Smart (part 6) - a world view we don't share

This is the sixth and final post in the Smart series where I have been exploring why so much of the writing about ‘artificial intelligence’ causes me such irritation. I’ve identified so many wordly issues with key terms like intelligence, language, agency, learning, personality, decision-making, etc. You can read previous posts here: 

• Smart (part 1) - how did things get to be smart
• Smart (part 2) - a way with words
• Smart (part 3, an interlude) - toons on AI perils
• Smart (part 4) - convincing or human hacking
• Smart (part 5) - the not-so-secret AI agents

This post will draw on all this previous content. 

Okay, it’s definitely time to stop adding to the plethora of writing about so-called ‘AI’ . 

But before I do, I must spend some time exploring some better names, more accurate names, less misleading names. Alternative names that can help us be smart about this amazing technology. Alternative names that might help us avoid selling off our future cheaply.

Evolving (part 4) - the language dance

Parody on the March of Progress

The Evolving series began by looking at Darwin's ground-breaking theory of 'descent with modification' to explain biodiversity in organic lifeforms. In parts 2 and 3, we explored how people have misinterpreted and misused his work ever since, including loading it with various moral judgements. 

Our everyday use of the words evolve and evolution reveals that we¹ think of evolution as purposeful and progressive improvement (a contradiction of Darwin's theory) but also natural and scientific. This (mis)interpretation provides what I call a 'sciencey veneer' over any number of beliefs.

We think of 'evolutionary progress' as how the world works. This understanding is so widely shared it is a common meme. 

So, I'm finally back to my starting point for exploring the words evolve and evolution: what do we mean when we say that language 'evolves'? Why don't we just say that language changes? Is language change like biological evolution? Are we saying that language improves and progresses over time? 

Unsurprisingly, the answers are not straightforward! 

Evolving (part 3) - scientific and natural

Parts 1 & 2 of the Evolving series explored our everyday use of the words evolve and evolution. 

We¹ have rather strange ways of talking about how biological evolution works. When we talk about life-forms evolving, we imbue a random, undirected, aimless process (Darwin's 'descent with modification') with agency, intention and purpose (part 1). We tell stories of change, and of life progressing and improving. 

When we tell 'evolution stories' (with agents and purpose), we add moral judgements about improvement. We meld the two contradictory dictionary meanings of evolution into a hybrid² concept of 'descent with modification (technical meaning) toward improvement and a better state (non-technical meaning)'. This sits behind many moral judgements about the 'value' of various life forms, particularly about non-human animals, e.g. saying that humans are the pinnacle of evolution (part 2).

Our 'stories' of evolution work more like metaphor - a simplifying shortcut - than being an accurate description.

This story of 'evolving' and improving is now the dominant way that we understand the world - not limited to explaining biodiversity (as Darwin intended his theory). We refer to societies, cultures, ideas, businesses, technology, musicians, language (and more) as evolving. 

And that leads to some very dangerous ideas. 

Evolving (part 2) - progress and human ascendency

Part 1 of Evolving started my exploration of our everyday use of the words evolving and evolution.

Part 1 showed that when we¹ talk about evolution, we tend to use concepts of agency (some who acts), intention, purpose. This means our everyday use of the words evolve and evolution contradicts the very theory of evolution: the unpredictable favouring of random, undirected, purpose-less changes leads to the Earth's vast biodiversity.  

We use the words this way because we understand the world through stories rather than bits of information, and to tell stories we have to impose the features of storytelling - who, how, why!   

The other common feature of storytelling is morality. And sure enough, morality turns up in the way we use the words evolve and evolution. 

This post will explore how the idea of progress and human ascendency came to be seen as the 'purpose' of evolution (while Darwin rolls in his grave for the 100th time).

Post-truth (part 13) - lead up the garden path by a metaphor

I've now been exploring the house construction metaphor for truth for a year. It's a long time since I declared the journey metaphor for truth was false and misleading.

Source

My interest in the truth was piqued by the word post-truth. Post means 'after' - which seems odd. Because the journey metaphor tells us we're on a torturous journey, heading toward truth (eventually), what does it mean to be in a time or place after truth? Are we lost; did we miss our truth destination somehow?

As I wrote in part 8, post-truth is a dangerous cover word for propaganda. But how does propaganda fit in the journey metaphor? What about lies, illusions, gaslighting, beliefs and wrong beliefs, delusions, mistaken memory, how do they all fit in the journey metaphor?

Our sense of truth is fundamentally important to us as individuals and as a society. Despite turning away from religion and toward science as our key source of truth, humanity's desire for truth remains tied to our needs for belonging, agency, safety, meaning and certainty.

So, how we think about truth is extremely important.

A critical question remains: is our metaphor for truth really that important? How does the journey metaphor influence how we think about truth, the varieties of 'non'-truth, and post-truth? 

Post truth (part 11) - making things with words

In the last post, I turned my focus to the role of words in the construction of truth. This is Wordly Explorations, after all. 

Words are what humanity uses to label, understand and share our experiences of the world, and to create explanatory stories that form our coherent view of the world. We use explanatory stories to make sense of the world (and one of those stories is that humans are progressing always toward truth).

I explored how words - spoken, written, signed, symbolled - are 'representations', abstract symbolic units that 'stand in for' our experience of reality. As representations, our words are thus laden with our values, beliefs and ideas (shortened to 'subjective' for this post). 

The conundrum is that, while we might agree in theory that they are subjective, in practice, we need to assume words are stable, neutral and objective in order to use them. 

The human need for a stable sense of reality, which we construct with words, means that we need words to also be stable 'things'. So we just assume they are. We treat words as solid things, despite being confronted with numerous times when they are not (misunderstandings, disputes over meaning, propaganda, etc.). 

To integrate this into the house construction metaphor for truth, I added handmade unfired clay bricks (solid but easily damaged) to represent the words with which we build our house. We use these handmade bricks to construct our floor of 'facts' and our walls of explanatory stories, and they hold up the roof and our sense of safety in truth. 

When we have words for things and concepts for our experience of reality, we feel we know reality.

What does this mean for our understanding of the world? What does it mean for our idea of truth? And does it say anything about the word post-truth? 

Simplistic thinking - 12 steps to beat your addiction

It's great you're here. The world needs more people willing to let go of simplistic thinking, ready to join the complexity revolution. 

Simplistic Anonymous (SimpAnon) is an international fellowship helping addicts resist the appeal and pervasiveness of simplistic thinking in our culture. It opens the door to living well with complexity.

If you are willing to let go of some simplistic illusions, experience the discomfort AND awe of complexity and contradiction, and embrace the rewards of living in an amazingly rich and incredible world - Simplistics Anonymous is for you. 

The Twelve Step program was created as Alcoholics Anonymous in 1935. It has since been used for many types of addictions - gambling, shopping, prescription medication, etc. Although it has been adapted over time, the premise of each step remains the same for all recovery programs. The original program emphasised healing power of the Christian conception of God, but recent adaptations use the idea of 'a higher power' however the person conceives it. 

The Simplistics Anonymous twelve-step program provides a guide to a lifestyle that embraces the rich fullness of our amazing world and your place within it. 

This page outlines the 12-step program for recovery from addition to simplistic thinking. On this page, you can read a background to addiction and the appeal and many dangers of an addiction to simplistic thinking.

Simplistic thinking - are you an addict?

Welcome to Simplistics Anonymous, also known as SimpAnon.

You may have come to this page because a friend recommended us, or you may have been googling why you feel numb, bored or so disconnected from life. You may be wondering if there is an alternative to feeling that life is pretty flat. 

Well, it's possible you are addicted to simplistic thinking, without knowing it. This addiction is real, it's destructive, and it's disconnecting. 

Luckily, there is a solution. 

Part 1 on this page explains the appeal and dangers of simplistic thinking, and why people become addicted to it. Part 2 outlines the 12-step recovery program for people addicted to simplistic thinking. 

Post-truth (part 9) - camouflage for an old adversary

House Under Construction
Kazimir Malevich
Source 

The emergence of the word post-truth sparks a very old philosophical question - what is truth? 

I've now written over 20,000 words in 8 posts to attempt to explain how I see truth. (A full recap and a contents page are coming.) 

My exploration has focused on how humanity pictures the concept of truth. I contend that our most common image - the metaphor of the tortuous journey to an absolute objective truth as a destination (out there) - is part of problem in thinking clearly about truth and post-truth. 

In this series, I have presented a new metaphor that is a better fit with humanity's relationship with truth - the house construction metaphor. The metaphor represents the shared process of constructing and maintaining the house - our sense of truth - and also the vulnerabilities inherent in any project that involves a lot of people. 

The house construction metaphor illustrates that truth is personal, provisional, and socially constructed by humans, and that is not only okay, it is inevitable. Our concept of truth, as I see it, is the outcome of our human needs. 

So, how does the new metaphor help in understanding post-truth? 

Yantbom - claiming the right not to think

Last week, I was standing at the lights waiting for the Walk signal. A guy drove past, going way too fast for the built-up area. I could see the automatic 'SLOW DOWN' signal flash at him. He revved loudly and increased his speed.

I felt disconcerted by this reaction, one I notice more and more often. 

When I see people objecting to instructions to slow down, wear masks to combat Covid 19, use seatbelts or bike helmets, or ideas like restricting human access to some natural areas, changing the date of Australia day, allowing gay people to marry, ad infinitum, I am puzzled not so much by their opposition, but their intensity and anger. 

Rarely do they offer any specific reasoning for their objection.

Instead, resistance is often fiercely proclaimed as the vital defence of individual freedom. They might call themselves freedom fighters, freedom lovers, upholders of personal liberty, or sometimes libertarians.

But I don't think it's about freedom or liberty at all. 

I think what I'm seeing is just an adult tantrum in response to being asked to think and to self-reflect. And tantrums always look rather disconcerting in adults. 

This type of reaction needs a better name; a name that reflects what's really going on. 

Average - typical, conforming and invisible

It seems a lot of us suffer from FOBA: the fear of being average. This being Wordly Explorations, I wondered if the word average itself was part of the problem.

In part 1 of Average, I explored how people use and misuse the concept of average from statistics. I started with the statistics meanings of average - a single number (score) to represent a group, and normal - a particular pattern of the spread of different numbers/scores of a population. Two useful concepts for specific uses.

However, while the word average retains the 'authority of maths' in everyday use, it slides to mean normal (as in not abnormal), mediocre, and moral. It is mis-used to mean normal as in 'how we should all be'. This can cause considerable grief. 

That explains some of the sloppy word use that sits behind FOBA.  

In this post, I am exploring how the word average, used to mean normal, ends up meaning boring… and there's more grief as well.

Average - normal, mediocre and moral

Do you suffer from FOBA: a fear of being average?

FOBA, sometimes FOBO (fear of being ordinary), seems to be pretty common (here, here, here and here). If you suffer from a fear of being average at least some of the time, then you probably are … um… average.   

When I read the word average in articles about FOBA, I see several other meanings lurking behind it.

To me, fear of being average appears to be a modern condition caused not by illness or injustice, but by sloppy word use. Sloppy enough to cover a fear of something else entirely.

In this post, I focus on average when it is used and misused to mean normal, and in part 2 I'm going to explore average used to mean boring. 

A prelude to post-truth

Well, this post has been harder than usual to wrangle into shape.

The word I am currently exploring is post-truth and what it tells us about how we think about the word and concept truth. 

By 'we' I mean you and I (not so much philosophers or religious writers or scientists who write a lot about it!) So, I'm making some assumptions about how you think about truth. It may be wrong, but I have to.

As a prelude to the series, perhaps you could ponder how you think about this difficult concept. Then you will be ready to check and challenge my assumptions. 

Do you think of truth as a set of objective facts, a principle, a collection of slippery contestable ideas, one interpretation among many? Who decides what the truth is? Why do you think humanity needs to know the truth? How have you felt when what you had believed to be true is shown to actually be false? How do you think about some of the strange and discredited ideas that people believed to be true in the past?  Despite the recent flurry around relativism and the current palaver about post-truth, do you nevertheless continue to think - or feel - that truth exists? 

What does the word truth mean to you? And given that, how does the word post-truth relate to that idea. If you had to think of an image or picture for humanity's relationship to truth, what might that image be? 

So many questions.

That's what I've been exploring and drawing, among too many other things to get this finished. I've changed direction several times, as the concept of truth seems to resist close scrutiny.  

Essentially, I have no answers to the many questions, but I have got a nice picture. And a new, improved, and more useful metaphor for truth.

Hopefully I can share it soon, if the world will permit.

The market - a solution to what?

I've been thinking about the market lately. Not the local market where I buy fruit and vegetables, chat with the growers about conditions on the farm, see a few people I know, and maybe watch a busker.

See you there Mr Bean! Source

It's this market I hear endlessly about: the energy market needs major revamp; the chief executive has reassured the market; there is no true market for overland flow licences; an Australia-wide view of the aged care market; reform our broken housing market; the labor market added around 242,000 jobs for the month.

So many people seem enamoured with this amazing thing called the market and 'fixing the market' or 'finding a market solution' when we discuss numerous diverse aspects of our society - electricity supply, airline viability, water, aged-care, housing, finding a job. 

But just what is the market? It seems big and ubiquitous, but strangely vague. It's obviously not a place, like my local market. So, what kind of thing is it?

And what makes the market the solution to all sort of pressing social and environmental issues?

Diversity 2 - comfort, power and counting

In part 1, I explored the word diverse which means 'various or assorted' and what sits behind the misuse of diverse to mean 'different from me'.

Learning to value diversity in humanity involves positive interactions with a variety of people.

 

However, some individuals never have this experience. With their limited interactions, they can grow up to think people 'like me' (according to sex, race, economic status, ability, etc.) are 'us', and anyone 'different from me' is 'them' or 'the other'. 

 

The two mind maps in part 1 illustrated how these individuals see their 'self' as the 'default human' and the 'other' as a lesser human.

The idea that any person could claim to be the 'default human' is patently ludicrous but it operates subconsciously, deep below our awareness (except for white supremacists and others who overtly promote this idea).

It is far from clear-headed and it spawns unfairness and injustice in the forms of racism, sexism, ableism etc.

 

How can some people never experience a real challenge to such a distorted view of the world that they are the 'default human'?

 

Diversity - defeated by the default

Diversity (likewise inclusion) is a word I hear frequently. Diversity appears in technology, education, the arts, music, and science, sometimes accompanied by 'diversity' targets. We hear about the diversity of culture and opinion in Australia. Many companies have Diversity and Inclusion Divisions with KPIs for their annual reports.

 

The driver for diversity is fairness. It entails welcoming all people, ensuring decision-making groups are representative of the broader society, and more people can participate in a greater range of life's opportunities. 

But I think diversity and its adjective diverse are most often just buzz words: they make a 'buzz', but they communicate little (likewise inclusion and inclusive).

 

The word diversity should convey an important idea: diversity is a positive characteristic of societies and groups. But the word has been emptied of this idea in many uses. This has happened through a subtle linguistic 'shift' to use diverse to describe individual people, usually meaning a person from a minority group.

 

Is this just a normal change in meaning? Is it just the all too common loss of a useful word? (I've written previously about accepting that words can change meaning over time, even really useful words, see Alternate - a small grief.)

 

Or is there something else going on here? Has this subtle linguistic 'shift' been engineered? It seems to me that this way of using the word diverse actually serves to keep people out.

Yin-yang 3 - a unified yes

Source: Dessy92

This is the third part of my article on yin-yang, an elegant, complex and often completely misinterpreted symbol. Yin-yang shouts to the cosmos that we humans tend to see dichotomies where they do not exist. 

But many don’t hear this message. 

In Part 1: Yin-yang - not what you think, I explored the common misinterpretation of the yin-yang symbol as about 'natural' opposites. Then, in Part 2: Yin-yang seriously not, I explored misusing yin-yang related to the gender stereotypes of feminine or masculine.

I draw on the ideas in Parts 1 and 2 to develop the argument in this final part of the article, so probably best to read them first.

I want to redirect the messy arguments about gender away from biological and social arguments and onto the human tendency to create false dichotomies. 

So now, I’m putting it out there. 

Yin-yang 2 - seriously not

In Part 1 of this article, I explored the well-known, but often misunderstood, Chinese philosophical symbol of yin-yang. The symbol represents the dynamic, ever-changing and complex nature of the cosmos.

To me, yin-yang is a reminder that dichotomies - seeing the world in simple sets of opposites - can be false and misleading. At its core, yin-yang says: you might think that two things are opposites, but they are not in reality. It warns: do not being misled by false dichotomies.

But we often do, and we often are. 

Source: Deviant Art

Because it is so often misinterpreted, in Yin-yang - not what you think I outlined many things that yin-yang does NOT say or symbolise; specifically, it is:

• not about opposites
• not about achieving balance
• not a feature of things or behaviour
• not an inherent nature of an object or person
• not able to be separated into yin apart from yang; not ‘added’ up to a whole
• not about one ‘half’ being superior to the other.

But people make these various misinterpretations all the time. 

People often refer to yin-yang to make claims about the world being made up of natural opposites needing to achieving balance for harmony. Perversely, this is the ‘opposite’ of what yin-yang actually means.

One common misinterpretation is when people talk about men as yang and women as yin or hold up the yin-yang symbol as justification for rigid dichotomy of gender roles for men and women as a 'natural' way of the world. 

Two wrong dichotomies do not make a right! 

Yin-yang - not what you think

Every now and then, I like stepping back from WHAT we are talking about and look at HOW we talk about it. 

In particular, I find it useful to look at the mental 'boxes' we use when we talk about things; the 'boxes' that we put ourselves and everyone else into, the categories of our daily lives.

The previous article on Gendered adjectives was about the way we tend to see human traits and behaviour as either feminine or masculine. A simplistic dichotomy, given how varied and complex human beings are. 

This got me thinking again about the fascinating human tendency to see the world in dichotomies - categories to which we become quite attached (see more on dichotomies in Gruntled). 

The strange thing is, many of our dichotomies are false, simplistic and unhelpful. 

False dichotomies often lead to false debates about false and sometimes brutal choices in society. We could do a lot better.

Gendered adjectives 2 - human needs and traits

In Part 1 of this article, I explored why the words we use to refer to our gender - our traits, behaviours and social role -  make it such a difficult topic to write about. 

The problem is, we divide most human traits and behaviours according to a dichotomy of masculine or feminine.

The adjectives masculine and feminine are 'normative' - words that carry the concept of 'what is considered normal' and 'how a person should be'. Using them always implies the meaning of 'normal' or 'not normal'. 

But, how can we talk productively about gender if we have to use words that always carry a concept of normal or not normal.

Using feminine about a man's behaviour or masculine about a woman's traits implies they are not a 'real' man or a normal woman. The words can be threatening to our sense of being okay as a person. 

Many people simply cannot have a discussion about gender without feeling threatened or criticised.

I want to find other adjectives to think about and describe human traits, behaviour and roles. Words that leaves gender where it is (it's not going away) but focus instead on the considerably more important concept of being human.

What other adjectives could we use? How else could we talk about humans?