amongst helicopter spare parts
”
I think that's a very incorrect anology. A better one would be stop looking at the forrest and start looking at the governing laws of tree formation.

If you extrapolated those laws of tree formation to something that bears no connection to trees, once again we are invited to partake of smashed ambulances and burning helicopters

“

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
great

now establish how dishonesty is the default (or natural) position of a community
”
Both honesty and dishonesty are the natural position of a community.

fine

but you are still not explaining why one is the default position of entropy and the other isn't

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic


(IOW the premises for your argument are tentative - one could just as easily expect an increase in honesty, ..... if one held that due to entropy society would no longer be able to constrain persons to be dishonest)
”
Honesty breeds trust and trust breeds cooperation. As we are a social species, we are inclined to judge the trustworthiness of people. estalishing and maintaining a base of honesty so trust and cooperation can result takes alot of work whereas dishonesty is near effortless especially when the targets are anonymous. Entropy doesn't take the path of highest energy as you are well aware.

You had a nice piece of soft science in the making there until you slapped the last sentence on.

If you still can't see any problems with that, try this ....

"Distrust is a back up plan of survival that sees the individual persevere and succeed. We are social species, and whoever can secure the advantage dominates the group. Being constantly deceitful is a a lot of hard work whereas honesty requires simply abandoning one's agenda so as not to disrupt the group dynamic. Entropy doesn't take the path of highest energy as you are well aware. "

IOW when you start saying something takes more "energy", and want you talk about how entropy affects that, I think you have to present something a bit more tangible than tentative opinion ... at the very least, you couldn't discuss entropy as it is usually termed with such vagueness.

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
In short, aspects of sociology remain forever within the parameters of soft science since it doesn't have the reducible terms of hard science.

If you disagree, what do you propose to use to determine the "normal specimen" of society that would make it possible to use words like "entropy" in a meaningful fashion?
”
You don't even have to consider "soft science" in this case. It's very well known in physics that anything that is not forbidden is compulsory (this was made very clear in quantum mechanics).

I'm not doubting that

What I am doubting is that you have made a credible case for this being so in regard to dis/honesty

There really isn't anything that doesn't follow this pattern.

That may be the case but it doesn't give you or anyone else a license to tentatively declare one extreme as the default position by borrowing from the empirical authority of hard science.

There may be a reductionist case for entropy.

There isn't however a reductionist case for dis/honesty.

There is however a soft science case for dis/honesty.

Constraints might be applied to reduce the count of compulsory events or reduce the effects of them; however, they cannot be eliminated. For humans, both honesty and dishonesty are comulsory events; however, honesty is valued more than dishonesty because cooperation (which is one of our major survival advantages) won't function without it. It requires alot of energy to maintain (a low state of entropy).

If one launches from a Machiavellian vantage point, one could just as easily argue that honesty is the default position of entropy.

IOW - congratulations! You have just been bitch slapped by the "appeal to probability"

 

[Meursalt]

I remember a time when you could shake hands over a deal and your word was considered good enough collateral.

Now we need lawyers and "terms and conditions" in fine print to cover your ass....

Bullshit.
The reason we "now need fine print and lawyers" is because the word of a man has never been enough to rely upon with 100% conviction.
A Greek Hero might have been described as being true to his word only by comparison with the norm.
Otherwise why bother mentioning it?

I bestow upon thee a quest -
Go forth, and bring me proof henceforth that that which thee hath asserted is indeed truth.

Bring me an honest man, present or past. Rely not upon the description of his followers, nor his detractors. Show me as this man as he was.

 

[S.A.M.]

I said I remember. It wasn't so long ago.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

CRunchy Cat

If you extrapolated those laws of tree formation to something that bears no connection to trees, once again we are invited to partake of smashed ambulances and burning helicopters

“

That might be true if that were the case; however, I am extrapolating the laws of quantum physics and applying them to the OP (which is very relevant).

fine

but you are still not explaining why one is the default position of entropy and the other isn't

You had a nice piece of soft science in the making there until you slapped the last sentence on.

If you still can't see any problems with that, try this ....

"Distrust is a back up plan of survival that sees the individual persevere and succeed. We are social species, and whoever can secure the advantage dominates the group. Being constantly deceitful is a a lot of hard work whereas honesty requires simply abandoning one's agenda so as not to disrupt the group dynamic. Entropy doesn't take the path of highest energy as you are well aware. "


IOW when you start saying something takes more "energy", and want you talk about how entropy affects that, I think you have to present something a bit more tangible than tentative opinion ... at the very least, you couldn't discuss entropy as it is usually termed with such vagueness.

I think what I am communicating as far as entropy is concerned isn't being understood. I'll paraphrase. A community will do what it can to constrain the behaviors of it's members; however, that takes energy investment. As a community grows, more people need to be added to perform constraints. More people means you start taking on the inefficiencies and problems of a large bureaucracy. That results in diminishing returns and less constraints for a growing community. It's the actual comstraints themselves that increase in entropy and that which is not constrained is compulsory.

I'm not doubting that

What I am doubting is that you have made a credible case for this being so in regard to dis/honesty

That may be the case but it doesn't give you or anyone else a license to tentatively declare one extreme as the default position by borrowing from the empirical authority of hard science.

There may be a reductionist case for entropy.

There isn't however a reductionist case for dis/honesty.

There is however a soft science case for dis/honesty.

If one launches from a Machiavellian vantage point, one could just as easily argue that honesty is the default position of entropy.

IOW - congratulations! You have just been bitch slapped by the "appeal to probability"

I'll try to make this as easy and "non-soft" as possible for you:

* Dishonesty and honesty are not forbidden by reality so they both will happen.
* Putting constraints on one or the other will result in less of one or the other.
* Small populations are more effectively constrained (compare an Amish community against Pheonix Arizona).

Now tying this in to the OP. The "past" had less population and dishonest behavior was more constrained. As the population grew, dishonest behavior became less constrained; therefore, more dishonesty is compulsory.

 

[lightgigantic]

That might be true if that were the case; however, I am extrapolating the laws of quantum physics and applying them to the OP (which is very relevant).

Of course you are extrapolating them to the OP ..... and that's where the problem lies

I think what I am communicating as far as entropy is concerned isn't being understood. I'll paraphrase. A community will do what it can to constrain the behaviors of it's members; however, that takes energy investment. As a community grows, more people need to be added to perform constraints. More people means you start taking on the inefficiencies and problems of a large bureaucracy. That results in diminishing returns and less constraints for a growing community. It's the actual comstraints themselves that increase in entropy and that which is not constrained is compulsory.

that's fine, but the absence of "hard science" terms makes it unclear how this relates to your idea of constraint being an artificial demand on a society (social constraint is a constant and merely adopts different voices) and dishonesty being the default position of reducing this demand (if you constrain the honest, you also get the same result).

I'll try to make this as easy and "non-soft" as possible for you:

* Dishonesty and honesty are not forbidden by reality so they both will happen.
* Putting constraints on one or the other will result in less of one or the other.
* Small populations are more effectively constrained (compare an Amish community against Pheonix Arizona).

Now tying this in to the OP. The "past" had less population and dishonest behavior was more constrained. As the population grew, dishonest behavior became less constrained; therefore, more dishonesty is compulsory.

the problem is that there are so many complex issues (aka - "lack of hard science terms") in how a society "works" that jamming it into categories for the sake of an "elegant" equation is not so feasible.

Basically your argument falls apart from P2 onwards - the idea of being "constrained".
What does that mean in "hard science" terms applied to a community and why is it less so now? (given trends of social globalism, for instance, its not difficult to argue how we are more "constrained" than ever ... ).

IOW there is a whole depth to society you're neglecting and you haven't even begun to establish the connection between "constraint" and "dis/honesty".

All you have established is that now we have more population and now we have more dishonesty. There are a host of tentative arguments one could introduce to establish a connection aside from the particular one you mentioned.