Perceptions and hallucinations in the light of absent or insufficient explanations [overview]

As we tend to know, myoelectric arms are plain junk [link], but as you may tend to “know”, hooks are only for evil people [link].

As you are lead to believe that I am just hallucinating, we could discuss some details of such a perception.

What we are really dealing with is your lack of sufficiently detailed explanations.

These are not asked for, therefore not presented. These are uninteresting, therefore not read. These seem far away, and you cannot relate to them. You feel to be totally free in interpreting things as you see fit.

Generally, the absence of detailed explanations in an argument proposed as A can lead another person to think that A is wrong or hallucinated, for several reasons, that we know all too well.

So you believing hooks are only for evil people and myoelectric prosthesis being the pinnacle of technology advances?

To a degree, that is a designed, crafted and gaslighted/manipulated status that you have achieved. It is, however, mostly of your own making, as other evidence has been presented or made available to you.

Lack of Evidence: Without detailed explanations, there is no explicit supporting evidence or reasoning to back up an argument. This makes it difficult for others to assess its validity. People generally trust arguments that are well-supported by data, examples, or logical reasoning. Or what they think constitutes that. If that is not available, credibility is what you will rely on at own risk. What plays greatly into this in the uneducated perception of arm amputees and prosthetic arms is the presence of competitive evidence, which can be evidence that seems credible , that imposes itself, that is visually pervasive, but is not so relevant or even irrelevant. Seeing me without prosthetic arm on, seeing any arm amputee, seems to create the absolutely pervasive unescapable visual evidence of an intrinsically linked “proof” that by all means one needs to build any hand-shaped contraptions to “fix” this. While that is a neurological perceptual problem, there is no similarly pervasive evidence that any fool can see that similarly evidences my neck, shoulder or neck pain. I have a t-shirt that says “it only looks like that” and even though you can also visually take that in, you will have no idea. That is how lack of evidence works here. There is a real lot to explain if need be, that isn’t explained, for any reason.

Credibility Issues: Detailed explanations can help, and they are the only way, but only to a degree, to establish the credibility of the person making the argument. When these detailed explanations are or seem to be missing, it can appear that the person is not knowledgeable or confident about the topic, reducing their credibility in the eyes of others. Another problem with credibility is that if the amount of information is too large, you won’t believe it, whatever it is. To be credible, it has to be short and redundant, and it has to link to known truths. With arm amputees generally lacking any credibility, due to your deeply engrained ableism [link], you will likely not believe a word I say, whatever I say. The problematic thing here is that I know that you are likely to think that way. So I will provide very extensive arguments that also lack credibility because they are too much for you. I can always point to posts e.g. 5 or 10 years ago stating that I told you so, and I am factually right, but you never believed me. You probably won’t even believe me now, and maybe that defines your risk profile. However, unless all credibility issues are argued and explained and presented and acknowledged, there possibly won’t be any good reason for you to believe that a disabled person could ever be right.

Perception of Superficiality: An argument that lacks depth and detail might be perceived as superficial or hastily constructed. This can lead to the assumption that the argument is not well-thought-out or based on a shallow understanding of the subject.

Ambiguity and Vagueness: An argument without details can come across as ambiguous or vague. The same is true for arguments that you believe to lack details, which can happen because you overlooked them or did not understand them, or did not take care to properly analyze them. When argument key points are not clearly defined, or if you believe some argument key points to be missing, or if otherwise you just imagine your own world, this then leaves room for multiple interpretations, some of which are pure nonsense, overall leading to confusion and skepticism about the argument’s accuracy. If a researcher tells me that “myoelectric prostheses are here to stay” and “I should deal with that”, and I confront him with some bare facts that are hard to deny (e.g. uselessly high failure rate [link], failed Voight-Kampff test [link]), they will believe there to be vagueness. The fact that there isn’t is not obvious until I word how, in all details, there is no vagueness, but that is not a depth that we ever reach.

Cognitive Biases: People are naturally inclined to be suspicious of claims that lack understandable substantiation. This can trigger cognitive biases such as skepticism or the “burden of proof” bias, where the person assumes the argument is incorrect until proven otherwise. However, an argument can be true, despite you not asking for proof, or, despite you denying proof, it can be true even though you decide to not like it, and it can be true under the aspect that your other interpretation lacks significant aspects or overly weighs aspects that are actually insignificant.

 

Hallucination or Imagination: In the absence of concrete details, people might think the argument is a product of imagination or a hallucination, especially if it seems implausible or far-fetched. Detailed and credible explanations provide a logical structure that can make even unusual claims seem more believable.

 

Comparative Analysis: When comparing multiple arguments, the one with detailed explanations often stands out as more convincing. In contrast, the argument without details seems weaker in comparison, leading to the conclusion that it is less likely to be correct.

In summary, detailed explanations are crucial for making an argument convincing.

They provide the necessary evidence, clarity, and credibility, helping others understand and trust the argument. Without these details, an argument can easily be dismissed as wrong or a product of hallucination.

In the context of prosthetic arms and what everyone is after, many significant details are routinely left out or, worse, they are smuggled through right in front of your eyes in a way that you cannot see them. Discrimination works in weird ways, one is that people self-discriminate themselves unknowingly.


Cite this article:
Wolf Schweitzer: swisswuff.ch - Perceptions and hallucinations in the light of absent or insufficient explanations [overview]; published 17/07/2024, 22:15; URL: https://www.swisswuff.ch/tech/?p=13299.

BibTeX 1: @MISC{schweitzer_wolf_1738961985, author = {Wolf Schweitzer}, title = {{swisswuff.ch - Perceptions and hallucinations in the light of absent or insufficient explanations [overview]}}, month = {July}, year = {2024}, url = {https://www.swisswuff.ch/tech/?p=13299}

BibTeX 2: @MISC{schweitzer_wolf_1738961985, author = {Wolf Schweitzer}, title = {{Perceptions and hallucinations in the light of absent or insufficient explanations [overview]}}, howpublished = {Technical Below Elbow Amputee Issues}, month = {July}, year = {2024}, url = {https://www.swisswuff.ch/tech/?p=13299} }