4 ms·

Note how I said ‘after enough conversing‘. I do give the benefit of the doubt for as long as I can. I admit to understanding positions that are premised on dif

Note how I said ‘after enough conversing‘. I do give the benefit of the doubt for as long as I can. I admit to understanding positions that are premised on different values. I have a hard time when once I understand the values, inaccurate steps are taken to reach a false conclusion. What I’m talking about is more akin to talking with someone making a mistake in a proof, being pointed out the mistake, but still digging their feet in to not admit the mistake. I’m fine if assumptions aren’t shared, but not when conclusions don’t follow logically from assumptions. Being open minded isn’t akin to listening to everything and anything- there are limits. So no, it is not that ‘I enter conversations with a pre-made idea of what [I] want the conclusion to be.’

ddingus 7y ago
Actually, you likely do. You appear to expect rational self consistency. Not all humans present that. They have reasons, some of which may just be their nature.
- mistermann 7y ago
  > Actually, you likely do. Well sure everyone does, to some degree. But I thought dyarosla's clarification was quite sound, particularly this part: I admit to understanding positions that are premised on different values. In my experience, a lot of people are completely ignorant of this important idea, that values (or axioms) are a crucially important part of disagreements, that someone may be approaching the same general topic from a very different perspective than you. Not only do some people not know/appreciate this, I've encountered several people who completely reject this idea if you point it out to them.
  - ddingus 7y ago
    I am not judging on "sound", just pointing out that self consistency is the core exception. That statement on "values", coupled with the other ones, all support strong self consistency. How people evaluate things can, does, will vary from a highly rational POV.
    - dyarosla 7y ago
      Is logical consistency not a core tenant of a rational argument? I’ll concede that some people don’t value logical consistency - but that doesn’t make them more rational in their arguments. If there is subjectivity in a ‘logical inference’, I’ll err on the side of being open to it.
      - ddingus 7y ago
        It absolutely is. However, people are often not entirely rational creatures. Advocacy, for a very effective example, is a combination of reason, emotion and character. How people feel matters. Who they are interacting with and or referencing matters. Roll all that up, and we are likely to encounter people who are not self consistent. That is OK, human. I just noted that being a predetermination, that's all. Secondly, there is no requirement they be more rational in their arguments. They may not even see something as one, depending on what it is. They may, for example, seek better mutual understanding.
        perl4ever 7y ago
        I readily affirm that feelings are most important, but it's pretty common to refuse to abandon one's feelings or one's facts and logic in the name of consistency. It's not that someone can expect you to feel differently because they've presented a logical argument. That's not likely or expected.
        ddingus 7y ago
        Does any of that matter? The OP said they did not predetermine, and I just pointed out that they do. (And I do not care) No worries, just information. Understanding others helps considerably when having conversations IMHO. My comments here speak to that. Just know others may, or may not make the value judgements presented in this thread, that's all. It is far more likely than you think. Consider a politically charged issue, some matter where religion is involved... This all just is not the set piece implied.

ddingus 7y ago

Actually, you likely do. You appear to expect rational self consistency. Not all humans present that. They have reasons, some of which may just be their nature.

mistermann 7y ago
> Actually, you likely do. Well sure everyone does, to some degree. But I thought dyarosla's clarification was quite sound, particularly this part: I admit to understanding positions that are premised on different values. In my experience, a lot of people are completely ignorant of this important idea, that values (or axioms) are a crucially important part of disagreements, that someone may be approaching the same general topic from a very different perspective than you. Not only do some people not know/appreciate this, I've encountered several people who completely reject this idea if you point it out to them.
- ddingus 7y ago
  I am not judging on "sound", just pointing out that self consistency is the core exception. That statement on "values", coupled with the other ones, all support strong self consistency. How people evaluate things can, does, will vary from a highly rational POV.
  - dyarosla 7y ago
    Is logical consistency not a core tenant of a rational argument? I’ll concede that some people don’t value logical consistency - but that doesn’t make them more rational in their arguments. If there is subjectivity in a ‘logical inference’, I’ll err on the side of being open to it.
    - ddingus 7y ago
      It absolutely is. However, people are often not entirely rational creatures. Advocacy, for a very effective example, is a combination of reason, emotion and character. How people feel matters. Who they are interacting with and or referencing matters. Roll all that up, and we are likely to encounter people who are not self consistent. That is OK, human. I just noted that being a predetermination, that's all. Secondly, there is no requirement they be more rational in their arguments. They may not even see something as one, depending on what it is. They may, for example, seek better mutual understanding.
      - perl4ever 7y ago
        I readily affirm that feelings are most important, but it's pretty common to refuse to abandon one's feelings or one's facts and logic in the name of consistency. It's not that someone can expect you to feel differently because they've presented a logical argument. That's not likely or expected.
        ddingus 7y ago
        Does any of that matter? The OP said they did not predetermine, and I just pointed out that they do. (And I do not care) No worries, just information. Understanding others helps considerably when having conversations IMHO. My comments here speak to that. Just know others may, or may not make the value judgements presented in this thread, that's all. It is far more likely than you think. Consider a politically charged issue, some matter where religion is involved... This all just is not the set piece implied.