1. Hi Guest: Welcome to TRIBE, Toronto's largest and longest running online community. If you'd like to post here, or reply to existing posts on TRIBE, you first have to register on the forum. You can register with your facebook ID or with an email address. Join us!

sometimes logic just doesn't work

Discussion in 'TRIBE Main Forum' started by vinder, Aug 24, 2003.

  1. vinder

    vinder TRIBE Member

    *poof*

    thank you timo, that was a bad idea. go team 5 minute edit!
     
    Last edited: Aug 24, 2003
  2. labRat

    labRat TRIBE Member

    you don't know what you're talking about.
     
  3. PosTMOd

    PosTMOd Well-Known TRIBEr

    Hint #1: don't use tribe as a source about logic.
     
  4. If someone's universe is so delicate that they get upset when their view of something is challenged, that's not a good sign of someone's ability to change and accept that they could be wrong.

    Give them time, see if they can handle it, if not, well, there's not really a whole lot you can do, is there?
     
  5. labRat

    labRat TRIBE Member

    that's no fun.
     
  6. why not

    why not TRIBE Member

    cognitive dissonance.

    learned the term here funny enough.

    being able to ignore the obvious truth because the implications are too troubling (ie the american public and Dubya).

    happens all the time.
     
  7. why not

    why not TRIBE Member

    go team cut and paste -

    "i had a discussion with someone today, and no matter how hard i tried i couldn't get them to see my point of view, and they ended up very upset. i used logic to the point where it was next to impossible for someone not to agree with my position, or at least understand where i was coming from. i used facts, historical examples, etc to back up my point, but no matter what the other party ended up in tears and would not accept what i was saying.

    i don't want to get into specifics as it's a bit of a personal issue. i more just want to ask what can you do when logic fails? should i just try to comfort the person and assure them everything will be alright regardless of the decision being made? should i just accept the fact we cannot come to an agreement and try and forget about it? should i just stop communication with this person?

    i'm lost and don't know what to do."
     
  8. DJAlchemy

    DJAlchemy TRIBE Promoter

    logic cannot be used to solve illogical situations. If this were a political discussion I'd say you should call it a day and hopefully the two of you can respect the fact that you have different and conflicting opinions.

    This however is a personal conversation, one in which it seems the outcome was not in your favour and now you're left to foot the bill. There's really not much you can do if your opinion has offended someone. Hopefully though if this person values your friendship enough then he/she will at least try to understand your situation and standpoint enough that you can continue on with your lives.

    my advice: Don't beat a dead horse. Sometimes the more you try to explain something the deeper hole you dig. Let them digest this information and then the two of you can talk about it later when you've both thought it over.

    Peace. D
     
  9. PosTMOd

    PosTMOd Well-Known TRIBEr

    The best way to deal is to pretend to be stuck at stage 2 or so yourself...it's a comfortable place to laugh from...


    Four Stages of Critical Thinking

    1) Knowledge as Truth

    This is the most primitive level of critical thinking. This level is characterized by those people who think dualistically. Theories and ideas are seen as either right or wrong. They believe valid questions have certain and knowable answers. Such persons rely on "authority" rather than on understanding. Each potential source of knowledge is either dependably right or untrustworthy. Critical thinking for them is remembering answers or rules to find answers.

    Knowledge for such people is "discovered", objective, and eternally true. All processes lead to a single correct answer. All answers flow from authority. As speakers of such truths they are only radios in that they simply re-transmit what others have told them. They have not found their own "voice."

    Persons at this level expect all classes to provide them with "the truth". Their vision of how knowledge is transferred is of themselves as cups and the teachers as pitchers pouring information into the cups.



    2) Believing that knowledge is what I choose to believe.

    But what happens when we realize authority is not always right, that we swim in a sea of chaos, that uncertainty is a part of life. If truth is not objective, as on the first level, then it must be personal and intuitive. People on this second level divide reality into two realms, one where authority provides correct answers, and the other where, without such answers, each person's answers are fully valid for him or her. Thus, if evolution is not certainly true, anyone can legitimately ignore it. such choices are arbitrary or intuitive, not reasoned. If it is possible, then it may be true.

    Such people actively distrust authority, schools and science. Further, such people believe their own "clear thinking" is superior to those who come up with different ideas of what is true. If you don't believe what I believe, you are not just wrong, your are inferior, or incompetent. People on this level find it very easy to accept extreme political ideologies and radical religious positions.

    While thinking on this level is never useful professionally, the positive aspect of it is that such people are no longer just "radios." They have begun to use their own minds.



    3) Contextual Relativism

    The transition from the previous level to this one comes in the realization that opinions are insufficient. Thinking at this level is characterized by empathy, non-evaluation: a sort of contextual relativism. These people try to understand why other people think as they do. They understand and can explain the criteria and evidence used within a field to select preferable scientific theories. Yet, they do not yet accept personal responsibility for their use of the criteria and theories. That is, if they use the information and the result is not what they wanted, it is the fault of the theory or another person -- not themselves.

    People on this level are great chameleons. They choose to "give their teachers what they want," and cynically consider justified answers called for to be "bullshit" or simply "games" that differ between fields and across teachers. Such people have mastered disciplinary criteria, but do not yet see the importance of linkages and interrelations across disciplines and classes.

    They cannot compare scientific paradigms, and choose appropriate applications in complex situations. They fail to see the interconnections across disciplinary boundaries, and, in fact, are likely to see each field as an independent "game." They are essentially value free in their applications of the criteria and theories of their discipline.

    People on this level of critical thinking are on the lowest rung of professionalism. They can tell you about facts and theories, but they cannot demonstrate how those facts and theories are related. They cannot tell you how one might select one theory over another. And, they fail to understand they must take responsibility for their own decision to use the information of their field.



    4) Making a Commitment to Responsible Knowing.

    Transition to this last level comes with the realization of the need to join values and analysis, of the need to use values to discriminate among facts and theories. These people know problems can be approached from diverse frameworks. They can delineate the advantages and disadvantages of various frameworks, address tradeoffs, and articulate why they advocate a particular approach. They are skeptical, especially of simple answers. Critical thinking for these people involves explorations beyond their own feelings and beyond fixed paradigms.

    They are empathetic (understand how others can validly believe differently). They understand answers often vary with the context and the frame of reference. They are enthusiastic learners, they see education as empowerment not as a hurdle to be overcome. they take responsibility for the validity of their beliefs and for making a difference in the world. They are involved because they know they take part in the mutual construction of society. "I can and must make a difference." In short, they have become educated professional individuals.
     
  10. vinder

    vinder TRIBE Member

    why not: you fucker :p
     
  11. fightingskurvy

    fightingskurvy TRIBE Member

    suckhead
     
  12. Someone's gotta break vinder's edit button.
     
  13. deep

    deep TRIBE Member

    For what it's worth, it's a total misnomer that appealing to people's rationality invalidates the necessity of appeasing their irrational emotionality.
     
  14. vinder

    vinder TRIBE Member

    i just learned that
     
  15. PosTMOd

    PosTMOd Well-Known TRIBEr

    deep is a misnomer.
     
  16. PosTMOd

    PosTMOd Well-Known TRIBEr

    I meant misprision.
     
  17. Harmonika

    Harmonika TRIBE Member

    Reason, it's all about reason.

    That, and getting toasted, nicely toasted (TM - Cypress Hill). :cool:

    i.
     
  18. squirrely

    squirrely TRIBE Member

    after reading this about eighteen times, i fully agree.

    (at least i *think* i fully agree.)
     
  19. Liquidity

    Liquidity TRIBE Member

    Re: Re: sometimes logic just doesn't work

    a good way to discuss a topic with someone is by trying to figure out what important info they're missing and by trying conceive the best strategy to convey said info, then applying it. while perhaps you managed the info part, you may have failed at the strategy part... sometimes bludgeoning someone with straight logic and facts can feel like an assault on someone and naturally puts the other person on a strictly defensive position...
     
  20. Harmonika

    Harmonika TRIBE Member

    So what you're saying is that sometimes it's best to *reason* with someone, rather than getting all detailed and analytical on their ass...

    Hmmm, I'll have to remember that, might come in handy some day. ;)

    i.
     
  21. Agatka8

    Agatka8 TRIBE Member

    Re: Re: Re: sometimes logic just doesn't work

    I think what you said here is really true.

    People forget to be diplomatic...with people closest to them.
    Sometimes we are more polite and careful with strangers rather then with people we actually care about. I have seen it all my life..and it's kind of sad.

    Further more...sometimes being right...is just not worth it.
    We get so caught up in trying to prove our point and being right that we don't realize the effect of the argument on the friendship at hand.
     
    Last edited: Aug 25, 2003
  22. chooch

    chooch TRIBE Member

    Emotions and logic do not mix well.
     
  23. lok

    lok TRIBE Member

    Obviously, the key here is to drug the person until their emotions are all but vacant, then talk to them with reason.

    But make sure you use a hand puppet to administer the "truth", because if a fucking hand puppet is telling you you're wrong, then you gotta wrong.
     
  24. Spinsah

    Spinsah TRIBE Member

    rationality is often deployed for irrational ends.

    it's a strange paradox, this irrationality of rationality. one that i have a great deal of trouble wrapping my head around of late.
     
  25. deep

    deep TRIBE Member

    I have a hard time breaking down thoughts into multiple simple sentences (as opposed to having them in one long drawn out tangential sentence like this).

    What I meant is that in trying to convince or persuade someone, you have to be emotionally congruent with them first. I.E. What facts you say have to be delivered in a way that is palatable to their present emotional state.

    You can offer someone a completely faultless argument, but if its done so in a way that's condescending or confrontational, the majority of people will disagree. The key point is that facts or logic have nothing to do with the disagreement, it's only because those facts have been delivered in a way that is emotionally incongruent. Pride is more often than not paramount to logic.

    Look at any tiresome debate on the board. It is next to impossible to get people to agree with an opposing point of view if their pride has been compromised. People will disagree or resent opposing points of view not because of factual invalidity but because of stupid things like not wanting to "give up" a point to the other person. The moment you make someone feel stupid or subordinate for agreeing with you is the moment you just lose your argument. It's all about framing, putting things in ways that are mutually beneficial for both parties to agree upon.

    Even people who pride themselves on being "rational" or "objective" are actually showing how emotions take precedence over reason. Being rational affirms the self concept most people would like - that of being reasonable and open minded.

    It would be nice if the majority of people could accept an idea based on its intrinsic validity alone but in practice I don't think this is ever the case. Appealing to emotions on the other hand, try and find a case of where you do that successfully and someone doesn't agree with what ideas you're proposing.
     
    Last edited: Aug 25, 2003

Share This Page