The Bias of Buying.
A young man buys a collapsible Javelin.
Before trying it out, he reads the instructions on how to build, grasp and throw the Javelin.
He goes to try it out. He throws it a few times, the furthest he can throw it is 15 metres. Pleased with himself, he sets the Javelin down a moment, he spends the next few minutes day dreaming about throwing the Javelin even further next time.
When he reaches for the Javelin again, he finds to his surprise that it has been picked up by another young man.
Before saying anything, he decides to wait and see what the other young man will do with the Javelin. He thinks to himself "He probably doesn't even know it is collapsible."
The other young man throws the Javelin. It travels 50 metres.
At this point, the man who bought the Javelin is furious and he leaps up, saying "You weren't holding it right! You didn't even throw it right! If you want to learn how to use it properly, like me, then you should buy one for yourself! That throw doesn't count because you broke all the rules!"
He snatches his Javelin back, making it clear to the other young man that it collapses, just to show off and try to incite envy. He leaves angrily with his Javelin. Unable to believe how arrogant this other person was to think that they could throw his Javelin and have the cheek to not even do it properly.
After he has left, the young man who threw the Javelin the furthest, scratches his head, shakes it, then proceeds to make his own Javelin from a nearby tree, he carries on throwing his Javelin. When it breaks, he makes another and keeps on throwing.
Already back home, the young man who bought the Javelin decides that he doesn't need to throw it anymore. He puts it into a glass case and displays it over his mantle. He never uses it again, but he frequently can be found day dreaming about himself throwing it further than 50 metres. He can also be found frequently telling people about his amazing collapsible Javelin back home.
Before trying it out, he reads the instructions on how to build, grasp and throw the Javelin.
He goes to try it out. He throws it a few times, the furthest he can throw it is 15 metres. Pleased with himself, he sets the Javelin down a moment, he spends the next few minutes day dreaming about throwing the Javelin even further next time.
When he reaches for the Javelin again, he finds to his surprise that it has been picked up by another young man.
Before saying anything, he decides to wait and see what the other young man will do with the Javelin. He thinks to himself "He probably doesn't even know it is collapsible."
The other young man throws the Javelin. It travels 50 metres.
At this point, the man who bought the Javelin is furious and he leaps up, saying "You weren't holding it right! You didn't even throw it right! If you want to learn how to use it properly, like me, then you should buy one for yourself! That throw doesn't count because you broke all the rules!"
He snatches his Javelin back, making it clear to the other young man that it collapses, just to show off and try to incite envy. He leaves angrily with his Javelin. Unable to believe how arrogant this other person was to think that they could throw his Javelin and have the cheek to not even do it properly.
After he has left, the young man who threw the Javelin the furthest, scratches his head, shakes it, then proceeds to make his own Javelin from a nearby tree, he carries on throwing his Javelin. When it breaks, he makes another and keeps on throwing.
Already back home, the young man who bought the Javelin decides that he doesn't need to throw it anymore. He puts it into a glass case and displays it over his mantle. He never uses it again, but he frequently can be found day dreaming about himself throwing it further than 50 metres. He can also be found frequently telling people about his amazing collapsible Javelin back home.
Comments (39)
Can I steal your house or wife just because I can do something better with either than perhaps you can at present? Just curious.
I mean, who knows. Maybe he sacrificed time and energy that could have been used to build the strength and endurance needed to throw said item as far just so he could be able to purchase said item legitimately. What then?
Indeed. I purposefully left the meaning I put into the story vague and unaddressed. Just in case anyone took away another meaning from it worth investigating. Without being led to, or way from, it by me or my biases
Quoting Outlander
No, I'd say that stealing is wrong most of time, unless you're stealing back something which rightly belongs to you or if you will die if you don't, then stealing is mostly wrong. In the story however, nothing is stolen.
It's interesting that you said "Purchase said item legitimately" because legitimacy is something the story examines.
Described in the story are three methods of acquisition. Purchasing, borrowing (remember that ultimately, the Javelin wasn't stolen) making. Is purchasing more legitimate than making? Doesn't someone have to first make, in order for the made to be bought?
Let's say I am the familialy legitimate heir to a throne. Yet the people tell me I have no legitimacy and get rid of the throne, in favour of a democratically elected government. I may have been the legitimate heir to that throne, but the throne itself was not given the status of legitimate right to govern.
That last paragraph is just a tangent really but it popped into my head so I obviously thought it might help.
Here is a question for you. In the story, which was the more legitimate throw? Should either of the throws made by either people be seen as illegitimate? If so, who's throw was more legitimate?
It looks like dueling fantasies to me.
I know the story doesn't come out and tell us what social class each belongs to, but we have one who buys -- and buys a relatively "fancy" collapsible model -- and one who makes his own from a nearby tree. Within the story, the rich one feels entitled and rationalizes away the superior performance of the poor one. But the story itself is a fantasy that the rich are all worthless and the only people with real value are not these elitist snobs ("You aren't even holding it right").
It's terribly sad, the way the boy retreats from the experience of throwing to fantasies and bragging. And his resentment of being shown up by a nobody is reminiscent of the tragedy of Salieri in Peter Shaffer's play and the film Amadeus. On the other hand, the story itself could be the kind of fairy tale you might tell to get Real Patriots to take back their country from the effete elite. The resentment in the story itself is palpable to me.
Now, you're thinking about the psychology behind the philosophy! Yes, I'm resentful. Do I have reason to be? Maybe. Resentful toward an entire class? No, just the members of said class who behave like this. Ultimately I care more about individual behaviour. I have friends who come from higher socioeconomic backgrounds than myself but I don't resent them personally. One is a socialist, funnily enough.
What would you say of the story if the two individuals and been an older and younger sibling?
What would you say if I told you that the Javelin represents philosophy? Probably pointless questions but since they popped into my head, I'll ask and you answer what you want to answer.
Well I mean... It is shite being Scottish. What can I say? Haha
Well it's not like it was hard to guess what you were talking about!
Quoting MSC
Well I'm a person you know. I have a family and a job and everything. I can psycho-analyze total strangers all day long. I just don't see any reason to call doing that "philosophy".
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
I never called it philosophy or suggested it was. It's just how I interact with people. I hope you know that my feelings that lead to writing this, are not directed at you? I don't need a proxy and I don't think it's fair to use one either. You've never harmed me and nobody with a degree has either.
I am genuinely glad to hear that. I seriously hesitated about talking about the story itself as resentful -- other people's lives, especially here, are none of my business. But you made it clear you wanted feedback. I seriously worried that it would be hurtful for me to say that.
Honestly, it was a little bit, but that's not your fault at all and when critiquing I feel it is almost unavoidable. Wait until my book comes out, because of the writing style it might as well be my personal diary. I'm an extremely open book with others engaged in philosophy and or psychology. Part of the reason I got involved with both psychology and philosophy was to help me figure out how to manage myself first and foremost. I didn't realise how much I'd grow to love both fields.
Ultimately I try to see, both myself and others as a fascinating object of study while trying not to objectify them but I probably have objectified myself more than others to some extent.
To the young man who threw the javelin 50 metres, there is resentment for the javelin’s untapped potential, going to waste under glass, and the price he cannot afford to access it. And resentment for the javelin’s owner, who perceived the 50m potential demonstrated as humiliation, threatening his ‘legitimate’ relation to the javelin’s value as property. For me, there’s a certain sadness on behalf of the original creator of the javelin: whether or not he perceived the javelin’s potential as 15 or 50 metres, it was likely created more to be thrown than displayed.
There’s no reason why the young man can’t eventually fashion his own javelin to throw further than 50 metres - especially if he’s willing to learn from anyone. But I understand his frustration at the cost of acquiring pre-existing, proven knowledge and expertise.
The way I interpret this is that the first guy has a loser's mindset. He'd rather protect his own ego and simply follow what the instructions (i.e. learn the "right" way) say than actually learn how to do his craft better. Then when someone upstages him he just gets resentful and bitter instead of either trying to learn from the guy or look inward and critically examining his own approach to the javelin instead of just regarding it as flawless because he knows the instructions. He thinks he knows the craft because he seems to be possess a limited amount of knowledge that he gained from the instruction manual, it's classic amateur thinking he is expert.
I see this in poker a lot. Nobody cares how you think the game "should" be played - everyone thinks they're decent or an expert. Learn when people get the better of you and leave your ego at the door. At least that's the way I read it.
I like this interpretation. Notice that all the rules the Buyer takes issue with are not really anything to do with the rules of throwing a Javelin. IE, don't step over this line, the person who throws furthest, wins. He doesn't even know if holding the Javelin a certain way yields better results. Maybe if he had asked the Maker character to throw it the way he had been taught, he could have found out if that was truly the best and only way to hold the Javelin. If the maker had thrown further than 50 meters that time, it was indeed the best way, if he couldn't repeat or beat the feat of a 50 metre throw, then it wasn't the best way. He'll never know now.
I liked how you brought poker into it. Any player worth his salt knows that even if given the worst possible hand, he can still bluff his way to a big pot win.
As someone who formerly threw the Javelin, you lost me right there...
I also used to do Javelin. I know as well as you know that a collapsible staff is completely immaterial to whether or not it makes an effective Javelin. It's more likely to reduce the effectiveness, if anything.
The reason I included it in the story was to illustrate that appearances and novelty matter to the buyer.
OK... that I can 'buy' into a bit more. (pun accidental)
Wow! It feels kind of like the 'good ol' days'.
I'm a refugee from the old 'Philosophy Forums' and, where my philosophical skills lacked quite a bit, I often tried to lighten the mood with a bit of 'non-sequitur' humor. I kind of always sided with Ludi Wittgenstein who said, “A serious and good philosophical work could be written consisting entirely of jokes."
Not everyone appreciates my lousy humor, but I keep on anyway...
... so I suppose some folks can imagine me as happy. (unintentional intentional poker tell I suppose)
If you wanted me to I could kind of breakdown the allegory and write out my unqualified notions?
Other than watching my 3rd baseball game of the day, I've not a lot to do at the moment.
Couldn't agree more! If you listen to any decent comedian do stand-up for more than five minutes, this is extremely apparent.
I feel like stand-up comedians are extremely good at highlighting problems in many areas of life.
Question for you. Does humour ever shed light on philosophical problems? And yes. I'm testing you right now.
Humour does quite often sheds unwanted light upon the 'agents' of philosophical problems who prefer to live in the shadow lands (or behind the curtain) and exposes supposed philosophical problems for being poorly asked questions or just statements being stated with a inquisitive tonality (conclusions wearing a questions clothing).
I do hope I failed... success is so boring.
I prefer fail again, try again, try to fail better over any participation trophies...
... or collapsible Javelins (most likely an impulse purchase one late night from the ACME Corporation as recommended by Wile E Coyote - 'Super Genius': https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHDO78QfLbE ) in a glass case (something only a helicopter mother can be proud of).
You sir, are hilarious! I really mean that.
So your answer, if I am understanding it correctly is that there are no philosophical problems?
Indeed there are philosophical problems... in fact, quite a large number of them.
What it is I find all too often are 'impostors'; extremely poorly asked questions or statements/conclusions that are designed to act as if they were indeed philosophical questions. These 'impostors' demand the attention rather than command attention. Still they tend to attract a good number of folks due to some sort of popular affinity one might share with the notions implied, yet have the implications pimped as 'harmlessly asked' or even worse 'the given without proof', all carefully veiled with a variety of confirmation biases to make them seem 'philosophicalisch'. Indeed they are popular as most are usually soft targets and require less critical thinking or critical self-evaluation.
Well... that didn't make much sense at all, so you see why I stick to the jokes. Believe me, no matter how far I toss this statement around (15 meters or more) I certainly won't be 'pleased with myself' or place it in a glass case.
Good news! You failed my test. That doesn't mean you're wrong, I wouldn't be able to make claims that I know you are wrong. I'm actually relieved, I thought I wss going to upset you if you had passed. :P
My claim is that there are no philosophical problems. Only problems of language, mathematics, ethics and logistics, to name a few. I would claim that there are no problems in philosophy, I would say philosophy is a problem of language.
Good to know, except some folks (an appeal to an unknown authority - aka: 'weasel words') - get me criticizing my own post before I post it) might suggest that all of those are all subsets of philosophy; thus in the end... philosophical problems, but I suppose that's another 'philosophical problem' for another thread? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oShTJ90fC34
I'd say it's a linguistic problem. If the problems of objective sciences are grouped together, then aren't we just using the term 'sub-set' when really we are just creating a blanket term for those problems?
We could think of it like paternalism. If Philosophy is the parent and something like linguistics is the offspring. If linguistics buys a house and gets a mortgage, is that philosophies problem or does it only become philosophies problem if linguistics dies?
I guess I just find it strange that philosophy makes claims to the propriety rights to problems, that were always in the domains of those objective fields, even if the other fields were as yet unnamed? Would it better to say that both those fields and philosophy own those problems? Should we say that philosophy was just the proto-form of those fields?
I'll watch the video very soon. I may not reply as quickly as usual as I've got some things I need to do. I am enjoying this conversation though. I'll probably have to move it to a new discussion thread soon however.
@Pfhorrest I think you have some skin in the game here. Would you view something like the field of linguistics, mathematics or ethics as something that was created, or discovered, by philosophy?
How about it being a genetic fallacy? (provided the genetic fallacy is a fallacy)
Quoting MSC
It does certainly encompass the magnitude of the gist of (probably all of) my posts. ;)
Not inherently. Generally yes, most items bought and sold are 'made' or 'processed' in some way.
Quoting MSC
Before answering, the reason I consider the story a "random, ridiculous example" is because you made the guy who saved up enough money, purchased an item, read the instructions, and otherwise acts as a patient individual who knows the value of planning and research at first- into an arrogant, petulant, and unrealistically petty child- for no reason other than to do so. While the other man is for some reason valiantly humble and infinitely resourceful. These facts are what will effect the answer to the above questions.
By determining for us the purchaser of the javelin cares little about the art itself (distance throwing) and more about success over other people for purposes of patronizing his own ego- it casts him as the "lesser" or "less legitimate" person. Aside from the fact distance throwing is based on little more than physical strength, which is inexplicably linked to physical size/genetics. Not to say someone larger than yourself who just sits around all day will always be stronger than someone of smaller size who trains constantly with maximum effort- a smaller person can use leverage to topple a larger person who doesn't know what they're doing, but if that larger person uses the same tactic, that smaller person will likely get very hurt very quickly. Just how it is. In short, hurrah for firearms- the great equalizer!
I tend to think this is how it's gone historically, though I'm lazy about the idea. In olden times, thinking about stuff was philosophy. Once you get the ideas cleaned up enough to start doing real research, you spawn off a science. There's no more "natural philosophy" like there was up until shockingly recently; now there's the physical sciences. We don't need Hume to do psychology for us anymore; we have actual psychologists. There was a brief period in the mid-20th when English-speaking philosophy was dominated by the "ordinary language" school, which more or less disappeared over night; it didn't disappear -- the work of Austin and Grice was a solid enough start on actual science that the entire field decamped to linguistics departments and renamed itself "pragmatics" to be studied alongside phonology, morphology, syntax and semantics. A linguistics major is far more likely to be able to recite Grice's maxims (it was on the midterm!) than a philosophy major.
I mostly agree and said as much -- it's what I called the resentment at the story level -- but there is still something to it, and the story is supposed to be about buying. People who don't have resources to hand have a motivation to be "resourceful". People who can buy what they like are privileged, and feeling privileged can readily lead to feeling entitled.
Now I hadn't thought about this at first, however now that I am thinking about it, if anything this makes the character more realistic, not less. Maturity in one area of life does not mean we can be mature in others.
I do agree that up until this point I've been rather unfair in my perspective of my own character. Ultimately the character is human though. I happen to know of a number individuals who are mature in the same way as the character and immature in the same way. Some of the nicest people I know become absolute bastards when competition rears its head. This does make me feel more sympathy for my character, when the build up to the story matches what you described, financial maturity, patience, etc...
However, this isn't the only reason the character may have had enough money to make the purchase. They may be a thief, they may be living off of parents money, they may be living off money earned in an ethically questionable way. They may have just been given a gift card with enough value to make the purchase.
None of this suggests that the person cannot possibly be the type of person who loses their head and their sense of self during competition.
Quoting Outlander
I'll do now what you did, how the maker character is portrayed doesn't mean he is the greater or the more legitimate than the buyer. He could be too lazy to get a job, he might have used wood from a tree that was on private property, the particular species of tree may have been endangered and/or the very last of its kind.
[Quote]I hope that the higher power is watching over me
'Cause we young people don't see faith like most the older see
If he or she is listenin', a mere sign can spark me
But if the laws in the bible are bogus, then prepare for anarchy
Worst case scenario is never ever was a higher power
So in the midst of chaos now, the only real savior is fire power[/quote] - Tech N9ne, Higher power
Thought I'd put this here. That last line about firearms made me remember it and I think you'd enjoy the song and the artist it is from.
Will respond more to you and others soon. I have chores to do that I've neglected. STOP REPLYING WITH SUCH INTERESTING POINTS! MY CAR IS FILTHY! :')
I think the historical way to think about it is that philosophy divided, like a cell undergoing mitosis, rather than a human giving live birth. These other fields used to be considered part of philosophy, as almost everything did, until they developed enough to split off and become their own things. What we call philosophy today is what’s left after all those other fields split off, and their subjects still overlap at the fringes, but there are things within each offshoot that are clearly not philosophical now, and things within philosophy that clearly have nothing to do with that offshoot (but maybe have much to do with another).
You might think of philosophy as like a stem cell, as yet undifferentiated into any more specialized cell, while those other cells that split off from it have all become more specialized.
That's a great way to put it. Thank you for writing that! Helps put things into perspective and context.
I would say that having confusing and irrational seeming flaws and behaviours is what makes the character believable. It's easily verifiable that individuals who are strong in some areas are weaker in others. That's just human nature. It's true of me, it's true of you, it's true of everyone. Hell, I consider myself to have good sportsmanship but a boxing match with one or two of my past tormenters may see that fly out the window.
All I really read from that particular criticism when made by @Outlander was "Why didn't you make your character perfect?" Because then there would have been no moral, no realism, no humanity, no real story. It would have just ended up being a story about a perfect sage who buys a Javelin and has a good time with a new friend who can throw further than the sage can. Where is the moral? Might as well ask why JK didn't just make Voldemort a nice person and save Harry Potter all that time almost being killed while he was at school.
Admittedly my buyer character is not Voldemort but no one in my story is described as a good or a bad person. Their day is just described. One day out of thousands of possible days to have either a good or a bad one.
Don't get me wrong, I'm of the opinion that you can tell a lot about an author from their writing. However, you can also tell a lot about other people by how they react to a piece of writing. Which means you need to be careful you're not projecting your own emotions onto an author. They might very well be there, but why are certain criticisms only able to be made by certain people?
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
Is that what you majored in? Linguistics. Just asking out of personal curiousity. You won't paint yourself as "the evil academic elite" to me, just because I am a highschool drop out. I'll maybe do that another day, maybe when I have a really bad one haha
That's the first thing that popped into my head... But then again, I wouldn't say that I've thrown the javelin farther than anyone.
You mean the fancy, and ultimately useless collapsible javelin used dogmatically as a metaphor for formal academic philosophy à la AP? And the hand-made javelins that end up being more useful code for the self-made individual philosophies, pragmatic, in a whatever-works kind of way?
Edit: assuming the above hypothesis is correct, let me see where it leads, in terms of resentment.
In the metaphor, the fancy javelin buyer / academic philosopher has good reasons to be pissed, because the amateur casually picked and threw his fancy javelin much further afield than him. While the gifted amateur has no good reason to be pissed, because what, he met an angry entitled idiot? C'est la vie!
So if you indeed identify with the gifted amateur, and if the whole metaphor works, I don't see why you should feel resentful; instead the academic guy should feel resentful, like in the story...
So there's something that the story doesn't say. Some secret envy of the amateur for the fancy javelin, for instance... Or his desire to be recognized by the academic javelin thrower as tallented.
Further reflections: I know I'm really going on a limb here but what's the worse that could happen? I could look like a fool? Already done. :-)
So then, why the title of the thread? The Bias of Buying. What is our friend MSC trying to tell us here? Maybe that the act of buying in a particular strand of philosophy, however fancy, the very act of adhering to it and investing in it leads to the death of our philosophical pursuit, now hanged like a fancy javelin on the wall, shown up to our friends, but never actually used to do any real throwing, any projection, any philosophy... Because we're afraid to break it.
Whereas a more opportunistic user of whatever philosophy he finds good can get some results, the picky, proprietary defender of one tradition never actually produces anything new with it. He just tries and protect or show off his tool. That's the bias of buying.