[FI] parent changing mind

This is a reply to an FI post dated Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 2:59 PM

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/fallible-ideas/info

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

[FI] parent changing mind

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

On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 2:59 PM, Elliot Temple curi@curi.us [fallible-ideas] <fallible-ideas@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

> http://ramirustom.blogspot.com/2015/08/tcs-does-not-say-to-self-sacrifice.html
>
>> So let's say there's a disagreement between parent and child about how to proceed. Parent wants idea A and child wants conflicting idea B. And parent wasn't able to convince child to change child's mind about idea B. Then, instead of coercing child to go against idea B, parent should CHANGE HIS OWN MIND to idea B and then act on it.
>
> umm but what if parent thinks B is false. what if the child doesn't have an argument the parent finds persuasive for B (and neither does the parent or his friends and advisors)? then how can he change his mind to B?

later in that post I clarified something:

> Actually this might be confusing. In the non-coercion example, the parent and child aren't actually acting on idea B. They are acting on another idea (call it idea C) that has within it idea B, and it also has information about why they are doing this. They are doing it in order to not coerce child. Idea B alone does not contain this extra and necessary information. And since parent wholeheartedly agrees with acting on idea C, meaning that he doesn't have any objections to it, then he's not coerced. He's not self-sacrificing.

so the explanation you're replying to is wrong, not just confusing.

parent is changing his mind to idea C, not B.

idea C looks like idea B to the child. it's the same in outward action. what's different is the reasoning. idea C's reasoning is that his child doesn't know any better, and it'd be wrong to act against his will.

and I want to talk about the concrete example I'm thinking of.

let's say parent and child are at McDonalds. they ate and now child is playing in the play thingy. and then parent says "ok i'm ready to go." he's suggesting that as a cp.

child has an objection: "no i still wanna play."

so there's a disagreement. then parent suggests a new cp: "5 more minutes?" and here there's an implicit "i'll read on my phone some more while you play" and both parent and child know this.

child has an objection: "10 minutes."

parent doesn't object. so that's a cp.

then 10 minutes goes by and parent says "ok it's been 10 minutes."

child objects: "NOOOO!"

so there's a disagreement, even though a cp was found and agreed on about how to proceed now. now it's not a cp. so parent tries to figure out why this is the case. so he notices that his child is playing with another kid and that is his best guess for why child now wants to stay. and the parent knows that that kid won't be there for long. so why not stay longer for them to play? parent thinks this is ok. it won't be long. so parent suggests a new idea: "ok we'll leave when your friend leaves. how about that?"

child says: "ok."

then later when the other kid leaves, so do this parent and child. the parent and child didn't suffer from these actions.

now i want to try to apply the abstract ideas above to this concrete example.

but i'm having trouble. i think maybe they don't match up. in this concrete example, the parent recognized why the child wanted to stay. and he agreed with it. but there is no parallel feature in the abstract one.

so i'll try to change the concrete example to have this parallel feature.

so let's say that instead of the parent realizing why the child wants to stay, he didn't realize it. and for whatever reason the parent and child failed to communicate this. so parent doesn't know why child wants to stay. (this seems unrealistic in this example, but I'm going to go with it anyway just to try to illustrate the abstract idea.)

so there is a disagreement about how to proceed. the parent wants to leave (idea A), and the child wants to stay (idea B). and the parent tried to figure out why child wants idea B but failed to, and now time has run out. Child still wants idea B and a decision needs to be made now about what do do now. 

one option is to pressure the child to leave, by making orders with a firm voice or threatening punishment. This means suffering/tcs-coercion for the child, and it's the parent's fault.

another option is for the parent to grudgingly stay. that means that he acts on the idea of staying WHILE actively still wanting to leave now. so he hasn't rejected his idea of leaving now. This means suffering/tcs-coercion for the parent. It's self-sacrifice. And it's wrong.

another option is for the parent to come up with idea C, which is basically idea B plus some information about why parent is going with it. Idea C says to stay and revisit the idea of leaving shortly, like in 5 or 10 minutes, because leaving now means acting against your child's will, thus hurting him. Parent has no objections to this idea. He already rejected the idea of leaving now (idea A). So he no longer actively wants to leave now. And child is still playing so he doesn't have any objections either. So nobody suffers/tcs-coercion. So the parent is not causing the child to sacrifice, nor is he sacrificing himself.



So what do you think? Did I succeed in making a concrete example showing the abstract idea?