No "common sense"?

Post Reply New Topic

I get what both of you are saying now.


What both of you are telling me is the questions I asked the average joe on yahoo answers is to complicated for them am I correct? If this is true I think I most likely know why some of my questions are deleted. It is because my questions are not clear in their minds and being clear is one of their rules.

I looked at your question and it is actually multiple questions, several of which don't have clear and objective answers. I will try anyway but I can see why other people didn't. Answering all the questions well requires a treatise.



A good start. I'm glad you gave an example of the difference between reliable and valid.


And here's where it all starts to fall into being unclear. Despite differentiating reliability and validity in your first paragraph, you bundled them back together again in this question so it can only be answered by breaking it apart into 2 questions. (And that is assuming that common sense and good judgement are the same thing which I don't think they are, but that's a whole other essay).

Is common sense reliable? Common sense is the shared knowledge of the majority. It is reliable within groups because the knowledge is shared by the majority of the group so you will get consistent answers when you ask a question about common sense to members of that group. But I don't think it's reliable between groups because different groups have different pools of shared knowledge. Is it valid? That depends on what the subject is and which group you are asking. A group can have valid shared knowledge about one subject but invalid shared knowledge about another subject.



If the different people are in the same group, the result will be reliable because they are dipping into the same pool of shared knowledge. If they are from differemt groups, it depends on whether or not that piece of knowledge is shared by the groups. Will the result be valid? That depends on what the shared knowledge is.


This is not measurable because common sense is the shared pool of knowledge about thousands of different subjects.



Not answerable because common sense is the shared knowledge pool about thousands of subjects.


Because America contains many, many groups. The knowledge pools about some subjects overlap and doesn't overlap about other subjects. This is not unique to America. It occurs wherever there are humans.



That is what I have tried to do. I have concluded that there are thousands of subjects about which groups have common sense knowledge and that the knowledge shared within a group won't be shared amongst all groups or even be accurate between groups. Some common sense knowledge is factual ("things fall towards the earth"), some is situational ("you should always lock your car door" depends entirely on where your car is) and some is opinion ("poor people are fat because they eat too much junk food" being hotly debated on the Health subforum right now). And that's just 3 subjects out of the thousands possible.



I'm not really sure what you are asking here. Are you asking "why can't we debunk incorrect pieces of knowledge that many people consider common sense?" Changing the knowledge in a shared knowledge pool takes decades if not centuries. The big problem is convincing people that the piece of shared knowledge is incorrect. Getting the Theory of Evolution into the shared knowledge pool is still a work in progress. Whether it is considered common sense that it is correct or common sense that it is incorrect depends entirely on which group you belong to.

Are you asking "why do people insist on dipping into a shared knowledge pool even if the answer they get may be incorrect?" Because doing anything else would be gruesomely inefficient, a literal re-invention of the wheel every time you wanted to use a wheel.

Or are you asking something else entirely?



I wrote a whole ton of stuff and still may not have answered the various questions. I'm not surprised others didn't even try. Why would it matter if the answerer is conservative?

Thanks for taking time to answer the questions. You have provided excellent answers to my questions moreso than most people.



Thanks



This tells me a lot as to why others may not be understanding what I am asking. How I worded the question is based upon the way I think. When I worded this question I was thinking in boolean logical terms. With boolean logic, we have different operators.

I will give you one

And: Let's say we have both operand1 and operand2

If operand1 is true and operand2 is true then the whole thing is true
If operand1 is true and operand2 is false then the whole thing is false
If operand1 is false and operand2 is true then the whole thing is false
If operand1 is false and operand2 is false then the whole thing is false.

Or: Let's say we have either operand1 or operand2 or both

If operand1 is true or operand2 is true then the whole thing is true.
If operand1 is true or operand2 is false then the whole thing is true.
If operand1 is false or operand2 is true then the whole thing is true.
If operand1 is false or operand2 is false then the whole thing is false.


What I was asking was from others to show how common sense or sound judgement satisfied both the conditions of reliability and validity.

Let's say common sense is represented by c and sound judgement is represented by s. Let's say reliability is represented b r and validity is represented by v. What I was asking of people is for them to show me how (c or s) are always members of the set of (r and v). I have been sick the past few days and this is an oversight on my part. I should've layed all of this out to them.




Pardon my ignornace, I did not know any of this Janissy. I thought common sense was knowledge that was shared by all of humanity. When I asked some of my questions I had a faulty premise going in am I correct? Wow, I learned something new.






Again, I did not know that common sense was not knowledge shared by all of humanity. I thought this was the only definition of common sense. My mistake




By what you say on your definition you're correct.





I did not know. I thought it was something universal and shared across the board of all humanity.




Why do some people especially some of those who are in the group called conservatives make it seem like it is so easy and it is universal knowledge? Why do they promote it like it is universal knowledge that one can obtain even if one is living on a deserted island? I don't understand.





Thank you for categorizing this for me. By you breaking all of this down for me it helps a lot.



I will answer this the best way I can. I was born March 28, 1979 therefore I could not get a proper diagnosis. My aspergers is more severe than others on here. There are a lot of things I do not grasp about American society like the workplace environment and what one was supposed to do to obtain a job in the IT field with the conditions that existed when I graduated. I still do not understand what the step by step detailed instructions are to obtain a job in IT whatsoever. I do not understand how the job application works in full detail especially the part where they ask how much do I want taken out for taxes?

I have tried to read online and it is very difficult for me to read. It is like reading greek. For example, it is said that one must start at the bottom. Where is the bottom? Do we have a detailed workplace hierarchy? Many places ask personality questions in which the questions are open to interpretation. I did not understand the questions and I do not understand the structure of these tests.

I have tried voc rehab and in the end they could not help and recommended I go to the autism center which is $80 per hour.

I need social skills training, occupational therapy and physical therapy. In order for me to have this I need major help from society itself. We have conservative minded folks who say we're entitled to nothing, life is not fair, etc. These folks make up a heavy voting base who has major influence in the shaping of public policy. As long certain standards are in place, I and those such as myself will not get the help we need.

Therefore, I have to challenge their standards and hit them hard. If this is the societal standards of today then I have to fight society and challenge people's beliefs and shove their own beliefs down their own throats. My conclusion is to be like Socrates.

Sorry about my rant here. I am good now

Many people have built their whole worldview around certain beliefs being true and then labeling those beliefs "common sense" if they are shared by many other members of their group, which is probably what led you to these questions. Assembling a worldview from scratch is such an overwhelming psychological project that I think people prefer to do it just once- in childhood. Sometimes circumstances change their lives so much that they are forced to re-create their worldview with all new information just to adapt to those new circumstances. But without that motivation, people won't be inclined to give up scaffolding beliefs they have held all their lives. That's why it can take generations for "common sense" beliefs to change. It isn't generally the adults that change (although they might change some, to adjust to new circumstances). It's that each new generation of children builds their worldview fresh using information not available to their parents when their parents were children.

Simply providing new information to adults won't change their beliefs unless those beliefs are non-essential to their worldview. (Example: people are pretty willing to change their beliefs about whether eggs are healthy or not based on new information because the belief is non-essential to their worldview. But their beliefs about God aren't likely to change.) This is why people fight so hard about what is taught in schools. Children are building their worldview from the information pool they are being educated in, and once it is in their heads it will be very hard to change.





That's a classic and believe me, I've wrestled with that one for decades (since I'm a liberal). Should I tolerate other peoples' intolerance in the name of remaining tolerant myself? It is a real paradox. I wound up deciding "no, I should not" (like a lot of liberals I decided this in late September of 2001). I realize this makes me intolerant and it is a paradox, but oh well. I can live with the cognitive dissonance. I actually wrestled with it a whole lot when I was younger, wondering if I should be tolerant of the sexism in other cultures. (And decided no but in a wishy washy way). This is a huge topic in feminist circles. Should tolerating the intolerance shown towards women be tolerated in the name of respecting cultural diversity? I thought "no" but didn't really come down firm with "no" until 9/11.





That provides lots of context. Now I understand why you wanted conservatives to answer. It looks like Aspergers has made it very difficult for you to access the (common sense) procedural knowledge shared by IT professionals in the US. Common sense social procedural knowledge is accessed by socializing. It gets the label "common sense" because it is accessed so seamlessly by so many people (NTs) that they aren't even aware of accessing it. But it isn't shared between groups, which is why I said "IT professionals in the US". An IT professional in India would have different common sense social procedural knowledge as would an American drug dealer even if they were working (dealing) 3 city blocks from the IT professional.

The common sense belief that you are trying to fight is the belief that anyone without mental retardation is able to access the social procedural knowledge of their group. This is an essential worldview belief and people are unlikely to change it unless drastically changing circumstances force them to change it. That's how it worked for me. I believed (because I had no reason not to) that everybody could access the social procedural knowledge of their own group unless mental retardation got in the way. I believed it right up until I saw my own daughter unable to access it in her preschool group. Had it been anybody else's child, I would have paid no attention. But in my own child, I paid attention and it changed that belief. But that was due to drastic changing circumstances.

So what does that mean for you? What will make the policymakers change this essential common sense belief (which is reliable, though not valid). Their own autistic children or nieces,nephews, grandchildren. But not fast enough.

I don't think I lack common sense and it's the lack of common sense in many people I come across that is a source of endless frustration to me. I think I learned a lot of it from my parents and the rest is worked out using logic.

I would generally agree that people with a more creative mindset can often lack common sense.

good riddance i say,

most so called "common sense" is only a "common" misperception

Would you care to explain how you come to that conclusion?

To me, common sense is the sense not to do stupid things that are to your detriment or the detriment of others and using that definition most people don't have much.

They may call it common sense but they forget that they weren't born knowing these things. They had to learn it at some point and maybe some people didn't have a chance to learn it.

There are probably a lot of things that many people would consider to be common sense that I have no idea about.

From my 46 years experience of life on this earth I get the impression that a lot of people, if given the choice between doing something that gives them the least amount of trouble ie the common sense option or doing what the people around them are doing (which might lead them over a cliff for example), will take the second option every time! They don't analyse what it is in their own best interests to do, they think 'what is everyone else doing?' and just do that. I despise people who do that! Then they spend a lot of time on the internet bewailing their fate eg 'I walked over the edge of a cliff and got badly hurt! Has anyone else had this happen?'

I have zero sympathy for people who actively choose to be this stupid!

I think I understand. Why would it be an ovewhelming psychological project for them?



What you're saying is if I try to challenge people's worldview they will fight me tooth and nail am I correct?




I can't live well with a cognitive dissonance. I become to confused with contradictions. Personally, I would rather refine it and make it better. There are somethings I should be tolerant of(critical thinking), there are some things I can choose whether I want to be tolerant of or not(like different types of food), and there are things that I can't be tolerant of(Pedophilia).



I did not know this whatsoever. Is this what they mean by it's who you know and not what you know? So what you're telling me is this is not rotely taught. Is this why it is difficult to read some of the things I have read online? I've always thought this is how it worked. I obtain my degree and all I needed to obtain an IT job was the degree. I did not know they would require years of experience and socialization. I thought it was simply obtaining the degree, I slid right in, and they trained me to their organization and molded me in.

If what you say is true then why do we have occupy wall street and why do we have so many college grads who can't get jobs whatsoever?



I am on social security right now. While at voc rehab this woman told me that she did not understand why I was even there and why I could not get an IT job. She said that I sounded intelligent to her. My voc rehab counselor admitted to me that we were in a grey area. He admitted that he didn't know how to deal with me.



What do you think is my best bet? What do you think I ought to do?

I don't know. I wish I knew but I don't. If I knew anything about the IT field I could have some meaningful advice but I don't know anything about it.

it isnt as much "common sense" as a standalone concept.

but that common sense is used as an argument for some quite ridicoulous claims and is in essence nothing but an intellectual cop out.

if it really is beneficial without a doubt then one shouldnt have any problems explaining why, which is excactly why common sense is often misperception, it is used by people who doesnt know enough about the subject and their answer to explain why its right, or used as universal where it might be true for a subset.

on the other hand there are people that uses the word and concept of common sense wo can and do explain these things, at that point it is what i would call actual "sense", nothing common about it though,

How do you define "reliable"?

Suppose that the scale also gives the result of 167 pounds when your 80 pound grandmother steps on it. Or you and your grandmother together. It would be hard to call that reliable unless the definition of reliability is simply "gives the same result for the same weight" every time.

Assuming that the response of the scale was linear. If someone who weighed 290 pounds step on it, would it read 334 pounds (i.e. the error double as well)? 312 pounds (i.e. the same error)? Or something entirely different?

Reliable means we obtain consistent results for a test or measure everytime the test or measure is implemented. It does not mean the results we obtain from the test will be accurate. The results from a test can be consistent everytime but consistently inaccurate. If the results are inaccurate it is considered invalid.




If this result is consistent everytime than this will be reliable but invalid.



You are correct. It is the same result for the same weight everytime whether the weight is accurate or not. If accurate than it is valid and if it is not then it is invalid.



I do not understand your question.

To me, reliable would mean that the results from the test would be predictable for any weight within the proper range AND would provide some indication of the weight.

I think that you care confusing predictability with reliability.

To consider the scale reliable, the results must not only be predictable, but they must somehow bear some relation to the weights placed on the scale.
[/quote]This goes into the aspect of predictability. For a given weight, what weight will the scale display?

If the error is always 22 pounds, then the displayed weight D(w)=w+22. Thus, for zero weight, the scale would display D(0)=22 pounds and D(290)=290+22=312 pounds.

If the error is linear, then double the weight would double the error. D(w)=kw where k is a constant, in this case, k=167/145. Thus, D(0)=0, i.e., it would display zero when noone is standing on the scale, and D(290)=290*167/145=334 pounds.

Another possibilty would be D(w)=kw+c. For example, if c=2 and k=165/145, then D(w)=2+165*w/145. Then D(0)=2, D(145)=167, and D(290)=332.

In these cases, the results would be predictable for any normal weight once you understand the scale. Furthermore, given two sample weights, the displayed weight of the heavier weight will be heavier than the displayed weight of the lighter weight which is what we want.

In particular, we would want that for some maximum constant limit, L, and for all w and w' such that if 0<w<w'<L then D(w)<D(w'). If we had some pair of values, w and w', for which 0<w<w'<L but D(w)>D(w'), then the scale could hardly be considered reliable in spite of predictability.

In any case, if the difference between the weight and the displayed weight is very much, I would hesitate to call it "reliable". I have a meat thermometer that is consistently 20 degrees Fahrenheit off and I don't consider it to be at all reliable.

I understand the range part. What you're saying is it doesn't have to be exact am I correct? What do you mean provide some indication of the weight?





What do you mean they must bear some kind of relation? What kind of relation? What do you mean by "weights placed on the scale?" Do we mean the object(s)? How would it be possible for the results not to bear some relation to the weights placed on the scale? I do not understand.



When you mean linear are we talking about linear equations in this fomat of y=mx+b or y = k+2, etc?

Thus, D(0)=0, i.e., it would display zero when noone is standing on the scale, and D(290)=290*167/145=334 pounds.



I have not taken calculus so I do not know what you're talking about. When you mean w' are we talking about the negation of w? What does w' mean?



How would you determine what is very much?