Should we follow "Miller's Law" on this Forum?
Miller's Law has been around since the late 1960's. It seems appropriate to use it in forms of group communication such as this Forum. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%27s_law#:~:text=Miller%27s%20law%2C%20part%20of%20his%20theory%20of%20communication%2C,imbuing%20their%20message%20with%20our%20own%20personal%20interpretations. Do you agree?
Comments (28)
[i]that in order to understand what someone is telling you, it is necessary for you to assume the person is being truthful, then imagine what could be true about it.
—?George Miller[/i]
Interesting quote and question. I guess we already do this system because most of the time when the members are debating we used to share a lot of bibliography, links, reads, books, videos, etc... so I guess this where we get and respect Miller’s law.
that in order to understand what someone is telling you, it is necessary for you to assume the person is being truthful, then imagine what could be true about it.
I've already done that and I GET SERIOUS FLACK FOR IT FROM OTHER MEMBERS. I calls them as I sees them; meaning I read the words, and I DO NOT add interpretation to them that is different from what is written. Many times, because of this, I've been labelled a nitpicker. I don't mind being called names, but not when I do things properly, I don't want and I don't like getting punished for it.
If someone says "yeah, but you must be able to discern intended meaning as opposed to written meaning," then they are asking me to violate Miller's Law.
I'm all for Miller's law, but then if the site accepts it this law to be enforceable, I'll refer posters to this law, those posters who are pissed off with me for sticking to my guns on wording, and the law shalt prevail.
---------------------------------
On the other hand, and on further studying the meaning of the law, the law itself (and as interpreted above in the beginning of my post) asks us to break Miller's law at the same time as to not break it. It asks us NOT to read what is written, but to GUESS what the respondent wants to MEAN, since we are instructed to IMAGINE what the TRUTH delivered in it is. In this process we can't avoid making interpretations; and that alone and by itself already asks us to do precisely what it asks us not to do: do interpretations (understand the truth) and not do interpretations (do not judge).
This law is self-contradictory and therefore I move that it not be used.
As in many things "the devel is in the details". I appreciate your comments.
Thanks! Thanks also for the comments.
Sorry, Don, I just revised my opinion on this law, and I reversed my stance 540 degrees.
Wow. This could pose a veritable nightmare in debating.
Mary: " I am 355 feet tall."
Peter: "I accept that, because it is necessary for me to assume that you are being truthful."
And there is nothing Peter can continue with, since he needs to follow the instructions, should we accept this law to be used and adhered to.
It says, the law says, "imagine what could be true about it." Well, I can imagine a woman 355 feet tall. Never saw any, but I can imagine it. And it is sufficient to the truth that I can imagine it.
This way any statement is necessary for acceptance for truthfulness, since human imagination is endless.
Which could be why we need the law. We need to start somewhere, and someone's statement might be the starting-point. We would first need; to understand what the person is saying. Yes, we may make "first-hand" judgements of a statement, but that generally doesn't mean that judgement is true. You would need additional information - but you may not get it, if you make instant judgement of what you first perceive.
Not sure this is as much Miller's Law, but I have recently run into problems with etiquette when debating on my own threads. One example of what think is arguing from "bad faith" is to go on a thread to try to disparage the writing of the thread in the first place. In other words, if you think a topic is stupid or beneath you, then don't even engage in it, not even to tell someone you think as much. If you truly have a disagreement, comment, question, or just want to engage in productive dialogue, that is when you participate. But to do a meta-analysis of the thread in order to tell the poster what a stupid thread it is, that is breaking the very rules by which productive conversation is to be had, as it poisons the well.
That's probably true. It makes sense to know the status of the "source of information" as well as understanding the information itself.
A good example. How do you think I would perceive your own statement? It seems antagonistic...but is it? I need to know more before I delete it, or ignore it. This, to me, is communication - not a rumble.
I would sugest we also just pay attention to what is being said. Example: Discussion
The reason this law is something of an 'aha' for many people is that we often speak to others as if they think in exactly the same way that we do, so when something seems wrong we assume they are thinking wrong and are a wrong person who needs to be corrected. It also helps us understand why others criticize us, because they are also not following Miller's Law.
While it is true that we have much in common with others in how our minds work, our actual thoughts and underlying beliefs, models, preferences, values and so on can vary quite significantly. As a result we often take the reverse approach to Miller's Law, assuming that when people say things that do not make complete sense to us, then they are wrong.
This is a slippery slope as we then make further conclusions and respond in ways that confuse or annoy the other people (who also do the same thing back to us). A particularly problematic part of this is when we attribute causes and characteristics, assuming they are saying or doing things for intrinsically personal reasons, but which are in fact false.
Miller's Law is effectively used by those who want to avoid the truth as they deliberately answer a question truthfully but in a way that deceives.
Did you punch him?
No I did not punch him. (actually they karate-chopped him).
The point to remember here is to be careful in your questioning and ensure you get the full picture. A clue in the statement above is that a truthful person is more likely to say just 'No', whilst the deceiver carefully parrots back the 'punch' phrase to ensure the truth of their statement is clear.
Yep, though it's more often called the principle of charity in a philosophical context.
Failure to to apply it is pretty rampant here, as with most everywhere.
Except wasn't the allusion to Christian virtue always tongue in cheek; the principle being more a computational (or analytical) strategy?
I sometimes wonder if it doesn't even excuse an attitude of condescension. Anyway, for the purpose of fostering constructive dialogue, is there maybe a happy medium between charity and credulity... "taking seriously"?
... Not for longer than humanly possible, of course. So yeah it's probably hopeless. :confused:
Be it called Miller's Law or principle of charity isn't so important. And also for those of us who have been here for years, every thread, especially started by someone new, ought to be approached as if you yourself were talking about it for the first time and explain your reasoning clearly.
Clarity, and intent. Often the intent is not too clear:... From my earlier quote: Quoting Don Wade
Yesterday, on this Forum, I asked the question: "Are politicians really magicians in discuise/". Politicians become Masters at using "Miller's Law" but, it's not for our enlightenment or entertainment.
Yes, I think it may be the difference between simply criticizing and arguing in good faith. One is indeed antagonistic, and one is genuinely looking to see if there's some dialectic through measured argument. I think these below are good examples of when something is simply to antagonize and not arguing in good faith:
I think we'd need to distinguish between the principle of charity vs. suspending judgement. I think we should be charitable to most people, they may be asking questions that aren't properly formulated, or more likely, they are thinking about issues we've thought about in a different manner, which can be quite beneficial.
Sure, one could object that looking at someone ask "what's the meaning of life?" or "how can something immaterial touch something material?" have been asked ad infinitum, but given the field this is, it's inevitable. And for some reason many of these oft-repeated questions can get us into interesting conversations.
What I think is problematic about Millers Law, as presented in that link, is that I don't think it's possible to suspend judgment altogether. We may try to be as "neutral" as possible, but this "objective" view of people and there opinions, doesn't exist, I don't think.
I applaud the suggestion. I tried to make a version of it myself in my post Virtue in Philosophy. Many philosophers have advocated for seeing things from the other's shoes; call it: making the strongest argument possible for them; understanding them on (in) their own terms; not assuming we know what words mean at first sight @Ciceronianus the White. Wittgenstein would say we don't find seeing to be puzzling enough. Ordinary Language Philosophy has the method at its core that my description of the implications of what we say at a given time (it's rationality), is backed only by your ability to see for yourself as well. The context, consequences, presuppositions, implications, all have to be filled out to see what someone else says; all postulated by us in a light most favorable to the one who will silently suffer our judgment, without anyone to further speak for them, but us (or should be treated as such, despite their being able to respond in this case).
This _is_ interpreting them.
There is a difference between comprehension and interpretation. "I calls them as I sees them" is an interpretation on the level of sensing (seeing, hearing, etc.). If you like, there are several stages, or levels, of interpretation. Higher level interpretations are done, for example, to hammer sense into the self-contradictory terms of the holy scriptures. If you need higher level interpretation to explain something, most likely you can explain it many different and incongruent ways. On the sensation level there is just one way to interpret.
When discussing the dog-eat-dog nature of life, only a simpleton would be indiscriminately charitable, or goodwilled.
IOW, the topics of philosophical discussions are often enough in conflict with charity and goodwill.
Yet you complain that I’m too quick to conclude you’re not arguing in good faith...
Even if the person is telling me the truth, why should I carry the burden of imaging what is true about it?
Isn't the burden of proof on the teller?
It also brings up the question of whether, when not the truth, is it deliberately untruthful or because of ignorance.