Dennis Hackethalhttps://blog.dennishackethal.com/Comments on post ‘Mind Reading’ on Dennis Hackethal’s Blog2024-03-28T14:29:58+00:00Martin Thaulow<p>For other readers: I’m one of the people mentioned here. </p>
<p>Well Dennis, I see you get off on the wrong foot immediately. So I agree with everything you write, and ironically the thing you get wrong is the reason I scolded you for saying that I was annoyed (and guessing I would deny it). </p>
<p>The problem isn’t whether or not you get it right. I agree that it’s neither inherently wrong or hopeless to try to read minds. The reason we shouldn’t do it is because it’s introducing a subject that very rarely belongs in a critical discussion. You could write exactly the same analysis about ad hominem, and I suspect you struggle as much as I do imagining Popper engaging in such speculation.</p>
<p>In both cases, it’s not the case that dragging the subject of the other person’s feelings and qualities is always irrelevant. It sometimes is. But there is a kind of gap to filled there, namely: Why focus on that <em>rather than the arguments presented</em>? Whatever answer you come up with must align with rules of engagement (such as generous interpretation). </p>
<p>For instance, the other person’s arguments could be such utter nonsense that the most generous interpretation is that the other person is not well. <br>
Or they have such a strong personal interest in something being true that you’re struggling to trust their neutrality. </p>
<p>In sum, there’s a pretty short list of circumstances where it makes sense to read minds. </p>
<p>Commenting that someone seems annoyed <em>could</em> have been acceptable in that situation (I don’t even know if you were right). For instance, you could be bothered by my tone and prefaced a request for moderation with a question about my state of mind. Totally reasonable. </p>
<p>Stating that someone is annoyed as a matter of fact is getting outside the realm of credible goodwill, though, and guessing that they’ll deny it is effectively nuking the discussion utterly. A miserable failure to engage properly. The only thing it does is reveal to me that you expect me to lie, which is a breach of the trust and cooperation needed to have a good discussion.</p>
<p>Even this isn’t what caused me to throw up my hands and disengage. No: The cherry on top was that this all appeared in the middle of a lecture in which you 1) Didn’t engage with the substance of my argument <em>at all</em>, 2) <em>Assumed</em> (didn’t argue for) that I’ve misunderstood the quoted sources and 3) Didn’t know what I was talking about. </p>
<p>A final point, which is my own mind reading, and thus an example of what I consider an acceptable meta-comment in a rational discussion:<br>
I wrote my master’s thesis on normative argumentation theory, which means I spent two years reading and writing about these exact questions. </p>
<p>I don’t say that because I want you to be impressed and submissive; on the contrary, I say that because I want you to take me seriously and engage with what I’m saying like I’m an adult.</p>
https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/mind-reading#comment-534Comment 534 by Martin Thaulow2022-12-21T21:31:13Z2022-12-21T21:31:13Zdennis <blockquote><p>Stating that someone is annoyed as a matter of fact is getting outside the realm of credible goodwill, though, and guessing that they’ll deny it is effectively nuking the discussion utterly. […] The only thing it does is reveal to me that you expect me to lie, which is a breach of the trust and cooperation needed to have a good discussion.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Isn’t lying a breach of trust first?</p>
<blockquote><p>A final point, which is my own mind reading, and thus an example of what I consider an acceptable meta-comment in a rational discussion:<br>
I wrote my master’s thesis on normative argumentation theory, which means I spent two years reading and writing about these exact questions.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I don’t understand how that’s mind reading.</p>
https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/mind-reading#comment-536Comment 536 by dennis2023-01-02T00:33:24Z2023-01-02T00:33:24Zdennis<p>In <a href="https://youtu.be/924V9YjLfHY?t=693" rel="ugc">this video</a>, the interviewer asks:</p>
<blockquote><p>[T]here’s a lot of women who say […] ‘I dress a certain way for myself’ […] My question is, if women are dressing for themselves, why do you often see women walking around in uncomfortable shoes and skimpy dresses when it’s freezing cold outside?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>He’s implying that, if women were dressing for themselves, they’d be wearing comfortable clothes instead. But they’re not, so they can’t be dressing for themselves. Three women subsequently agree that women do not dress for themselves but for attention. One says:</p>
<blockquote><p>I think a lot of women say that they dress for themselves but they’re really not dressing for themselves.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Her friend agrees:</p>
<blockquote><p>I think it’s, like, subconsciously dressing for others […].</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In other words, many women lie to themselves about their reasons for dressing up. The interviewer did the proper ‘mind reading’ to bring that to light.</p>
https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/mind-reading#comment-538Comment 538 by dennis2023-01-15T04:12:33Z2023-01-15T04:12:33Zdennis<p>In <a href="https://www.instagram.com/reel/CnpXLq7JrsF/" rel="ugc">this video</a>, a woman comments on another woman dressing up to go to the club:</p>
<blockquote><p>She doesn’t dress like that around the house, so it’s not like she’s doing it for herself.</p>
</blockquote>
https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/mind-reading#comment-541Comment 541 by dennis2023-02-01T09:50:43Z2023-02-01T09:50:43Zdennis<p>Epistemology is one big mind-reading exercise or else it couldn’t study how thinking works.</p>
https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/mind-reading#comment-569Comment 569 by dennis2023-02-21T21:02:31Z2023-02-21T21:02:31Z2024-03-28T14:29:58+00:00