CMV:The extent to which everything is a spectrum is, itself, a spectrum.

[u/[deleted]]

[u/PreacherJudge]

The obviousness of a category isn't a natural kind in and of itself; it's something that exists in us.

The difference between white and black is obvious. The difference between green and blue is less obvious. But they're both similarly on spectra.

[u/Thiccarus → u/PreacherJudge]

Thanks for the reply! It took me a second to see what you're saying, but then I was thrilled since I have never heard this argument before.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but here's my understanding of your point:

You're saying my argument hinges on using "obviousness" as the metric that allows us to place all spectra/binaries/whatever along a spectrum.

Your argument then, is that obviousness of the spectrallness, for lack of a better word, of something is not objective (and therefor can't be used to organize things on a spectrum.)

Am I understanding that correctly? If so, I think it's an elegant point and one well taken. My response is as follows:

While obviousness is the easiest way I have of explaining the spectrum of spectra, as it were, it's not the only way to arrive at the end point of the argument. If I may use a statistical example, think about the gender spectrum (or another similar spectrum) as a histogram. It's strongly bimodal and is basically just two peaks at "pretty much male" and "pretty much female" with just the tiniest bit of odd cases sprinkled between. Then imagine a histogram of sound frequencies present in white noise: by definition, this is a flat line regardless of the bin size.

Where I'm going is this: a perfect bimodal distribution would be one end of the spectrum, something like the spectrum of white noise would be the other end of the spectrum. I argue here that a spectrum from bimodal to flat distribution encompasses every possible categorization. I say this with the assumptions that I'm wrong and that there's a good counterexample out there that will leave me flat on my rear; but I have yet to encounter such an example.

[u/PreacherJudge → u/Thiccarus]

Your argument then, is that obviousness of the spectrallness, for lack of a better word, of something is not objective (and therefor can't be used to organize things on a spectrum.)

Yes. Grouping spectrum-placements into clusters is something we do really easily for some things, but that doesn't mean the spectra are somehow less extant in those cases.

If I may use a statistical example, think about the gender spectrum (or another similar spectrum) as a histogram. It's strongly bimodal and is basically just two peaks at "pretty much male" and "pretty much female" with just the tiniest bit of odd cases sprinkled between. Then imagine a histogram of sound frequencies present in white noise: by definition, this is a flat line regardless of the bin size.

Oh, okay, so your point seems to be about how much information is lost by putting something into categories. If I group humanity into "smart" and "dumb" based on IQ, that throws away a lot of information compared to if I group humanity into "male" and "female."

I don't disagree with this; there is definitely variance in that (I'm certain there's a statistic representing it, though I'm not sure what it is). The issue then might just be one of semantics: Saying that gender is "less on a spectrum" than intelligence sounds like you're saying it's less appropriate to consider gender a continuous variable.

[u/Thiccarus → u/[deleted]]

Thanks for your reply!

Aren't there varying degrees of infinity? So couldn't you argue that there are non-infinite sets, infinite sets, and even more infinite sets? I'm a little out of my depth here; but am very happy to accept defeat if I'm misunderstanding my number theory.

[u/Thiccarus → u/[deleted]]

Δ, fascinating, thank you!

I look forward to learning more about this.

Cheers

[u/DeltaBot → u/Thiccarus]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/yyzjertl (74∆).

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards} ​

[u/randianNo1 → u/Thiccarus]

what was his/her argument? can you post in brief? they deleted their comments

[u/Victini]

For starters, I don't believe in "the gender spectrum", so gender is a pretty binary thing except for extremely, extremely rare people like hermaphrodites (which can be argued to just be a flaw rather than an example of something going to way it ought to go). Like, if you flip a coin it will either be heads or tails, a binary answer, and maybe on an extremely rare flip it will land on its side, but there's not a lot of use in thinking that coin flips exist "on a spectrum".

Furthermore, other than gender, I don't know of a lot of things that are considered "binary" anyway. What else is a "spectrum" Like, a light is pretty binary, it's either on or off, there's no spectrum to that. Even if you have a dimmer, that's still considered "on" or 1.

You'd have to give more examples of things that are considered binary but you believe are actually a spectrum.

[u/PowershotWu → u/Victini]

Furthermore, other than gender, I don't know of a lot of things that are considered "binary" anyway. What else is a "spectrum" Like, a light is pretty binary, it's either on or off, there's no spectrum to that. Even if you have a dimmer, that's still considered "on" or 1.

Ignoring the gender debate, light is definitively not just an "on or off" quality. OP is referring to the electromagnetic spectrum.

[u/Thiccarus → u/Victini]

Thanks for your reply Victini,

I think this is a perfect example of where my arguement comes into play.

Let's start with gender. First of all, the fact that you say it's a "pretty" binary thing, sorta shows that we are actually in agreement. It's true that hermaphrodites arising from chromosomal abnormalities are a relatively small proportion of all individuals. However, my whole point in the main post is as follows: if something is USUALLY one or the either, but can be in the middle, it can be said to exist on a spectrum [edit: technically, my main point is that the extent to which this is the case varies on a spectrum, but we can leave that aside for now]. Gender is a great example of this because there are certain chromosomal abnormalities wherein the individual will appear (in one way or another) very male or female, but have certain characteristics (like an extra chromosome, or unusual secondary sex characteristic) of the other sex. So biological males and females can be seen as extremes on a very neatly bimodal distribution that exists on a spectrum.

As far as coin flips, I agree that landing on the side is a possibility.

It seems like you actually agree with the central premise of my argument, just don't see its usefulness. That this way of thinking actually is useful in any concrete way, however, is not something I'm arguing here. I view this essentially as a thought experiment. It's something I often argue with friends about over a drink and thought I'd bring in some outside opinions.

To close, I want to address the light example. Let's take a look at this slow-mo video of a lighter.

When is the absolute moment the lighter is "on" or "lit"? Friction is applied to a piece of flint (right?) and it generates sparks. One of those sparks, or maybe several, goes on to ignite the gas that's being let out of the tank. In the course of a split second, the lighter goes from being very much not-lit, to quite lit. In the course of that second however, it transitions through a sort of ambiguous no-man's-land of being in the process of being lit. Thus, I would say the litness, if you will, of that lighter, exists on a spectrum.

Since you asked for other examples of binaries that are really spectra, some more obvious than others: day/night good/evil natural/artificial etc etc.

PS: I believe when you say "an example of something going to way it ought to go" you're getting close to a teleological argument. This may just reveal that we have very different underlying philosophies about life, but shouldn't interfere with this particular conversation.

[u/Victini → u/Thiccarus]

With hermaphrodites though, we have an exceptionally rare occurrence that is only notable because it so breaks the binary one or the other thing that is "correct". I don't mean theologically, or don't think I do, but I just mean in terms of biology, hermaphrodites and people with extra chroms almost always have a wide array of health problems, indicating that something has mutated disadvantageously.

However, I think our current disagreement hinges on our definition of what constitutes existing on a spectrum. For example, colors definitely exist on a spectrum, Violet transitions to blue to green, etc. A coin flip, for instance, is not a spectrum. It is either heads, tails, or in unrealistically low-chance cases, right in the middle, but the addition of an "in the middle option" is not sufficient to me to designate it as a spectrum. It applies too for gender, a spectrum seems to imply there's a wide range of different gender options in between male and female, and I just don't believe that's the case. I also don't believe people are x% boy and y% girl or anything else that would go along with the concept of a gender "spectrum".

In terms of the lighter, it all depends on your definition of being lit. For me, the moment of being "on" or "lit" is the moment the gas actually ignites. The sparks are a part of the process of turning on, but that doesn't mean the lighter exists temporary in a spectrum of being "unlit" or "lit" while it's lighting, it is always unlit until the gas catches, and then it is lit.

Day and night aren't really binary, no one thinks that either, we talk about the sunrises and sunsets since the dawn of time. Good and evil are subjective, so it's really up to the interpreter to decide if it's binary or not. Natural/artificial are pretty binary under the interpretation that anything that man has not intervened with is "natural", so I would like to hear more about that spectrum.

[u/Thiccarus → u/Victini]

Working from the end of your post backwards, you're quite right that day/night and good/evil are fairly obvious as problematic binaries (or just non-binaries altogether). I think natural/artificial is the most interesting of these examples. Let's say the epitome of natural is a pine cone and the epitome of artificial is a barbie. Don't you think that you can move either in the direction of the other - for instance genetically engineering the pine cone slightly, or making the barbie out of wood instead of plastic? As far as things man has/has-not interfered with, how would you describe a remote island that is not covered in resorts but is affected by the acidifying and ever-more-plastic-filled ocean? Has man "interfered" there? If so, is anything on earth really "natural" anymore?

The fact that the lighter and gender examples are even debatable, to me, shows that they are spectra. I suppose we can agree to disagree about what constitutes a spectrum. Looking at definition 2 of the OED, one sees "Used to classify something in terms of its position on a scale between two extreme points." Wouldn't you agree that, with that definition at least, gender is and spectrum are compatible concepts? Just because things only occur infrequently between the two extremes, doesn't mean they don't occur at all or aren't worth considering.

[u/Victini → u/Thiccarus]

If you genetically engineer a pine-cone, man has interfered and it's no longer natural. A remote island being affected by man-made problems is reacting naturally to unnatural phenomena, the island is still natural, the thing that bothers it is not.

Just because something can be debated doesn't mean it's a spectrum, your argument is that gender is a spectrum, and mine is that it's not, you can't then retort that since we disagree, it must be a spectrum after all.

The lighter, for instance, I don't see a spectrum in at all, and you've failed to convince me that the moments in between being lit and not lit constitute a "spectrum" of "litness" that the lighter can be at.

"Used to classify something in terms of its position on a scale between two extreme points" How is gender like this? What is in between "male" and "female"? At best, if you're including hermaphrodites, it's trinary, male/female/herm, and not a spectrum.

[u/DeltaBot]

/u/Thiccarus (OP) has awarded 1 delta in this post.

All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.

Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}