Knowledges influence on Behaviour

[Bender]

I took a personal interest into philosophy, ever since I got bored of talking to myself and thought it would be better to argue and debate with myself instead. Or it could have been because I found that philosophy answered a lot of my questions about life that my peers couldn't answer. It also solved a lot of problems of mind I had inherited from other peoples perspectives and prejudices.


My biggest question I have been thinking of lately, how does knowledge influence behaviour? and what are the range and limits of such a premise?

Is it a mandatory thing that if you know something about something then that is sure to influence your behaviour about it/towards it, in a particular way?

I am using Knowledge here as 'the subject'. Behaviour is it's relative predicate.

We all have different ways of looking at and percieving different things, and so to ways of reacting towards them.

So for example the subject could be Death, in the context that it is one day inevitable. Does that invoke for certain an impulse of survival within the human? Or, could it trigger suicidal impulses instead. Does one accept the fact that one is going to die and then sets out on suitable ways to do so? Or does it follow that everyone in society is terrified of dying and so thier only object is to survive.

I use death here only as an example. The subject could be anything. What I am trying to get at is how does A effect B if it does at all.

I read a lot of Bruce Lees work, and he stated that 'Conscience is the biggest hindrance to all action.' Bruce lee was a philosophy major at Washington University. That quote fits in nicely here as it is about the workings of the mind effecting the bodys behaviour.

With that in mind, is knwoledge a hindrance to behaviour, or does it possess conditioning elements? How does it effect our attitudes?

 

[Glockmatic]

Actually the quote is

"The consciousness of self is the greatest hindrance to the proper execution of all physical action"

He was applying this to martial arts, where being in "the zone" would allow you to be 100% effective. I'll add more to this later, its almost 2am and I need to get some sleep. I had to post this before I forgot about it.

 

[Bender]

In the zone - would be in reference to a kind of state of mind.
Ones behaviour would become sluggish if one were to reflect on the knowledge one possesses at the time of doing a particular task.

When I'm at work and it's busy I get the feeling that I'm in a zone, or my own element, and my work doesn't phase me. I instinctively know what I am going to do next, I have no need to reflect on the knowledge I possess as a cook I just see what needs doing and do it. Sometimes I make stuff up as I go and do the same things in various different ways. But that is down to a college education and ten years working as a chef - its like a reflex. My only problem is the inadequacies of my colleagues who aren't as job capable as me, and even that is starting to bother me less and less. Other people doing the same job as me start to get stressed and lose their composure during a busy service, whereas I keep my cool.
I would say that that kind of behaviour I have is due to the knowledge I possess, the experience I have and the fact that I have learned that getting stressed doesn't solve anything. The more pressure I have at work just puts me more in the zone, it's a great feeling.

 

[Chronic]

Knowledge is only the middle man. If you place a person in a house from birth and never let them out they might have some very wise things to say about the house and the things he/she's experienced in it but opening that door would increase their knowledge and allow for more wisdom. I say 'allow for' because two people can have the exact same knowledge and still have a different outlook on it.

Whether they'd have the same outlook on life had they experienced the exact same things in life as well is a far bigger debate. Nature vs. nurture, are some people born 'evil'? etc.

So to answer your question, it depends on the person. Knowledge is an external stimuli so people react to it in the same way they do any external stimuli, in different ways.

 

[Jon]

Before you can properly evaluate knowledge's effect on behavior, you need to first define knowledge. There is a fine line between knowledge and belief, and the debate on what exactly constitutes 'knowledge' is long-standing and inconclusive.

I believe (<- interesting terminology) knowledge to be something of a factual statement which is intangible, which is only formed in reality by perception. Knowledge then does not create behavior, rather it is our thoughts, that create a perception of knowledge upon which we base our actions.

Control of thought in my opinion is the single most important aspect of human life, not only the control of our individual thoughts, but in politics the control of the thoughts of others.

Now, what shapes one's thoughts ...

 

[Bender]

... Knowledge is an external stimuli so people react to it in the same way they do any external stimuli, in different ways.

Surely knowledge is subjective.

If knowledge were to be an external stimuli that would make it objective.

Example: Telling the time from an analogue clock. A clock possesses no knowledge. A clock possesses no knowledge of time. A clock is not capable of possessing knowledge. A clock is simply a measuring device. I know what time it is because I have sufficient knowledge to read the clock and interpret what time it is. Therefore the knowledge of what time it is comes from within me and not from the clock.

 

[Chronic]

If knowledge were to be an external stimuli that would make it objective.

It's neither objective nor subjective. Saying it's an external stimuli was wrong of me though. Knowledge is simply information. People react to information in different ways. Both consciously and subconsciously.

I'll use an example that's close to me. Animal suffering is one of the things in life that gets to me most, I can phase out most of the bad stuff going around in the world except for that. That's my shell (body) reacting to that information. Another person might know exactly what I know about animal suffering and not care/be able to phase it out. Consciously I want to do something about it and I plan to. Other people might not care to help/do something they think is more important.

The fact that it bothers me is a hindrance because it bothers me. But does it influence my behavior? I don't think it does. On a purely selfish level I'd much rather not do anything and I could live with the fact that it bothers me but I think that should do something about it and that why I plan to. I can't stand most people and human suffering bothers me only on an ethical basis but if there were no animals in need of help I'd aim for a future that involves me helping people.

I received information throughout my life about suffering and that's my knowledge of suffering sort of say. The influence of this knowledge depends on the person. It depends on their shell and their personality (which includes their wisdom). It may hinder some people, it may not hinder others. It may compell some people to do certain things, it may not do anything for others. It just depends.

how does knowledge influence behaviour?

In different ways.

and what are the range and limits of such a premise?

The range and limits are the range and limits of the human brain.

Is it a mandatory thing that if you know something about something then that is sure to influence your behaviour about it/towards it

No.

in a particular way

Definitely no. Our minds are far too complex for that.

Does that invoke for certain an impulse of survival within the human?

I don't think so. Possibly every human being has an identical innate reaction (is that correct English?) to death but if so it's probably so insignificant in the long run that it's not worth mentioning. Again, our minds are far too complex for that.

Or, could it trigger suicidal impulses instead

Same as above

Does one accept the fact that one is going to die and then sets out on suitable ways to do so?

Depends on what you mean by 'accept'. (On the off-chance that you mean acknowledge the fact that we all die one day, then I'm sure there are/have been idiots that think they're immortal.) Definitely not everyone makes peace with the fact that they're going to do. And only suicidal people that go through with it truly set out on suitable ways to do so.

Or does it follow that everyone in society is terrified of dying and so thier only object is to survive.

Everyone? No.
And survive what? Death? The knowledge that you die if you don't eat, get shot, fall off a building is a different concept than the realization that we all inevitably die. The former has more to do with life than death, really.

What I am trying to get at is how does A effect B if it does at all.

You'd need to define A and B for that. Otherwise the answer is always: it depends.

With that in mind, is knwoledge a hindrance to behaviour,

Sometimes.

or does it possess conditioning elements?

Sometimes.

How does it effect our attitudes?

In different ways.

 

[Bender]

It's neither objective nor subjective. Saying it's an external stimuli was wrong of me though. Knowledge is simply information. People react to information in different ways. Both consciously and subconsciously.

Now I am too questioning whether knowledge is subjective/objective. Knowledge is dependant on information and so too on thought. Maybe I will come back to this point later.

Before you can properly evaluate knowledge's effect on behavior, you need to first define knowledge. There is a fine line between knowledge and belief, and the debate on what exactly constitutes 'knowledge' is long-standing and inconclusive.

Yes.

I believe that it would be essential to define what knowledge is, or, what knowledge isn't. This is a philosophical issue. Whereas to define 'how knowledge affects behaviour' would be more of a psychological issue - which would incorporate things like subconscious/conscious, personality, belief, likes/dislikes, and outlooks on life ... etc ... etc.

I believe 'Belief' is an attitude towards knowledge. And could well be a go-between between knowledge - behaviour.



I have a theorem to which I refer to from time to time. I call it the 5 w's (five double-u's). The 5 W's being: Who, What, When, Where, and Why. You could even incorporate How into the equation.

If someone posed the question 'Why do we exist?' - It's a straightforward question to which there is probably no full and satisfactory answer. Why does it produce no satisfactory answer? because even if we were able to answer the 'Why' we still haven't answered the other four Questions or W's. We would have a partial answer to a question which demands an answer so complete. We would need to look at all the W's to get a full picture in able to know, understand, and answer the question. Then be able to explain How?

This would be the best way to define something, to define knowledge. Rather than state what knowledge is in a single clause, it would be better to come at what knowledge is from all angles.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeshua
how does knowledge influence behaviour?

In different ways.

What ways? Emotionally? Psychologically?




Knowledge is dependant on information. It also comes form experience, and insight.

Knowledge is dependant on thought. Knowledge does not exist out there. It is something we humans possess, it is a faculty of our mind.

Knowledge is transmitted in the form of information. Information in differing forms.

I believe (<- interesting terminology) knowledge to be something of a factual statement which is intangible, which is only formed in reality by perception. Knowledge then does not create behavior, rather it is our thoughts, that create a perception of knowledge upon which we base our actions.

Knowledge, perception, thoughts - Which is the greater? There's another W. What part do they play in relation to each other?

Knowledge forms part of our thoughts. Is knowledge our 'storeroom' of thoughts and information?

Motives and actions would stem from our thoughts, and so too would behaviour.

Control of thought in my opinion is the single most important aspect of human life, not only the control of our individual thoughts, but in politics the control of the thoughts of others.

Now, what shapes one's thoughts ...

Control of ones thought would be called self-discipline.

Knowledge, experience, desires, needs, want's would be things that shape our thoughts. Maybe there is more to this list.

 

[Chronic]

Knowledge is dependant on information. It also comes form experience, and insight.

Knowledge is dependant on thought. Knowledge does not exist out there. It is something we humans possess, it is a faculty of our mind.

Your knowledge is the accumulation of information, experiences etc. It's what you know. Animals have knowledge too.

What you're referring to is wisdom, which is reserved to human beings.

If you get two people to read the same book they'll gain the same knowledge from it but not the same insight/wisdom.

Basically the point I'm making:

-knowledge can have an influence on behaviour but not necessarily
-the range of influence is the range of the human brain
-it affects different people in different ways

You can't really "philosophize" over questions this broad/general. It's so broad it even makes the question of what exactly 'knowledge' is irrelevant.

 

[Bender]

Your knowledge is the accumulation of information, experiences etc. It's what you know. Animals have knowledge too.

What you're referring to is wisdom, which is reserved to human beings.

If you get two people to read the same book they'll gain the same knowledge from it but not the same insight/wisdom.

Basically the point I'm making:

-knowledge can have an influence on behaviour but not necessarily
-the range of influence is the range of the human brain
-it affects different people in different ways

You can't really "philosophize" over questions this broad/general. It's so broad it even makes the question of what exactly 'knowledge' is irrelevant.

How would your take on this be:

Take the axiom 'assumption is the mother of all fuck-ups' - I knew someone at my last place of work who would quote this regularly. For it is common knowledge that if you assume something wrongly in a situation then things are probably gonna turn out bad because of it. Yet, this guy would still go on making assumptions regardless of having knowledge of this statement. And he fucked up big time (which ended up in him getting divorced and ending up living in a bedsit).

It's like some people say 'bullshit baffles brains' - I say 'Brains baffle bullshitters'. I have a general tendancy to prove I am a smart in a variety of ways, but remembering the knowledge that bullshit could have the tendancy to baffle me puts me on guard. Like I don't go around making assumptions or jumping to conclusions because I know that could lead to me making mistakes. I know both of these statements and have learnt from them. What I don't get is how people can preach these kind of lessons but still get trapped by them.

 

[Chronic]

How would your take on this be:

Take the axiom 'assumption is the mother of all fuck-ups' - I knew someone at my last place of work who would quote this regularly. For it is common knowledge that if you assume something wrongly in a situation then things are probably gonna turn out bad because of it. Yet, this guy would still go on making assumptions regardless of having knowledge of this statement. And he fucked up big time (which ended up in him getting divorced and ending up living in a bedsit).

It's like some people say 'bullshit baffles brains' - I say 'Brains baffle bullshitters'. I have a general tendancy to prove I am a smart in a variety of ways, but remembering the knowledge that bullshit could have the tendancy to baffle me puts me on guard. Like I don't go around making assumptions or jumping to conclusions because I know that could lead to me making mistakes. I know both of these statements and have learnt from them. What I don't get is how people can preach these kind of lessons but still get trapped by them.

I'd have to know a lot more about the guy to make any assumptions (eheheehehehehe) but if I had to guess it might be a variaty of things.

1) He thinks quoting "profound" axioms makes him look intelligent or wise. He's confusing knowledge with intelligence or wisdom, anyone with half a brain can memorize a phrase. But he hasn't truly thought about its meaning (here comes the debate of what 'real' knowledge is) so he just throws it around like a pretentious prick.

2) Most religions speak of 'enlightenment'. There might be a spiritual enlightenment (that's another discussion) but there's definitely a philosophical enlightenment if you want to call it that. It's when a person takes off their blinders and looks passed their nose (I hope I've reached that point). I think seperating emotion/impulse from reason and evaluating everything objectively (especially yourself) are two of the most important aspects of this 'enlightenment'. I like to divide people into those with and those without blinders.

a) With blinders: These creatures react purely on a very complex system of instinct but they may show a glimmer of intelligence that helps them out of a bad situation. Sadly these moments are sporadic. Sometimes they prevail through blind luck. Read: general populus.

b) Without blinders: Actual people, this is where it gets tricky.

- A wise man with stupid moments.

- Some people are more emotional than others so it might be harder for them to control their urges but most people can (I say most because of the mentally impaired peops... Lord have mercy on Preach's soul, he knows not what he does). He was weak and didn't.

- Self-destructive behavior?

- He wanted out of the marriage but won't admit publically that he fucked up on purpose for whatever reasons.

What exactly makes a person decide what to do is beyond me. I wonder how much of an automaton we are. If you created a pair of identical clones and put them through the same experiences from birth (with some cool ass time traveling!) would they live the exact same life? Or would the path defiate somewhere? I guess that's where the whole question of a soul comes in. And eventually destiny. Are we enough of an automaton to predict the future had we been all-knowing?

Why do we do the things we do? What makes enlightened people do stupid or weak things? That's where the discussion ends for me lol. I can't be fucked getting into that cause I'll never know.

 

[Bender]

I like to divide people into those with and those without blinders.

a) With blinders: These creatures react purely on a very complex system of instinct but they may show a glimmer of intelligence that helps them out of a bad situation. Sadly these moments are sporadic. Sometimes they prevail through blind luck. Read: general populus.

b) Without blinders: Actual people, this is where it gets tricky.

- A wise man with stupid moments.

- Some people are more emotional than others so it might be harder for them to control their urges but most people can (I say most because of the mentally impaired peops... Lord have mercy on Preach's soul, he knows not what he does). He was weak and didn't.

- Self-destructive behavior?

I like your concept of 'blinders'. I place myself in catagory B along with Britney Spears, even if she doesn't know.

What your saying complements the theory that genius is close to insanity. And I guess the 'why do wise people do stupid things?' is what I am really trying to get at here. Maybe this is where knowledge and instinct clash.