Seems to me that it's pretty clear in discussions of Singaporeans' apathy that people are referring to political apathy. Furthermore, I think it's political apathy in an internal sense --- it's not just that Singaporeans feel strongly about politics but don't want to take action, but that they don't feel as strongly about politics as they should. For example, outside of the vocal blogosphere, most people are simply not frustrated by the fact that demonstrations are illegal in Singapore --- they mentally 'shrug' and accept it without indignation. And I think the same could be said for gay rights --- most people are not enraged by one side or the other, if they are even aware of the issue. The only political issues that seem to get most Singaporeans riled up are those that hit their own pockets directly --- for example, the recent increases in ERP and GST rates. In such cases one could interpret their non-apathy as a consequence of their non-apathy about themselves --- that is, such cases are indicative of self-interest but not necessarily a general interest in political happenings. Violations of human rights, on the other hand, are merely shrugged at.

Now, of course one person can hardly be equally interested in all aspects of politics. But I think it's a reasonable expectation that the subjects of a government be interested intrinsically in the actions of that government, whether or not such actions necessarily have a direct impact on themselves. Vaguely, it seems to be part of the notion of political participation in a democracy that citizens should feel at least a sort of emotional responsibility (if actual responsibility is beyond them due to their disenfranchisement) for what the government representing them does. Not least because their government can do things only by using the taxes citizens shower them with, and it is surely not unreasonable to expect that one should care about the purposes for which one's taxes are being used.

Hi,

What does "apathy" have to do with "passion"? They seem to be opposites, until you realize that "Singaporeans are apathetic" means "politically apathetic". While much can said about undesirability of this trait, there is much positive to be said about a "dispassionate political animal", rather than a "politically passionate animal" that generates more heat than light.

I know which one I would rather be. If I want to engage in politics, then I don't want to be a dog that takes on other people's causes without a well argued "why" or "why now" argument. Thus I look and sound apathetic, even though my politics is clearly of the informed type. I'd rather be Lee Hsien Loong's "tolerate the gays" camp, than "repeal 377a" or the totally ridiculous "keep 377a camp". I remember Turing.

I use this issue as a kind of litmus test about the kind political animal a person is. I am this animal as described above. Which is the Singaporean? Sadly, I think quite different from me, even though we vote the same.

I believe you will be hard pressed to make any progress without buying into the whole idea of a min / max. If u do succeed, you will certainly be the first. Really as Bambi Darkness said, Apathy is like Alaska, I wonder why didnt he say China or Australasia, bc in Alaska the snow is breath taking, but it's also deadly and everyone knows its impossible to even navigate through.

http://dotseng.wordpress.com/2007/11/11/are-singaporeans-really-apathetic/

You need to get a new fishing rod.

It's very simple.

It goes something like this, if you believe, there is a pay out or advantage in being engaged, then it doesn't pay to be apathetic.

But if you are not in a position to effect change or to even moderate the outcome by a bit - then, it makes perfect sense to remain apathetic.

No matter how you cut, slice or stomp on it, you cannot run away from this simple equation. I can more or less guarantee you abt 1 million percent.

Pls go to "just stuff" and read how it should be done. Go!

"I'd rather be Lee Hsien Loong's "tolerate the gays" camp, than "repeal 377a" or the totally ridiculous "keep 377a camp".

You make it sound as if there are three options, when we all know this whole matter is really like getting pregnant - its either positive or negative.

So which one is it? Because from where I am squatting, there is no No.3. Again, it is very simple, it is keep or throw and anything that claims to be in between is just a crock of shit.

You also need a new fishing rod.

twasher:

Good points. I should mention that what you say is perfectly in line with a particular specification of my P1--where the relevant "X" is something in the region of "political matters". Let's call that P1.1. While I do think that P1.1 constitutes a large part of what people mean in putting forward P, I'm less sure if that's all there is to it. Sometimes, I hear people say things like: Singaporeans "lack passion" and do not go out of their way to pursue their dreams where the issue under consideration is not social or political at all. In order not to rule these cases out just via a mere definition, I decided to make P1 at least compatible with it. In order also not to rule out the possibility that some people simply mean to say that Singaporeans are apathetic in the unrestricted sense, I've also included P2. (It should be a matter of empirical research and definition whether each of these possibilities--P1, P1.1, P2--are true of Singaporeans.)

But as I said, I do agree that something more like P1.1 ("political apathy") is a large part of the issue.

Secondly, as you rightly point out, we are talking about an X (political matters, say) that is meant to be such that people (living in a democracy, say) ought to be concerned about. (See my #4)

Thirdly, I absolutely agree that the internal dimension must be there. A purely behavior construal of apathy will fail to set it apart from, say lathery, which is not helpful. If you look at my discussion #2 both options I suggested involve the internal, psychological dimension--the difference is that the first option only has that dimension while the second (my preferred construal) includes a behavioral component as well. Why is that my preference? Because a purely psychological definition makes the phenomenon very hard to track--what is going to count as evidence for or against the (putative) truth of P except such and such observable behavior?

Happy Pig:

I'm not sure what the complaint is since on your account, "apathy" has lots to do with "passion"--they are opposites and thus partly defined in terms of each other. In fact, I am assuming through my discussion that apathy is basically the lack of passion (which nicely follows the etymology of the word itself--from the Greek apatheia, literally the negation of pathos).

Secondly, on your point that "Singaporeans are apathetic" probably means something like "(Singaporeans are) politically apathetic". I don't actually disagree--please see my reply to twasher above (especially the first point).

Thirdly, I'm also very sympathetic to your preference that one be a "dispassionate political animal" rather than a "politically passionate animal". But your preference and mine aside, the fact remains that many people do somehow think that it is somehow undesirable for people to be "politically apathetic". And while I am not inclined to that view, I do think that it has a certain prima facie plausibility that ought to be thought through.

(Your point about not wanting to be "a dog that takes on other people's causes without a well argued "why" or "why now" argument" with the consequence that you "look and sound apathetic", even though your politics "is clearly of the informed type" suggests to me a further set of issues. If it really is true that the behavior of the politically apathetic person and the politically informed person could coincide under specific circumstances, then this will pose a problem to any empirical attempt to ascertain if people are politically apathetic from simply observing their behavior--at least until those specific circumstances are sorted out. The cautionary tale is this: granting the cogency of your point, it is not a straight forward matter to infer from the fact that person A does not do various sorts of things for the benefit of X (where X names some specific political issue) to the conclusion that A is apathetic about X. At the very least, the observer needs to be able to rule out the alternative possibility--that A has come to an informed conclusion that he would not like to fight for X (even though he is fully capable of doing that).

hohum:

Isn't my very attempt to get clear on just what is involved in the notion that "Singaporeans are apathetic" exactly an attempt to set a max and min to any subsequent discussion? If we don't even know to our own satisfaction just what does the charge actually says, how are we going to be sure that we have not, in any subsequent investigation, irrelevantly changed the topic (overshoot the max) or fail to cover all logical possibilities (fall short of the min).

Imagine a medical researcher who says that he would like to investigate "discomfort". And when pressed as to what exactly is he referring to by the phrase "discomfort" (since it could mean so many things), he has nothing to say. But he does insist that it is a symptom of a deeper underlying root cause, and that the concept is "roughly the size of Arrakis" and covers everything you care to include. His friends chip in to say that obviously he meant "physical discomfort". But none of this help much. We are still in the dark about just what is it that he wants to investigate. It is important to note that we are not asking him for the result of his investigation (e.g., into the underlying root causes) but what is it the root cause of which he intends to investigate. Surely the answer to that can't be "everything"? Not unless in investigating "physical discomfort", he really means to propose an investigation into the cause(s) of everything.

Darkness:

The link looks good. I'll see if I can find the time to read it soon. As for your observation, let me see if understand what you are saying. What you said was:

[a]...if you believe, there is a pay out or advantage in being engaged, then it doesn't pay to be apathetic. [b] But if you are not in a position to effect change or to even moderate the outcome by a bit - then, it makes perfect sense to remain apathetic.

Now I want to make sure that I properly understand what you are saying since I have a high regard for the principle of charity (think of it as a professional hazard). I would thus be much obliged if you could help by answering two questions so as to clarify your position:

Now, the statement you put forward appears to be resolvable as two distinct conditional statements (labeled [a] and [b] above)--

1. Are either or both statements meant to offer a description of how people actually do make choices (given the information available to them). Or is either meant to offer a normative counsel--that whether or not people do make choices this way, they ought to. (My sense is that you are making descriptive rather than normative claims, but I want to be sure.)

2. The two "advantage" mentioned in [a]--are they meant to be "advantage for the agent involved. That is, does the first part of [a] say "if you believe, there is a pay out for or advantage to you in being engaged..." Or is the possible object of that advantage not restricted to the agent who is contemplating whether to be engaged or to be apathetic? (My sense is that it is the first option, but I want to be sure. If my guess is wrong, I'll need you to say a bit more about whose advantage you are referring to.)

I'll await your reply. Again, I do promise to read your post; but I might not be able to do that until, maybe, tomorrow evening.

Can any useful inquiry be made in any case about the value of the proposition "Singaporeans are apathetic" when many different reasons could cause the same behaviour? Just to take one example : the internal-external divide of "apathy" is suspect.

For example, is Mr. X really passionate about English Soccer or is he just in it "just to fit it"? The internal seems like largely guesswork and attributes certain external behaviour like "frustration" or participation in grassroots activities to one particular trait. Why this trait? Could we not substitute this guesswork with other "traits"? How about "Singaporeans are not ambitious?" "Singaporeans are easily frustrated." An inquiry into 'internal traits necessitates assuming that some behaviour is indicative of Y traits. Why Y and not A,B,C? Further who is to judge what behaviour necessitates such assumptions.

So even in an internal query, one has to define the display of external behaviour. And any such displays that is evidence of internal lack of apathy have to be defined by someone. One can take surveys, tests, ECA records etc. Cherry picking is entirely possible. Such use or choice of "statistical" can be said to be normative or begs the question.

A cynic might also come out and simply assert without proof, "Actually this is a myth which is invented by some people who cannot convince people to do what they want them to do." Of course some other liberal person might appeal to, "This is Democracy".

From this perspective, I will say that the claim "Singaporeans are apathetic" is thereof random and meaningless sounds from vocal and/or powerful people to justify some form of action or lack therof.

Huichieh wrote:

Because a purely psychological definition makes the phenomenon very hard to track--what is going to count as evidence for or against the (putative) truth of P except such and such observable behavior?

Well, didn't you point out yourself how an inability to act can nevertheless be manifested as a feeling of frustration? So we can tell that S'poreans are not apathetic about some issue if, even though they cannot take action on it, they complain bitterly about it. Conversely, you can tell if people don't feel much about something if, when conversing about it, they exhibit no interest in it. Of course, they could be pretending to be apathetic, out a of fear that any interest in the subject invites punishment from certain quarters, but I take it that Singaporeans aren't paranoid to that extent.

Or perhaps you'd want to classify actions like complaints as 'external' manifestations of non-apathy. But I took you to be drawing the internal vs external distinction in order to mirror the "don't do things" vs "don't care about things" distinction. Not caring about things, though, can have behavioral manifestations.

Is it descriptive or normative? Neither, that's only possible if you believe the question can be ALL inclusive. Or that all events necessarily have to conform to some Newtonian law. They cannot.

FACT: you cannot answer that question (are we apathetic?) objectively without first considering the political system in which the question is first framed e.g are all North Koreans apathetic? No. Because, I can say, the propaganda machine supplies them enough circus acrobats and cheap cigarettes to guarantee a happy and contented state of engagement. Does it mean they don't have the capacity to be apathetic? Probably when you consider apathy buys you a one way ticket to the salt mines. In that sort of political environment, it makes a lot of sense for me to be engaged in regularly accusing my neighbor of being a social reactionary or something. Rather than being apathetic while he accuses me of being one!

See the problem? If the imperative is get an objective answer concerning either a 1 or 0 abt factor: apathy. Then it cannot possibly emerge from that sort of simple equation, not even one where 99% of the population claims they are NOT apathetic. That only remains true, if you don't believe the first casualty of any terminally apathetic society has to be the truth - doesn't it stand to reason? If people don't care about anything, then the state apparatus is free to do anything it pleases, including claiming that all elephants can fly, who is to resist them?

So a better way of answering the question requires one to take stock of the cooperative process i.e the political system in which the question is first frame - that will produce more accurate results.

In other words:

"It has to be a question that depends solely on an examination of how many avenues are available within that cooperative system (political process) that allows for opportunities to effect real changes. In this combination of game theory and an appreciation of cooperative societies, the key to understanding the interrelationship between apathy and engagement calculus remains solely a matter of how successfully the political system manages to contain, under the conditions of peace if not civility, a range of moral, ideological, and religious conflicts which allows one to moderate change effectively and safely."

Do you now see, how irrelevant the question is, are we living in an apathetic society?

Darkness 2007

twasher, teh-si: Thanks for your comments. I'll reply to them later.

Darkness: You said:

[a]...if you believe, there is a pay out or advantage in being engaged, then it doesn't pay to be apathetic. [b] But if you are not in a position to effect change or to even moderate the outcome by a bit - then, it makes perfect sense to remain apathetic.

And I asked if either or both statements ([a] and [b]) meant to be descriptive or normative. And you answered

Neither, that's only possible if you believe the question can be ALL inclusive. Or that all events necessarily have to conform to some Newtonian law. They cannot.

In case that's not clear to you, let me ask this again--this is a purely elementary question that shouldn't stump anyone. Take just [a], are you saying:

(1) As a matter of fact, people are such that if they believe that there is a pay out or advantage in being engaged, then they won't be apathetic.

-or- are you saying:

(2) If you--as an agent faced with the choice of being engaged or apathetic--if you should believe that there is a pay out or advantage in being engaged, then it wouldn't make sense for you to be apathetic.

In other words, are you saying something about how people are, or are you saying something about how what the sensible choice would be given one's beliefs? Your statement allows for both readings and I want to be sure which is it you meant.

Or perhaps you meant to say both? (Not impossible though unlikely for other reasons.)

My question does not imply anything about whether or not "all events necessarily have to conform to some Newtonian law" (I don't think they do, or so the quantum physics people assure me anyway; but that's not the point). The question is about just what is the exact sense of what you are saying, something that, presumably, should be clear to you.

You have also not answered my second question about what you meant by "advantage".

As for the rest, of course we (probably) cannot answer the question "are we apathetic?" objectively without first considering all sorts of things, including such all important stuff as the nature of the the political system in which the question is framed, etc., etc. But even in making the claim (reported in the previous sentence), you do mean something rather than nothing by the question "are we apathetic"--and saying of it that it cannot be answered without considering all sorts of whatever. And so we are still back at square one: what does the question exactly mean? Which of course leads us right back to: what does it mean to say either that Singaporeans are or are not apathetic?

Or are you already granting the correctness of my account and saying of it (either as P1, or P2 or P1.1) that it cannot be answered without consider etc.? If so, sure, probably. But I've not gotten near the issue of the conditions under which the proposition (either as P1, or P2 or P1.1) can be confirmed or disproved. One thing at a time.

twasher:

After looking at what you wrote a bit, I'm wondering if we are actually disagreeing on anything crucial. But let's see if I'm making sense. (By the way, thanks--your comments are helpful to me in my trying to sharpen the issues in my own mind.)

To begin with, I think we need to keep these two questions separate:

(1) What does it mean that A is apathetic about X / what does that involve?

(2) How can anyone come to know if A is apathetic about X.

Strictly speaking, I've been focusing on (1) rather than (2), though obviously, how (1) is answered is going to impact how (2) is answered or even whether it is answerable at all (but not quite the other way round). (Incidentally, this distinction is going to be crucial in coming to grips with Teh Si's comment as well.)

With this in mind, I shouldn't have said the bit about "my preference" in my reply: it is misleading for me to introduce it at that point since the issue was supposed to be in the region of (1) rather than (2).

That said, I was intending to make a fairly sharp distinction between internal and external such that e.g., complaints do count as external. That's compatible with saying that a purely external phenomenon might well be an indication of something purely internal--but note that this is an epistemological claim about how we can come to know about one thing through another.

My point about building the external element right into the phenomenon of apathy itself is meant to be an ontological claim--apathy is but is not just a purely internal phenomenon. The talking, doing, etc., is, on my books, at least partly constitutive of what it means for someone not to be apathetic, and conversely, the non-talking (or talking in a different way), or not-doing, etc., is partly constitutive of what it means for someone to be apathetic.

(Note that if the phenomenon of apathy, while partly internal-psychological, is also partly external behavioral, epistemological access is granted, hence my preference. But that way of putting it is misleading in a second way in that even if apathy is purely internal, it won't follow that there is no epistemological access at all.)

But I doubt that anything serious is going to turn on this--if we have to solve deep issues about philosophical psychology just in order to make some sense of what "A is apathetic about X" involves in a preliminary fashion, then we are doomed. But as long as you agree that (a) in order to figure out if A is apathetic about X, we do need to look to his behavior (speech and deed), and also (b) what it means for A to be apathetic is not exhaustively cashed out in terms of his behavior (speech and deed)--there is an additional internal dimension, then we are on the same page.

Teh Si:

Part of my reply to your comment is contained in the above reply to twasher. As I said, we shouldn't be conflating the question of what it means for someone to be apathetic about X and the separate question of how we might tell if he is apathetic about X.

It could indeed turn out that--given a certain spelling out of what it means for someone to be apathetic about X, it is very hard or even impossible (given present state of technology, let's say) for a third party to tell if someone really is apathetic. For instance, all we have to go on are fallible and defeasible evidence in the form of observational reports about behavior (including speech), to be interpreted within a given social/political/cultural setting (very hard to do, I'll grant you that any day).

But unless you are assuming the logical positivist's doctrine that the meaning of a significant, non-tautological sentence (i.e., one that admits of a truth value but is not of the ilk of "P = P") is equivalent to the method of its verification by empirical means--unless you want to go that far, then the mere fact that it is very hard to tell if the statement "Singaporeans are apathetic" is true will not give you the conclusion that it is merely "random and meaningless sounds".

At best (or at worst), even given the impossibility (of verification), all that we should conclude is that the claim that "Singaporeans are apathetic" is unverifiable (to the third-party observer). Not that it is true, or false, and not exactly that it is meaningless either. We just don't know. And consequently, people who insist on either the truth or falsity of the statement are being (unjustifiably) dogmatic; but they are not necessarily making meaningless claims.

That said, I actually do agree with you on a couple of things. First, it is entirely likely that the statement is often used by "vocal and/or powerful people to justify some form of action or lack thereof". It's a verbal club by means of which they aim to beat opponents into silence or submission ("you don't support our program to save the world? You apathetic bunch of do-nothings!"). Note that even here, the statement is meant to be perfectly meaningful to both those who wield the clubs and those clubbed--it's just that to the former, the truth and justification of the matter is really besides the point. Second, nothing I've said rules out the possibility that there are some who, while quite capable of holding forth concerning the apathy political of Singaporeans and its true nature and cause, etc., do not in fact really know what they are talking about; consequently, their speech, while full of sound and fury, signifies nothing. Present company excepted, of course.

Ok, my students' papers have come in--I expect to be busy for some days to come. Don't be surprised if I don't respond quickly.

November 12th, 2007 at 6:46 pm
Chronicler / This is the post by Darkness sent to Singapore Angle:

START

"My question does not imply anything about whether or not all events necessarily have to conform to some Newtonian law."

I am afraid it does. And let me prove it to you. As what you are trying to accomplish here is to seek out rational lines based on either the normative or descriptive - that's precisely my point, there is a fundamental flaw in that sort of model when directed towards the issue of whether we are an apathetic society?

My point is simply this, my statement cannot possibly constitute a law in the strict sense of the word. Of course this may be difficult and impossible to even fathom in the academic sense, but allow me to give you an illustration of such a creature that even has chameleon properties to alter its shape and form depending on where its juxtaposed against.

If we take for example economics - there is a law or adage that claims that man will always maximize on his opportunity cost towards a utility or advantage. So robust is this law it even covers both the normative and descriptive along with everything else to assume the lingua franca of what we consider today the science of economics. Go and check it out with your quantum physics friend - because he got the first part wrong in at least 10 to 15 ways. Maybe I should show him the error of his ways?

The question is simply this, does that law always apply? That's to say does it even qualify as anecdotal or axiomatic in the way, we throw an apple up and expect it fall because of gravity? Yes, it does.

But if I am presented with lets a problem where a man may be able to maximize his investments opportunities by lets say investing in a firm that manufactures cancer causing cigarettes - how would that normative or descriptive statement hold true?

Now if I screw on my Paul Krugman hat, I can say, he will definitely invest because there is a good return on investment - but what, if this man believes that the whole idea of materializing a profit (maximizing his utility) is morally reprehensible as he considers the tobacco industry to be nothing more than a blood sucking industry? This man doesn't mind materializing a profit, but he draws the line when it harms people and planet.

Ah under those conditions, as you can see whatever statements either I or Paul Krugman have made concerning: how humans would behave under X, Y or Z conditions have been considerably altered - Q: is my initial statement still valid? I would say yes but like this illustrated example it MUST take stock of this one man.

That is the reason why I said, neither and that is very different from not answering the question, it just means throwing out the entire model, which is completely different from what you have suggested.

But before we continue allow me to make it clear that NO where did you EVER mention the need to frame the question in the political context - so when you asked the question, you cannot expect to deploy my ESP skills, surely? Unless of course you can show me a post and I will gladly retract my statement.

If we consider the 'workings' (lack of a better word) of my formula against a pre-existing political framework that I have mentioned concerning how people would be likely or unlikely to be apathetic - then how can I possibly answer question 2? Without cancelling out my first statement? Can you please explain that?

Perhaps you can simulate the outcomes and suggest how this can be reasonably even accomplished, because from answer (1), it automatically renders null and void the need to even answer question No 2 that you posed. I would have expected you to have drawn the logical conclusion, obliquely at least, but obviously you did not get the hint, so let just say it clearly: you used the wrong model.

Pls read this and do ask your quantum physics side kick to do the same, I have taken the liberty of writing the article to explain how the matter should be rightly discussed:

http://dotseng.wordpress.com/2007/11/11/are-singaporeans-really-apathetic/

You most welcome lah!

Darkness 2007

END

"That is the reason why I said, neither and that is very different from not answering the question, it just means throwing out the entire model, which is completely different from what you have suggested."

Very Shrewd. If I am not mistaken [pls correct me] what darkness is trying to say is,

(a) while people may even be expected to behave according to certain set principles like P Krugman's law.

(b) The "equation" still needs to take stock of how the political framework allows for dissention and divergent views.

So whether we are an apathetic society or not will depend on the relationship between (a) and (b).

Darkness:

...NO where did you EVER mention the need to frame the question in the political context - so when you asked the question, you cannot expect to deploy my ESP skills, surely? Unless of course you can show me a post and I will gladly retract my statement.

I never mentioned any need to "frame the question in the political context" (nor did I ever say that we don't need to do so). You can rest easy there. You might also be happy to know that I do happen to believe that the truth of the claim "... are (politically) apathetic" has to be assessed within a certain context--and that's not just the political, but also cultural, social, etc.--context. The reason why I didn't mention that point is simply that I'm considering a different set of issues altogether. Let me be clearer about this:

I believe that the claim "Singaporeans are apathetic" is roughly equivalent to at least one of the following:

(P1) Many individual Singaporeans are lacking in passion--they do not act from any deeply felt passion--about X, where X is something that counts.

(P2) Many individual Singaporeans are lacking in passion--they do not act from any deeply felt passion--about anything at all.

And if we restrict ourselves to "political apathy", then we also have:

(P1.1) Many individual Singaporeans are lacking in passion--they do not act from any deeply felt passion--about political matters, where political matters is something that counts.

At this stage, I have no idea (not officially, anyway) as to whether P1, P2 or P1.1 is true. They might all be false. I also don't have much to say about how we can go about assessing whether any of them is true at all.

BUT IF I WERE to go about assessing whether any of them is true--especially P1.1--rest assure that the entire backdrop of the political/cultural/social/etc. context has to come into play for the simple reason that what counts as evidence for or against P1.1 is going to be dependent upon that context. (The operationalized truth-conditions of P1.1 is going to be heavily context dependent, so to speak.)

But as I said up front, the post is meant to be "a first attempt to get clearer--for myself--what the claim that Singaporeans are apathetic mean" (emphasis). It is not an attempt to figure out if the claim is true or false--whether Singaporeans really are apathetic or not, or to figure out what the causes of our apathy (if that's the case) are.

With that in mind, I'm really beginning to wonder if we are really disagreeing (on this point anyway) since there is actually a good chance that we are not even talking about the same thing. You seem to want to propose an answer as to whether Singaporeans are apathetic (as evidenced by even the title of your post, the citation of the Kennedy School survey, etc.).

As for me, let's say that I don't particularly care if it's true that Singaporeans are apathetic. Let's say that I'm utterly apathetic about that (just to let you know, I originally envisioned Part II of this post to be entitled "In Praise of Political Apathy"). But that said, I am intellectually interested in a different question: what does it mean that Singaporeans are or are not apathetic? --whether or not they are so, however we are supposed to go about finding out, whatever are the causes, etc. And as far as I can tell, nothing you've said so far (much of it, in any case, I find true) actually shows that my analysis of the meaning of claim P is wrong.

(more...)

(...con't)

Now back to your claims. To recap, you said:

[a]...if you believe, there is a pay out or advantage in being engaged, then it doesn't pay to be apathetic. [b] But if you are not in a position to effect change or to even moderate the outcome by a bit - then, it makes perfect sense to remain apathetic.

And I asked if either or both statements ([a] and [b]) meant to be descriptive or normative. Later adding in reply to your response that the question "does not imply anything about whether or not all events necessarily have to conform to some Newtonian law."

You then say that your statement "cannot possibly constitute a law in the strict sense of the word", and went on to give an example from economics--"law or adage that claims that man will always maximize on his opportunity cost towards a utility or advantage". You then (correctly, by the way) point out that unlike the law of gravitation, this 'law of economics' doesn't always apply.

Here's the problem: in asking if your statement is meant to be descriptive or normative, I wasn't assuming that it is meant to be an exceptionless law. The distinction between descriptive and normative is not the same as that between "exceptionless/lawlike" vs. "admits of many exceptions/not lawlike at all". Consider the following examples:

(1) For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

This is (meant to be) a descriptive claim. It also takes the form of a law or lawlike statement. It is descriptive in the sense that it says of the universe, that such and such is the case. It is lawlike in the sense that it admits of no exception ("For every action..."). Now consider this:

(2) John took the trash out this morning.

This is also a descriptive claim. Descriptive claims are normally made with sentences in the indicative mood in English. It also says, of the universe (or that part of it involving John and the trash anyway), that such and such is (or in this case, was) the case. It is not and does not even pretend to be a law. Now shift to this:

(3) John, you ought to take the trash (now).

This is now in the ball park of a normative claim (or at least something like it). Note the use of the imperative mood. It doesn't say, of the universe, that such and such is the case--in fact, when Mommy uttered (3), John has not taken out the trash. It is also not lawlike--this is a one off thing. There isn't enough generality for us to even get sidetracked there. But how about this:

(4) The eldest son of the household ought to take out the trash in the morning.

Now (1) and (4) both *look* lawlike in that both take the form of a general statement that apparently admits of no exception. But even assuming that whichever idiot claimed (4) intended it to be 'exceptionless', it can only be a 'law' in a very different sense compared to (1). In fact, I don't think that it should be called a law at all--I'll prefer to call it a "norm". A single instance of an action that does not call forth an equal and opposite reaction is sufficient to disprove the truth of the law stated in (1). But even if no eldest son ever do the thing enjoined--they always pass the buck to the younger son, let's say--the norm stated in (4) *might* well still stand (I don't think it stands but that's besides the point). It was meant to be a statement about what certain people ought to do (normative), not what they do do (descriptive).

To complete the survey, I'll also include these two:

(5) In general, Singaporeans ought to give more to charity when they can.

(6) In general, Singaporeans enjoy eating out.

Both are generalizations, but neither pretend to be exceptionless as evidence by the "in general" qualifier. (5) admits that there could well be occasions where a particular Singaporeans ought not to give more to charity while (6) allows that there may well be some Singaporeans who do not enjoy eating out. But (5) is still meant to be normative rather than descriptive--it might well still stand even if no Singaporean give a cent to charity (they ought to). And (6) is still meant to be descriptive rather than normative--it might well still be true even if Singaporeans ought not to be eating out so often.

(more...)

(...con't; edited for clarity, see especially **)

By the way, the so called 'law' of economics--it's really a 'law' about "rational behavior"--is meant to be descriptive in the context you cited (as far as I can divine your point). It says of people that they will do certain things (*see further complication below). Such a 'law' would be contradicted by each and every instance of agents who did not act so as to maximize on his opportunity cost towards a utility or advantage. If the economist insists on keeping his 'law', the way to bite the bullet is to insist that the apparent counterexample is only apparent--it too, satisfies the condition of act so as to maximize on his opportunity cost towards a utility or advantage.

In the example you cited, he hardly has to even bite much of a bullet: on his account, the man who supposedly believes that the whole idea of materializing a profit is morally reprehensible and considers the tobacco industry to be nothing more than a blood sucking industry maximizes his utility exactly by not investing in said industry--and perhaps even by sacrificing time and money to protest actions of said industry.

One: economists do not define "utility" in terms of money (or profit, or even material wealth in general) though they would also agree that, by all means, lots of people find utility in gaining, having and spending money/wealth. (Whether these people should is another question.) In fact, economists even talk about such things as the "diminishing marginal utility of money/wealth"--it is possible for the next extra bit of money or profit or wealth to give the agent less additional utility than the last bit; and the next bit might even decrease his overall utility! Hardly possible on your caricature of the dismal science.

Two, the man you cited has a utility function in which he ranks the welfare of people and planet over his mere material gain and this rank ordering is shown by his revealed preference of not investing in the said industry, etc. There is no mystery here for the economist.

*It's actually much more complicated since modern economists do admit that people are rational (i.e., they act so as to maximize utility according to their utility function) only sometimes. But if so, what happened to the so called 'law'? Here, there is an dispute between two schools on the correct interpretation of the point of the 'law' of "rational behavior": The Sweetwater School (e.g., Friedman, Becker) sees it as a fruitful model that leads to non-trivial and accurate predictions. The Saltwater School (e.g., DeLong), on the other hand, thinks that irrational behavior are important and worth studying in their own right.

**(added) It is possible to take the concept of rational behavior in economics normatively. But when one does so, the claim works in a rather different way. In the descriptive case, the postulate that people behave rationally--they act so as to maximize their utility function--is meant to be a statement about how people behave and can be used to predict and explain their behave to the extent to which people are rational, economic agents. When used normatively, however, the point is now to evaluate particular choices as rational or irrational (i.e., as maximizing the agent's utility function or as not). Note also that an agent's "utility" function can, in principle, include his preference for what he considers morality (over "profit", let's say). I added this paragraph because the earlier formulation might give rise to the misperception that I don't believe in the possibility of a normative economics (as opposed to a merely positive economics), which would be ridiculous.

In any case, the so called 'law' if taken as a law on par with laws of nature, is false, unlike a genuine Newtonian Law. (Though strictly speaking, Newtonian Laws are false too--but for a much more esoteric reason; Quantum physics will have to wait for another time.)

Now go back to your claim. As you said, "my statement cannot possibly constitute a law in the strict sense of the word". That's fine--I didn't think they were meant to be lawlike (in the strict sense). They do not apply in every case. (Though it does raise the question of the intended scope of your claim.)

But even if it is not a law "in the strict sense of the word", there is still the question of whether you meant to say something about the world (people and their choices, let's say), that such and such is the case, at least oftimes or sometimes; or whether you meant to be proposing a norm stating the (in general) conditions of sensible choice.

To recap, you said:

[a]...if you believe, there is a pay out or advantage in being engaged, then it doesn't pay to be apathetic.

[b] But if you are not in a position to effect change or to even moderate the outcome by a bit - then, it makes perfect sense to remain apathetic.

My question remains: (Q1) granting that these are not exceptionless laws, are they descriptive or normative? Are you saying in [a]:

(1) As a matter of fact, people are such that, in general, if they believe that there is a pay out or advantage in being engaged, then they won't be apathetic.

-or- are you saying:

(2) If you--as an agent faced with the choice of being engaged or apathetic--if you should believe that there is a pay out or advantage in being engaged, then in general it wouldn't make sense for you to be apathetic.

(I've added the "in general" qualification to make sure that there is no further misunderstandings about 'laws'.)

And likewise, in [b], are you saying:

(3) As a matter of fact, people are such that if they believe that they are not in a position to effect change or to even moderate the outcome by a bit, then, in general, they would remain apathetic.

-or- are you saying:

(4) If you--as an agent faced with the choice of being engaged or apathetic--if you should believe that you are not in a position to effect change or to even moderate the outcome by a bit, then in general it makes sense for you to be apathetic.

And then there is still (Q2) on the correct parsing of "advantage" (whose advantage?). Here, you said:

If we consider the 'workings' (lack of a better word) of my formula against a pre-existing political framework that I have mentioned concerning how people would be likely or unlikely to be apathetic - then how can I possibly answer question 2? Without cancelling out my first statement? Can you please explain that?

Again, I'm not sure what's the problem. I really doubt that however you answer the question, [a] will somehow be 'canceled out'. "Advantage" is one of those slippery terms because it has an indexical element--its reference is dependent on the linguistic-context.

(This is how I teach the concept of an "indexical" in class. Keep your eyes on three indexical terms--"your", "sister" and "father". G. W. Bush visited LKY and was impressed by the efficiency of his shop. He asked LKY for the secret. LKY summons Goh Chok Tong and asks him: "Who is your sister's father?" The latter replied "my father!" without hesitation. LKY turns to Bush and said: see--my shop is efficient because I have capable subordinates. Bush goes back home and told Cheney about the encounter. He tests the latter: "Who is your sister's father?" The latter, after some thought, replied, "my father?" Bush sighs, saying, "that's why my shop will never be as tight--my subordinates aren't as smart. The correct answer should be Goh Chok Tong's father!")

Ok, now consider this sentence:

(5) There is advantage in people being nice to others.

This sentence is ambiguous in that it leaves the recipient of the "advantage" unspecified. Is the advantage spoken of meant to be received by the one being nice (the giving end), or the other one being nice to (the receiving end), or perhaps both? So now, in order not to misunderstand you, I want you to tell me whose advantage are we talking about in

[a]...if you believe, there is a pay out or advantage in being engaged, then it doesn't pay to be apathetic.

To be more precise, since you are the one who introduce the entire thing in terms of someone's belief, what is the content of that belief. What exactly does the "you" believe? That--

(i) "...there is pay out or advantage that accrues to me should I be engaged..."

(ii) "...there is pay out or advantage that accrues to some specific other people should I be engaged..."

(iii) "...there is pay out or advantage that accrues to society as a whole should I be engaged..."

Or perhaps some combination or all of the above?

You said:

Perhaps you can simulate the outcomes and suggest how this can be reasonably even accomplished, because from answer (1), it automatically renders null and void the need to even answer question No 2 that you posed.

Notice that in spelling out the options (i)-(iii), I did not assume either the descriptive or normative reading. In fact, however Q1 is answered, whether your statement is normative or descriptive or "neither" (assuming that such an option is even worth considering), those choices about "advantage" still awaits you.

"in asking if your statement is meant to be descriptive or normative, I wasn't assuming that it is meant to be an exceptionless law' By answering that it is 'neither,' I am not saying it has to be law to sabotage the apathy vs engagement calculus. Understand this: there can be no axioms or even such a thing as an Archimedean point beyond the question from which to answer it - what you seem not to comprehend despite my repeated efforts is that we are not engaged in an issue of semantics rather I am preoccupied with the whole business of making the apathy vs engagement calculus turn on it's linchpin to produce an answer to the question: are we an apathetic lot?

For the equation to cycle, it CANNOT treat these statements or for that matter any statements as to how the apathy vs engagement calculus should work as constants, they are at best very poor variables and worst vantage points outside the actuality of relationships as I have taken the whole discussion to political sphere. That means whatever epistemology has to emerge from over the fence and not from (a) and (b). So they are not even statements of fact as much as they are bi-products and resultants, so how can they possibly even assume either normative or descriptive headings?

The purpose of explaining the working of homo economis i.e economic man - is NOT to show you how robust the statement can be i.e man will always maximize his opportunity towards an advantage and utility. On the contrary, it's supposed to highlight how fragile it is in the face of exceptionality. However bear this in mind, the illustration concerned ONLY an individual deciding whether he should or shouldn't buy cigarette stocks. Even if he were to decide for or against, the impact on the broader community would be negligible and you could say his act or omission will ONLY affect his immediate family, when exceptionality features i.e he doesn't believe it is morally right to maximize his utility if the products the firm produces harm people.

This is very different from the main issue in discussion which pertains to apathy vs engagement in the context of a nation! In those circumstances, where exceptionality features, it will affect millions of people -so don't you think, it makes more sense to ascribe a higher level onus on the whole issue of exceptionality?

Here this took 15 min, it should be clear what I mean by "over the fence."

http://dotseng.wordpress.com/2007/11/13/are-singaporeans-really-apathetic-part-ii/

Darkness:

What "axiom"?! Since when must a descriptive generalization about how people in general behave ("in general, Singaporeans enjoy eating out") be an "axiom"? Or an "Archimedean point"? What does it mean that an equation "cycle"? What do you even mean...?

You said: "...I am preoccupied with the whole business of making the apathy vs engagement calculus turn on it's linchpin to produce an answer to the question: are we an apathetic lot?"

And I've just said: "...You seem to want to propose an answer as to whether Singaporeans are apathetic... As for me, let's say that I don't particularly care if it's true that Singaporeans are apathetic. ...I am intellectually interested in a different question: what does it mean that Singaporeans are or are not apathetic?"

I know that you are so preoccupied--hey, all power to you! But I am not interested in your question (at least not right now); and you don't seem to understand the difference between your question and mine. Let me say this again: I am apathetic about whether Singaporeans are apathetic--I don't care. But I am deeply, perversely if you will, only interested in the semantic issue.

I give up. It took me an hour (-fact, descriptive-) which I should (-normative-) have spent doing something else because I thought that this might be fruitful. But obviously, I was wrong.

"I am apathetic about whether Singaporeans are apathetic--I don't care."

That explains why you dont have a model to sensibly answer that question till to date - if you had a model, then you would understand what is meant by 'equation cycle' - FYI, an equation cycle is a term that is used in operational science and it relates to how two or more constants generates a resultant very much like a Material Resource Planning Software - where there is a BOM list and demand/supply pull list. This incidentally is the model that I have used.

That means in mathematical terms there is antagonistic relationship between two dominant entitites - if (a) shifts it will affect (b) and vice-versa, (c) or (d) is never produced, the rules of the demand / supply have to work within the constrains of only (a) and (b).

That is why you are barking up the wrong tree when you seem to preoccupy yourself with the whole issue of normative and descriptive. You might as well study chicken entrails or something, because, whatever the equation cycles out is merely a bi-product a result and sum of = / Under those conditions when you even regard it as thing resembling a statement of fact, it automatically assumes a Archimedean point - understand? I did not invent MRP II logic, so dont blame me - The only person in this thread that seems to have any comprehension of what I am trying to accomplish here is Loupagar.

Read on, it will be clearer as we go along.

Darkness: wait, let me get this straight:

1. You don't seem to understand the very elementary distinction between an assertion that is meant to say something about how things are, as opposed to one about how things ought to be or how people ought to behave,

2. You conflate the first distinction (in #1) with the distinction between a general, law-like claim as opposed to an "in general" claim that admits of exceptions, as opposed to a particular claim,

3. You don't seem to be aware that "there is advantage" is ambiguous as to the recipient of the advantage (whose advantage are we talking about?),

4. You don't seem to understand the difference between asking "What does P mean?" as opposed to asking "How do we go about finding out whether or not P?", or for that matter, as opposed to "Is P true?",

(And note, the points #1-#4 are not even deep stuff--I'll be deeply ashamed to call them philosophical.)

5. You don't seem to have any firm grasp of the concept of "utility" in modern economics, giving a caricature of the role that the concept of "rational behavior" plays in economics (whether of the Sweetwater/Chicago or the Saltwater School),

-and-

6. You are now attempting to give a model for understanding an admittedly complex social and political phenomenon by means of...the Material Requirements Planning--ok, fine, version 2, MPR II--a method for the planning of the use of resources (including human resources) in manufacturing?

* * * * *

To all:

My students' papers await me. And after that, exam and grading. I expect to be busy until beginning of December. In order to make sure that I actually get what I'm supposed to do done, I am going to do the un-nice thing of closing this thread for now--so that it poses no temptation for me.

If things go well, I expect to re-open it at the end of the month, or even better, continue the discussion in a new post. If you die die have something to say, email me. Or post it on your own blog.

Another SA member have just persuade me that "it doesn't look like very good form" that I just close this thread since that looks as if I have "effectively denied someone his right of hearing" even though, technically, it's meant to be a break, not a complete end to the discussion. But since his point is fair enough, I'll reopen the thread. Feel free to leave comments, have your last word, etc. Just note that I can't afford to pay close attention for the next two weeks or so (will have to discipline myself).

Welcome to the wide world of blogs, where Kooks rule. Where to understand a simple thing like apathy, one has to acquaint oneself with MRP. Pardon me, while I guffaw at the idiot's expense.

Hi Huichieh,

We told you, this darkness is like wet glass. Impossible to pin down. I am hope I don't come across as awkward, but even if he answered every single one of your questions, I still have no idea what is really your goal.

At least Darkness proved conclusively the following and I never have any doubts as to where he is going and how he plans to advance. However, I cannot the say the same for you, I regret.

(1) It is not possible to produce a credible answer from the question: are we an apathetic society?

(2) The answer has to based on an examination of the political system in which normative statements are made concerning how ppl would be expected to behave under a given set of circumstances.

This means that next time, I switch on the TV and I hear someone saying, "I have a friend who is not apathetic blah blah blah." I know for a fact, he doesn't have the slightest idea what he is talking abt.

(3) If we are apathetic then we wouldn't even know it, because the first casualty of an apathetic society has to be the truth.

I am sure there is more to be gleaned from all this. But for the time being that is all, I am able to get out of it. However, as I mentioned, I still have absolutely no clue what the learning outcome is on your part.

Many thanks, this has certainly enriched my understanding on this topic. Although I do not understand how darkness is able to use a logic that is normally used in manufacturing for the purposes of explaining behavioral phenomenon. I find this part very bizarre, but not as odd to believe Newton discovered gravity by being hit by an apple. So I am prepared to give him some leeway. Thank you sir.

"Welcome to the wide world of blogs, where Kooks rule. Where to understand a simple thing like apathy, one has to acquaint oneself with MRP. Pardon me, while I guffaw at the idiot's expense."

I do not think you know how dangerous it is to claim that he is idiotic to the extent of using MRP logic to explain his theory.

Could you please explain why you consider darkness a kook and why you believe it's even wrong to use MRP to explain his theory?

I do not claim to know the reason myself, other than to say MRP systems to my knowledge represent highly efficient closed looped systems, but even then I would be extremely hesitant to claim darkness is an "idiot" when I consider much of how the Brotherhood Press crews their articles is based on the works of a certain chicken farmer by the name of Eli Goldratt.

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

"1. You don't seem to understand the very elementary distinction between an assertion that is meant to say something about how things are, as opposed to one about how things ought to be or how people ought to behave,

2. You conflate the first distinction (in #1) with the distinction between a general, law-like claim as opposed to an "in general" claim that admits of exceptions, as opposed to a particular claim,

3. You don't seem to be aware that "there is advantage" is ambiguous as to the recipient of the advantage (whose advantage are we talking about?),

4. You don't seem to understand the difference between asking "What does P mean?" as opposed to asking "How do we go about finding out whether or not P?", or for that matter, as opposed to "Is P true?",

(And note, the points #1-#4 are not even deep stuff--I'll be deeply ashamed to call them philosophical.)

5. You don't seem to have any firm grasp of the concept of "utility" in modern economics, giving a caricature of the role that the concept of "rational behavior" plays in economics (whether of the Sweetwater/Chicago or the Saltwater School),

-and-

6. You are now attempting to give a model for understanding an admittedly complex social and political phenomenon by means of...the Material Requirements Planning--ok, fine, version 2, MPR II--a method for the planning of the use of resources (including human resources) in manufacturing?"

Do you really believe darkness doesnt know what you talking abt? You mean to say, you expect us to believe you?"

This was an opportunity for peace to move forward after what happened in the Singapore Blogosphere review, but after this sort of Ad Hominen personal attacks, I really cannot believe that possible any longer, there can only be one outcome from all this and that is most regrettable.

Pls don't remove this post. Many Thanks again and good day to all.

As a former member of the Brotherhood, I am sick of the type of smearing tactics that Darkness has coerced us to use against other bloggers. He usually tries to use some pseudo-intellectual theories like the MRP to argue that he's right.

Since he has no basic philosophy training, the notion of an assertion is totally absent. Strangely, he cannot even ascertain properly what he means by apathetic and forget to define what he meant by "advantage" in his context.

My advice to the SA members is to ignore these bunch of people. Singaporeans are apathetic and it's a fact.

Huichieh

Am I the only one who feels something is amiss in this entire discussion? I believe darkness has already advanced his hypothesis concerning the apathy discussion. Allow me to recap briefly -

He states according to Louparger -

"(a) while people may even be expected to behave according to certain set principles like P Krugman's law.

(b) The "equation" still needs to take stock of how the political framework allows for dissention and divergent views.

So whether we are an apathetic society or not will depend on the relationship between (a) and (b)."

Since he has stated his position in such unequivocal terms, may I ask why you don't confine your attempts at de-constructing his hypothesis. Instead you seem to be overtly preoccupied with the whole issue of structural correctness and academic pedigree. I cannot but help but wonder where is the mileage in pursuing that sort of strategy? I dont deny structural correctness should be part of any debate, but once a hypothesis has been advanced much of its intrinsic worth disappears - it seems to me at least, you seem to be confusing the means to an end as the end itself.

Shouldn't you advance the proposition, no darkness, I do not agree that we need to consider the political attributes and presumably everything that flows from that line of logic etc. And decide to engage his position head on. That I believe is what most people feel should have been done as that's how most people would advance their line of logic.

I would like to state for the record for the benefit of others, till todate, you have not even stated anything for or against his hypothesis, you have attacked his methodology, mocked even his the model he may or may not have rightly deployed, cast aspersions of his personage, but not even once here or anywhere else, have you even addressed yourself to the salient and cogent matter of his hypothesis.

I for one find this very strange and completely unfathomable, indeed. Is it such a wonder he is able to race ahead and answer the question that you gave up on?

Are we an apathetic society?

Post November 14, 2007 1:49 AM was uncalled for. You sniped at every single point that was ineffect irrelevant and even obiter, yet you failed to addressed your point to the substantive of his hypothesis, not a even once.

At the risk of sounding malicious, don't you think, others can't see what I see as well?

I find that the "apathetic Singaporean" is too vague a concept. Cannot verify, falsify or even punch (usually he cares by then). The more you try to catch this animal, the more you attract more vague (in a way) concepts like "political-apathy" and "apathy-in-general."Its true that being so vague does not mean it is exactly meaningless (one of many things i learn as a result of this post). After all, the post was about the meaning to the person being clubbed and the clubber. But how to pin down then the "meaning" with more words? Issit a matter of agreement? Or common sense? Because of its uncatchbleness, when people say and listen to "Singaporeans are apathetic", they actually are not sure what they are talking about? And because they are not sure, when one tries to capture the meaning of what they are talking about, one is lead into mazes, where one might not have expected but, it seems to have lead to the conclusion that it is not MPR?

Moving away from understanding what exactly is apathetic (which is an interesting goal by itself) -

my point of view is that you can compelled someone to get involved if the benefits monetary, psychological, etc)of being involved outweights the cost (money, time, effort).

Most "rational" people make this decision continuously - the only challenge is to pin down the benefit and costs that are not quantifiable, and many a times, only the individual making the decision to be involved have a clear idea what's that...

I knew it would pose a temptation...

Teh Si, sgthink:

Thanks. I'll get back to you guys later...

CK:

Fair enough, I could have been gentler in the November 14, 2007 1:49 AM...

Just to be clear about this: I am not interested at this point in deconstructing Darkness's hypothesis. Partly because I actually agree with aspects of it (I think I said this before), partly because I need more data on other fronts, but most importantly because there is an important part of it that is not obviously unambiguous.

First, I'm still waiting for someone to give me a definitive answer to the intended recipient of the "advantage" (whose?) that occurs in Darkness's initial formulation "if you believe, there is a pay out or advantage in being engaged, then it doesn't pay to be apathetic". To repeat, this formulation could mean:

(i) "...if you believe, there is pay out or advantage that accrues to me should I be engaged, then it doesn't pay to be apathetic" -or-

(ii) "...if you believe, there is pay out or advantage that accrues to some specific other people should I be engaged, then it doesn't pay to be apathetic" -or-

(iii) "...if you believe, there is pay out or advantage that accrues to society as a whole should I be engaged, then it doesn't pay to be apathetic"

All I'm asking for is an answer: which (one or two or all) is it? Do you know the answer? I'll be happy to hear.

As for the the other question (that descriptive vs. normative thing), if loupargar's restatement is correct, I'll have to take it that a descriptive reading of Darkness's statements (I labeled them [a] and [b]) are involved--they are claims about how people (in general) can be expected to behave, and not about how they ought to behave in the light of which they might be criticized if they don't behave so.

But until Darkness confirms this, you can't blame me for being cautious. As I said way up front, I don't want to misunderstand. I also suspect that a close analysis of the two posts on "Just Stuff" will probably reveal the answers that I seek anyway (yes, I've read and even enjoyed them, but quickly), but I don't have that sort of time right now.

I'm not asking you to appreciate why I should be "preoccupied with the whole issue of structural correctness" (academic pedigree does not concern me--that's why I still have a blog), only to recognize that that's a limitation that I have set for myself--at least for the moment--for my own idiosyncratic reasons. But given those limitations that I've set for myself, Darkness' account is not really even about the same thing as I am talking about. And since we are not talking about the same thing, I don't even know exactly how or why or whether Darkness and I are even actually disagreeing as opposed to just talking pass each other. (If anything, I suspect that I have a much deeper disagreement with Teh Si!)

5footway

You said that even if Darkness answered every single one of your questions, you still have no idea as to what is really my goal. My own very limited goal in writing my post is clearly specified in my own post (see e.g., paragraph 2). My goal in asking Darkness those questions, on the other hand, is purely in order that I fully grasp what he is saying, so as not to unwittingly misunderstand. That's all. And if you think that every possible ambiguity in Darkness' formulation has been cleared up, see my reply to CK above. If you know the answers to my questions (above), I want to hear from you too.

[Rest deleted because I just realized that the comment was not really meant for me.]

"First, I'm still waiting for someone to give me a definitive answer to the intended recipient of the "advantage" (whose?) that occurs in Darkness's initial formulation "if you believe, there is a pay out or advantage in being engaged, then it doesn't pay to be apathetic". To repeat, this formulation could