To me, "shake on it" signifies agreeing to a course of action rather than agreeing on a belief. If you meet someone and ask if they too believe in Kamala Harris and they say yes, do you then shake on it? I would not.

What do you guys think? — moo

I never shake hands with anyone.

I'm not a handsy person, either, though I would not scorn someone's hand if offered in good faith.

Lowest level of assent calls for a curt nod.
Physical contact begins at mutual esteem : I acknowledge this person as my equal and ally or honourable rival.
If shaking on an agreement, there is usually an understanding of intent: a promise, a contract, a compact or partnership.

Of course, it's fashionable now not only to squeeze every stranger's hand, but to hug and kiss scant acquaintances, but I don't subscribe to that. Maybe Covid put a damper on that trend?

What does lowest threshold of assent mean?

What does lowest threshold of assent mean? — Metaphysician Undercover

The expression of consent – or assent in some cases –. It may be stated expressed or implied. The OP must be referring to the latter. A succinct but firm attitude of engagement with the opposite party.

What do you guys think? — moo

To reinforce the engagement between two parties, it is important to put it on a paper signed by both of you or ratified by a public notary. Handshakes might not be very reliable indicators of agreement.

Verbal assent would be acceptable except the two parties might later have disagreement as to what exactly was agreed to. The handshake helps to reinforce the memory that there actually was an agreement which took place, but it does little or nothing to ensure that the two parties have consistent memories about what was agreed to. Therefore if there are any important details it's wise to put them on paper.



Assent is assent. There is no distinction to be made between the lowest threshold and the highest threshold of assent. Verbal agreement, the handshake, and the signed document, are all indications of assent. One is not a higher threshold and the other a lower threshold, they are all different forms of assent.

The issue you speak of appears to involve what @javi2541997 calls "implied" assent. If there is not some form of explicit assent, then the threshold of "assent" is not really crossed. In that case one might request a handshake to actually cross the threshold.

Implied consent is really very problematic as many rape trials indicate. All sorts of subliminal and unconscious actions may be claimed to have been interpreted as consent. Imagine if I suddenly grabbed your hand, and forcefully shook it, because your actions implied to me that you had crossed the threshold of assent. Then, I later claimed that you shaking my hand was proof that you had actually crossed the threshold. Really, I shook your hand and you did not shake my hand, and there was never assent.

So, which is it? Assent (acceptance), agreement (accord) or consent (permission)?

Assent is used here to mean that you accept something as likely true. I believe there are higher and lower thresholds of assent, as I believe acceptance resides on a spectrum, and there is a threshold to be met to reach an acceptance of a matter, such as the belief someone raped someone. The lowest threshold being met is when you come to the belief that someone raped someone. The higher up on the spectrum of acceptance that someone raped someone, the stronger the belief you have that it's true.

Assent is used here to mean that you accept something as likely true. — moo

That's what I thought you meant. So, the handshake is not an agreement to undertake a common enterprise or or end a conflict.

Someone tells you that there had been a rape. You have no reason from past experience to doubt that this person tells the truth as he knows it. So, you ask, "How do you know?" Depending on his answer, you conclude that it probably is true; you believe him provisionally, pending more information. A lowest threshold of assent has been reached, correct?

Why would you then shake hands? Wouldn't you be more likely to question further, as to who the victim and perpetrator were, what has been done about it, and so forth? The handshake is unnecessary and, to my taste, inappropriate.

In your example I would say "yes", that is correct.

To shake hands is an act of trust in this example, just as a pinkie promise is. A social construct that symbolically puts more at stake in the relationship between the individuals and their trustworthiness.

Moo is my brother.

We get in a lot of painful disagreements, and it seems at least one of us is unamenable to reason or something, and so we hope to gain some insight if one of us is right or wrong on this issue by way of social proof. I hope some of you will weigh in.

Assent is assent. There is no distinction to be made between the lowest threshold and the highest threshold of assent. — Metaphysician Undercover

I currently disagree. I agree with moo that there is a distinction to be made.

If one's confidence is at 50% on something, then I think they have not assented to a belief. They do not believe either way. If they past 50% confidence on something, then they have assented to a belief, but their confidence may be extremely low. Without using decimal numbers, the lowest confidence is 51%.

So, my bro moo states in the opening post:

I think as soon as the lowest threshold of assenting to a belief is had, and if asked, "Do you believe such and such?", and you say "yes", and then they say shake on it, and you do, I think it is legit behavior, a valid handshake.

And I currently disagree.

If one is at the lowest threshold (51%), then their confidence is weak. The lower the percentage, the more doubt one has, thus when one questions or cements the persons stance with a handshake or pinky promise, one's integrity is challenged to be reflective if it's something one will hold to. 51% is hardly anything to hold to, and they probably would not risk their perceived integrity on it unless they explicitly state it's at 51%. That is not the usual social norm though. I think the norm is that the handshake has more than 51% in support of it, and thus they do no need to explicitly state the confidence level. The handshake and pinky promise are about trust, and you trust in things you're more confident about. So, I think the social norm is to convey high confidence, and to move outside of that by shaking on low confidence can cause confusion and mistrust, which goes against its function.

An example:

"Will you give me a ride to the doctors tomorrow?"
"Yes."
"Shake on it?"
They Shake.
Tomorow comes, and the person doesn't give a ride.
"What gives?"
"I was only at 51% confidence, I hope my handshake didn't convey otherwise, I don't see how it validly would."
Mistrust, plus maybe punch.

In summary, when the lowest threshold of assenting to a belief is had, and if asked, "Do you believe such and such?", and you answer "yes", and then they say shake on it, and you do, I currently think it is illegitimate behavior.

Can one always simple shake on something one believes? Your answer Dreamcatcher, I believe, must be, "no", if you want to stay consistent with your thinking shared above. If it's something I believe, then I can shake your hand on it, because I believe it! What risk will unfold other than someone mistreating me for shaking their hand on something I believe? I don't care about the social norm of behavior, I care about the willingness to stand behind something you believe, and you can display that willingness by shaking one's hand on it if you want, despite whatever potential risks there might be.

If one's confidence is at 50% on something, then I think they have not assented to a belief. They do not believe either way. If they past 50% confidence on something, then they have assented to a belief, but their confidence may be extremely low. Without using decimal numbers, the lowest confidence is 51%. — DreamCatcher

I think that's an arbitrary threshold. It might work as a guide as to when you've crossed the threshold, but it's useless as a guide as to whether or not someone else assents. Personally, I cannot judge my confidence by percentage, and I don't even really understand how confidence relates to assent, so your post is useless to me.

I think that's an arbitrary threshold. It might work as a guide as to when you've crossed the threshold, but it's useless as a guide as to whether or not someone else assents. Personally, I cannot judge my confidence by percentage, and I don't even really understand how confidence relates to assent, so your post is useless to me. — Metaphysician Undercover

I do not understand why you think it is an arbitrary threshold, and I think nowhere in the opening post does the situation require for one to need it as a guide as to whether or not someone else assents, nor do I think it is required of you to judge confidence by percentage precisely, but to know that people can have different degrees of confidence when they assent to a belief, and moo is proposing that his position is sound when using the lowest confidence possible.

I think confidence relates to assent in that I currently think confidence is assent, and a belief is known to a person by their feeling of confidence. If you had zero confidence with regards to an idea, then I think you would not have it held as a belief, as you would not have any feelings towards it as being the case.

If my post is still useless to you, then please explain.

Can one always simple shake on something one believes? Your answer Dreamcatcher, I believe, must be, "no", if you want to stay consistent with your thinking shared above. If it's something I believe, then I can shake your hand on it, because I believe it! What risk will unfold other than someone mistreating me for shaking their hand on something I believe? I don't care about the social norm of behavior, I care about the willingness to stand behind something you believe, and you can display that willingness by shaking one's hand on it if you want, despite whatever potential risks there might be. — moo

In the context of this thread of doing it in a valid way, then as I've conveyed, the answer is no.

You wrote to Vera Mont:

To shake hands is an act of trust in this example, just as a pinkie promise is. A social construct that symbolically puts more at stake in the relationship between the individuals and their trustworthiness.

Here, I think you undercut your position because you grant that trust is the handshakes function. You state you don't care about the social norm, but what is a handshake but a social norm? And if you don't care about the social norm, then you may cause confusion, and how does that establish or maintain trust?

Here, I think you undercut your position because you grant that trust is the handshakes function. You state you don't care about the social norm, but what is a handshake but a social norm? And if you don't care about the social norm, then you may cause confusion, and how does that establish or maintain trust? — DreamCatcher

I believe simply shaking your hand on something you believe to be true, is offering a symbolic act of trust, yet you deny it as communicating such. If you have people think carefully and ask them, "can one simple shake on something they believe to be true", the typical answer from people should be "no" if this social norm you speak of is true. Correct? Social norms, can they not also hide or confuse people from the truth? Maybe social norms could confuse or mislead one in their understanding of what really qualifies has a valid handshake, right? If that is right, then how do I undercut what I say about not caring about the social norm?

I do not understand why you think it is an arbitrary threshold, and I think nowhere in the opening post does the situation require for one to need it as a guide as to whether or not someone else assents, nor do I think it is required of you to judge confidence by percentage precisely, but to know that people can have different degrees of confidence when they assent to a belief, and moo is proposing that his position is sound when using the lowest confidence possible. — DreamCatcher

Rarely, if ever, could someone claim to be !00% certain. And, we assent to belief for all sorts of different reasons, making any specific numerical percentage not at all consistent for the same person. If someone you know offers to help you for example, you might assent with a very low degree of certitude. Consider faith and religion for some. But if someone you do not really trust offers you something, assent would require a much higher degree of certitude. This is why I argued that we cannot claim any "threshold of assent". It makes no sense, because if certitude is used to evaluate the threshold, for example, it varies within the same person, depending on circumstances. Therefore we cannot determine any specific threshold for any particular person, assent depends on too many different things.

I believe simply shaking your hand on something you believe to be true, is offering a symbolic act of trust, yet you deny it as communicating such. If you have people think carefully and ask them, "can one simple shake on something they believe to be true", the typical answer from people should be "no" if this social norm you speak of is true. Correct? — moo

I think the question you offered will have people probably assume that 'belief' means more than merely 51%, so they probably will not say "no" to your question. However, if you ask them, "can one simply shake on something when they barely believe it without letting the other person know that they barely believe it?", I bet most will say "no", as in many contexts it will go against the social norm of the handshake, which I think is about trust. So, depending on the context, I think shaking hands as you have it can erode trust, as with the doctor example I gave earlier.

Social norms, can they not also hide or confuse people from the truth?

I think so.

Maybe social norms could confuse or mislead one in their understanding of what really qualifies has a valid handshake, right?

Yes.

If that is right, then how do I undercut what I say about not caring about the social norm?

Perhaps you did not undercut yourself, but I think what you wrote conveyed that you did.

In your mind, how does a handshake put more at stake? If one makes a statement, it is normally assumed that they believe it, and so it's at least at 51% from the get-go. If they shake on it, your position holds that one is mistreating them in expecting anything higher than 51%. So, if all the handshake can offer is 51% confidence, then how have they put more at stake?

---

Rarely, if ever, could someone claim to be !00% certain. And, we assent to belief for all sorts of different reasons, making any specific numerical percentage not at all consistent for the same person. If someone you know offers to help you for example, you might assent with a very low degree of certitude. Consider faith and religion for some. But if someone you do not really trust offers you something, assent would require a much higher degree of certitude. This is why I argued that we cannot claim any "threshold of assent". It makes no sense, because if certitude is used to evaluate the threshold, for example, it varies within the same person, depending on circumstances. Therefore we cannot determine any specific threshold for any particular person, assent depends on too many different things. — Metaphysician Undercover

I think once you get enough certitude, which as you've noted, may vary according to the situation, then you've crossed the threshold to have whatever particular belief, for instance, the belief that it's okay to accept something from a stranger, but that does not mean you cannot perhaps have greater confidence in accepting it. Again, I currently think people can have different degrees of confidence when they assent to a belief, and moo is proposing his position is sound when using the lowest confidence possible. Knowing if you yourself, or another, is at their lowest point, or at a 100%, or anything in between, is not necessary I think to analyze the function of the handshake, and if the situation proposed seems improper or not.

I think the question you offered will have people probably assume that 'belief' means more than merely 51%, so they probably will not say "no" to your question. However, if you ask them, "can one simply shake on something when they barely believe it without letting the other person know that they barely believe it?", I bet most will say "no", as in many contexts it will go against the social norm of the handshake, which I think is about trust. So, depending on the context, I think shaking hands as you have it can erode trust, as with the doctor example I gave earlier. — DreamCatcher

But their assumption would be wrong, right? Thier response of "no" would put them logically in the wrong, correct? What you say about others might be true, but they would be wrong to think the other is doing a untrustful act, unless you think one cannot simply shake on what one believes to be true. The eroding of trust you speak of I think depends on the context, and if the handshake was meant to mislead or represents an act of being negligent or something else like that. I think depending on the stakes involved, different degrees of assent may be needed to justify one's behavior, but that does not then translate to the idea that one cannot back up their belief with a handshake as a symbol of trust, for there is no logical error I see in doing such. The only flaw you bring up is based off of people's wrong assumptions. Should one bend to what most people believe because of their wrong assumptions?

In your mind, how does a handshake put more at stake? If one makes a statement, it is normally assumed that they believe it, and so it's at least at 51% from the get-go. If they shake on it, your position holds that one is mistreating them in expecting anything higher than 51%. So, if all the handshake can offer is 51% confidence, then how have they put more at stake? — DreamCatcher

What is at stake, is trust. A handshake is a further action beyond words, a symbol of trust. It can bring a seriousness to the situation. The hand that you shake, could also be the same hand that potentially rings your neck. I think it can make you better aware of such things as that, especially when one gives you a firm handshake.

I think if they answered your question with a "no" they would be technically wrong, as revealed with the counterexample I gave with the ride to the doctor. You yourself state, "The eroding of trust you speak of I think depends on the context, and if the handshake was meant to mislead or represents an act of being negligent or something else like that. I think depending on the stakes involved, different degrees of assent may be needed to justify one's behavior". So, if as you state,"different degrees of assent may be needed to justify one's behavior", then merely passing the threshold of assent may not always justify the behavior of a mere handshake.

I think if they answered your question with a "no" they would be technically wrong, as revealed with the counterexample I gave with the ride to the doctor. . — DreamCatcher

I don't understand what you mean with, "as revealed with the counterexample I gave with the ride to the doctor." If they are technically wrong, then how is my argument flawed?

I asked you this,

Should one bend to what most people believe because of their wrong assumptions? — moo

but you did not reply to it, why?

You yourself state, "The eroding of trust you speak of I think depends on the context, and if the handshake was meant to mislead or represents an act of being negligent or something else like that. I think depending on the stakes involved, different degrees of assent may be needed to justify one's behavior". So, if as you state,"different degrees of assent may be needed to justify one's behavior", then merely passing the threshold of assent may not always justify the behavior of a mere handshake. — DreamCatcher

Yeah, so? Do you think you have made an argument here? Everything depends on context, right? This is what you claim quoted below here:

In summary, when the lowest threshold of assenting to a belief is had, and if asked, "Do you believe such and such?", and you answer "yes", and then they say shake on it, and you do, I currently think it is illegitimate behavior. — DreamCatcher

But I don't see where you argue for such other than you seemingly trying to do so through creating a specific context so as to make it seem or cause it to be illegitimate behavior. If I believe so and so, and you want me to shake your hand so as to evidence that I stand by it, and I shake your hand on it, what have I done wrong, how is that not legit behavior to do? How is it logically flawed?

Anyone else following this thread? Please give your thoughts.

I don't understand what you mean with, "as revealed with the counterexample I gave with the ride to the doctor." If they are technically wrong, then how is my argument flawed? — moo

I meant to write "yes", so if asked, "can one simple shake on something they believe to be true", and if one says "yes", I think they would be technically wrong if 'belief' is viewed in a general sense, as I think belief can be had with low confidence.

I asked you this,
"Should one bend to what most people believe because of their wrong assumptions?"

but you did not reply to it, why? — moo

I guess I overlooked your question. To answer it, I think it depends on the context. For example, if most people give a different meaning to a word or phrase by way of a wrong assumption, the word or phrase gains a new meaning, and one should bend to it if they wish to relate to most people.

Yeah, so? Do you think you have made an argument here? Everything depends on context, right? — moo

I think I have conveyed an argument by showing that you seem to contradict your stated position. I think meaning is dependent on context, and I have given a counterexample that I think invalidates your stated position. How does it not?

But I don't see where you argue for such other than you seemingly trying to do so through creating a specific context so as to make it seem or cause it to be illegitimate behavior. If I believe so and so, and you want me to shake your hand so as to evidence that I stand by it, and I shake your hand on it, what have I done wrong, how is that not legit behavior to do? How is it logically flawed? — moo

Again,"The handshake and pinky promise are about trust, and you trust in things you're more confident about. So, I think the social norm is to convey high confidence, and to move outside of that by shaking on low confidence can cause confusion and mistrust, which goes against its function."

I think I have conveyed an argument by showing that you seem to contradict your stated position. I think meaning is dependent on context, and I have given a counterexample that I think invalidates your stated position. How does it not? — DreamCatcher

I think it does not invalidate it. If one has agreed to something such as taking someone to the doctor's, then I imagine it's because they're confident that they can likely achieve that, for if they are not confident that they can likely achieve it, then how have they met the threshold to assenting to such?

Again,"The handshake and pinky promise are about trust, and you trust in things you're more confident about. So, I think the social norm is to convey high confidence, and to move outside of that by shaking on low confidence can cause confusion and mistrust, which goes against its function." — DreamCatcher

But the low confidence is only low on the spectrum of assenting to something. To achieve assenting to a belief, you meet the threshold of confidence needed to assent to that belief.

Can one trust, in that they believe something at the lowest threshold of assenting to that belief? If not, then why are they assenting to such a belief? If they can trust it, then why can't they evidence their trust in such with a symbol of trust, such as a handshake?

I currently think assent to a belief happens has soon as something is perceived to be more likely the case than not (51%). So, one trusts in it more than not, but a handshake puts another condition on it, so that one must trust more than not that they will likely not jeopardize their perceived integrity with the handshake, so to reach that 51% may require something like 90% confidence with the other belief.

DreamCatcher, you didn't respond to my last posts questions, why??

I currently think assent to a belief happens has soon as something is perceived to be more likely the case than not (51%). So, one trusts in it more than not, but a handshake puts another condition on it, so that one must trust more than not that they will likely not jeopardize their perceived integrity with the handshake, so to reach that 51% may require something like 90% confidence with the other belief. — DreamCatcher

My claim is that there is nothing to jeopardize by shaking on what one believes, other than perhaps people making wrong assumptions about you. If one believes in bending their beliefs or behaviors to maintain perceived perception of integrity with people who are wrongly assuming things about you, then so be it, but it doesn't make the act of shaking one's hand wrong because they have made wrong assumptions about you, does it?

DreamCatcher, you didn't respond to my last posts questions, why?? — moo

I thought my other post addressed your question, but I'll go over it.

I think it does not invalidate it. If one has agreed to something such as taking someone to the doctors, then I imagine it's because they're confident that they can likely achieve that, for if they are not confident that they can likely achieve it, then how have they met the threshold to assenting to such?

It seems to me you are conflating belief with trust here. I think they can believe that they can give them a ride with low confidence, and you are assuming that they need high confidence (trust that they can do it) to meet the threshold of assent.

Can one trust, in that they believe something at the lowest threshold of assenting to that belief? If not, then why are they assenting to such a belief? If they can trust it, then why can't they evidence their trust in such with a symbol of trust, such as a handshake? — moo

I imagine it may be hard to trust that one believes something when they are at the lowest threshold of assent to that belief, because they may question if they have good reasons for it, or if something like the nacho's they ate are having them pass the threshold of assent. However, I think in a sense assent is assent, and if one has assented, then they can trust that's where they're currently positioned, but they may not trust that they'll be there for long. And I think it's this lack of trust in the stability of their belief that should prevent them from giving out symbols of trust such as a handshake.

My claim is that there is nothing to jeopardize by shaking on what one believes, other than perhaps people making wrong assumptions about you. If one believes in bending their beliefs or behaviors to maintain perceived perception of integrity with people who are wrongly assuming things about you, then so be it, but it doesn't make the act of shaking one's hand wrong because they have made wrong assumptions about you, does it? — moo

If they're wrongly assuming something then I think that doesn't make the handshake wrong, but I currently think that the right assumption, the social norm that constitutes the practice of a handshake, can jeopardize trust if one shakes on something at the lowest threshold of assent (again, see the counterexample I gave).

It seems to me you are conflating belief with trust here. I think they can believe that they can give them a ride with low confidence, and you are assuming that they need high confidence (trust that they can do it) to meet the threshold of assent. — DreamCatcher

In your example, the person must assent to the idea that barley believing that they can give someone a ride to the doctors, yet agree to do so is proper behavior, for if they don't, then I don't understand how they met the threshold to assent to such, and thus your example to me would not seemingly be sound in proving your point.

I imagine it may be hard to trust that one believes something when they are at the lowest threshold of assent to that belief, because they may question if they have good reasons for it, or if something like the nacho's they ate are having them pass the threshold of assent. However, I think in a sense assent is assent, and if one has assented, then they can trust that's where they're currently positioned, but they may not trust that they'll be there for long. And I think it's this lack of trust in the stability of their belief that should prevent them from giving out symbols of trust such as a handshake. — DreamCatcher

To me, you are using the potential future to denounce the now, but the handshake is in the now, and it is a symbol of trust in the now, so I don't understand how bringing in the potential future denounces the reality of the now. But you think it does, correct?

If they're wrongly assuming something then I think that doesn't make the handshake wrong, but I currently think that the right assumption, the social norm that constitutes the practice of a handshake, can jeopardize trust if one shakes on something at the lowest threshold of assent (again, see the counterexample I gave). — DreamCatcher

The right assumption? I agree that one might jeopardize trust in those who only use social norms, oppose to those who also use logic and coherency to map the world for themselves, but that does not make you right in thinking I'm wrong on this issue, does it? If so, how?

In your example, the person must assent to the idea that barley believing that they can give someone a ride to the doctors, yet agree to do so is proper behavior, for if they don't, then I don't understand how they met the threshold to assent to such, and thus your example to me would not seemingly be sound in proving your point. — moo

It seems to me you are undercutting your position here. As I already conveyed, I think their assent to a belief is different than expressing that belief to someone and doing so in a proper manner. If you believe that, "there is nothing to jeopardize by shaking on what one believes", then why doesn't that type of thinking also apply in simply stating what they believe? If you have issue here that one shouldn't just simply state that they can give someone a ride to the doctors when they barely believe it, then why doesn't that type of thinking also hold in your mind for the handshake?

To me, you are using the potential future to denounce the now, but the handshake is in the now, and it is a symbol of trust in the now, so I don't understand how bringing in the potential future denounces the reality of the now. But you think it does, correct? — moo

The handshake is given in the now, but I think it can carry with it expectations that proceed into the future, as well as expectations of what it means in the now, which again, I think is high confidence given the present social norm.

The right assumption? I agree that one might jeopardize trust in those who only use social norms, oppose to those who also use logic and coherency to map the world for themselves, but that does not make you right in thinking I'm wrong on this issue, does it? If so, how? — moo

I currently think you are wrong on this issue as again I think the handshake's meaning is derived from the social norm (a shared meaning), and if you violate that norm without expressing the logic and coherency you have in mind, then it puts into practice a deviant use of the handshake that can erode the trust that the handshake at present is supposed to engender.

It seems to me you are undercutting your position here. As I already conveyed, I think their assent to a belief is different than expressing that belief to someone and doing so in a proper manner. If you believe that, "there is nothing to jeopardize by shaking on what one believes", then why doesn't that type of thinking also apply in simply stating what they believe? If you have issue here that one shouldn't just simply state that they can give someone a ride to the doctors when they barely believe it, then why doesn't that type of thinking also hold in your mind for the handshake? — DreamCatcher

Un, I'm confused, I never said that there is nothing to jeopardize, I wrote you this:

The right assumption? I agree that one might jeopardize trust in those who only use social norms, oppose to those who also use logic and coherency to map the world for themselves, but that does not make you right in thinking I'm wrong on this issue, does it? If so, how? — moo

Please confirm you have misrepresented my beliefs here, or if you disagree, then please explain why.

To your second question, I think context matters, which I already expressed earlier in this discussion. Just because you can shake on something that you barley believe in one context, does not then mean you can do the same in all contexts, as the contexts can change what one will be willing to assent to, which has already been communicated to you in this discussion. Have you opposed that with logic??? If you think you have, then please quote such.

The handshake is given in the now, but I think it can carry with it expectations that proceed into the future, as well as expectations of what it means in the now, which again, I think is high confidence given the present social norm. — DreamCatcher

Again, you bend to the social norms and wrong assumptions, opposed to strict logic and coherency of what a handshake represents, a symbol of trust, correct?

I currently think you are wrong on this issue as again I think the handshake's meaning is derived from the social norm (a shared meaning), and if you violate that norm without expressing the logic and coherency you have in mind, then it puts into practice a deviant use of the handshake that can erode the trust that the handshake at present is supposed to engender. — DreamCatcher

So, a handshake is not a symbol of trust, but whatever the social norm has it be, even if that social norm is incoherent with what they claim it represents? Do I understand you correctly? Do you agree that there can be a justified position represented by logic and coherency that one can act on and be in the right in doing such, despite if it goes against the social norm on such an issue? If so, then what is your problem with my stance here?

Un, I'm confused, I never said that there is nothing to jeopardize, I wrote you this:
"The right assumption? I agree that one might jeopardize trust in those who only use social norms, oppose to those who also use logic and coherency to map the world for themselves, but that does not make you right in thinking I'm wrong on this issue, does it? If so, how?"

Please confirm you have misrepresented my beliefs here, or if you disagree, then please explain why. — moo

I don't think I misrepresented your beliefs; I'm saying you don't seem to think you are jeopardizing your integrity by doing such behavior, and you are blaming others for their "wrong assumptions". Yet, when it comes to one stating that they can give someone a ride to the doctors when they barely believe it, it seems you want trust or high confidence in that belief before one simply states it to another, but this seems to me inconsistent with your position with regards to the handshake.

To your second question, I think context matters, which I already expressed earlier in this discussion. Just because you can shake on something that you barley believe in one context, does not then mean you can do the same in all contexts, as the contexts can change what one will be willing to assent to, which has already been communicated to you in this discussion. Have you opposed that with logic??? If you think you have, then please quote such. — moo

Your position seems to hold that in any context if one barely believes something then they can shake on it (see your opening post). If someone misconstrues it, then you seem to hold that is their fault, and they are mistreating you, as you believe the behavior is valid. So, what logic is there to oppose with regards to context? Again, "if you have issue here that one shouldn't just simply state that they can give someone a ride to the doctors when they barely believe it, then why doesn't that type of thinking also hold in your mind for the handshake?" I think you're undercutting your position and don't realize it.

Again, you bend to the social norms and wrong assumptions, opposed to strict logic and coherency of what a handshake represents, a symbol of trust, correct? — moo

Once again, I think one trusts in things they are more confident about, meaning, they have high confidence about it, and I believe that is what the social norm of the handshake is. So, I believe it is a symbol of trust, created by a shared meaning, and it does not hold a wrong assumption, but you are the one holding a wrong assumption in thinking that you do not need to bend to the social norm in creating a symbol of trust.

So, a handshake is not a symbol of trust, but whatever the social norm has it be, even if that social norm is incoherent with what they claim it represents? Do I understand you correctly? Do you agree that there can be a justified position represented by logic and coherency that one can act on and be in the right in doing such, despite if it goes against the social norm on such an issue? If so, then what is your problem with my stance here? — moo

I currently believe the handshake is whatever the social norm has it be, for its use comes from a shared meaning. If the social norm is incoherent, then I think it will probably quickly vanish being put into practice as I think it can't clearly carry out a function. And I have already conveyed that one can have a justified position represented by logic and coherency that one can act on, but if they do not make it known that it goes against the social norm, then it will probably cause confusion and not convey to the other what they wish for it to convey.

I don't think I misrepresented your beliefs; I'm saying you don't seem to think you are jeopardizing your integrity by doing such behavior, and you are blaming others for their "wrong assumptions". Yet, when it comes to one stating that they can give someone a ride to the doctors when they barely believe it, it seems you want trust or high confidence in that belief before one simply states it to another, but this seems to me inconsistent with your position with regards to the handshake. — DreamCatcher

It is not inconsistent, nor do I think you have you given coherent logic to how you think it's inconsistent. Here is what I wrote you earlier-

In your example, the person must assent to the idea that barley believing that they can give someone a ride to the doctors, yet agree to do so is proper behavior, for if they don't, then I don't understand how they met the threshold to assent to such, and thus your example to me would not seemingly be sound in proving your point. — moo

Now please quote where you explain why someone would agree to such. I think you have created a false scenario where one wouldn't agree to such, yet your argument seems to depend on such errored example to make your point. It does not reflect my logic! If the person agrees at the lowest threshold of assent, then they have met the necessary confidence to assent to that belief. You act like that is low confidence, but how??? Why do they think they have met the threshold of assent when they cannot rightly offer a symbol of trust in relation to the belief they have assented too??? Quote where you deal with that logic!

Your position seems to hold that in any context if one barely believes something then they can shake on it (see your opening post). If someone misconstrues it, then you seem to hold that is their fault, and they are mistreating you, as you believe the behavior is valid. So, what logic is there to oppose with regards to context? Again, "if you have issue here that one shouldn't just simply state that they can give someone a ride to the doctors when they barely believe it, then why doesn't that type of thinking also hold in your mind for the handshake?" I think you're undercutting your position and don't realize it. — DreamCatcher

In regard to context; I think you have created an incoherent example so as to try and defend your position against mine, as stated above to you.

Once again, I think one trusts in things they are more confident about, meaning, they have high confidence about it, and I believe that is what the social norm of the handshake is. So, I believe it is a symbol of trust, created by a shared meaning, and it does not hold a wrong assumption, but you are the one holding a wrong assumption in thinking that you do not need to bend to the social norm in creating a symbol of trust. — DreamCatcher

Ok, but isn't the social norm in relation to taking someone to the doctors mean one should only assent to taking one to the doctors when they are confident enough to do such?? To me it seems you have created a false context to try and defend your position! Please argue with strict logic against my position without bringing in other contexts to muck up the clarity of things.