302. BobaFett - Feb. 27, 1999 - 5:03 PM PT
FreeToChoose:
Tell me why my last post's reasoning is incorrect first.
No one I've ever heard of has actually bothered running a real-world test on the problem.
303. FreeToChoose - Feb. 27, 1999 - 5:05 PM PT
BobaFett
“Suppose I open a non winning door. According to the FreetoChoose/Marilyn Vos Savant theory, the probability that was once contained in the open door has now "jumped" into the non-selected door.”
Yes. But only if the non winning door is one of the two doors not selected by the contestant.
“But look at it in a different way. Before the third door was opened, the odds were 2/3 that the prize WASN'T behind my door. Now that the third door has been opened, does that 2/3 chance that the prize WASN'T behind my door now shift entirely into the other door as well?”
No
Although, ironically, you are framing the issue similarly to the way I did with my daughter.
The apparent symmetry when there is none is what gets most people.
304. FreeToChoose - Feb. 27, 1999 - 5:06 PM PT
BobaFett
I've run a real world test.
305. FreeToChoose - Feb. 27, 1999 - 5:06 PM PT
Actually, running the test is a good way to get an insight into why the answer is 2/3
306. BobaFett - Feb. 27, 1999 - 5:13 PM PT
Well, Free, unless you've explained it already, I just can't rely on your empirical evidence. (Sheesh! I'm doing just what I'm criticizing Arky about!) I'd have to know how many trials, etc. And that wouldn't even satisfy me, because I don't know how to analyze how many trials would be enough for a satisfactory answer.
If you have explained it, clue me in on the post.
A friend of mine who went to B-School got this question on an interview a couple of years ago, and we wrestled with it over and over and over again. Years later (months ago), I read a column called "Marilyn Is Wrong--Again" and read a long multilogue between a hundred different mathemeticians, philosophers, and regular thinking folks and I just didn't buy the logic of the pro-switching people.
307. cllrdr - Feb. 27, 1999 - 5:20 PM PT
FTC, BoboFete, and the endless search for new binary positions.
308. BobaFett - Feb. 27, 1999 - 5:23 PM PT
Jeeze, Cellar. You're just plum bored with every topic, ain't you? Why don't you just do us all a favor and be fabulous with your own lonely ass self, in that case?
sorry that we're here having fun trying to figure out a puzzle. Or somewhere else talking about something else you don't like.
I'm going to insist that they reinstate the "open secret" thread again. Give you someplace to roost without ruffling your feathers on our accounts.
309. FreeToChoose - Feb. 27, 1999 - 5:24 PM PT
Here's my way of looking at it:
First, let's consider a variation on the game, in which the probabilities will be clear. Then I will show you that the variation is identical to the original one. I'll number the steps, so that if you don't accept it, you can tell me where you disagree, and I can fix it.
1. Boba is one contestant
2. Arky is another (but she doesn't get to make decisions; sorry arky)
3. Three doors
4. One with a prize, two with goats
5. Doors are labeled A,B, and C
6. Monte asks Boba to pick a door
7. Boba picks A
8. Let's temporarily rename this door as “Boba's door”
9. Anyone disagree that Boba's chance of winning is 1/3?
10. Monte gives other two doors to Arky
11. Let's temporarily rename the other two doors as “Arky's doors”
12. Does anyone disagree that Arky chance of getting the prize are 2/3?
13. Now, Monte says to Boba, “You can trade your door for both of Arky's doors”
14. Should he?
15. Of course. The odds improve from 1/3 to 2/3 (unless you think Monte will make this offer only in certain circumstances. Let's assume he *always* makes it.)
16. Now Boba owns “Arky's doors” with a 2/3 chance of getting a prize.
17. Is it obvious that Arky's doors have either a prize and a goat or two goats; in either case, there is at least one goat?
18. Monte opens the “Arky door” that has a goat behind it. (Everyone agree this is easy to do?)
19. Key issue. The fact that Monte can open an “arky door” with a goat behind it doesn't change the odds.
20. So if the odds of a prize behind one of the “arky doors” is 2/3, then it must be behind the unopened door with probability 2/3
Now replay the game, except that Monte opens a door with a goat between step 12 and 13. Is it clear that this doesn't change anything? Effectively, if you are now if you should switch, you would be getting all chances at a prize
310. BobaFett - Feb. 27, 1999 - 5:25 PM PT
FTC:
Does your new question rely on real world stuff, like the fact that families usually "keep trying" until they have one boy?
311. BobaFett - Feb. 27, 1999 - 5:27 PM PT
FTC:
Thanks for that explanation. It's all coming back to me.
However, I remember HEARING that explanation, being delighted with the logic of it, only to later discard it as wrong.
Give me some time, I'll remember why. Until then: You have won this particular battle, Mr. Bond.
312. FreeToChoose - Feb. 27, 1999 - 5:32 PM PT
BobaFett
Interesting question in 310
First, the distribution of boys and girls among families that keep trying until they get a boy are the same as among other families. (Except in China, where they take actions that aren't relevant to this thread.)
However, should you doubt this, I'll stipulate that the family in my question wasn't one of those.
(Someone may point out that there are less obtrusive ways to predetermine sex. So let me stipulate that none of those methods were used.)
313. BobaFett - Feb. 27, 1999 - 5:47 PM PT
FTC:
I just explained your new answer to my girlfriend, who yelled at me and said you were wrong (in a friendly way; I always end up yelling about this question, it drives me so batty). And here's why.
There are three possiblities at the start:
X means prize, 0 means goat.
A X B 0 C 0
A 0 B X C 0
A 0 B 0 C X
Now, let's look at what all the picking possiblities:
FIRST SITUATION (prize behind A):
I pick A. You open B. I should stick with A over C.
I pick A. You open C. I should stick with A over B.
I pick B. You open C. I should switch to A.
I pick C. You open B. I should switch to A.
SECOND SITUATION (prize behind B):
I pick A. You open C. I should switch to pick B over A.
I pick B. You open A. I should stick with B over C.
I pick B. You open C. I should stick with B over A.
I pick C. You open A. I should switch to B over C.
THIRD SITUATION (Prize behind C):
I pick A. You open B. I should switch to C over A.
I pick B. You open A. I should switch to C over B.
I pick C. You open A. I should stick with C.
I pick C. You open B. I should stick with C.
Thus, of the twelve possiblities of set up, door chosen, and door opened, half the possibilities favor the switch, half the possiblities don't. even in each group of four, half favor switching, half favor sticking.
Now there's a problem here and I'm already on it. The nubmer of initial set-ups (3) times the number of doors I could choose (3) time the number of doors you could open (2) means that there's really 18 chances, not 12 chances. Which means that some of the 12 possibilities I outlined are actually worth 1 and 1/2 chances. Which smells like a 2/3 to 1/3 split. But hang on. I'm working through it.
314. BobaFett - Feb. 27, 1999 - 5:50 PM PT
Nah, this method isn't going to work, either. I can get it to work your way or my way depending on how I load the assumptions.
315. BobaFett - Feb. 27, 1999 - 5:57 PM PT
FTC:
Please explain why my twelve possibility solution is incorrect. I suspect it has problems, but I can't figure it out at the moment.
Or have ya turned yella and turned tail?
316. FreeToChoose - Feb. 27, 1999 - 5:58 PM PT
Boba
Hey I like that layout. It looks convincing, but it is actually misleading.
You are essentially trying the lazy man's way to probability. Instead of calculating the probabilities for each event, you try to lay out all possible events, then count the proportion with successes. It works, and I've done it many times myself (as I often prefer the lazy way to do math), but you have to be careful that each of the cases is equally likely.
The problem is that in your first scenario, you have two “Pick A” scenarios, but only one Pick B and one Pick C. Clearly if you pick B, Monte will pick C, but you need to include two of these. (hard to explain why, but you do.) Alternatively, you could label your first two as subcases of the Pick A scenario, and give the two of them combined as much weight as each of the other two.
317. FreeToChoose - Feb. 27, 1999 - 6:02 PM PT
Here's another way of seeing the problem. In the first situation, you have four cases. In two of them, you pick A, which is equivalent to saying that you will pick the winning door at the time of your first selection ½ the time. Clearly, this isn't correct. The key is that the four cases you listed aren't equally likely.
318. BobaFett - Feb. 27, 1999 - 6:08 PM PT
FTC:
Yeah, I already was on that trail. Remember, I just concluded that there were actually 18 chances, yet I'd only listed 12 possibilities. SO, if the 18 chances math was correct, the some or all of the 12 possibilities must count for more than one chance.
319. whhatlaw - Feb. 27, 1999 - 9:16 PM PT
Just as a nod to the thread title, without abandoning the statistics theme:
The Bible decoders contend that they are finding messages hidden in the Hebrew scriptures by God, and that the stuff they've found can't possibly occur by chance. (If you don't know what I'm talking about, see, e.g., www.biblecodesplus.com) Assume they're right. What are the odds that it's mere coincidence that:
"American Civil Liberties Union" anagrams to "I'm vicious, liberal, inane cretin"
*and*
"National Organization for Women" yields "arrogant woman, if not loonie Nazi"
*and*
"crazies on the World Wide Web" = "Where now, bestialized crowd?"
*and*
"Michael Kinsley" = "he's likely manic"
*and*
"Saturday Night Live" = *BOTH* "handiest vulgarity" and "truths invade gaily"
*and*
"Biblical inerrancy doctrines" = "No! Credit liberal cynic brains."
Think about it.*
*All of these are original, to the best of my knowledge, discovered by me using Anagram Genius software.
[by the way, I've been very active in ACLU for nearly 25 years, and give $ to NOW; those just happened to be the most entertaining anagrams I could come up with]
320. ChristinO - Feb. 28, 1999 - 12:08 AM PT
FTC,
Is that all there is to the children question? My brain took off in about three dozen different directions on that one.
-The other child is a boy because for every 100 girls born 105 boys are born making it slightly more likely that you'll have a boy than a girl.
That sounded stupid of course because 105 to 100 is pretty even odds.
-The other child is a girl also because the phrase "At least one" implies that there are more than one.
Also sounded stupid because the phrase could mean exactly what it says: There is one girl child.
-The other child is a hermaphrodite that hasn't adopted a final gender identity yet.
I'm sticking with this answer as it now makes as much sense to me as anything else at 12:05 in the morning.
321. FreeToChoose - Feb. 28, 1999 - 7:07 AM PT
ChristinO
Wow, you are going after this like a tiger.
You don't have to rely on extraneous assumptions or external knowledge.
I'm working with the standard assumption that boys and girls are equally likely. You are correct to point out that the real life ratio is slightly different; for the purposes of this puzzle, assume equally likely.
“At least one” does not imply more than one. It could be one or two.
No hermaphrodites.
322. cllrdr - Feb. 28, 1999 - 8:18 AM PT
2188. cllrdr - Feb. 27, 1999 - 5:39 PM PT
2182. cllrdr - Feb. 27, 1999 - 5:18 PM PT
2175. cllrdr - Feb. 27, 1999 - 5:00 PM PT
2170. cllrdr - Feb. 27, 1999 - 4:56 PM PT
2165. cllrdr - Feb. 27, 1999 - 4:50 PM PT
2150. cllrdr - Feb. 27, 1999 - 4:20 PM PT
I'd like all those in the Fray who feel that Clinton is a rapist who "got away with it," O.J.-style, to supply us with a list of key issues for women to deal with in the new century, now that feminism is dead.
Lengthy responses would be most gratefully appreciated.
323. katewrath - March 1, 1999 - 11:32 AM PT
A) If teewrecks didn't actually say this, let me: Philosophy has fallen into disuse the same way theology has. All the stuff these two fields used to address have been spun off into much bigger fields where people eventually win Nobel Prizes and the like. Thus, few really intellectually curious people sit down and puzzle out the nature of our existence. They're busy trying to discover the secret to cold fusion. Any other potential philosophers not drawn by the possibility of fame and glory via the sciences probably believe erroneously (as teewrecks might--it's not clear) that science itself solves the problems to which philosophy has always addressed itself.
324. katewrath - March 1, 1999 - 11:36 AM PT
B) I am all in favor of logic. God knows the Fray could use more of it. But excessive attention to logic can effectively destroy all interest in philosophy qua philosophy. It's more of a tool for the study of the subject, not the subject itself. So I'm saying these puzzles are interesting and all, but they hardly constitute philosophy.
325. Raskolnikov - March 1, 1999 - 11:41 AM PT
"at least one of the two children is a girl".
When we start out, there are four equally likely possibilities.
boy/boy
boy/girl
girl/boy
girl/girl
The "at least one" statement rules out the first possibility, but gives you no information as to the likelihood of the other three possibilities, so there probabilities are still equal. So, given that one child is a girl, there are two possible situations where the other child is a boy, and one situation where the other child is a girl. Therefore, there is a 67% chance that the 2nd kid is a boy.
326. katewrath - March 1, 1999 - 11:50 AM PT
C) Philosophy is alive and well if, like me, you consider it essentially the quest for a better understanding of the human experience. In its most formal iteration, it still exists in high school philosophy classes (my sister is in one now--you should have see n the look of realization on her face when she realized she make decisions based on other criteria than convenience and desire) and in college Philosophy 101 classes (which were relatively well attended when I was student earlier this decade). It doesn't get too much further out of the gate than that for most of the population, but how many people really read Kant in his day?
For the rest of the population, this same pursuit for understanding is going on as fast and furious as ever. For one thing, a lot of us left the paradigm of western religion behind, leaving us wide open for new "answers." Hence yoga, new age spirtuality, horoscopes, AAnon, weight loss, the internet, Dr. Laura, John Grey, Oprah, and every other interest people pursue with an obsessive furor. What are they looking for in their lives if not meaning? I grant you, the people who buy "How to Get What You Want and Want What You Have" have little or no idea that they are dealing with vastly larger questions than "Why do I hate my job?", but just because they don't know they're engaged in a philosophical quest to discover what is a well-lived life doesn't mean they aren't on one. And as a neat tie in to this, the media has chanced upon the brilliant scheme of making people dissatisfied with things as they are, the better to sell them things. So I think the acquisition of goods, the trying on of lifestyles via subscriptions to Martha Stewart Living or a $15 headband that looks a lot like a bra strap are also, at their heart, attempts at practicing philosophy. Short-lived, ill-reasoned and unsuccessful, but a form of philosophy all the same.
327. FreetoChoose - March 1, 1999 - 11:55 AM PT
Raskolnikov
Correct, and delightfully counter-intuitive.
328. katewrath - March 1, 1999 - 11:58 AM PT
D) The frustrating thing is that in a era of such prosperity, with such a huge college-educated population, we should be better at this than we are. I listened to Dr. Laura for 10 seconds before realizing that she's a philosophy major gone horribly wrong, but I don't know what I expected. We have questions, we seek answers, but for the most part, we as a society (and I say that in an effort not to elitist-ly remove myself from everyone else) refuse to accept that there are no easy answers.
I think of those Pottery Barn CDs, which carefully select 10 or so distantly familiar songs, performed by recognized, respected artists. "Ah yes! I don't need to learn about the blues! I can just buy this CD ... and some cute hand-blown tumblers, with which to drink my attractively packaged scotch. Instant recipe for drunken reverie, should I chose to have one!" Except that as a consumer, I get such a buzz from the satisfaction of acquiring goods that any impending depression or intellectual curiousity is now gone.
329. ChristinO - March 1, 1999 - 12:12 PM PT
Yep, 2/3. Makes complete sense, but I don't know how long it would have taken me to look at it that way. Well, actually when I went back and saw "probability" I was headed in the right direction only to find that Rask was sitting on top of the hill saying "Come up this way".
Good job Rask!
330. ChristinO - March 1, 1999 - 12:19 PM PT
Katewrath,
Good points. My mother and step-father are big into Deepak Chopra right now------they gave me and my brother each a book on tape and told us to switch off when we were done to make sure that we got a listen to both messages.
Mine is still in the shrink wrap.
Most of this stuff just seems silly to me. I like the ideas behind a lot of it, but living in LA I've seen too much smarmy commercialism and too many people who espouse New Age homilies but still treat other people like crap. Too often it's just a fashion statement or the trendy "in" thing to do.
Ick.
331. katewrath - March 1, 1999 - 12:25 PM PT
Ick indeed.
Exhibit A: http://www.mcsweeneys.net/
Once again, they've captured our nation's hideous oversoul. Oh God! Get the nets! Don't let it escape!
332. ChristinO - March 1, 1999 - 12:42 PM PT
oh gawd.
Well, I suppose I should read the book before I call this guy a twit.
Nah, what an utter twit.
A friend of mine sent me a copy of "Atlas Shrugged". The size didn't discourage me----when I've got the itch to read I've been known to go pick a book simply because it's the thickest one on the racks-----but I've never been particularly interested in reading Rand. While it's only fair of me to reserve judgement on her work I can hardly take seriously the reccommendation of someone who actually considers watching The Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers preferable to reading. Particluarly when that tendency is shown so baldly by his spelling habits.
333. katewrath - March 1, 1999 - 12:53 PM PT
The link actually consists of many different people's reviews of the book. (Have you seen the way Amazon lists little one paragraph reviews from different readers?) The names have just been removed. Which is where the frightening side of this kicks in: all these people, so deeply moved by their first taste of sloppy philosophy.
See also "The Celestine Prophacy", "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Repair," "The Tao of Pooh," "Everything I Needed to Know I Learned in Kinderga--I have to stop. I'm making myself sick.
334. katewrath - March 1, 1999 - 12:57 PM PT
Okay, but so:
What is the meaning of life?
What is love?
What is beauty?
335. elliot803 - March 1, 1999 - 1:04 PM PT
I haven't read The Celestine Prophecy, but I have it on good authority that it's junk. Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, however, is neither junk nor sloppy philosophy and doesn't deserve to be counted as such.
336. FreetoChoose - March 1, 1999 - 1:05 PM PT
katewrath
Interesting.
I've always assumed that the The Celestine Prophecy was junk, but I liked Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. I would agree if you said it was faux-philosophy. I bought a copy and gave it to out computer coordinator. She didn't have a good intuition for fixing computers. I told her reading Zen… would help. It did.
BTW, I checked out other sites on that link. Does Annie Leibovitz get a thumbs down from the cognoscenti these days?
337. FreetoChoose - March 1, 1999 - 1:06 PM PT
Now I'm scared.
338. DanDillon - March 1, 1999 - 1:06 PM PT
'Beauty is truth, truth beauty,'--that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.
339. FreetoChoose - March 1, 1999 - 1:09 PM PT
OTOH, I couldn't stand (or even finish) Lila.
340. ChristinO - March 1, 1999 - 1:09 PM PT
I actually own the Tao of Pooh, also a gift, but mainly because I have always liked Winnie the Pooh. Mom gave me The Celestine Prophecy and the accompanying workbook. The first I read. The other is collecting dust and silverfish in the garage and has never been opened.
It seems that in the absence of more traditional religious instruction----do most people our age even go to church?----we have traded one set of supersticions for another. The questions we ask are still the same it's just the window dressing that's different. We still want to know why we're here and what our purpose is.
While my personal beliefs tend to be non-traditional I still feel more comfortable in a proper church with stained glass and gothic arches and real organ music playing the old hymns. This is partly because I go maybe once or twice a year around the holidays.
I'm not too keen on listening to the schmaltzy feel-good dronings of some guy in jeans accompanied by acoustic guitar and New Agey lyrics that say little more than "Everybody be happy and be good to each other".
It's not that I want people to be unhappy and bad to one another, it's just a bit treacly for me to listen to. People act like it's some kind of Grand New Enlightenment. Puhleeze.
I'd rather watch the Mighty Morphine Power Rangers.
341. FreetoChoose - March 1, 1999 - 1:11 PM PT
Love is when someone else's well-being becomes necessary to one's own.
342. DanDillon - March 1, 1999 - 1:13 PM PT
*Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance* qualifies as the most grossly overrated book of the past 25 years. The prose is obtuse and any "meaning" therein is wholly imposed by the reader who, in his mad dash for it, thinks he is extracting a lofty message. Sorry.
343. FreetoChoose - March 1, 1999 - 1:13 PM PT
Tao of Poo
344. katewrath - March 1, 1999 - 1:14 PM PT
FTC: And why would that happen, that someone else's well-being becomes necessary to one's own?
(I'm not being a jerk, I swear. I'm really interested in your answer.)
345. DanDillon - March 1, 1999 - 1:15 PM PT
Message #341
I'd say that's more like some sorta dozen-step worthy dependency.
346. FreetoChoose - March 1, 1999 - 1:16 PM PT
I did enjoy The Tao of Physics : An Exploration of the Parallels Between Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism but it was years ago. I don't know whether I would feel the same today.
347. FreetoChoose - March 1, 1999 - 1:18 PM PT
katewrath
It happens when you fall in love with someone. It's one way of knowing, although not foolproof, because I suspect many in “puppy love” stages might claim they agree.
348. FreetoChoose - March 1, 1999 - 1:21 PM PT
katewrath
It's not my definition. I thought I read it in “Stranger from a Strange Land” although I've been unsuccessful in finding it.
I still like it, although I'm not sure I'm prepared to defends it against all objections.
349. ChristinO - March 1, 1999 - 1:21 PM PT
Dan,
So when Anne is miserable and unfulfilled or endangered it doesn't bother you?
I don't say this to be antagonistic merely to point out that FTC's definition isn't particularly sneer worthy. It's rather standard as far as definitions go. Love is measured in quite a few ways, but most altruisticly by what one is willing to give up for the happiness or well-being of another.
350. FreetoChoose - March 1, 1999 - 1:25 PM PT
Oops, I'm mistaken. It wasn't the Tao of Physics, it was The Dancing Wu Li Masters : An Overview of the New Physics
351. DanDillon - March 1, 1999 - 1:30 PM PT
"So when Anne is miserable and unfulfilled or endangered it doesn't bother you?"
No. In fact, when she is miserable, I do all that I can to soothe and comfort her for her own sake. And when she is unfulfilled, we invariably talk it out to some positive end (or we decide to continue the conversation after a night's sleep). And she has never been, thank Allah, endangered. So to answer your questions, Anne's negative states, shall we say, never bother me. But they do cause me to make an effort to remedy them. I should mention that this desire to help people when they're in a bad way extends well beyond Anne as well. I do my best to act selflessly whenever I can.
Didn't mean to sneer. My apologies.
352. katewrath - March 1, 1999 - 1:31 PM PT
ChristinO: My sister has come, at the age of 17, to embrace Buddhism, and weirdly, I understand why perfectly, although I am more hardcore Catholic* than I ever was. We need faith systems that don't distract us from the work of seeking answers, and my parents' Catholicism is so distracting one can barely look at it without wanting to become an atheist.
*By hardcore Catholic, btw, I mean that my faith is based on love (and, as a corrolary, justice and charity) and I practice it in the company of Jesuits and lay Catholics who feel the same way. I don't think I'll say any more than that, especially in a forum where misinterpretion is so common and comprehension so rare.
But before the Fray jumps all over me, let me add (and I'm happy to talk about this) that my faith doesn't mean I don't have political beliefs that sometimes fly in the face of the Church's (okay, the Pope's) thoughts on various subjects, but they're just that--political beliefs--and have nothing to do with my faith. In my opinion, people who let those things become symbols for their faith (fundies hassling women who get abortions) strip themselves of something valuable.
353. FreetoChoose - March 1, 1999 - 1:32 PM PT
Is this a cross thread crosspost?
20804. PsychProf - March 1, 1999 - 11:49 AM PT
Snod...Sternberg on "what love is"...possible thread?
354. katewrath - March 1, 1999 - 1:43 PM PT
FTC: "It happens when you fall in love with someone."
You're saying love is when someone else's happiness is necessary to your own, and when I ask you why that happens, you say it happens when you fall in love.
What I want to know is: what is the process of falling in love? Why do we love?
If B.F. Skinner were here, maybe he'd say we love because we're biologically driven to mate, and we mistake that drive for love. Skinner would make a shitty philosopher for that reason.
I'd prefer that, instead of quotes, we'd look into this (just to start) by examining our own perceptions. Otherwise, we might as well all go read Plato's Symposium and be done with it.
P.S. Honestly, this is not the standard Fray "back X into a corner and belittle" posting. I'm just giving the thread a couple nudges to see where it goes.
355. elliot803 - March 1, 1999 - 1:47 PM PT
"What I want to know is: what is the process of falling in love? Why do we love?"
The answer from evolutionary psychology, which I think is probably the correct answer, is that it confers a reproductive advantage.
356. FreetoChoose - March 1, 1999 - 1:47 PM PT
katewrath
Oh.
I'm not prepared to answer that.
357. ChristinO - March 1, 1999 - 1:49 PM PT
Dan,
You just don't want anybody calling you an ol' softie, eh? 'Sokay, I won't tell anybody what a good heart you have.
That urge to help others if inhibited or denied does harm. Have you ever been in a situation where you wanted desperately to help but were unable to? It doesn't have to mean that your life or death rests on the life or death of another person merely that when they are unhappy a part of you is unhappy for them.
358. ChristinO - March 1, 1999 - 1:53 PM PT
Elliot,
So all species that reproduce love? Wouldn't that also only explain love within the family?
359. katewrath - March 1, 1999 - 2:00 PM PT
Elliot: (Rhetorical Question:) What did I just say about Skinner?
(Serious Question:) So if science says it has answered our question, there's no longer any point is asking it? How do we know science has covered all the bases? Never mind why, according to science, Dan says "I ... act selflessly whenever I can". I want to know why he believes he should act selflessly. Why not selfishly?
Human conduct can be discussed any number of ways. I'm interested in looking at why we think we do the things we do. Not to explain why we do them, but the explore why we think that way.
360. elliot803 - March 1, 1999 - 2:00 PM PT
Christin:
It does not follow from the idea that love confers a reproductive advantage in humans that all species exhibit love, or would be expected to exhibit love.
This isn't the place to get into detailed explanations of evolutionary psychology, but it can account for love outside of kin relationships as well.
361. katewrath - March 1, 1999 - 2:02 PM PT
FTC: Don't you even wanna try to answer it? C'mon--you're in love or you were once. You don't need any more research than that to start.
Anybody else?
362. ChristinO - March 1, 1999 - 2:04 PM PT
Katewrath,
I think that a lot of love is about finding someone like ourselves to gain approval or finding someone unlike ourselves in order to fill holes that we think we have. Biologically the argument is always self-preservation-------find a being enough like one's self not only not to threaten you but to reflect one's own self-love or find a person enought unlike one's self to give you something to aspire to---a goal which when reached should make one a superior creature.
Of course it isn't just an either/or proposition. We seek a being to compliment ourselves: some things alike and others not.
None of that impresses me much, though. Possibly my sense of romance is offended by such dry explanation or maybe it's more of a "Yeah, but so what" attitude. Whatever the cause, the feeling is intense, second only to rage I think in power and that's a pretty close call. When it comes down to it I don't really care why we love I'm only glad that we do.
363. DanDillon - March 1, 1999 - 2:09 PM PT
katewrath Message #354,
"What is the process of falling in love?"
I'd like to propose that we turn to poetry for a response. Hayden Carruth wrote a book-length poem called *The Sleeping Beauty*, and in it he suggests that one falls in love through a process of bestowal. In order to elucidate what he means by this, Carruth followed his poem up with an essay entitled "Materials from Life." A few choice excerpts from that essay follow.
"Bestowal occurs when the lover assigns or ascribes to the beloved, values which she does not necessarily possess in objectivity, but which in a sense she comes to possess as a consequence of her lover's act."
"[Bestowal] is always and essentially creative. From feeling, the lover creates value, which is then bestowed on the beloved, thus creating in the beloved an augmented being; or rather, more strictly, an augmentation of being. At the same time the lover's act is self-creative, an augmentation of the lover's own being, because it enlarges his capacity for response."
"[B]ecause bestowal is always, essentially, and crucially creative it is always and essentially imaginative. That is to say, love is functionally esthetic."
"[I]f we have any virtue in meaninglessness and absurdity, it is our capacity, not ot think, not to feel, not 'to see ourselves,' but to love; and hence to imagine, because love, not necessity, is the mother of invention--to imagine, meaning to bring together, to synthesize, to act undividedly in the existential wholeness of the human spirit. Yet for two thousnad years no important new philosophy has begun with love as the explicit starting point, and I can't help asking myself, naively or not: Wouldn't it be wonderful if it happened now?"
Carruth, Hayden. "Materials from Life." *Selected Essays and Reviews* Port Townsend, WA: Copper Canyon Press, 1996, 56-64.
364. katewrath - March 1, 1999 - 2:10 PM PT
ChristinO:
"I don't really care why we love I'm only glad that we do."
Is there something, then, that you care both about its nature and that it exists? And if not, why not?
365. elliot803 - March 1, 1999 - 2:10 PM PT
katewrath:
"(Serious Question:) So if science says it has answered our question, there's no longer any point is asking it?"
I don't think science is saying that. Evolutionary psychology doesn't (yet) have the standing of other aspects of evolutionary biology, but its influence is growing. And to me it also just seems intuitively correct.
"How do we know science has covered all the bases?"
We don't. Although I'm not sure I know what you mean by that.
"Never mind why, according to science, Dan says "I ... act selflessly whenever I can". I want to know why he believes he should act selflessly. Why not selfishly?"
That's the kind of question evolutionary psychology addresses. And the answer eventually reduces to some form of "because it confers a reproductive advantage."
366. katewrath - March 1, 1999 - 2:16 PM PT
Dan,
Forgive me for prying, but in what ways does this text match your experience with Ann? (Ann being the name I noticed ChristinO mentioning to you.) If you'd rather not say, I'll understand. It's an interesting explanation, although it leaves me hungry for a better understanding of how Carruth fell in love, what drew him to his beloved, what he felt he needed that she supplied. (All questions he answers in general, but I crave the specifics.)
367. DanDillon - March 1, 1999 - 2:19 PM PT
katewrath,
Don't get me wrong. I act selfishly most of the time I act. In fact, I'd venture to say that most human activity is, in one way or another, inspired by self-serving motives. I do, though, act selfelssly *whenever I can*.
368. DanDillon - March 1, 1999 - 2:21 PM PT
katewrath,
I'm sorry, but I will leave your request in Message #366 unfulfilled. I appreciate your having mentioned the option.
369. elliot803 - March 1, 1999 - 2:22 PM PT
I don't believe anyone acts selflessly whenever they can. No one's that altruistic. But, obviously, some people are a lot more selfless than others.
370. DanDillon - March 1, 1999 - 2:26 PM PT
elliot803,
Decide to make sense, and *then* post. Thanks.
371. elliot803 - March 1, 1999 - 2:27 PM PT
DanDillon:
What's that supposed to mean?
372. FreeToChoose - March 1, 1999 - 2:29 PM PT
I remember my first time ever seeing Pinker talk. I was mildly interested in what he was saying, but what really caught my interest as his argument that one could make an rational argument for the development of love. We generally tend to think of love as an irrational feeling, but he pointed out that it was very rational, from an evolutionary perspective, for humans to develop the concept of love.
373. katewrath - March 1, 1999 - 2:32 PM PT
Elliot:
Oh, we are missing each other's points left, right and center.
I'm not interested (in this thread, at this moment) in answers, in resolution, in rightness or correctness, in anything, for that matter, that ISN'T subjective.
This has never happened to me:
"I wonder how I feel about selflessness? Well, it gives me a reproductive advantage to be in favor it, so count me in!"
I haven't arrived at a single belief in my life because I thought it would confer a reproductive advantage. I've worn some low cut dresses for that reason, but that's about the end of it. I don't doubt science has a really good explanation for my beliefs, but at the risk of sounding profoundly irrational, I want to ignore science's explanations for the moment, and look only at what we believe or what we do, and maybe more importantly, *why we think* we believe or do these things.
As a side note, it is fascinating that this thread has alternated, for the last dozen posts, between a dependency on science for answers and personal realizations that some questions don't seem worth answering. I could not have imagined a better response to the thread's name. But that aside, I still think there are things here worth examining.
374. Raskolnikov - March 1, 1999 - 2:35 PM PT
Kate: what you are talking about sounds more like therapy than philosophy.
375. Msivorytower - March 1, 1999 - 2:39 PM PT
Well, I don't know how rational love is, or even if it can be placed in evolutionary psychology, unless you define love as either a rush of hormones making us more willing to mate, or as the emotional need to protect offspring.
Kate,
The thing that fascinates me about your question "what is love" is that it is entirely time and contexual dependent. One hundred fifty years ago, the sort of love we now associate with adults was really reserved for fleeting casual sexual encounters.
As for why we love? Again it depends on what kind of love you're talking about. I can say that my love for my daughter transcends any rational disection. It is deep and hormonal. I have no idea if all parents feel similarly, I suspect not because of the atrocities parents commit with their children. I only know that *at this point in our culture* my love for my daughter manages to make me feel as close to selfless as I've ever felt, and even then it's not completely selfless as I recognize in her my legacy.
376. arkymalarky - March 1, 1999 - 2:41 PM PT
Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintennance is an excellent book and there's nothing pop or obtuse about it. It's beautifully written and the parallels of his physical, mental, and emotional journey with his son are some of the best modern writing I've read.
377. FreeToChoose - March 1, 1999 - 2:44 PM PT
If anyone has a copy of “How the Mind Works” perhaps they can do better justice to the evolutionary rationalization of love. My copy is in a different state.
378. FreeToChoose - March 1, 1999 - 2:45 PM PT
Arky
Looks like no one is on the fence about Zen…
You either love it or hate it.
379. elliot803 - March 1, 1999 - 2:47 PM PT
katewrath:
It would be a mistake to think that the reproductive advantages of various aspects of human psychology are readily apparent at the conscious level. People don't generally have sex because of a conscious decision to propagate their genes. They do it because they experience psychological and biological urges to have sex. Evolution created those urges to serve the purpose of reproduction. Love and altruism presumably operate in the same way.
380. Msivorytower - March 1, 1999 - 2:49 PM PT
Kate
To be clearer about my position in my message above:
I don't think there is a universal desire or need to love, not in humans as a species. Perhaps the "universality" of the need to love is culture and time bound, but it is not demonstratible throughout history, although there have been "great love stories" for as long as recorded history. But generally, love was not a concept thought of as we do now, it is a modern concept, perhaps even POST-modern!
381. Msivorytower - March 1, 1999 - 2:51 PM PT
gad!
demonstrable!
I have no idea where that other thing came from....
382. katewrath - March 1, 1999 - 2:56 PM PT
Dan: As I said, I understand. For this thread, I really think personal experience, and conclusions drawn from it, would be more productive than firing texts at each other. Then again, it's been a while since I was in love, but there's no reason why I couldn't answer my own question, except that I'm trying (not very subtly) to actually get a philosophical conversation going, and that means not answering my own questions.
And while I am hardly in favor of letting madmen ramble on, unchecked, Rask's post reminds me, again, of both the Fray's and society in general's violent dislike of conversation that is both exploratory and subjective. This is the way the Platonic dialogues began: How would you define X? Why would you define X that way? So then X is (expl. Y)? And why is X (expl. Y)?
And in this way, we saw how the ancient Greeks' reasoned, what they held dear, what they had no appreciation for, and why. But in our society, it seems, no one is willing to drop their guard and do the same. For fear of appearing silly, perhaps? (Therapy certainly has no positive, rational connotations that I know of, unless the subject is understood to be off his/her rocker to begin with, and therefore anything, even silly masterbatory rambling, would be an improvement.)
383. patsyrolph - March 1, 1999 - 2:57 PM PT
Was it Balzac who wrote theat the two greatest evils invented by man were gunpowder and romance?
It does seem that our species is increasingly self examining.Last week I attended a lecture at the Salk Institute on Genes and gene therapy. I came away thinking what peculiar animals we are. Trying to take ourselves apart like clocks.
384. elliot803 - March 1, 1999 - 3:02 PM PT
katewrath:
"...and maybe more importantly, *why we think* we believe or do these things."
Okay: Why do you think you believe in God (which I assume you do, given your statements about being a Catholic, albeit an unconventional one)? I don't think you can ask questions like "Why do we believe and feel as we do?" without inviting a challenge to religious belief.
385. AzureNW - March 1, 1999 - 3:06 PM PT
Re: Message #361
From here, love is an aesthetic response to the qualities perceived in works of art. I love what I perceive as beautiful. The more beautiful I think a thing is, the more I love it.
386. katewrath - March 1, 1999 - 3:09 PM PT
Elliot:
I get it, I get it, I get it. You are right. I agree that there are scientific explanations for the way we act. I've read the Slate guy who covers the various evolutionary explanations for behavior. In other threads, at other times, I am all over the scientific explanations for things.
Right now, I am interested in human belief systems; the way we explain our actions to ourselves. You, for example, explain your actions to yourself by way of science. Yours is a fascinating value system, one where empirical evidence and data carry weight. Would you, perhaps, like to share why you value science? How would you characterize a conversation such as the one I'm having with MsIT, where the tone is far from objective? How do you feel it reflects on us as individuals or on our society when we don't rely on science to answer our questions?
(The above is not meant sneeringly or critically, but only to engage you in this conversation. If it doesn't interest you, you may, by all means, abandon me to my subjective babbling, secure in the knowledge that we agree about evolution's effect on human behavior.)
387. Raskolnikov - March 1, 1999 - 3:10 PM PT
Kate: sorry, I didn't mean my comment *that* harsh. It is just that you specifically ruled out using science to answer the questions you raised, and for those questions, science struck me as the best answer. Exploring how and why *I* love strikes me as more of a personal psychological exploration than a philosophical one. I wasn't implying you were head case by saying it sounded like therapy.
388. elliot803 - March 1, 1999 - 3:29 PM PT
katewrath:
Why do I value science? Because it seems to be the best method for learning about the nature of the world, which includes ourselves. Of course, by "best" here I mean "most accurate" or "most correct," and all evaluations of correctness or accuracy ultimately reduce to some subjective evaluation of "rightness," so someone else could say that religious faith provides them with a more satisfying and authentic sense of "rightness" than does science. And in the end there's no answer to that, because all belief is ultimately subjective. But few people are willing to champion religious or other kinds of knowledge over scientific knowldege in areas where science has clearly shown itself to be superior. Only in areas where science is still immature--such as in understanding the human mind--are religious explanations still popular and respectable. I realize this sounds like an attack on religion--and it is!--but I don't see how it can be otherwise given the questions we are talking about and the nature of my beliefs.
389. katewrath - March 1, 1999 - 3:40 PM PT
MsIT: What is this thing called love? (HA! Oh, I kill me.) No, I mean more, this post-modern concept you feel is unique to our time?
I will, finally, speak my piece, because I don't want to annoy people by always asking questions and never stating my own beliefs.
(Assume the following is always prefixed by "I think", okay? Good. Here we go.)
Humans look at their place in the universe, and can't see why they are a higher lifeform than other animals. Our biological functions, our needs, our drives are (as Elliot points out) exactly the same as all the other animals, ruled by a need to reproduce. But we are conscious of this, and it bothers us (as it probably does not bother other animals.), so we look for things that give us value or express value we already believe ourselves to have. That value is slightly different for everyone. For me, I give myself value by doing things I believe affect others. Writing things people enjoy reading would be chief among these.
But what is love in this world view? Love is when I find someone whose own reason is beyond doubt, and who finds value in me. His reason is shown by the humor with which he sees the world, his love for our species, his understanding of a wide variety of areas of human knowledge, his dedication to perfecting an ability that affects others. In shorthand, I would say he is funny, kind, smart and skilled.
I love many people who have these aforementioned qualities, and they don't love me back. Why do I then care about them? Because they remind me of my species' value as a whole, of the excellence of our experience. By the same token, I also love people who are only funny, only kind, only smart or only skilled, but it is the people who combine all of these that have me by the emotional short-hairs.
390. Pseudoerasmus - March 1, 1999 - 3:42 PM PT
I do not recognise a slightest bit of philosophy in the movie of Kate Wrath's Meaning of Life.
She seems to think that by exploring the "meaning of life" she's returning to philosophy's roots, its Greek cradle. But that's just nonsense. The "meaning of existence" talk is mostly a modernist rhetoric, associated with existentialism.
Greeks meditated on the warhorses of philosophy -- epistemology, logic, metaphysics, ethics and politics -- all areas science doesn't really address.
So if your interest is the "meaning of life", go become a Taoist or something.
391. ChristinO - March 1, 1999 - 3:43 PM PT
Elliot,
And your love of debate and your passion for justice as you perceive it----championing the downtrodden and disenfranchised----this passion is also explained by its benefit to reproduction?
I don't think it devalues science to say my relationship with my partner is about more than reproductive benefit. Science tells us where chemicals go in the brain and what neurotransmitters are active at any given time but what does it really know about our consciousness?
What does "reproductively beneficial" really say about why we love who we do or why we go to such great or small lengths to attain love. Reproduction is certainly possible without love as you have pointed out. Love isn't necessary and is really something of a superfluous influence on contiuation of the species. So why is it so important to us?
392. ChristinO - March 1, 1999 - 3:51 PM PT
Kate,
At its root love is a selfish emotion simply because it gives us pleasure to love and be loved. Even in the case of "No greater love hath any man....ect" one does not give up one's life for another without satisfying one's own desire to do so.
That being said I'll drop back to my own subjective values and say that at root love may be selfish----all acts by any organism are in such light----but since it is no more selfish than any other emotion it makes barely a blip on the radar of things to worry about.
Why do I value love? Because the track record of actions conceived in love is better on my personal scale than actions produced by other emotions. I personally am happy when I see people helping one another, offering aid and comfort. I value those things which love brings about. It makes me feel good.
Is this at all what you're asking?
393. katewrath - March 1, 1999 - 3:55 PM PT
Elliot: Great answer. Really. Well-written, coherent, self-explanatory. I understand your reasoning and I respect it. And please, btw, ignore my second "I get it, etc." post, which hit after you'd already moved on. It must be admitted that science and religion often set themselves up as opponents, and so you can hardly be blamed if by extolling science you have to bash religion.
The early skeptics argued that nothing could be known, and so it was best to believe in God, for that alone was certain. A certain subset of the population still clings to that belief, unaware that it dates back to a time when leeching was a common form of medical treatment (and when, indeed, very little could be known.) In the centuries since, many have come to argue that reason itself is a sign of God, and therefore science is a celebration of his existence. That is, in fact, what I believe, so you don't need to worry that I will pit science against faith. The former confirms the latter, for me.
394. elliot803 - March 1, 1999 - 3:57 PM PT
katewrath:
By the way, my thinking about evolution was really revolutionized by reading Daniel Dennett's book "Darwin's Dangerous Idea." I assume that as a philosophy major you are familiar with Dennett, who is a professional philosopher (although apparently some of his colleagues disagree and consider him more of a cognitive scientist). The basic argument of the book is that evolution in its most general sense--which Dennett considers "the best idea anyone ever had"--is a kind of "universal acid," as he calls it, of astonishing explanatory power that can and does reduce other explanations about the nature of various aspects of the world to dust. He argues that even people who nominally accept evolution often look for what he calls "skyhooks" to avoid confronting evolutionary explanations of phenomena they deem beyond its reach. The book convinced me that even 100 years after Darwin the full, devastating philosophical implications of evolution still haven't really sunk in. Before I read the book, for instance, I pretty much accepted the standard view (and official position of the Catholic church) that there is no real conflict between evolution and Christianity, that evolution is simply the process God used to create life and human beings, and that it doesn't really challenge the idea of God as the ultimate Creator. I don't believe that any more. I think evolution challenges theism at its core. On this point at least, it seems to me, it is the Fundamentalists who understand evolution more clearly than the supposedly more enlightened liberal Christians.
395. katewrath - March 1, 1999 - 4:18 PM PT
(Kate takes a moment for herself.)
PE:
Have you noticed, perhaps, how difficult it has been to move beyond whether the fucking Zen and the Art of fucking Motorcycle Repair is a piece of shit or the greatest book ever written? I would love to discuss something a little more complicated and intriguing, but it's beyond my abilities to take this thread to that level. So instead I've just asked what is love, to see what would happen. It's been kind of interesting, but no, it's not philosophy. It's just me, asking questions and seeing what people believe and why they believe it.
By all means, jump in with your own suggestions. I know you like to kick people in the ass to make them jump, but this is it for me. I can't function at any higher level.
(Back to the subject at hand.)
ChristinO: Unlike so many question/answer situations, there isn't a good answer or a bad answer to "what is love?", although certainly some are more useful than others. Azure says he/she loves what is beautiful. It's probably getting old at this point, but my question would be then what is beautiful.
It seems, for example, that you value most concern for yourself in others. That speaks (I'm extrapolating willy nilly to save time, I apologise) to an emphasis on community, on cooperation, on joined effort. Elliot values knowledge. That speaks to an emphasis on progress, on improvement, on understanding. That's two different visions of what makes a society good (again, I'm making leaps here), but both are necessary for human survival. That's fascinating to me.
And then when we look at another society, lets say the Amish, some of us will see the concern for each other they have, and admire them, and others will see the total lack of scientific knowledge, and criticize them. And that is, to me, hugely educational.
396. katewrath - March 1, 1999 - 4:24 PM PT
Elliot: I do know of Dennett ("I Am Dennett's Brain"), but not of this book. Does it explain where humans get their sense of humor?
397. elliot803 - March 1, 1999 - 4:27 PM PT
kate:
No, "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" doesn't discuss any aspects of human psychology (like humor) in detail, but Steven Pinker does in "How The Mind Works."
398. MrSocko - March 1, 1999 - 4:34 PM PT
Message #390
Don't be so limited. Yes, of course, the ancients meditated on these things, and yes, the "meaning of life" has mostly been pressed into service by the existentialists and their bastard children, but surely the *prupose* of life consumed the ancients every bit as much as the moderns? Where do you think we got the notion of "the good life" from? Surely the word aristocrat hasn't entirely lost its philosophical base.
399. arkymalarky - March 1, 1999 - 4:37 PM PT
"Have you noticed, perhaps, how difficult it has been to move beyond whether the fucking Zen and the Art of fucking Motorcycle Repair is a piece of shit or the greatest book ever written?"
Yeah, that four posts was quite a distraction.
400. ChristinO - March 1, 1999 - 4:38 PM PT
(pssst! Socko, he's just taking his usual turn around the Fray looking down his nose at all of us anti-intellectuals. Don't go ruin his fun with reality.)