Speculation(s) and Ideas on Psychology, Sociology and Information

[Words]

Human behaviour is defined by these elements: instincts, values and assumptions. (Anything else besides that?) There are instinctual values and there are assumptions about reality that have become so embedded in one's consciousness because of the environment that they seem instinctual(in a sense?). You can also think of it as nature + nurture and the dynamics of the two. Nurture can become nature and nature can dictate nurture. Nature includes instincts...instinctual values. Nurture includes assumptions or the worldview of the person and values or principles built through experiences (nurture.)

All humans are partially governed by a set of assumptions or by a "worldview." Information shapes this worldview and the worldview is a type of information itself. One's ability to reason affects the quality of one's worldview. Information is critical in human behaviour. They affect behaviour in both the strategic and the tactical sense. How much more are they critical as opposed to instincts and values? I don't know, but I think because we can treat instincts and values as constants considering that most humans share the same instincts and values, most behaviour can actually be attributed to information. Now, instincts and values are actually not so universal that we can treat them as constants but if you "zoom out" enough then you can compare it with the role of information in determining behaviour. Someone born from a high-income background would definitely not share the same values as someone from a low-income background but both share a similarity in values in one way or another. Also, the majority of humans belong to the middle class, although there are different middle classes depending on society. What defines the behavioral outcomes of their values is their difference in information. Some middle class have more or different information than other middle class and thus behave differently. They have different culture, education levels, expectations etc.

This goes back to the phrase "everything begins with an idea." An idea is a form of information. It is a "high-level" information. It is "high-level" partly because of the level of abstraction and partly because it systematically affects everything else within the mind of the person. It can alter worldview and it can alter behavior. A shift in one assumption can mean a shift in the entire framework or worldview. It's like an equation where if you changed just one operation, you get something completely different. Or like this pattern [. . . . . . . . .] turning into this pattern [. . . . .. . . .]. It completely changes or disturbs the initial pattern.

The "higher" or "deeper" the information is, the more it can have a profound impact on someone's mind, their philosophy, their worldview and eventually their behavior. The idea is actually pretty regular. Everyone has a philosophy and what it means to have a philosophy is to let that philosophy guide the entirety of your life. Anyways, everyone has an internal system that manages this form of "high-level" information or manages their "philosophy." Some people are more conscious of their system of idea-management and some people are not so conscious. They treat it more as instinctual. So, basically, I'm talking about Ni. This is a person's head "( o.o )." Those are two eyes and one mouth. The person or let's call him Bob will face sideways ( 3.3 ). In the mind of Bob, there are cognitive functions( 3.3 Ni) Ne) Fi) Fe) Ti) Te) Si) Se). So, Bob has an extension of 8 layers in his mind. Everyone has this sort of arrangement in their heads. This idea isn't actually mine but Se is in the outermost part of Bob's perception because it deals with the most physical things like sensation. Ni is the most inside or internal of Bob's mind because it deal with the most abstract of things.

Numbers are not real. They're concepts in your head. But they're very important and they play a huge role in your behavior. If you can't perceive reality in numbers, then you're doomed. Numbers are internal. They're abstractions in your head. Therefore, the way we interpret reality is dependent on abstractions. They're dependent on Ni. It's like light dispersing from a flashlight. A minor shift in the angle of the source of the light affects the entire range of perception made visible by the light or the entire perception itself. The farther an area is from the source, the more it is affected by the shift in the angle of the source. This is just to illustrate the large effect of "ideas" or "information" in behaviour. But Ni explores the different angles possible using the flashlight whereas Se or Si interacts with the farthest of various objects visible from only one angle. It's kind of funny but society is like a tightly restricted, permanently placed flashlight that nobody wants to touch and adjust and everyone is interacting only with the things illuminated by the light. It helps to imagine that reality is the entire room itself, and that any direction the light is directed is making a part of reality visible.

We've all heard about the economic pyramid, but what about an "information pyramid"? Or a knowledge pyramid? The economic pyramid is basically like bankers at the top and workers at the bottom or something, so an information pyramid would be something like an institution(U.S. government? NSA?) that has most of the information at the top and the least informed at the bottom. This goes back to the phrase "We live in the information age." Information is critical for financial success or something(?). Where to put your money, when to put your money, how much etc. Information is also critical in the sense that demand is shifting towards quality labor and quality labor is produced via quality education and quality education in turn is produced via quality information. Information has always been critical in human history. Perhaps the difference is simply on how much more apparent it is now with the increasing rate of information exchanges between individuals globally.

If you direct the flashlight mentioned previously downwards, you create a pyramid of light. There is something about the relationship between the cognitive functions that creates some sort of social, information-centric natural order. In this scenario, it's not the U.S. gov't that's on the top but philosophers(well, capable ones). If you relate philosophers to social thought, these are like people who generalize and mention things like "Humans..." as if they are able to judge the entire species. And then you have scientists, and then you have the average person.


Thoughts and Criticisms?

 

[BigApplePi]

Human behaviour is defined by these elements: instincts, values and assumptions. (Anything else besides that?)

An interesting choice of words. I would say, "What can we leave out?", not "What can be added?" I would say, "What can we do with these elements if they remain?"


So far I see 0 responses and 31 viewings. I'm trying to see if I can come up with a response.

Numbers are not real. They're concepts in your head. But they're very important and they play a huge role in your behavior. If you can't perceive reality in numbers, then you're doomed. Numbers are internal. They're abstractions in your head. Therefore, the way we interpret reality is dependent on abstractions. They're dependent on Ni. It's like light dispersing from a flashlight. A minor shift in the angle of the source of the light affects the entire range of perception made visible by the light or the entire perception itself. The farther an area is from the source, the more it is affected by the shift in the angle of the source. This is just to illustrate the large effect of "ideas" or "information" in behaviour. But Ni explores the different angles possible using the flashlight whereas Se or Si interacts with the farthest of various objects visible from only one angle. It's kind of funny but society is like a tightly restricted, permanently placed flashlight that nobody wants to touch and adjust and everyone is interacting only with the things illuminated by the light. It helps to imagine that reality is the entire room itself, and that any direction the light is directed is making a part of reality visible.

The above is all true. Abstractions, generalizations, intuition. Taken as a whole a point is made. Highly intuitive. Not to be analyzed line by line as each line doesn't stand alone.

 

[Words]

An interesting choice of words. I would say, "What can we leave out?", not "What can be added?" I would say, "What can we do with these elements if they remain?"

That makes sense/interesting. I'm a fairly minimalist person, so my errors usually comprise of insufficiency rather than excess. I can't provide any answers to that question too. How would instinct, values or assumptions not affect behavior?

So far I see 0 responses and 31 viewings. I'm trying to see if I can come up with a response.

Appreciate the attempt. On hindsight , I think I should have presented this in question format for it to be more engaging.

The above is all true. Abstractions, generalizations, intuition. Taken as a whole a point is made. Highly intuitive. Not to be analyzed line by line as each line doesn't stand alone.

The line of the sentence?

 

[QuickTwist]

Instincts, values, assumptions and reason.

 

[Words]

Instincts, values, assumptions and reason.

Reason. The thing about reason though is that it essentially leads to information. You can't do anything with "reason" itself but the information you get out of that reasoning process is what directly drives your behavior.

This is just more speculation but I think when you're dealing with the general public, reasoning is emphasized less as opposed to direct information itself. Perhaps this is why propaganda and advertising is so effective. People just take in without questioning. When you're dealing with a more educated or intellectual demography, then reasoning becomes more of a factor in that they transform or even reject the initial input of information and the shifts in information is more dynamic. More reasoning power means quicker changes in information therefore less predictable human behavior.

 

[QuickTwist]

I mostly disagree with your analysis.

Here's why:

Reason has to do with what you do with information not the other way around.

Its true reason and assumptions kinda go hand in hand... kinda. I like to think of reason as a sort of sound board when musicians are doing sound checks and stuff. They are constantly listening to the sounds and are taking in information from the speakers, making an analysis and then communicating with the sound guys with a thumbs up or down on whether or not it sounds good. In this analogy the sound is the info, the musician is the brain, the thumbs up or thumbs down is the action and the sound guys are the result.

 

[Words]

I mostly disagree with your analysis.

Here's why:

Reason has to do with what you do with information not the other way around.

Its true reason and assumptions kinda go hand in hand... kinda. I like to think of reason as a sort of sound board when musicians are doing sound checks and stuff. They are constantly listening to the sounds and are taking in information from the speakers, making an analysis and then communicating with the sound guys with a thumbs up or down on whether or not it sounds good. In this analogy the sound is the info, the musician is the brain, the thumbs up or thumbs down is the action and the sound guys are the result.

I'm a little bit blurry with your analogy but I'll attempt to work with it. Reason is required for you to know what to do with the information but it's morelike a catalyst or the machine that information enters and exits. I mean "knowing what to do" is already a type of information. Reason gives you the information on what to with the information. So, in the sound board analogy, the sound is the input information, the musician is the brain/reason, the thumps up or thumbs down is the output information, and the adjustment of the sound guys are the result.

 

[Words]

This talk of reason vs. information reminds me of Judgment functions vs. Introverted Perception functions. It also reminds me of computers. Computers are, in Feynman's description, fundamentally just filing systems. When you write "1+1" in a computer or a calculator, the computer doesn't "think" as we vaguely understand ourselves as humans think. Computers produce "2" purely on memory, muchlike how a person might produce an answer using the multiplication table.

 

[Void]

I read this, but I can vaguely remember some shards of it, so my question may be redundant.

What sets assumptions apart from values? (or values apart from assumptions). What is the difference? Can't you synthesize the two?

 

[DelusiveNinja]

Reason is within both the value and assumption categories. People can reason on an entirely personal basis (informal logic) or an universal basis (formal logic). Using Words' model, I think that formal logic would be more dependent on information (assumptions people as whole make out to be 'facts') than informal logic which is based off of personal reasoning or values, but both may use values as a propellant for reason. Hence, why loops of thinking and valuing are in the personality theory.

here because I suck at explaining sometimes:

Formal logic deals with propositions that have absolute truth values, inferences
that have precise standards of validity, and typically involves 'deductive
reasoning'. Deductive Reasoning involves reasoning from universals to
particulars, and as we have seen the premises provide (or appear to provide)
complete support for the conclusion.

Informal logic operates in the much less solid ground of everyday public
discourse. Informal logic deals with analyzing the grounds or reasons for
conclusions. It looks at how well reasons support, justify, establish or
demonstrate in some way, the conclusion. This typically involves questions
of degree, probability, plausibility and persuasiveness.

 

[BigApplePi]

How would instinct, values or assumptions not affect behavior?

They would and they do. It's your theory to develop as you wish. You are defining human behavior, are you not? "Values" and "assumptions" seem like broad words. Values applies to economics also. Assumptions applies to starting points in logic as well.

 

[QuickTwist]

@BAP, I think what Words is trying to get his head around is the exceptions to where those things will not have a correlation coefficient effect on the behaviors of the individual and what other factors must be considered.

With that said, anyone have any thoughts on the matter?

 

[Words]

Appreciate the responses, guys.

I read this, but I can vaguely remember some shards of it, so my question may be redundant.

What sets assumptions apart from values? (or values apart from assumptions). What is the difference? Can't you synthesize the two?

Values sort of does seems like a form of assumption. You assume a value and then act upon that value.

Perhaps both reason and values originate from information. Value is like very fundamental declarative information---a type of information that gives you a procedure on how to organize your attitude/emotions towards the information. Reason is like declarative information on how to organize the information logically. Does that make sense? Is there even such a thing as "declarative information"?

I'm not sure how exactly assumptions differ from information though. What I'm fairly confident about is the separation of assumptions from values. For example, "the earth is round" is a common assumption. For most people, it has nothing to do with their values. It's not relevant to their lives. It's separate.

Reason is within both the value and assumption categories. People can reason on an entirely personal basis (informal logic) or an universal basis (formal logic). Using Words' model, I think that formal logic would be more dependent on information (assumptions people as whole make out to be 'facts') than informal logic which is based off of personal reasoning or values, but both may use values as a propellant for reason. Hence, why loops of thinking and valuing are in the personality theory.

Isn't formal logic where you can use symbolic logic? And informal logic is day-to-day logic? Formal logic is the standard logic? How is reason "within "both value and assumption?

They would and they do. It's your theory to develop as you wish. You are defining human behavior, are you not? "Values" and "assumptions" seem like broad words. Values applies to economics also. Assumptions applies to starting points in logic as well.

Ah, of course. I assert that there's a broadest idea for "values" and "assumptions" and that it is this definition that I am utilizing. "What is a value?" I find that question confusing simply because it seems intuitive to me. Value is attachment. It is one of the things that shapes our direct attitudes towards anything: objects, concepts, people. Economic values are limited to quantified values in the form of prices. Not all values are quantified. Values can exist without the economy. The free-market, fiat-based economy is like the formalization of the interaction of values that can be formalized and quantified.

Assumptions can be starting points in logic, but it can also be deeply held assumptions. There's many types of assumptions. What is central is that it is a type of information held with some level of confidence. "Assumption" is an accurate word than Facts.

@BAP, I think what Words is trying to get his head around is the exceptions to where those things will not have a correlation coefficient effect on the behaviors of the individual and what other factors must be considered.

Sure. The question is: what are the most fundamental mental things that affect behaviour? how? which is most influential? how does it work?

 

[QuickTwist]

Answer: genetics, environment in that order.

Genetics is like what something is made out of and environment is like how it is manipulated.

 

[Words]

Answer: genetics, environment in that order.

Genetics is like what something is made out of and environment is like how it is manipulated.

*mental things. Cognitive things.

That answer is the equivalent of nature and nurture. The ones listed in the OP is the result of the dynamics of these two.

 

[QuickTwist]

Then it was poorly worded. Sorry I don't know what else to tell you.

 

[DelusiveNinja]

Appreciate the responses, guys.


Values sort of does seems like a form of assumption. You assume a value and then act upon that value.

Perhaps both reason and values originate from information. Value is like very fundamental declarative information---a type of information that gives you a procedure on how to organize your attitude/emotions towards the information. Reason is like declarative information on how to organize the information logically. Does that make sense? Is there even such a thing as "declarative information"?

I'm not sure how exactly assumptions differ from information though. What I'm fairly confident about is the separation of assumptions from values. For example, "the earth is round" is a common assumption. For most people, it has nothing to do with their values. It's not relevant to their lives. It's separate.

Isn't formal logic where you can use symbolic logic? And informal logic is day-to-day logic? Formal logic is the standard logic? How is reason "within "both value and assumption?

I think I am wrong about that. Reason is a separate process. But when a person, for example, assumes that God exist and values the assumption, even after the majority proves the existence of God to be false, is it still an assumption or is it a value? Must the assumptions be true to be within the worldview? If a person doesn't believe an assumption is true, yet still values the idea of it being true, is it still an assumption or does it become a value?

 

[Words]

Interesting line of thinking.

I think I am wrong about that. Reason is a separate process. But when a person, for example, assumes that God exist and values the assumption, even after the majority proves the existence of God to be false, is it still an assumption or is it a value?

It's still an assumption because obviously even if contrary to proof, the person still assumes that God exists. He's just being stupid. It's a value in the sense that the value is towards an assumption. It's both.

Must the assumptions be true to be within the worldview?

I think an "assumption" is by definition unknown to be true or false. You just 'assume' it's true. It's pretty meta, i guess? But no, we can all have false assumptions and false worldviews.

If a person doesn't believe an assumption is true, yet still values the idea of it being true, is it still an assumption or does it become a value?

I don't think the person would still retain it as an assumption if the person doesn't even think it's true.

I don't think the person would value the idea of it being true if he doesn't even believe in it. If he thinks it can't be true, why would he value the idea of it being true? Ok, maybe we're working with someone strange here. So this scenario is like "I know there's no ball in front of me but I do like the idea of there might be a ball in front me and I might be wrong." I guess that's possible? It's not an assumption anymore in this case, since the person doesn't even believe in it. It's a value towards the person being wrong. Quite confusing.

Is this about the God example? The thing is, regardless of situations like "majority PROVES the inexistence of God", that still up to the person and his logical abilities to create his own worldview. There's no such thing as universal logic that everyone just automatically accepts. Even if you construct a mathematical proof of something, people who don't understand your equations won't be convinced.

 

[QuickTwist]

1 in a hundred people do not have a false inaccurate world view.

 

[BigApplePi]

Assumptions versus values.

I'd put it this way: Both are foundational or starting points.

Assumptions are cool and relate to thinking only. They just sit there to be built on.
Values are hot and relate to feeling. They are aimed at action.

 

[Words]

^that makes sense. Most assumptions don't really move people as opposed to values. There are assumptions that are related to values that move people however. For example, you're desperately thirsty and you've recently heard of a new water source nearby. That assumption or information led you to travel to the water source. Also, values are more static than assumptions. Information changes really fast. Values don't. In a situation where a new product is presented to a consumer, the consumer may create value towards that new product but that's only because that person already has more fundamental values deep down. You buy a new car not just because you've created an attachment towards that car but maybe because of things like social status, which is a common value. So, here, the real change is really in the assumption and not in the value.