precisely. so no two differing cognative levels of behavioral expectation (s) can be universal.



ah, so these were the inanimate objects you were speaking of. indeed, physical laws do produce expected results often but your examples do not confirm that that is always the case. a ball thrown into the air on mars would not be expected to fall to earth. salt water does not freeze at 32 degrees nor dose pure water freeze at 32 degrees anywhere but at sea level pressure. being shot in the head often does not kill somebody.

behavioral expections of ourselves and others are far from universal even within ourselves as you yourself said regarding difering cognition. i'd expect the behavior of a kkk klansman to differ from the behavior of myself.

I'd expect the behavior of a klansman to be exactly like yours in many ways... as well as different in others. This thread is not about behavior though, it is about behavioral expectation and what constitutes being the basis for those.

It does not follow from the fact that there are different kinds(cognitive levels) of behavioral expectation, that none are universally shared.

--

One cannot take another at their word unless trust in the truthfulness of the testimony is extant. This begins at langauge acquisition and remains intact throughout our lives... without exception.

They're still there should you care enough to go back and look.

Let's consider this from another angle first: Let's consider the extent to which "nature" is the major contributing force in the development of our behavioral expectations.





The first argument I would offer on behalf of nature is the application of Darwinian theory to the social inclination of humans. Historically, human survival has depended on our ability to ‘get along’ with others. This is a necessity, it helps the group bring children into adulthood and protects and benefits women when pregnant and nursing, we attribute the development of many hormones to attachment we develop to our children, our mates and family.

Overall, we simply find the greatest benefit in numbers because we need the various types of talent which provide creativity, spacial acuity, the mechanically adept, mathematically inclined and all manner of abstract thought which together keep the social group protected.

DNA can be coded for survival in animals to the fine point where no spider is taught how to build its web, yet particular designs are attributed to particular spiders. We expect that kind of behavior from animals but we tend to attribute human behavior to other things.



How much our difference would you attribute to survival instinct and how much to our environment?



Civil codes of conduct:
If we dig deeply, would we find these laws to be necessary? A look at the anthropological and archeological data may be construed to indicate that humans remained in smaller groups for most of our existence. Resource scarcity is, historically, the reason for enmity, battles and wars, which is logical but it fundamental basis is grounded in survival instinct – we protect that which adds to our chances of survival and attack what is harmful. This indicates that we (humans) hold a certain expectation that can be generalized to all populations: we expect that people will be malleable.

We are malleable creatures or the creation of civil codes of conduct would have little effect in maintaining social accord. But is that an inherent quality that has developed out of necessity for the continuance of our species?

It would be difficult to say otherwise because the people who willingly grant power over the tribe versus the number of people who seek and accept it would indicate that the exceeding majority expect to be protected and are willing to abide by the social concepts which keep the peace. (further reading on the philosophy of the social contract).

So once again we share a universal expectations about our leadership and accepting our civil order.



I have just presented example supporting the quote just above. We go about so much of our daily life attributing our behavior to our free will, yet we can’t escape the realization that we are actually guided by deep-seated instinct. But obviously there are other factors which contribute to the development of behavioral expectations?

I will break here for another post responding to a questions Creative posed. The information in it may prove useful to the continued discussion.

Abraham Maslow (Hierarchy of Needs – 1940s) His idea was that humans follow a basic pattern of behaviors which are instinctual. He likened the pattern of behavior to a ladder (which later became a pyramid).

A human, according to Maslow, cannot take steps up the ladder before acquiring the need on the rung below. For most of the steps it’s because we cannot spend time and energy pursuing something else before we have stabilized the prior needs. (this was a step away from behaviorist (animal) thinking and into the realm of developmental psychology)

Physiological need: - The first rung (human NEED) on the ladder was the striving for physiological stability - gaining and maintaining access to life’s necessities: food, air, and water, shelter….

Safety Needs Secondary needs – to feel save within our environment

Loving and being loved

Esteem: is the fourth - The need to have respected, and valued by others and in this process to develop and affirm one’s own self-esteem.

Self-actualization - According to Maslow, every human, having met the other requirements, could become self-actualizing. That is to say, that every human would become proficient in and capable of realizing a function and it would be done with a sense of value, worth, and self esteem.

Maslow developed his ideas totally apart from ethical research and the number of dimensions he consideres are scant. Oddly, his idea has been a profound basis from which many philosophical and psychological ideas have grown.

In both circles it is still highly debated as to how many people can actually become self-actualized. Of course many have attributed great ethical development to those can achieve self-actualization, while Maslow was envisioning responsible adulthood.

A few posts back I presented examples supporting the quote just above. We go about so much of our daily life attributing our behavior to our free will, yet we can’t escape the realization that we are actually guided by deep-seated instinct. But obviously there are other factors which contribute to the development of behavioral expectations?

I think many of our behaviors are actually misguided and tend to make our actions totally unpredictable, as a whole. We have failed to acknowledge and recognize our needs and how our instincts/DNA work instead, we are in competition for control over that which has developed to keep us alive for the continuance of our species.

So anyway, at this point we would be discussing behaviors that are driven by self perception (what creative has termed thought/belief). However, I think it’s important not to lose sight of what universally guides our behavior because we must either act according to that foundation or we must override it.

If we act without considering the rather hidden aspects of instinct/dna then our actions are totally informed and NATURALLY those behaviors will be based on the unknowable or that which we call individual human thought.

Interesting topic. Wittgenstein said something to the effect that human motivation is unfathomable, yet it is based on the model of causality.

In other words, we can be damn sure everyone does something for a reason, but it is impossible to predict what others will do, and once they did it, it's impossible to say why exactly they did it.

This is solid, in Wittgenstein's view, if the actor we only see in his action, and no explanation is given by the actor.

Wittgenstein's most famous, although very boring, example is this:

You are in one side of a riverbank. It's a wide river. Across the river, there is a cliff, and two men are walking along the edge of the cliff. The walk normally, and maybe have a conversation, but you don't hear any of their words, and can't be even sure if they are talking, coz they are so far away.

All of a sudden one pushes the other into the abyss, he falls down the cliff and dies.

There is no reliable way for you to tell why the man pushed the other.

Was it an accident?

Was the pusher in a temporary state of delusion or confusion?

Was the pusher normal in his mind, but lost his physical balance?

Was the pusher intentionally prepared to kill the pushed?

These are unanswerable questions, so the answer of yes or no to each question has an equal bearing of validity.

Yet the true motivation was only one sole acting intentional motivation in the thoughts of the pusher.

--------------

This means that our expectations of the behavour of others depend on:

- our learned patterns and recognizing them in a given instance

- how good our pattern recongnition is

- how deviant the situation is in terms of unexpected and unknowable, but not at all impossible motivation by the players in it

(By deviant situation I mean a situation in which deviant motivational forces are at play; and a deviant motivational force I define as a motivational force that is not expected, and can't be known that it is even there. At its most basic form of deviance, a truly deviant motivational force is unknown and unknowable before the outcome is completed of a situation.)

- no matter what we see and understand, we can't always understand the situation,

- without having seen the outcome, we can't at all, whatsoever, and with any degree of accuracy decide if the situation is a normal one, or an exceptional one, having any number of (from us hidden) motivational elements.

- this means that we can know that there were deviant motivators were extant and acting, but only after the outcome

- and though we know that the deviant motivators were in play, we never will know what the deviant motivators were

If this is not negative enough for you to see how hopeless it is to predict reacitons, you may also want to consider, that

- a normal event with an expected, normal, outcome, may have well been motivated by any number of unnormal, deviant (ie. unexpected and unexpectable) motivations, but the sum effect is zero of the deviant motivational forces, so they don't appear in the action.

-----------------

I am a Wittgensteinian by conviction. I.e. in one of the philosophy courses we (I and my cellmates) took in the penitentiary, Wittgenstein was compulsory reading.

Without intending any hurtfulness, Redykouluous, I think you commit the fallacy of equivocation.

"predictable" is a word which means two things: either that (sense 1) something can be predicted, and we can, yes, predict it very well, or that (sense 2) it is possible to predict something, but we, particularly, are incapable of predicting it, no matter how hard or how much we try.

Like you said, humans are predictable; but I fear that you did not differentiate whether they are predictable to other humans in sense 1 or in sense 2.

I state that in sense 1 humans are not predictable by other humans. There is tons of empirical evidence to support this. (ie. nobody can predict suicides, criminal acts, jokes to come out of the mouth of babes, etc.) The theoretical support may state that on one hand it is just simply impossible to observe the huge amount of deviant motivatiors that are present in any situation, and on the other hand, even if we could keep track of them and measure their impact, we still can't universally apply a function, because each human's thinking mode is different, at least at present time.

So I accept that humans are predictable only in the second sense; and therefore, I am sorry to say, I reject your theoretical findings.

Interesting additions.

--

wux,

In defense of Redy, an equivocation fallacy is one in which the claimant switches between differing uses/meanings of a term in mid discussion/argument. I do not see that as being the case. If the fact that a term in use has more than one meaning which can apply to the discussion constitutes being an equivocation, then we're all guilty of that.

Wux, I skip a lot of posts because the authors are so predictable in the currents of their thoughts, and because their lack of awareness of how their axioms limit their ability to develop an idea makes dialog seem pointless.

You, however, say surprising things - and therefore I read your posts. And I'm glad, because while there's nothing surprising in this last post - it is quite refreshing, heartening, to see such insight and legitimate, careful reasoning.

Thanks Wux for the explanation. I think I understand the points you’ve made and I’d like try to add some clarity to my position.
I thought the OP topic question was overly broad but I wasn’t sure how it could be reduced.



I read the posts that followed and saw one which addressed universal behavior expectations and another that addressed man-made civil codes.

Universal behavior expectations is different from incorporating morals/ethics into a civil code of ethics. Obviously the latter will be contingent on the morals or ethics to which the majority of any particular group determine to be agreeable.

Using morals/ethics for civil code as an example of forming behavioral expectations is different from how universal behavior expectations are formed.

Using the two examples just stated, it was my intension to reduce the topic by dividing it into expected behaviors which are universal, which I based on Darwinian theory, and expected behaviors which form as a result of the interactions between individual perception and environment.

I was trying to present the two ideas by using examples that I thought would show a clear division.

Universal behavioral expectations are those whose motivating force is innate, such as expecting a thirsty person to drink, a hungry person to eat and taking it further, individuals will recognize their continued need for food and water and thus undertake the behaviors by which to acquire those needs. The need to procreate (sex-drive) and the need to protect babies and members of the group, which as whole form greater protection than an individual can expect as a loner, are also innately motivated.

(Localized)behavioral expectations are those whose motivation is externally derived. I used the example of civil codes of law however, ethnicity and culture, geographic and biographical concepts are also external motivators.

Another consideration would be to contrast to what degree the two ways in which behavioral expectations are formed affect each other. If we can determine or agree upon what a normal range of universal behavior might be, then we would, at least, have the basis of predictable human behavior. In many ways that is exactly why social science attempts to do.

Social science takes it a little further and subdivides the various environmental factors for further study. The value of those studies is to found when outcomes become more predictable. With a better understanding of those factors and a base line of universal human behavior, prediction of future human behavior becomes more accurate.

Thus we know that [what it takes to form behavioral expectations], at the very least, involves innate internal and changing external environmental factors and that each can affect the other.

All that being said, I found a lot to agree with in your first post referring to Wittgenstein. Personally, I think we attempt to override many of our innate behaviors because of the external pressure of our environments.

I also agree with Creative, that behavioral expectations (and I add - ) that are formed externally require belief and belief systems and absolutely such behavioral expectations do not require knowing self, nor do they even require self-reflection or self or other-formed values.

as to behave is a verb and requires action it would not apply to inantimate objects, although inantimate objects can have constructs or characteristics like "chairness" - we know the characteristics oo some thing that make it a chair (for example)

behavioral expectations are learned. The only precondition is obcervation

Wux you are quite right...

One can not expect to predict that actions of individuals with any degree of real accuracy.

One can predict probabilities based on empericial data for patterns observed in like minded individuals.

One can predict the general trend of behavious in sub-entities that form from like 'action' individual entities. (the larger group)

one can predict anythng they wish

Deleted...

I agree that another's intent is impossible to prove. I also agree that sometimes we cannot accurately predict human behavior, and that the case in question shows this rather nicely.



This section is addressing learned expectations, or perhaps it be better put, expectations that result from holding a belief system about the world and/or ourselves. Those aren't the only kind. Di has touched upon this aspect and it warrants further attention. Although I think that this is scratching the surface of the topic, and I would agree with the general outline of learned behavioral expectations except for the mention of deviant motivational factors.

Deviant factors(as you've defined them) cause me pause, because if those are unknown, then they cannot possibly be a constituent within the behavioral expectations in question. Although, they do, can, and sometimes will affect the accuracy of such expectations. However, accuracy is not relevant to the notion of whether or not universal behavioral expectations exist.



I agree that we cannot always understand the situation.



In cases like the one being described, I agree.



This one causes me pause. It is to suggest that there are some things that affect the events as they happen that we cannot know. I agree, in part. However, if we cannot know what the deviant factors were, then how can we know about them? In other words, in order for us to become aware that there are possibly unknowns, some of these things must have first become known. Our being able to discuss the possibility or probability of unknown contributing motivating factors clearly shows us that we are aware of the possibility that we could be possessing insufficient information/knowledge. We could not know of the possibility of being mistaken unless we have been mistaken about things in past, and then learned of that which we did not know about beforehand.

We can and sometimes do correct our mistakes, by this very method. Knowledge is accrued. It seems that you're denying that possibility. It also seems that you're setting an unattainable criterion for predicting human behavior and/or the results thereof. Correctly predicting behavior requires knowledge, and knowledge does not necessitate omniscience.



While I agree that there may be unknown motivating factors involved, I do not agree that that possibility is always the case. There are times when our knowledge is sufficient, when the motivating factors are known, and we predict reactions/behavior quite well. True premisses cannot lead to false conclusions, assuming valid inference.

Learning a common language requires trusting that the teacher is being truthful in his/her testimony/teaching... without exception.

--

I think that that is an example of a universally shared behavioral expectation.

Language acquisition instantiates this universal behavioral expectation, and it remains intact throughout our lives. Hence...

One cannot take another at their word unless trust in the truthfulness of the testimony is extant.

Just wanted to add a bit of information that is often forgotten about.

There is nothing we know of that is not in a state of action. Decay or erosion may not be apparent to our eyes or even in the span of one's life, but everything we know of is changing and change required a process of action and reaction.

well just not all foreign language is learned in school. I learned mine by living overseas

many true fluents learn their second language only partly in school, if in school at all