BranBucket

You don't have to tell people you use Linux or talk to them about it. I know that because I use Zorin OS, which is a really modern feeling Linux distro with a slick user interface, that's perfect for people like you and I, who don't want to be bombarded with opinions on the "right" operating system and just want to use their computers in peace. You should totally switch!

I don't need much. I honestly don't. I prefer quality and things that appeal to my interest over quantity. I've lived in dorms, hotels, and temp housing before. If it's just me, I can be comfortable and content in an average single bedroom apartment. I'd maybe prefer some outside storage and/or work space, but I don't need a three car garage. Although opinions vary on what constitutes enough, I'm good with having "just enough".

But, I don't think I'd enjoy this.

Having a small space of my own seems like it's pretty essential to my feeling secure and satisfied. Thinking about being constantly on the move, even with the ability to take all my possessions with me, gives me a sort of creeping anxiety and disquiet.

Part of it is that it feels invasive to me to live in other's homes. Oddly enough, I don't mind having someone in my space, but I'd be walking on eggshells if I did the same. I know that no housing is truly secure in the US economy, but this feels far too impermanent and far too at risk of going wrong.

I'm not even certain that we even disagree on the fundamental principle, just the details of the example I gave.

Slightly off topic, but does anyone have experience with there being a tradition of researching family histories and genealogy among later generation immigrant families in nations outside the US?

I've had multiple friends and relations start researching their family history with the intent of finding the first ancestor to immigrate to the US and their country of origin. As some others have said, I don't believe these people consider themselves to truly be a part of that culture, but it's a fun bit of personal trivia and some fresh new traditions to explore, so it gets talked about.

I wonder if that's universal, or if it could be more of a phenomenon in the US and contributing to what the OP is observing.

One more time: We aren't examining how the average English speaker would interpret this, only the reasons why the priest's answer might change.

This has been interesting. Good luck to you. =)

The question, in both cases, involves smoking while praying. The priest never looks at, or gives a judgement on smoking in general, there's no reason to assume the priest would forbid smoking in other circumstances.

The question does change, but not as fundamentally as you're claiming it does. The information presented in both questions remains the same, only the word order changes, which changes how the priest perceives that information.

Anyway, good luck out there. =)

Why would the answer be no? Who cares if you smoke while doing a cartwheel? Who said the priest would forbid such a thing?

In both situations, a man is asking about the propriety of praying while inhaling the smoke from a cigarette. That's vital information.

The information does matter to the smoker and the priest. We're not teasting these statements for validity and we're not making our own judgements. We're examining why the priest's answer might have changed. That's all.

Those aren't the same questions from the original post. You've omitted half the information given to the priest in each question.

Both questions, in their entirety, deal with smoking and praying. The subject is smoking and praying. You've reframed this as a question about smoking and a separate question about praying. That was never the case.

EDIT: minor clarification.

I didn't strip all context from the scenario. I defined the context. It's just not the context you believe I should be using. You keep adding something that was never in my original post, then arguing against what you yourself added to try invalidate the exercise on the basis of your personal interpretation. Sorry, but that's missing the point by a wide margin and I feel it's a waste of time.

Otherwise it becomes like the trolley problem.

Yes. That is exactly what it's meant to be like and precisely what I've been saying.

Just like the trolley problem, it's a self-contained thought exercise. But instead of illustrating a difficult ethical choice, it demonstrates a point about language shaping reasoning.

There's nothing to be won or lost by including outside context or narrowly defining the meaning of each word to prove what is or isn't contradictory. This isn't an argument over what the language means. Your personal interpretation of the language is irrelevant, it's the priest and/or the smoker's interpretation that matters. The singular point is for you to consider how and why their answer changes.

If you believe their answer changes because they interpreted the meaning of those words differently due to the order in which they were given, that's valid. If you believe, like I do, that the answer changes because their reasoning was shallow and contradictory, also valid. If you believe the answer didn't change and the smoker misunderstood, once again, valid. What conclusion can we draw here, what's common to all of these? They all show that changing the question changes our thought process and how we interpret meaning.

If you dislike my example this much, create your own. It makes no difference to me.

Just invent your own scenario where changes to the way a question is phrased leads a person to two different and contradictory conclusions, and use that example to briefly examine how language can shape our reasoning. That's all we need here. Digressions on language, meaning, Boolean logic, and speaking to infants will only cloud the issue.

We're getting very forest for the trees here.

It's a thought experiment, a controlled imaginary environment used to illustrate a point. It's supposed to be isolated from outside contex to make that point clearer. It's purely hypotheical and comes self contained with all the context it needs. We're testing one metaphorical variable, so that our results aren't muddled. You just went and added another half dozen for the sake of argument...

Prayer is prayer in this context. No other meaning. There are no types of prayer in this particular sect, focus is irrelevant. Is it against God's will to smoke while you pray? Can you answer that question, yes or no, based off the priest's answers?

The fact that the priest, parishioner, and the typical intended audience for this particular hypothetical don't do the kind of analysis you've worked up here is really a large part of what this particular thought experiment is trying to illuminate, don't you think?

I agree with that.

Good. =)

This is also part of my broader gripe with social media, cable news, and the current media landscape in general. They use so many sneaky little psychological hooks to keep you plugged in that I honestly believe it's screwing with our heads to the point of it being a public health crisis.

People are already frazzled and beat down by the onslaught of dopamine feedback loops and outrage bait, then you go and get them hooked on a charbot that feeds into every little neurosies they've developed and just sinks those hooks in even deeper and it's no wonder some people are having a mental health crisis.

A lot of us vastly overestimate our resistance to having our heads jacked with and it worries me.