Operationalizing an Argument for The Preservation of Malinvestment in Priors

OPERATIONALIZING AN ARGUMENT FOR THE PRESERVATION OF MALINVESTMENT IN PRIORS

(example of faith or other desirable false beliefs)

—“My solution is values testing. Which turns out to be epistemology testing. Meaning being downstream from epistemology, and values are downstream from meaning. The semiotic link between concept, word and thing cannot be broken in empiricism. Redefinition of terms that you see in certain critiques doesn’t negate the original concept; rather it creates a void to be filled by a new word, or rejection of the modified definition. Test for empiricism. “— Andrew M Gilmour

I am sure that makes some sort of sense to you but I can’t translate it into truthful speech.

So lets operationalize it and see what happens:

“My solution to (some problem or other) consists in testing (some kind of, category of, some individual or group’s) values. Truthful statements require knowledge individuals don’t possess, cannot obtain, cannot ford to obtain, or are unwilling to obtain, so they substitute (whatever set of constant relations between senses, associations with objects, contexts, locations, and valued returns) is within their memories (experience and therefore meaning). The individual’s association between the constant relations produced by some mark, display, word or action, and cumulative prior associations currently in memory (concept), are not falsified or replaced or informed by evidence (experience) accumulated using physical and logical instrumentation we use to test our sense perception, free association, and reason, and to falsify, confirm, or evolve those same associations (categories). The use of Operational Language, wherein each sequential action whether physical, rational, or logical, is subjectively testable, does nothing to reorganize collections of constant relations (concepts), and the paradigms upon which those prior and new associations depend by the same means of cumulative associations. Instead (some individual, some people, some group) will always attempt to defend the newly falsified, confirmed, revised topic so that it remains unchanged, and instead, (whomever) will seek to preserve (whomever’s) investment in existing paradigms (constant relations, theories, narratives), by finding and fitting a new set of constant relations, and name them, into his previous paradigms, rather than reform his paradigms. This is because (some reason or other) people do not want to learn but preserve their paradigms regardless of how completely they are falsified. The reason is that for some reason, some percentage of the population seeks the psychological comfort of some paradigm over the more parsimonious (truthful) paradigm.”

Well, you just described the reason for choosing not to learn because of the addiction to faith, or not learning because of addiction to some other means of preserving psychological self image or social status or pretense of sexual, social, economic, political, military market value, that is counter to competitive reality. When under all but physically developmental illnesses, cognitive behavioral therapy under care can correct every known one of them.

I also agree that this is the definition of mental illness.

And I also agree this is the dominant position of the excessively empathic (feminine) mind when in a condition of vulnerability.)