On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 15:13:57 +0900, Gernot Hassenpflug
wrote in ::

"Larry" == Larry Dighera writes:

Larry On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 16:40:06 +0900, Gernot Hassenpflug
Larry wrote in ::

Human beings classify people on a few perceived
characteristics, and in general are unable to reevaluate based
on later evidence, preferring instead to add the newer evidence
as as sub-grouping of their main initial evaluation. So it is
not really possible for people generally to accept that a
person can be of "characteristic" a,b,c,d at different times,
but not be classified as any one of them.

Larry If that statement is true, someone who commits the act of
Larry murder, for instance, and may be capable of many other
Larry altruistic acts, is not classified as a murderer while
Larry being altruistic. That is, of course, absurd.

Hi Larry, thanks for the reply (in this forum)

You're welcome.

To illustrate my point, I don't categorize you as dense just because I
think what you posted is rubbish :-) Just kidding

And I don't categorize you as an arrogant, pseudo superior,
passive-aggressive sociopath spoiling for a fight either. Now we're
both palterers. :-)

- here is the explanation: categorizing the person as a murderer is
giving him an epithet due to an action and an idea that you have about
that action.

Given the laws throughout the world against murder, the religious
mandate, and the disgusting repugnance of the act, I have to believe
that my idea is reasonable regarding the idea I have about that act.

What epithet would you ascribe to someone who commits the wanton act
of murder?

That is related to the human notion of character, and we
extend that to our other ideas about the person in dealing with
them.

Absolutely. If we failed to recognize a person's past acts in judging
their character, we'd be at quite a disadvantage in dealing with them.
Think of someone who is a convicted murderer, and someone who
was let off due to some legal shenanigans. Do you feel more
comfortable with one than with the other?

Not at all. They have both demonstrated their capacity for ruthless
mayhem, and will evoke a cautious and guarded regard in me.

Sure, that's how the human mind works.

I completely fail to understand why you would erroneously jump to the
conclusion that there is a difference in how I would react to a
murderer regardless if they had been jailed or not. Perhaps you'd be
kind enough to explain what lead you to that conclusion.

We cannot imagine having to recategorize again and again
based on new information,

What new information. Are you intimating, that somehow doing a long
prison sentence for murder excuses the act and renders the murderer
more comfortable to be around? That would be ludicrous.

instead we prefer sub-categories of existing ones.

I'm having trouble understanding your meaning. Perhaps an example
would help. What's a sub-category of an existing category into which
we have placed our regard for a murderer?

Children learn this way, and adults are not that different in detail.

You've failed to make yourself clear on this point, as I have no idea
what sort of sub-category it is to which you refer. Please be more
explicit.

What is most difficult is to come to a new upper-level categorization
to replace an existing one. In fact, the problem is that such a hierarchal
idea is fundamentally flawed.

It's easy to come to a new upper-level categorization of Catholic
priests, for instance. Once they were held in great esteem; now they
are seen for the pedophiles they have been all along.

Larry My point is, a person who has demonstrated the capacity to
Larry commit a given act is not in the same class as one who
Larry hasn't committed that act regardless of their capacity to
Larry demonstrate other characteristics.

The statement of "in the same class" exactly makes my point, as
explained above,

Which point was that? Perhaps you can state it more succinctly and
explicitly.

and if you do a bit of research on this topic in
psychology you will be convinced yourself (for laypeople, try "The
Tipping Point" and "Blink" and references therein).

Perhaps you'll be good enough to provide a quoted passage or two from
those texts that elucidate your point.

We choose to categorize a person due to a certain perception (action
noted, thoughts expressed, etc.), instead of accepting that all manner of
"classes" live together inside that one person, and appear at one
moment or another

In the example we are using of a murderer, one who has DEMONSTRATED
the capacity to commit that act rightly deserves to be in a different
class from one who has not. That's why they are put to death in this
country.

While we may all be physically capable of the act of murder, some of
us have the emotional control and intelligence to refrain from acting.
Those who cannot, are unstable sociopath, and deserve to be
categorized as such.

(think of the difference in your own mind when
seeing a person you categorize as nice doing something mean, and
someone you think of as sort of unpleasant doing something nice for
someone: one is a nice person having a bad day, the other is a nasty
person uncharacteristically doing something nice).

I make no such rationalizations in my objective judgment of behaviors.
Each act is a data point to be factored into the aggregate in
reassessing the categorization.

This realization is of course critical in a number of areas related to
decision-making in human society, both to predict and to understand
behaviour.

Which realization?

Quite fascinating stuff, I strongly recommend the books above.

Damn OT though, hope we'll be forgiven for this one! cheers!

If this newsgroup's readership's past behavior is any indication,
they'll hardly notice. :-(