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?

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!

Mistake deleted

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%???

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.

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?

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%.

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.

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?

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?

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?

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 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 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.

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?

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.

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.

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.