A Reality that Even Your Shallow Intentions Are Seen Through

Unpeer-reviewed paper (Philpapers)

https://philpapers.org/rec/HORART-3

Abstract

This paper examines behavior that pretend to be unrelated to their true intentions, and considers countermeasures and more highly valid communication. Unless unreasonable restrictions on freedom are assumed, such as the intervention of state power, things proceed not by corroboration but by inference. Sharing inference of the high validity is important. Even for behavior where intentions are concealed, inference of intentions is often possible. Then, thinking not being seen through intention is thoughtless. Furthermore, concealing intentions is a risk, and it is possible to increase that risk by easy means. If an intention has high validity, it should rather be disclosed. In principle, behavior and intention should be of high validity. In many cases, it should be understood that the concealment of intention is often mean spirited and irrational.

Introduction

In the space of discourse, behavior is nothing other than an active action. In other words, it is always accompanied by intention. And in many cases, intention can be easily inferred. I propose specific behavior and behavior that conceal intentions, their countermeasures, and further, communication with higher validity.

1. Exceptions that must be corroboration: Suppression of unreasonable restrictions on freedom (criminal trials, intervention of state power)

First, in advancing this discussion, the exceptions must not be inference in the space of discourse. That is unreasonable restrictions on freedom. For example, the intervention of state power such as criminal trials is listed. This leads to a powerful restriction of freedom against the individual. That power must be used cautiously.

Therefore, the power requires not inference but proof. Conversely, in many other cases, if there is no concern about unreasonable restrictions on freedom, highly valid inference is sufficient. There is no need to go as far as proof. In reality, many things proceed by inference. Sharing inference of the high validity is important. If the inference is not valid, one suffers a great disadvantage. However, if the inference is valid, proof is only cost.

2. Specific behavior that conceal intentions

2.1. Defense or criticism using generalities against specific cases

In the space of discourse, it is common to state generalities. In this case, what becomes a problem is the timing and the cases where there is a clear divergence between the conclusion drawn from the generality and the specific example.

If the timing of issuing the generality is the timing when a specific example corresponding to the generality occurred, it can be inferred that it is not a coincidence but the occurrence of that specific example is related to the intention. At this time, although a specific example is actually occurring, remaining at the level of a generality is accompanied by intention. For example, that is a case where a concise explanation of the specific example was possible at the generality level. Other than that, a person with poor thinking ability cannot analyze the specific example. There are various cases.

What becomes a problem is when there is a clear divergence between the conclusion of the generality and the specific example. In this case, regarding the conclusion of the specific example, it is being disguised as the conclusion of a divergent generality.

In many cases, this is either an intention to defend the irrationality brought about by the specific example as being rational in general terms, or the opposite or the reverse. It can occur due to lack of thinking ability, but in the end, it is merely applying the rationality of the generality to the specific example without being able to see through the divergence. Additionally, pretending without an explicit mention of a specific example makes it possible to escape from the responsibility of behavior. That can carry no responsibility while performing impression manipulation. In such cases, the behavior is mean spirited, and it is something accompanied by a mean spirited intention.

2.2. Contempt disguised as humility or respect

As another common pattern, contempt disguised as humility or respect are frequent. This is behavior that, for the purpose of attacking the opponent, disguises itself as humility or respect for the opponent on the surface. Even if the opponent notices the intention of the attack, this makes it possible to pretend no intention of contempt. This also attacks while escaping from the responsibility of behavior. If they face retaliation, they will pretend to be the sole victim. In such cases as well, the behavior is mean spirited, and it is something accompanied by a mean spirited intention.

2.3. Overestimation disguised as underestimation

Furthermore, there are often people who pretend to underestimate themselves, but their abilities in reality are even lower. For example, some people feign realism, cynicism, indifference, or excessive humility. But in reality, they are often far more insignificant than them. It is simply Shallowness to make themselves appear exaggerated. That is ridiculous. At the same time, the consequences of discovery would be significant, making the choice irrational.

3. Countermeasures against specific examples such as “section2”

Usually, against such behavior, the receiver understands the mean spirited intention of the sender well. However, the receiver does not mention it because there is no corroboration. As mentioned above, if it does not lead to unreasonable restrictions on freedom, highly valid inference is sufficient. Also, if it is an inference lacking validity, it lacks validity as a recognition of the opponent’s intention. This means that even if the surface results match, if the inference lacks validity, the recognition also lacks validity.

However, it is extremely shallow for those who carry out such behavior to believe that their intentions are not being seen through. Even if the validity is low, the approximate intention is usually conveyed.

There are methods to make the inference of a mean spirited intention more valid as a countermeasure against such as “section2”. First, it is a disadvantage to be found out for behavior accompanied by mean spirited intentions. In other words, it involves more risk than behavior without concealed intention. In this case, simply by showing that the aforementioned specific example is problematic, the risk increases. At this point, that showing is a counter as impression manipulation.

Also, suppose the opponent argued back. In many cases, it takes the form of saying “it was not that kind of intention”. Then, that is the justification to question the opponent’s intention. It is irrational not to clarify the intention despite having a valid intention. It can be strongly inferred that not clarifying the intention is mean spirited. After that, if one points out contradictions, the opponent’s intention can be easily made clear. As mentioned above, if the intention is valid, there is no need for concealment. Concealment itself becomes irrational. And, choosing to conceal on purpose is making an irrational judgment. In other words, Concealing intentions often strongly supports the inference of the irrationality of the behavior.

4. Communication with higher validity and efficiency : Disclosure of highly valid intentions

This simultaneously suggests a more valid and efficient communication method. Inferring concealed intentions requires labor. Much of it is wasted. There is also an aspect of maneuvering, but its purpose is often based on expectations of the opponent’s logical vulnerability in order to make them accept behavior accompanied by one’s own logical vulnerability. Maneuvering common in game theory is established because of hidden information or focusing on short term interests. In this case, because one cannot hold highly valid intentions, maneuvering is established.

In principle, behavior should be of high validity. In other words, behavior must not require the concealment of intention. For that purpose, it is necessary to understand the intentions leading to behavior and describe highly valid intentions. When validity is high, reasons arise why the intention should not be concealed. Also, when the intention has high validity, the disclosure of the intention has great benefits. If the intention is conveyed to the opponent, the opponent’s behavior are controlled by that intention. The need arises for the opponent to deny that highly valid intention in their counterargument.

It is necessary for that person to be skilled in logical description and to have a deep understanding of the opponent and events. In that case, in order for more highly valid to efficiently reach a more highly valid conclusion, it is better to disclose the intention. This applies whether one or both of them are skilled in those areas.

Conclusion

In the space of discourse, behavior based on mean spirited intentions is overflowing. Those shallow intentions are easily seen through. By eliminating shallowness, those inferences can be induced to higher validity. On the other hand, for a highly valid and efficient space of discourse, one should strive for behavior accompanied by highly valid intentions. In that case, the disclosure of highly valid intentions becomes significant benefit. Above all, it should be understood that the concealment of intention is often mean spirited and irrational. That is a sign of shallowness.