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! — moo

I believe I have dealt with your logic here:

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

So, I think the statement,"Will you give me a ride to the doctors tomorrow", can be assented to at different degrees of confidence, and unless one believes that they know exactly what the future will bring, it will be at a probability less than 100%. And I think it could be as low as 51%, which is the lowest threshold of assent. Now, supposing it is at 51%, can they not on your own terms simply share their belief, and if the other person assumes that their confidence was higher in saying "yes", then that is the other person's own fault? If not, then please explain why. With what I quoted above, I think I conveyed that "proper behavior" is another condition placed upon their belief, and to "reach that 51% may require something like 90% confidence with the other belief." So, I think your concern here of proper behavior and assent conflates two beliefs, and if you think they need high confidence to properly give their word, then shouldn't that type of thinking also apply to the handshake?

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. — moo

Yes, I think one should only assent to taking one to the doctors when they are confident enough to do such, so if they are at 51% confidence that they will give them a ride, then they have likely not reached at least 51% that they will not harm the relationship in simply stating their belief, so if they care about the relationship, they should not do it, and likewise, you should probably not shake on the lowest threshold of assent to a belief, but only shake on high confidence.

So, I think the statement,"Will you give me a ride to the doctors tomorrow", can be assented to at different degrees of confidence, and unless one believes that they know exactly what the future will bring, it will be at a probability less than 100%. And I think it could be as low as 51%, which is the lowest threshold of assent. Now, supposing it is at 51%, can they not on your own terms simply share their belief, and if the other person assumes that their confidence was higher in saying "yes", then that is the other person's own fault? If not, then please explain why. With what I quoted above, I think I conveyed that "proper behavior" is another condition placed upon their belief, and to "reach that 51% may require something like 90% confidence with the other belief." So, I think your concern here of proper behavior and assent conflates two beliefs, and if you think they need high confidence to properly give their word, then shouldn't that type of thinking also apply to the handshake? — DreamCatcher

To your first question, the answer is "yes" if they assent to that being proper behavior to do, if they don't assent to such, then it does not reflect my position, which has be brought to you attention now several times. So, the question is, do they assent to saying "yes" given the context when they barley have any confidence in their belief, and if so, why have they assented to such, given that context?

To your second question, it does apply to the handshake, they need the confidence that represents assenting to that belief or behavior given the context.

Yes, I think one should only assent to taking one to the doctors when they are confident enough to do such, so if they are at 51% confidence that they will give them a ride, then they have likely not reached at least 51% that they will not harm the relationship in simply stating their belief, so if they care about the relationship, they should not do it, and likewise, you should probably not shake on the lowest threshold of assent to a belief, but only shake on high confidence. — DreamCatcher

Yes, they should not do it, for they have not assented to such a belief, but if one has assented to such a belief, then they can. Depending in the context, one may not assent to shaking one's hand with 90% confidence concerning their belief, but need for example something like 99% confidence to do such, don't you agree? For example, if the stakes where higher than just missing a doctor's appointment, than 90% may not be enough to shake one's hand on it. If you agree with that, then can't you see how in some contexts one may need as little as 51% to shake on something, just as other contexts may need 90%, and other contexts 99% confidence in their belief? The context changes what they are willing to assent to. And so, I think from a principled standpoint, one can rightly and coherently shake on a belief they have simply assented to, 51%.

Your opening post presents one belief that is assented to at the lowest threshold of belief. I think the lowest threshold to any belief is always 51%. So, I think there is no context relevant to your position that changes things. Again, your position holds one can always shake on one's belief, even if they barely believe it, and it is valid behavior to do. That is what the disagreement is over. Please confirm this, or if you disagree then please explain why. If you agree that is what the disagreement is over, then hopefully you can see how you are straying away from your stated position when you state now: "see how in some contexts one may need as little as 51% to shake on something, just as other contexts may need 90%, and other contexts 99% confidence in their belief?". Again, the lowest threshold to assent to any belief is always 51%. If you disagree with that premise, then please explain why.

I think one can shake on what they have assented to. I'm not straying away from my position but trying to show you how what one assents to has different degrees of confidence depending on the context. You added context. So, in your doctor's appointment example, one probably needs a position of confidence at least 90% or higher in achieving of what is asked of them to meet the threshold of assent 51% that they are able to respond with a "yes", or to shake the other persons hand on it in a responsible manner. I think you think 51% equals weak or something, but it does not, for it has the strength to assent to it. This has already been brought to your attention.

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! — moo

I'm trying to show you what one assents to at the lowest threshold, directly relates to the confidence they require to assent to that belief which varies depending on the context. If I barley believe Santa clause exists, it still means I think he exists, and if you say to me "I think you lying that you believe in Santa!" and I say, "no I'm not!" and then you say, "shake my hand that you are telling the truth, that you believe in Santa", I will happily shake your hand, for I believe in Santa. Now later you find out that I barley believe in Santa and treat me like I shouldn't have Shaked your hand on it, but why? What have I done wrong? Betray your wrong assumptions??? What, you think only hardcore Santa believers can shake on their belief of him or something? WHY?

With your Santa example, there is an issue being made about lying, so when one is not lying about believing is Santa, it perhaps does make it truly fine to shake on it in that situation, however, all you need is one counterexample to show if what you are putting forth in the opening post is unsound. I tried to give an example with the ride to the doctor, and unfortunately, the way I wrote things conveys that one is giving a promise when they say "yes", so I think that confuses what I'm trying to show. However, if one has a belief that, "I will drive this person to the doctors tomorrow", and it's at the lowest threshold of assent, it is by definition at the lowest confidence level possible, meaning, it is held with little confidence (51%). If the one needing a ride asks, "is that a belief that you have", and the person simply responds "yes", and the other person says shake on it, and they do, I imagine you can see how that situation may jeopardize the relationship, and I think that goes against the function of the handshake, which again, I think is to engender trust. That is why I believe your position is unsound.

I think my last response still holds. Please reread it.

You I think have not dealt with this, here it is quoted

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!
— moo — moo

The confidence needed I think is defined by the individual, and thus your notion that 51% is inherently weak seems wrong to me. For example, if one believes that taking someone to the doctor is something that requires a high level of confidence, then to reach that belief you must reach that required level of confidence. Once you reach that high level of confidence, then you assent to that belief, which is marked by 51%. Anything above 51% is surplus, and only further strengthens what was already strong enough to assent to.

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! — moo

I believe I have already dealt with it here:

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

The confidence needed I think is defined by the individual, and thus your notion that 51% is inherently weak seems wrong to me. For example, if one believes that taking someone to the doctor is something that requires a high level of confidence, then to reach that belief you must reach that required level of confidence. Once you reach that high level of confidence, then you assent to that belief, which is marked by 51%. Anything above 51% is surplus, and only further strengthens what was already strong enough to assent to. — moo

When you state they may need a high level of confidence to assent to a particular belief, which is then marked by 51%, that seems to me to be a contradiction of terms; you cannot have a high level of confidence when you are at the lowest confidence possible. Please confirm this, or if you disagree then please explain why.

When I assent to something, like the taking on the responsibility of taking someone to the doctors, then why do I need any more confidence if I have already assented to the belief that I can take them to the doctors??? Why would one assent to taking on the responsibility of taking one to the doctors if they think they have only a fifty one percent chance of achieving such??? How is that making sense??? If one believes they need 90% confidence, then is that not the marker of assent, as that is what they believe they need( minimal) to assent to such belief? But I thought we were using assenting to a belief as being marked at 51%???

Mistake deleted

If one barely has the belief that they have a responsibility to take someone to the doctors, then for example they may think that they maybe dreamed that they made an arrangement to drive them, and they will probably try to increase their confidence by calling the person or something. The opening post speaks of beliefs, and it's not clear to me if one can choose a belief, but I think one can choose to take on the responsibility of something. So, I currently think a belief is always assented to by a feeling of confidence when it's at 51% or more, but assenting to take on a responsibility depends on how responsible the person is; the more responsible they are, the more confidence I think they require to take on a responsibility. Again, the opening post speaks of assenting to beliefs, not to assenting to take on the responsibility of something, so please keep that in mind. As I conveyed in my other post, I adjusted the scenario of driving someone to the doctors as not involving making a promise.

So back to this again:"When you state they may need a high level of confidence to assent to a particular belief, which is then marked by 51%, that seems to me to be a contradiction of terms; you cannot have a high level of confidence when you are at the lowest confidence possible. Please confirm this, or if you disagree then please explain why."

If you think it's a contradiction then please explain why, for I ask you again and again why would someone assent to a belief that they can do something for someone else when they have hardly any confidence that they can do it? Where do you respond to that, quote it! Your example I think is flawed. If they assent to the belief that they can take them to the doctors, does not that assent include/imply the belief that they have a high likelihood of achieving it? The person didn't ask them to agree to take them to the doctors if they believe they can do it more likely than not. I think your trying to take ambiguity of language and creating flawed arguments with it.

What is the logic behind the opening statement that you think is flawed. The logic please, not some examples that you think somehow showcases the logic of your argument, but the actual logical flaw clearly expressed!

If they assent to the belief that they can take them to the doctors, does not that assent include/imply the belief that they have a high likelihood of achieving it? — moo

I currently don't think their assent necessarily includes the belief that they have a high likelihood of achieving it, for I believe they may think their funky car engine may finally die, and one of their panic attacks may happen, and so on, where they believe they can drive the person to the doctors, but they barely believe it. It may be very rare to assent to such a belief at such a low percentage of confidence, but I don't know why it can't possibly happen. If you believe it can't happen then please explain why.

What is the logic behind the opening statement that you think is flawed. The logic please, not some examples that you think somehow showcases the logic of your argument, but the actual logical flaw clearly expressed! — moo

1. The handshake, in this context, is a symbol of trust (you have stated this is your belief)
2. One trusts in things they are more confident about.
3. If confusion happens, then that can lead to mistrust, which goes against the function of the handshake.
Therefore, given that trust is naturally associated to high confidence (premise 2), the handshake can lead to confusion if the confidence behind it is lower than the normal expectation, which can cause mistrust, and that goes against the handshake's function of being a symbol of trust.

I asked you to quote where you address what I have asked you again and again, could you not find it?

To you first question, it can happen, but all that means is they have assented to a responsibility they have low confidence in, so they MUST think they don't need more confidence for they have assented to the idea that they don't need anymore, right?

Your first premise, I agree with.
Your second premise is ambiguous as "more" is a relative term.
Your third premise has the term "high confidence", but your second premise just has the term "more confident" and thus is incoherent with your claim.

One trusts in things they believe! Sure, the more trust one has, the more confidence, but that does not mean one cannot shake on what they believe! For if they believe in it, that represent a degree of trust, and they can give a symbol of trust on that degree of trust. That degree being the assent to belief. If someone reads something more into the situation then there really is, that is on them with their wrong assumption about the situation. One may be understandably confused because of social norms or other means that mislead them, but their confusion does not mean the other person was technically wrong, does it?

If confusion happens, why? Because of the influence of an incoherent mob of people with their wrong assumptions? Trust may be associated with high confidence, but so what? The person didn't shake on something they claim they have high confidence in, only on the confidence that they believe in something. If everyone in the world is confused by you and your beliefs and think your wrong, does that make you actually wrong? If not, then how do you think you have coherently argued against my logic when your logic as I have pointed out again and again seems to be dependent on the social norm of wrongly assuming something about a situation? Your logic depends on social norms, and with that type of thinking one can ultimately fault you for whatever the society norms are. But are they in the right for doing such?