Of Floaters and Rocks

"The 'floater' misses reality; the concrete-bound person misses understanding." -- Leonard Peikoff

***

A few years ago, I read Leonard Peikoff's magnum opus, The DIM Hypothesis: Why the Lights of the West Are Going Out, and highly recommend it. As the author's web site indicates, the book discusses three different mindsets, and how they relate data to abstractions. The site explains in part:

One type of mindset works to integrate data by rational means (which Peikoff calls "Integration," or for short "I"). Another seeks to integrate by non-rational means ("Misintegration," or "M"). A third opposes integration of any kind ("Disintegration," or "D"). Thus the acronym DIM. (One example of I is science; of M, religion; of D, non objective art.)

The purpose of the book is to demonstrate the role of these three methods in shaping Western culture and history, and their implications for America's future.

A minor practical benefit I have noticed lately is that, having read the book, I can sometimes spot such methods at work at unexpected times and be able to anticipate what another person will likely do (or fail to do).

Before I continue, I will note: It has been some time since I read the book, and I do seem to recall a caution against labeling individuals with the short-hand labels. Indeed, judging people is difficult in the best of circumstances, and I don't think pigeonholing people with such labels is just or helpful to oneself.

At best, the kinds of things I am noticing might be data relevant to judging another person or for forming a preliminary rule of thumb for dealing with someone else. (Or, as we see from the second vignette, one can learn that common sense may not apply to some people.)

That said, I'll relate some observations about a couple of people I have had dealings with enough times to have noticed patterns. (On editing, I notice that I have discussed the "rock" first and the "floater" second.)

The first person I know to have been educated almost entirely in the U.S. public school system. Over time, I have noticed that this person seems to be able to follow my arguments over a wide conceptual range of subjects, from mundane problems to philosophical matters. In fact, I will often get intelligent and actionable feedback from this person about what I am talking about at the time.

At the same time, I have noticed a curious failure of anything to sink in. Let's set aside more abstract matters: Changing one's opinion requires deep understanding and motivation to begin with, and I am not necessarily the best person in the world to help someone do this. Besides: That is less impressive than what I will discuss here.

I have many times now had practical arguments fail to sink in. I will explain a course of action or a procedure as well as highlights of the rationale behind them. Not long later, the same topic -- which I thought was settled -- comes up, and it's as if I have said nothing. As far as I can tell, this person is not obtuse or neurologically impaired or being a jerk. I think it just doesn't stick.

When I consider a course of action -- whether to decide upon it or to understand why someone else wants me to do it -- I find that the better I see a connection between that thing and whatever I am supposed to be doing, the better able I am to formulate or follow that course -- or to remember it. Associations don't just help one understand, they help one remember.

Again, I can't completely rule out some deficiency in my communication style (generally or as pertains to this individual), but knowing that "progressive" education stunts the conceptual faculty, I can't help but wonder if this is why I am having this difficulty with this person. Whatever the case may be, I know not to expect later understanding or compliance from this person, no matter what the apparent level of understanding or agreement may be in the moment.

Image by Jezael Melgoza, via Unsplash, license.

My second example comes from someone I know to be religious and hell-bent, so to speak, on proselytizing to people who are not fellow members of a sect that shall remain nameless. I have had several ... interesting ... conversations with this person, who has admitted with no prodding to wanting such things as a theocracy.

This person also knows that I consider myself an Objectivist. I don't go around broadcasting this, but I don't hide it, either. On meeting this person and realizing there would be further dealings, perhaps for a long time, I had hoped this information (which flowed naturally enough from a conversation early in this acquaintance) would cause this person to annoy me less with religious talk and seek more ... fertile ... targets than myself.

(Word to the wise: Don't assume -- as I incorrectly did here -- that someone whose basic cognitive framework is different than your own will react to new information in the same general way you would.)

What have I found instead? I will occasionally notice conversations taking a strange turn. Out of the blue, for example, came an observation about a traffic layout at a business establishment that, while it wasn't exactly optimal, wasn't particularly atrocious, either. Apropos of nothing, this person started pontificating about how the traffic layout needed improvement. In this person's view, this was because people in large numbers don't self-regulate to behave rationally, and later, because people need guidance. The convsersation got interrupted before I could see where it was going, but I later realized where it was coming from.

Driving home later, I chuckled when realized that this was an attempt to start a conversation about religion with me -- by speaking to me in "my language" as it were -- via the cardboard caricatures of my professed philosophy as a starting point. Lots of people confuse capitalism with "spontaneous order," for example, or don't seem to realize that it might be perfectly rational for people at leisure to mill about in a mall "inefficiently."

See my mistake now? This person's religious imperative is to add to the flock. All new information is interpreted through this lens. Facts such as I am an Objectivist. I am an atheist. don't mean Don't waste your time. to a person like this: They mean, Find a better hook for future conversion efforts.

More to the point, they also don't mean, This person, who is reasonable and easy to get along with sure doesn't seem evil: Maybe I should check my premises. I'm not sure what (if anything) they mean (or can mean) in that respect. Probably nothing, since this person's beliefs are "grounded" in the arbitrary pronouncements of the Bible, rather than being built up from reality via induction and logic.

But people have free will -- which belief systems and methods of processing information can help or hinder. It is not impossible that interacting with me might at some point down the road help either or both of these people start a journey towards becoming more rational. That isn't my primary focus in dealing with either of these people, but it is a consequence that can flow simply from being open about and living by a rational philosophy.

-- CAV