BranBucket

We're getting very forest for the trees here.

It's a thought experiment, a controlled imaginary environment used to illustrate a point. It's supposed to be isolated from outside contex to make that point clearer. It's purely hypotheical and comes self contained with all the context it needs. We're testing one metaphorical variable, so that our results aren't muddled. You just went and added another half dozen for the sake of argument...

Prayer is prayer in this context. No other meaning. There are no types of prayer in this particular sect, focus is irrelevant. Is it against God's will to smoke while you pray? Can you answer that question, yes or no, based off the priest's answers?

The fact that the priest, parishioner, and the typical intended audience for this particular hypothetical don't do the kind of analysis you've worked up here is really a large part of what this particular thought experiment is trying to illuminate, don't you think?

I agree with that.

Good. =)

This is also part of my broader gripe with social media, cable news, and the current media landscape in general. They use so many sneaky little psychological hooks to keep you plugged in that I honestly believe it's screwing with our heads to the point of it being a public health crisis.

People are already frazzled and beat down by the onslaught of dopamine feedback loops and outrage bait, then you go and get them hooked on a charbot that feeds into every little neurosies they've developed and just sinks those hooks in even deeper and it's no wonder some people are having a mental health crisis.

A lot of us vastly overestimate our resistance to having our heads jacked with and it worries me.

And this is hard for me, actually. Because of my work background and the jargon used, I'm unconsciously negative about things a lot of the time. It's a tough habit to break.

Thanks!

Absolutely, and the medium can make a huge difference as well. I suspect that there's something about chatbots and the medium of their messages that helps set those hooks extra deep in people.

It's more about how the slightly different questions lead the hypothetical priest to two separate and contradictory conclusions than disrespecting God.

At any rate, all opinions on tobacco and prayer are fine by me, just watch out for any friends you think might be talking to chatbots a little too much.

But in both cases, the person is asking to do the same thing. The order of the words in the sentence doesn't change the end result, we always wind up with someone smoking and praying simultaneously, which may or may not be against God's will.

Strip away the justifications and simplify the word choices and you get this:

1. May I smoke while I pray? No, you may not.
2. May I pray while I smoke? Yes, you may.

Given that, can you say if it is right or wrong to smoke and pray simultaneously?

And again, this is just a hypothetical scenario. In the broader context of life, religion, and tobacco use, it'll never be this simple, but it works for an example.

Now, someone might point out that by simplifying the wording, I've changed the meaning of the original statement to make it fit my argument, and that now it means something else. But that's essentially my original point, phrasing and word choices can shape our reasoning, thought processes, and how we interpret meaning in ways we aren't immediately aware of, leading us to different conclusions or even delusional thinking.

It's the opinion on smoking, not praying, that differs.

In both cases you're praying and smoking at the same time, so your actions don't change, but the priest rationalizes two completely different answers based on the way the question is posed. It's just an example to show how two contradictory answers can seem rational to the same person because of the language used.

I guess my point is that I have a very hard time relating to this.

That's fair. In the same vein, you might find a priest that tells you to stop smoking for your health no matter how you phrase the question about lighting up and prayer. What people are receptive to is going to vary.

I'd like argue that more of us are susceptible to this sort of thing than we suspect, but that's not really something that can be proved or disproved. What seems pretty certain is that at least some of us are at risk, and given all the other downsides of chatbots, it'd be best to regulate them in a hurry.

People don't often realize how subtle changes in language can change our thought process. It's just how human brains work sometimes.

The old bit about smoking and praying is a great example. If you ask a priest if it's alright to smoke when you pray, they're likely to say no, as your focus should be on your prayers and not your cigarette. But if you ask a priest if it's alright to pray while you're smoking, they'd probably say yes, as you should feel free to pray to God whenever you need...

Now, make a machine that's designed to be agreeable, relatable, and makes persuasive arguments but that can't separate fact from fiction, can't reason, has no way of intuiting it's user's mental state beyond checking for certain language parameters, and can't know if the user is actually following it's suggestions with physical actions or is just asking for the next step in a hypothetical process. Then make the machine try to keep people talking for as long as possible...

You get one answer that leads you a set direction, then another, then another... It snowballs a bit as you get deeper in. Maybe something shocks you out of it, maybe the machine sucks you back in. The descent probably isn't a steady downhill slope, it rolls up and down from reality to delusion a few times before going down sharply.

Are we surprised some people's thought processes and decision making might turn extreme when exposed to this? The only question is how many people will be effected and to what degree.

Because it's a metric, a bullet point, and campaign speech fodder. Newsome thinks of his position in terms of a career rather than an office, his job isn't to lead a nation towards what's right or wrong, it's to pander so that he can be re-elected or elected to higher office.

The bullshit way that lobbying groups conduct polling and market research means they he's chronically out of touch and that his focus is on perpetuating his time in office so he can continue to "represent the people", making a calling out of bowing to the desires of the mis-informed, outraged, panicked mob he believes his electorate to be instead of actually having a spine and exercising good judgement.

The consequences of shoddy legislation take second place to being able to declare he did something to "keep kids safe". It doesn't even have to work, all that matters is having something to wave around and back up that claim. Something to placate the plebeians and let him continue to do what he does best... listen to lobbyists who are lying about what people think.

Why? Because that's what gets people elected these days. Despite being on a foundation of pure bullshit, somehow it works. So he goes along with it, encourages it, and remains in office as a result.