A Scientific Argument Why The Problem of "Immodesty" Will Never Be Fixed

[Ahab]

13 minutes ago, pogi said:

I think we are probably using these words in different ways. I am comparing objective measures and subjective measures.  To say that the Holy Spirit exists is a matter of faith.  The Holy Spirit cannot be objectively measured and verified.  If it could, it would belong in the realms of science...but it doesn't.

I can objectively measure if a detergent removes ketchup stains from a white shirt, the results can be independently measured and reproduced.  I cannot objectively measure if the atonement removes sin stains - that is a subjective experience, for example.  I cannot objectively determine if the Holy Spirit is causing me happiness, or if it is something else, for example.  All I have is my ineffable experience which cannot be objectively measured. 

What do you think you are experiencing when you experience something subjectively, if not something in objective reality?  And what do you think "scientists" are experiencing when they say they experience something, if not something in objective reality, subjectively?

If you can objectively measure anything then you can, conceivably, objectively measure anything else that is or is a part of objective reality, even your own or somebody else's subjective experiences.

Whatever there is in objective reality is not exclusive to "scientists", unless perhaps you are considering everyone to be a scientist, to some degree. 

Most scientists seem to measure only what they can see, while we, or at least some of us, can measure some of what they don't see and perhaps have never experienced..

Edited July 2, 2018 by Ahab

[Exiled]

1 hour ago, Eek! said:

I'm the one who brought up Alma 32.  Do you think I oversold it?  Here's what I said:

"Imo it's too bad the Bible doesn't have anything like Alma Chapter 32.  I think something like that would have done Christianity a lot of good."

I didn't say you oversold it. I said others do and have.

[Exiled]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

You are not considering Alma 32 in the context of the rest of Christianity.  Eek commented that this teaching would be very beneficial to the rest of Christianity, I completely agree. This IS a big concept, relatively speaking, to not just believe something because the Bible says it is true - sola scriptura. The idea that we can have spiritual confirmations about spiritual concepts, and thus have spiritual self-reliance without relying on authority only is HUGE! 

 

My point regarding Alma 32 is simply that inviting someone to try something for themselves is an old sales technique. As for the other ideas you say above that are supposedly contained in Alma 32, they didn't originate there and were nothing new at the time.  I think this is where some overselling might be happening. Sure the idea of being able to decide for oneself without being controlled by authority is an important idea but it didn't originate with Alma 32.

[pogi]

37 minutes ago, Ahab said:

What do you think you are experiencing when you experience something subjectively, if not something in objective reality?  And what do you think "scientists" are experiencing when they say they experience something, if not something in objective reality, subjectively?

I believe what you are saying from my personal experience. However, my point is that I cannot objectively demonstrate that what I am experiencing is the Holy Spirit.  All I can do is use subjective adjectives in describing the experience.  

The best that we can do is objectively compare the subjective experience of practitioners.  For example, we might be able objectively measure that when one is involved in what they describe as selfless service in love for another individual, that they are more likely to feel good inside.  That is an objective experiment that we could set up.  What we can’t objectively measure is if those “good feeling” are caused by the Holy Spirit.  That is not something we can objectively measure.

Sure, we can compare subjective feelings, and yes those feelings come from some objective reality, but we cannot objectively measure that “objective reality” beyond our neurotransmitters being the cause.  Anything “spiritual” cannot be objectively measured, or they would be scientific rather than religious studies.

Edited July 3, 2018 by pogi

[Ahab]

4 minutes ago, Exiled said:

My point regarding Alma 32 is simply that inviting someone to try something for themselves is an old sales technique. As for the other ideas you say above that are supposedly contained in Alma 32, they didn't originate there and were nothing new at the time.  I think this is where some overselling might be happening. Sure the idea of being able to decide for oneself without being controlled by authority is an important idea but it didn't originate with Alma 32.

except for the people Alma was talking to, I think.   They didn't seem to know how to worship God, or how they should go about finding out how to do it, or where to do it.  So Alma explained it to them, as it seemed they weren't familiar with what he was telling them.

We all learn in our own time, from whoever we can find to teach us, hopefully as they teach us how we can learn the truth for ourselves.  Whether it's our parents who give us our first lessons in things, or school teachers, or people who are appointed to be our leaders at church during the times we attend our own meetings, we all learn for ourselves by listening to what other people tell us, whether what they tell us is right or wrong.  And the best lessons that we can ever learn are about how we can learn for ourselves directly from God.

Thankfully most of us have heard from some people in our own lives who have told us how to do that, and that we should do that, and why we should want to learn from God more than anyone else we can learn from.

[Robert F. Smith]

9 hours ago, Exiled said:

So, do you believe the bofm was a 19th century invention or do you believe in historicity? It seems that a desire to believe is really group bias in action.

Group bias, or even "group think" tends to be tribal or a matter of ethnic identity for many people.  This applies as much to believers as to unbelievers.

[Exiled]

44 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Group bias, or even "group think" tends to be tribal or a matter of ethnic identity for many people.  This applies as much to believers as to unbelievers.

I agree that we all have our biases. I need to constantly be on guard to try and escape their pull.

[Exiled]

2 hours ago, Ahab said:

except for the people Alma was talking to, I think.   They didn't seem to know how to worship God, or how they should go about finding out how to do it, or where to do it.  So Alma explained it to them, as it seemed they weren't familiar with what he was telling them.

We all learn in our own time, from whoever we can find to teach us, hopefully as they teach us how we can learn the truth for ourselves.  Whether it's our parents who give us our first lessons in things, or school teachers, or people who are appointed to be our leaders at church during the times we attend our own meetings, we all learn for ourselves by listening to what other people tell us, whether what they tell us is right or wrong.  And the best lessons that we can ever learn are about how we can learn for ourselves directly from God.

Thankfully most of us have heard from some people in our own lives who have told us how to do that, and that we should do that, and why we should want to learn from God more than anyone else we can learn from.

I don't disagree that some good lessons are found in the book of mormon regardless of whether or not it is historical.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Exiled said:

I don't disagree that some good lessons are found in the book of mormon regardless of whether or not it is historical.

Most experts on literature agree that fiction has some profound lessons for us to learn.  But what has that got to do with modesty, if anything?

[Ahab]

16 hours ago, pogi said:

I believe what you are saying from my personal experience. However, my point is that I cannot objectively demonstrate that what I am experiencing is the Holy Spirit.  All I can do is use subjective adjectives in describing the experience.  

The best that we can do is objectively compare the subjective experience of practitioners.  For example, we might be able objectively measure that when one is involved in what they describe as selfless service in love for another individual, that they are more likely to feel good inside.  That is an objective experiment that we could set up.  What we can’t objectively measure is if those “good feeling” are caused by the Holy Spirit.  That is not something we can objectively measure.

Sure, we can compare subjective feelings, and yes those feelings come from some objective reality, but we cannot objectively measure that “objective reality” beyond our neurotransmitters being the cause.  Anything “spiritual” cannot be objectively measured, or they would be scientific rather than religious studies.

I think I can now say that we are generally in agreement.  Our experiences are internal to our spirits, and it's not like we can take them out of our spirit and say something like "Behold, here they are, look and see!  I told you I experienced this and that and here is everything for you to look at and examine!"  Well, at least we can't do that right now.  Maybe later we will be able to do that, like God does when he shows us something in an idea or a vision or a dream so that we can experience what he is trying to help us experience.  To know as he knows.  But until we can look at someone else's thoughts and memories, to see what they have experienced or what they have done, without needing to use words to try to convey those things from objective reality whether past, present or future,, then, yep, pretty much what you are saying is the case. 

We can't show our experiences to others except to try to tell them what we know and have experienced.

 

[Ahab]

11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Most experts on literature agree that fiction has some profound lessons for us to learn.  But what has that got to do with modesty, if anything?

The thread is actually about the Prevalence-induced concept change in human judgment.

And I think also about whether or not human judgment can be carried too far.

cinepro (I don't know how to tag) was proposing how the concept may carry over to how people define what modesty is, as an example.

"Do we think that a problem persists even when it has become less frequent? Levari et al. show experimentally that when the “signal” a person is searching for becomes rare, the person naturally responds by broadening his or her definition of the signal—and therefore continues to find it even when it is not there. From low-level perception of color to higher-level judgments of ethics, there is a robust tendency for perceptual and judgmental standards to “creep” when they ought not to. For example, when blue dots become rare, participants start calling purple dots blue, and when threatening faces become rare, participants start calling neutral faces threatening. This phenomenon has broad implications that may help explain why people whose job is to find and eliminate problems in the world often cannot tell when their work is done."

I would say that a problem persists even when it becomes less frequent.  And I would also say that the "signal" is still there even when some people think it is not there.  And it may not be about someone broadening his or her definition of the signal, but rather about delving deeper into what the definition includes.  Purple has some blue in it, for example, so someone seeing purple as blue may be referring to that concept.  If someone saw red and said blue, however, I would say that is a problem of not understanding what blue is all about.

Personally, I can't imagine a time when someone whose job is to find and eliminate problems will ever have a problem telling when their work is all done.  When everything is perfect, maybe, but I don't imagine there will ever be a time when absolutely everything is perfect.

[Exiled]

11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Most experts on literature agree that fiction has some profound lessons for us to learn.  But what has that got to do with modesty, if anything?

Morality doesn't, except that cinepro's opening post seemed to be in conjunction with the threads about engaging evidence. There seemed to be divergent views of the evidence presented in those threads and at least one viewed the evidence with a little more enthusiasm than the rest.  It seemed enthusiasm clouded his views. I think this led to this op by cinepro.

[Exiled]

6 minutes ago, Ahab said:

The thread is actually about the Prevalence-induced concept change in human judgment.

And I think also about whether or not human judgment can be carried too far.

cinepro (I don't know how to tag) was proposing how the concept may carry over to how people define what modesty is, as an example.

"Do we think that a problem persists even when it has become less frequent? Levari et al. show experimentally that when the “signal” a person is searching for becomes rare, the person naturally responds by broadening his or her definition of the signal—and therefore continues to find it even when it is not there. From low-level perception of color to higher-level judgments of ethics, there is a robust tendency for perceptual and judgmental standards to “creep” when they ought not to. For example, when blue dots become rare, participants start calling purple dots blue, and when threatening faces become rare, participants start calling neutral faces threatening. This phenomenon has broad implications that may help explain why people whose job is to find and eliminate problems in the world often cannot tell when their work is done."

I would say that a problem persists even when it becomes less frequent.  And I would also say that the "signal" is still there even when some people think it is not there.  And it may not be about someone broadening his or her definition of the signal, but rather about delving deeper into what the definition includes.  Purple has some blue in it, for example, so someone seeing purple as blue may be referring to that concept.  If someone saw red and said blue, however, I would say that is a problem of not understanding what blue is all about.

Personally, I can't imagine a time when someone whose job is to find and eliminate problems will ever have a problem telling when their work is all done.  When everything is perfect, maybe, but I don't imagine there will ever be a time when absolutely everything is perfect.

I wonder how much media, politicians and/or religious leaders contribute to the continual redefinition of "problems?" We follow the tribe a lot and leaders lead by defining problems for us. So, is it a question of conditioning? Leaders get airtime by pointing out what is wrong, not by showing what is right with society. I don't think I would get very far in politics with a platform of no change, no problem solving, unless I were already in office and had solved the problems to the satisfaction of the public. However, that could never happen under this theory because problems would be redefined to create new ones amd the change candidate would win.

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, Exiled said:

I wonder how much media, politicians and/or religious leaders contribute to the continual redefinition of "problems?" We follow the tribe a lot and leaders lead by defining problems for us. So, is it a question of conditioning? Leaders get airtime by pointing out what is wrong, not by showing what is right with society. I don't think I would get very far in politics with a platform of no change, no problem solving, unless I were already in office and had solved the problems to the satisfaction of the public. However, that could never happen under this theory because problems would be redefined to create new ones amd the change candidate would win.

Again, rather than a redefinition, I would say it's about delving deeper into what the word problem means, and what the problems are.  Hopefully as we continue to progress throughout eternity we'll be working different problems than the ones we are working on now, each of us dealing with what the problems are to us, individually.  I know I can usually tell what my problems are without needing somebody else to tell me, but still it is nice sometimes when other people concur and point out that they agree with my own assessments.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

The thread is actually about the Prevalence-induced concept change in human judgment.

And I think also about whether or not human judgment can be carried too far.

cinepro (I don't know how to tag) was proposing how the concept may carry over to how people define what modesty is, as an example.

"Do we think that a problem persists even when it has become less frequent? Levari et al. show experimentally that when the “signal” a person is searching for becomes rare, the person naturally responds by broadening his or her definition of the signal—and therefore continues to find it even when it is not there. From low-level perception of color to higher-level judgments of ethics, there is a robust tendency for perceptual and judgmental standards to “creep” when they ought not to. For example, when blue dots become rare, participants start calling purple dots blue, and when threatening faces become rare, participants start calling neutral faces threatening. This phenomenon has broad implications that may help explain why people whose job is to find and eliminate problems in the world often cannot tell when their work is done."

I would say that a problem persists even when it becomes less frequent.  And I would also say that the "signal" is still there even when some people think it is not there.  And it may not be about someone broadening his or her definition of the signal, but rather about delving deeper into what the definition includes.  Purple has some blue in it, for example, so someone seeing purple as blue may be referring to that concept.  If someone saw red and said blue, however, I would say that is a problem of not understanding what blue is all about.

Personally, I can't imagine a time when someone whose job is to find and eliminate problems will ever have a problem telling when their work is all done.  When everything is perfect, maybe, but I don't imagine there will ever be a time when absolutely everything is perfect.

Are you saying that fiction can have the function of crafting stories which engage moral questions?  Of course it can, but it can do so either way -- pro or con.  So I don't see the relevance to this OP.

However, as Jordan Peterson, points out, we have the odd fact that it is precisely in those countries which have the greatest legal and practical push toward egalitarianism which have the greatest distinction in gender outcomes.  In the Scandanavian countries, for example (where egalitarianism has gone the furthest), men and women are showing the greatest differences in gender choices in jobs and life pursuits of any other countries.  We should have expected the opposite.  It appears that gender differences are inherent and biological, not just social constructs.

[Ahab]

52 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Are you saying that fiction can have the function of crafting stories which engage moral questions?  Of course it can, but it can do so either way -- pro or con.  So I don't see the relevance to this OP.

However, as Jordan Peterson, points out, we have the odd fact that it is precisely in those countries which have the greatest legal and practical push toward egalitarianism which have the greatest distinction in gender outcomes.  In the Scandanavian countries, for example (where egalitarianism has gone the furthest), men and women are showing the greatest differences in gender choices in jobs and life pursuits of any other countries.  We should have expected the opposite.  It appears that gender differences are inherent and biological, not just social constructs.

No, I wasn't saying that, and I don't know what gave you the idea that I might be.

I was just pointing out what I see the thread topic as being about, and that people should still be able to see things that are there even if other people can't see them or don't think that other people are seeing them, or that what others see don't jive with their own definitions for those things.

Back to modesty, for example, are bare shoulders modest or not?  First of all I would define what modesty is, as I understand it, or in this case what qualifies as modest clothing.  Clothing that doesn't reveal very much of a person's skin, basically, is how I would define it. Perhaps also adding that modest clothing should not reveal too much of a person's shape by fitting too tight in specific places, which I hope I do not need to specify for you right here in this thread.  That you hopefully have the same idea I do about what modesty is.  So back to the question, I would say that bare shoulders may be modest as long as the person's top doesn't drop too far down, not much below the top of the shoulders. And before you ask me why I have that idea of what modest clothing is I will say that I just do, based on the idea I have about what modest clothing refers to, whether or not you see my ideas as having anything to do with modest clothing.  So whether or not I am included among the majority or minority of the world's population with this idea of what modest clothing refers to, I have this idea and I will stick with it until my own idea of what modest clothing is changes, if for any reason I see a good reason to change it.  And I do not and probably will not ever consider peer pressure to be a good reason for me to change any of my ideas.

Edited July 3, 2018 by Ahab

[Bernard Gui]

On 7/2/2018 at 1:50 PM, Calm said:

Given the time period the rest of the band was likely male and even today females and males band members wear the same band uniform, right?  The girl out front twirling the baton was often the only one with a unique costume in my memory of parades in the 60s. 

School marching bands have been coed for as long as I remember. Our early 60s was, but it was always accompanied by the cheerleaders, baton twirlers, the majorette (all girls in their costumes), and the drum major (boy) dressed to the hilt in full regalia. 

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

School marching bands have been coed for as long as I remember. Our early 60s was, but it was always accompanied by the cheerleaders, baton twirlers, the majorette (all girls in their costumes), and the drum major (boy) dressed to the hilt in full regalia. 

I was thinking flutes were maybe girls, but I was elementary school in the 60s so didn't have much experience save for watching parades on a 13 inch black and white, so marching bands to me were mainly a big mass with the batons flying out front.

[Bernard Gui]

5 hours ago, Ahab said:

Back to modesty, for example, are bare shoulders modest or not?  First of all I would define what modesty is, as I understand it, or in this case what qualifies as modest clothing.

This is the real problem...coming up with a workable definition of modesty. Here’s one serious attempt ay an observant Jew and the grief she came to trying to revive a discussion of what it means to be modest in a permissive culture....

 

https://books.google.com/books?id=idCDAAAAQBAJ&pg=PT11&source=kp_read_button

[Yirgacheffe]

That was rather all over the place, and only partly to do with modesty.

Edited July 5, 2018 by Yirgacheffe
was trying to quote Bernard's post, hence the second post below from me

[Yirgacheffe]

On 7/3/2018 at 8:16 PM, Bernard Gui said:

This is the real problem...coming up with a workable definition of modesty. Here’s one serious attempt ay an observant Jew and the grief she came to trying to revive a discussion of what it means to be modest in a permissive culture....

 

https://books.google.com/books?id=idCDAAAAQBAJ&pg=PT11&source=kp_read_button

 

[Bernard Gui]

8 hours ago, Yirgacheffe said:

 

???

[Bernard Gui]

8 hours ago, Yirgacheffe said:

That was rather all over the place, and only partly to do with modesty.

The book is an excellent defense of the Judeo-Christian concept of modesty.  Any specific objections? What is your definition?

Edited July 5, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[jkwilliams]

On 7/3/2018 at 7:16 PM, Bernard Gui said:

This is the real problem...coming up with a workable definition of modesty. Here’s one serious attempt ay an observant Jew and the grief she came to trying to revive a discussion of what it means to be modest in a permissive culture....

https://books.google.com/books?id=idCDAAAAQBAJ&pg=PT11&source=kp_read_button

That's what I find so interesting: the definition of "modesty" seems to have changed since I was a young man. A sleeveless top or dress would not have been considered immodest back then, but it is now.

My mother tells a story of going to a formal dance when she was at BYU. Having grown up rather poor, she did not have a formal gown, so a friend loaned her one, though she was mortified that it was strapless, which would have been considered immodest. So, she bought a length of chiffon fabric, and they pinned it up over her shoulders and behind her neck, making it look like it was part of the dress. When they arrived at the dance, they saw that President McKay and his wife were standing in a reception line at the entrance, greeting each couple as they entered. She was horrified, certain that he would know she was wearing an immodest dress. But he just shook her hand and asked her name and where she was from. I asked her recently if she thought the bare shoulders were a problem, and she said, "No, why would that be a problem?" 

I wonder what is behind these more restrictive dress standards. I never imagined the Friend would publish an article about a 4-year-old girl choosing modesty by not wearing a sleeveless dress. That's just weird.

Edited July 5, 2018 by jkwilliams

[Exiled]

15 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

That's what I find so interesting: the definition of "modesty" seems to have changed since I was a young man. A sleeveless top or dress would not have been considered immodest back then, but it is now.

My mother tells a story of going to a formal dance when she was at BYU. Having grown up rather poor, she did not have a formal gown, so a friend loaned her one, though she was mortified that it was strapless, which would have been considered immodest. So, she bought a length of chiffon fabric, and they pinned it up over her shoulders and behind her neck, making it look like it was part of the dress. When they arrived at the dance, they saw that President McKay and his wife were standing in a reception line at the entrance, greeting each couple as they entered. She was horrified, certain that he would know she was wearing an immodest dress. But he just shook her hand and asked her name and where she was from. I asked her recently if she thought the bare shoulders were a problem, and she said, "No, why would that be a problem?" 

I wonder what is behind these more restrictive dress standards. I never imagined the Friend would publish an article about a 4-year-old girl choosing modesty by not wearing a sleeveless dress. That's just weird.

I think the bare shoulder being immodest is more about signaling a belonging to the group than anything else. The story about the 4-yr old seems to be more about preparing the young to wear garments. I just don't see how an otherwise modest dress, shirt, or blouse, under most anyone else's modesty standard suddenly becomes immodest by showing the shoulders. 

Edited July 5, 2018 by Exiled