9 ms·

Re: I have learned that objectivity...is astonishingly rare. As somebody who has been in many political debates, I have to agree. A good many are addicted to a

by tabtab 7y ago

Re: I have learned that objectivity...is astonishingly rare. As somebody who has been in many political debates, I have to agree. A good many are addicted to authority figures to tell them how to think. Another frustrating aspect of human nature is that most people don't know how to be logical. I strive to be logical as a personal goal, but it's often not valued in the work-place, or anywhere. Keep in mind "logical" is not necessarily the same as "being right", at least not my working definition. Being logical is being able to back up your viewpoint and claims using a clear chain of logic. I define any assumptions I make as givens, and my conclusion can be formed directly from those givens. I don't necessarily write it out in formal logic, but if one questions a specific informally-written step, I can and do formalize/clarify it. Most don't return the favor. "My guts have proven accurate and I'd rather trust my gut feelings" is a common response. Screw Guts, I want logic, damn humans! Human guts have proven dumb.

padmanabhan01 7y ago
It's not always logic vs guts. Logic is great when you are dealing with theoretical problems that are well defined and you know the variables involved etc. In real life problems, often there are way too many variables, are time bound, things aren't as well defined. It's in those cases that people resort to gut..
- adventured 7y ago
  I've found the lack of an ability to use basic logic to be extremely widespread down to simple conversational matters. It severely impedes and distracts conversations (online and off). I wish it were primarily a problem when dealing with theoreticals, as I find it's a problem just about any time you converse where there are many people. Emotionalism is rampant. I have yet to find a forum - in ~25 years of near daily discussions on forums online - where incredibly obvious logic failures don't happen persistently. And I'm only talking about the basics, nothing complex. The worst and most common, I believe, is: because you said X, therefore you must believe / endorse / be implying Y. It's some kind of emotional transitive property of logic failure. Example concepts: I say: Bush did X. Response: Yeah but Obama did a thing, he's worse, how can you support him?!? (Obama isn't part of the conversation at all, there was no statement endorsing Obama whatsoever) I say: the US did X. Response: Yeah but Russia (or China etc) is evil and did a thing, they're even worse because of a thing! (the other countries aren't part of the conversation at all, I never suggested the other countries are good or bad or did or didn't do a thing). I say: I'm in favor of an immigration system like Canada or Australia. Response: how can you support internment camps and murdering children at the border? Or more calmly: why are you against immigration? (there was no mention of being against immigration at all, Canada allows plenty of immigration via their approach) Some of it is obviously an emotional attempt at diversion, an irrational reflex to change the conversation away from what it's pointing at for one reason or another. Logic is in part about self-control and my observation is that it's a rare quality. I've yet to find a forum where this doesn't happen constantly, basically in every large thread. You spend half your effort on forums either trying to pre-empt very primitive logic failure responses via how you structure what you write so you don't have to waste your time later correcting people, or you have to waste time responding after the fact and noting that no, in fact you didn't endorse x y z.
  - mercer 7y ago
    I suppose this is a fundamental flaw of 'online communication' having low bandwidth when it comes to conveying information. We humans spent most of our history interacting with people in a more direct way, and having out 'gut' conclude things about another person based on what they say, do, how they look, how they sound, and so on, was and is important to our survival. If I meet a person face to face who says 'Bush did x', I might also notice the tone of voice, that the have a Southern drawl, that they're wearing camo and a red hat with MAGA on it. In this situation I'm not likely to conclude that they're pro-Obama despite their critical statement wrt Bush. I've noticed this flaw in myself as well, and it's frustrating and takes effort to counter. When I see a politically loaded comment on HN, I really have to make an effort to not jump to conclusions. All that said, I have a little plugin that allows me to tag users and while plenty of commenters surprise me, I find that most are almost shockingly consistent when it comes to which 'bucket' I put them in (right, alt-right, conservative, liberal, socialist, libertarian, evangelical, etc.). So perhaps it's not so strange or inaccurate that many of us jump to conclusions based on very limited information. (not that I think it's a good thing to do so. I do agree with your comment.)
    - austincheney 7y ago
      > If I meet a person face to face who says 'Bush did x', I might also notice the tone of voice, that the have a Southern drawl, that they're wearing camo and a red hat with MAGA on it. In this situation I'm not likely to conclude that they're pro-Obama despite their critical statement wrt Bush. Stereotypes are convenient when you need to make decision in a pinch, but they are horribly ignorant and misguided when talking to people. You can easily dispel your ignorant bias by asking a single pointed question. As far as politically loaded hyperbole and labeled stereotype buckets I find Bush and Obama far more in common than Trump and that Trump and Clinton have far more in common. When I look at these people I don’t care what their politics are or how charming they are. I am trying to examine their motivations and how they interact with people. I am not sure which labeled bucket that would put me in and I don’t really care because I despise political labels.
  - nickthemagicman 7y ago
- d1zzy 7y ago
  That's fine and all except we should at least recognize when we've decided by gut and when by logic. Unfortunately this doesn't happen in most cases which means that when weighing alternatives we give equal credit to gut and logic based decisions because we don't even know which is which. Saying "I don't know" is one of the most honest and correct things a human can say about most problems. Then starting from that they may attempt to gather some (partial) information and build a logic to support some solution. But if instead we're starting with "let's do this" then we already lost.
  - afiori 7y ago
    I agree on the honesty part, but in many cases "because I think it is right" is a valid argument. It is wrong to pretend to have a logical reasoning behind your gut feeling where there is none, but there is nothing wrong in not wanting to work with a company because they give a 'bad feeling"
    - mewpmewp2 7y ago
      Yeah our gut/brain is like a machine learning tool. It will reach to a conclusion due to how experience has structured our brain to be however we always do not know the reason why. For simplistic and every day things it is very often right, but the more unusual and complex the scenario the more likely it is to misjudge. And it is also rather often that when we get that gut feeling we start to search for logical arguments only after and at which point there is danger that we will only look for arguments supporting our gut.
      - tabtab 7y ago
        One should strive to avoid reliance on their "gut". First, guts are often biased; second, it's hard to communicate gut feelings. Consider it a bad habit that should be corrected or reduced for things that impact others.
        afiori 7y ago
        I completely disagree with this; gut feeling is how we are scared of unusually silent alleys, gut feeling is how some people just have the wrong smile and look scary, gut feeling is how we perceive the infinite complexity of the human experience. It is wrong to codify gut feelings into objective rules ("smiling too much is now a crime" obviously does not work). We should also strive not to be dominated by our gut feeling and to be self critical of how appropriate they are in any given situation. Sometimes the rational position is to realize that strict rationality is not the perfect solution to every problem.
- Kim_Bruning 7y ago
  Slightly aside; I wonder ... How large is the difference between arriving at an answer by "using your gut", vs. arriving at the answer using a Machine Learning system? Especially in cases where the ML system is a simulated neural net? In both cases you are using a neural net based optimizer, and in both cases it is hard to apply (post-hoc) introspection.
ska 7y ago
I think this is a false dichotomy. I value objectivity a lot, but recognize that there are lots of issues in human interactions that you just cannot solve well with this approach. In trying to break it down to something tractable, you throw out the important bits. I suspect that sometimes the resistance you find is not due to you applying logic, but instead misapplying it. For what it's worth, I also suspect that sometimes it is more like you present. And sometimes you just have different axioms, even if both parties cannot articulate them formally well enough to see this.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- austincheney 7y ago
  It’s not a false dichotomy. Objectivity allows you to assess data and make decisions based upon that data opposed to a gut feeling. Objectivity is very helpful when it comes to persuading and manipulating people, as it means you are making decisions based upon your observations of them opposed to your personal opinions of them.
  - mercer 7y ago
    Our senses are not objective, and our mental processing of said sensory input even less so. While generally I do agree that trying to be 'objective' in the way you describe is a solid approach, I've met plenty of people and had plenty of experiences where this backfired because I or others had too much trust in the ability to be 'objective' about something, overruling our very subjective but also correct 'gut feeling'.
    - austincheney 7y ago
      That is largely why objectivity is a personality trait. Most people, at least non cognitively, don’t want objectivity. They want comfort or reassurance. You can’t pretend to be objective when the appearance of such is convenient, because then you are just lying to yourself about dodging the emotional considerations that compose a decision. This sort of self deception is far more common than you might find comforting. Even highly objective people sometimes need guard rails to ensure their decisions are objectively quantifiable. All decision making is a highly emotional experience in all cases for all people. It’s just how our primate brains work. For highly objective people a careful consideration of data and perceptions of balance are a fundamental part of that emotional experience in a way they cannot be for other people.
tathougies 7y ago
> Another frustrating aspect of human nature is that most people don't know how to be logical. Many human philosophies reject logic (Or any mechanical system of derivation) as a valid epistemological device. Logic in the west is heavily shaped by Greek philosophers, like Plato and Aristotle, and then Latin Catholicism's embrace of them in the medieval times (logic is not particularly important in the eastern churches). Without the effort of the Church in the West, logic would not exist as a common form of 'proof' today. In Arabia, Greek logic was embraced by the Muslims. But, it is not a universally embraced philosophical framework. In fact, there's not even any such thing as 'logic'. There are multiple logics in Western thought (and in mathematics and philosophy and even computer science) that are often at odds with one another and cannot be reconciled. Western philosophers like Godel even admit that logic cannot explain everything. Of course 'logic' (and it's now in quotes to refer to your conception of it, which we've already established is ill-defined given the number of extant logical systems) in normal discourse now includes the law of excluded middle, which undermines the entire system, and is incompatible with logic's own embrace of rationality. Let's take a quick tour around the world though. Several branches of western philosophy do not admit logic (the way you think of it at least) as a valid epistemology: 1. Mathematical Constructivists reject universal applicability of the law of excluded middle. In the intuitionistic logic they use, the phrase 'P is either true or not true' is not one that can be assigned a truth value. This is not to say there are no propositions which one could argue successfully are individually true or untrue, they just reject the universal applicability of the law. This is really important, because in 'formal logic' the way you conceive it, the law of excluded middle makes the entire logic unsound. 2. Pragmatists (John Dewey, Charles Sanders Pierce) often reject logic outright (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatism#Logic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatism#Logic). Many branches of non-western philosophy do not admit logical inference as fully valid, or augment it such that it no longer fits with western conceptions. 1. For example, the Charvaka philosophy from India rejects logically inferred knowledge as always doubtful. In that philosophy, the only unqualifiably true knowledge is that which one observes. Studying 'logic' in an attempt to be 'rational' is not useful in that system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charvaka https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charvaka. 2. The Vaisheshika school of philosophy accepts inferences based on prior knowledge, but also accepts as true the testimony of reliable experts (shabda), thus invalidating logic as a means to truth (truth in the western sense). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pramana#Vaisheshika_school https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pramana#Vaisheshika_school 3. The Mohist philosophy of China (from the followers of Confucius) admits analogy as a form of knowledge, but rejects formal logic in the western way. 4. Zen Buddhism often castigates logic as not only useless but potentially harmful in one's quest to arrive at truth: http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-JOCP/jc26600.htm http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-JOCP/jc26600.htm Your idealism of 'logic' (and given that you didn't even specify which logic, I'm taking it mean you think there is only one, and that it is right) is, when considering the grand arc of human history, indefensible. You argue that it is 'right' and the way to the 'truth', but you can't even fathom that many societies, cultures, groups, and philosophers did not think it useful or necessary or valid. Simply believing logic is right, without any consideration for an alternative, amounts to a religious belief. Indeed, given that logic remains popular mainly due to the theological musings of Thomas Aquinas, it is moreover, a heavily Christian (from Aquinas) or Muslim (from the Muslim theologists studying Aristotle) belief.
internet_user 7y ago
Implicit learning is real. Some guts are more accurate than others. Just like not everyone is a great logician.
DoreenMichele 7y ago
A good many are addicted to authority figures to tell them how to think. To be fair, if you have (for example) a high school education, simply taking the word of someone who has (for example) a PhD in X subject is a best practice. From the article: In theory, resolving factual disputes should be relatively easy: Just present the evidence of a strong expert consensus. Though I've spent time in an anti-vax community -- because it was a good source of useful health info if you could sidestep the emotional baggage and conspiracy theories -- and some members had PhDs and at least one was also a published author. So they had their own respected and credentialed experts to argue against the respected and credentialed experts that friends and family were trying to use to attack them. Most don't return the favor. Regardless of argumentation style or approach, most people are basically saying "This is my best understanding of life, the universe and everything." This includes people claiming to have the logic high ground for some reason and lots of people have been burned by people looking to win the argument and making no effort to understand why they might see it differently.
- mercer 7y ago
  Good point. The world would be a better place if we at least learned /who/ to trust when it comes to expertise...
analog31 7y ago
I suspect that there are many situations where the "facts" are poorly established or just wrong, and "logic" is just a set of assertions rendered plausible by the rhetorical skill and popularity of the debater. Stubbornness may be a survival trait for a social animal. We humans are flooded with facts and logic contrived to cause us to sacrifice our own self interest in favor of someone else's. I've even read that the game of social manipulation is why we evolved our huge brains. I was born stubborn, according to my parents. The same people who accuse me of being stubborn are often the ones who are the most vigorously opposed to gathering additional information that they can't predict or control.
- joe_the_user 7y ago
  The "logical" thing to do in most real world situations is to be extremely uncertain. I think just about only way that logic enters into real world considerations is through maintaining a set of not-logically-arrived assumptions and heuristic arrived at models and then using some logic and math to keep your behavior consistent. A lot of what people call logic are things like "not expecting a different result from the same behavior" and "not follow an impulse with no relation to reality" but even those are heuristics. Usually good heuristics but not logic.
  - tabtab 7y ago
    Re: A lot of what people call logic are things like "not expecting a different result from the same behavior" That can be semi-formal logic if it's stated as a given rule-of-thumb. Most of the time your debate partner(s) will agree with such rules of thumb, barring some odd edge case. If an edge case is allegedly in play for the context, that path is then explored in more detail. In IT, often rules of thumb will conflict, such as "a stitch in time saves 9" versus "keep it simple" (YAGNI). In such cases I often use labor hours and finance-like decision making techniques, not unlike deciding on insurance: what are the monthly premiums (ongoing costs), how likely is the targeted/prevented event to happen, and what's the cost of not having the prevention or preparation in place. It's not a perfect model, but at least is a numeric framework to discuss with rather then "I feel that...". Probabilities and money (labor hours).
kunglao 7y ago
The problem with trying to be "define any assumptions" and using "a clear chain of logic" is that, if you do this right, you will realise that there's really very few things you can actually say about anything at all. This is a problem when it comes to day to day dealings. On the one hand, average population do not agree on what can be construed as "self-evident". On the other hand, what seems self-evident within our limited capacity is often misguided or frustratingly incomplete. Even if we sorted both these out, being logical means having to deal with details. My experience has been that average person does not like to deal with the details.
- toasterlovin 7y ago
  > you will realise that there's really very few things you can actually say about anything at all This really only applies if you require absolute certainty. But most of the time being reasonably certain is enough to operate in the world. And you can be reasonably certain about lots of stuff.
  - tabtab 7y ago
    Ask each side to give a probability. If both sides have a similar estimate, then you move on to the next logic step(s). Don't bother debating things you already agree on. We don't have to dissect everything. If it varies too much, then explore the reasons for the different estimates. Often times it comes down to different past experience, which is obviously going to vary per individual. (Ex: "when users see X on UI screens, they usually do Y, in my experience".) But at least one can narrow down recommended decision logic to observed patterns of history. Narrowing down the point of disagreement is often still helpful even if both sides still disagree.
- tabtab 7y ago
  First you find out what each side agrees on and what they don't. Part of the "logic" exercise is teasing out such info. Both sides may not agree in the end, but at least have a better idea of what assumptions (givens) each is using, and maybe test those once narrowed.
herval 7y ago
I lost track of how many people around me claim they’re “logical”. In reality, they’re perceived by others exactly as you’re perceiving others here (yes, me included, of course)
johnsonjo 7y ago
> Another frustrating aspect of human nature is that most people don't know how to be logical. I strive to be logical as a personal goal, but it's often not valued in the work-place, or anywhere. Keep in mind "logical" is not necessarily the same as "being right", at least not my working definition. Being logical is being able to back up your viewpoint and claims using a clear chain of logic. I define any assumptions I make as givens, and my conclusion can be formed directly from those givens. I don't necessarily write it out in formal logic, but if one questions a specific informally-written step, I can and do formalize/clarify it. Logic can only get you so far. Your argument can be perfectly chained together logically, but logic says nothing about whether your premises/givens are true this is the difference between sound and valid arguments. This is probably what you meant by being logical is not always being right. Honestly you can be as valid in your arguments as you want, but that doesn’t always make your argument sound, because when your givens turn out to be false your whole chain of logic is moot and your conclusion is not true (as some might think) but instead inconclusive [1]. Just as someone with invalid logical chains and possibly even correct assumptions conclusion would be inconclusive and not false as some may presume (I’m thinking of the fallacy fallacy [2].) Sure it’s important to have a valid argument, but people with unsound valid arguments can make a lot of confusion too and possibly even more so. > Most don't return the favor. "My guts have proven accurate and I'd rather trust my gut feelings" is a common response. Screw Guts, I want logic, damn humans! Human guts have proven dumb. Your givens you describe on setting up your logic could also be categorized as a gut feeling as well. As they say it’s turtles all the way down. Now don’t get me wrong I agree we should be more logical in our arguments. I just think people can take your reasoning too far which is why I added some input. [1]: https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_false_premises https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_false_prem... [2]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy
- tabtab 7y ago
  Re: but logic says nothing about whether your premises/givens are true this is the difference between sound and valid arguments. As I mentioned nearby, finding each side's "givens" is part of the process of narrowing down the points of disagreements. For example, after long debates with die-hard conservatives I've discovered that they are not necessarily against social safety nets, but rather they feel the more society relies on them the more powerful gov't gets in general, giving it more control over OTHER things, not just safety nets. They'd rather risk dying than let "the beast" grow. That's their personal choice. It's the "feeding the beast" theory. But they won't admit this up front, one has to tease it out of them.
mettamage 7y ago
I like your goal. I also wrote a literature review on when humans should and should not trust their gut. It was a personalized assignment that I fought to obtain as it was not a standard assignment. Writing it taught me a lot. If you’re interested, email me and I’ll send it to you.

by tabtab 7y ago

padmanabhan01 7y ago

It's not always logic vs guts. Logic is great when you are dealing with theoretical problems that are well defined and you know the variables involved etc. In real life problems, often there are way too many variables, are time bound, things aren't as well defined. It's in those cases that people resort to gut..

adventured 7y ago
I've found the lack of an ability to use basic logic to be extremely widespread down to simple conversational matters. It severely impedes and distracts conversations (online and off). I wish it were primarily a problem when dealing with theoreticals, as I find it's a problem just about any time you converse where there are many people. Emotionalism is rampant. I have yet to find a forum - in ~25 years of near daily discussions on forums online - where incredibly obvious logic failures don't happen persistently. And I'm only talking about the basics, nothing complex. The worst and most common, I believe, is: because you said X, therefore you must believe / endorse / be implying Y. It's some kind of emotional transitive property of logic failure. Example concepts: I say: Bush did X. Response: Yeah but Obama did a thing, he's worse, how can you support him?!? (Obama isn't part of the conversation at all, there was no statement endorsing Obama whatsoever) I say: the US did X. Response: Yeah but Russia (or China etc) is evil and did a thing, they're even worse because of a thing! (the other countries aren't part of the conversation at all, I never suggested the other countries are good or bad or did or didn't do a thing). I say: I'm in favor of an immigration system like Canada or Australia. Response: how can you support internment camps and murdering children at the border? Or more calmly: why are you against immigration? (there was no mention of being against immigration at all, Canada allows plenty of immigration via their approach) Some of it is obviously an emotional attempt at diversion, an irrational reflex to change the conversation away from what it's pointing at for one reason or another. Logic is in part about self-control and my observation is that it's a rare quality. I've yet to find a forum where this doesn't happen constantly, basically in every large thread. You spend half your effort on forums either trying to pre-empt very primitive logic failure responses via how you structure what you write so you don't have to waste your time later correcting people, or you have to waste time responding after the fact and noting that no, in fact you didn't endorse x y z.
- mercer 7y ago
  I suppose this is a fundamental flaw of 'online communication' having low bandwidth when it comes to conveying information. We humans spent most of our history interacting with people in a more direct way, and having out 'gut' conclude things about another person based on what they say, do, how they look, how they sound, and so on, was and is important to our survival. If I meet a person face to face who says 'Bush did x', I might also notice the tone of voice, that the have a Southern drawl, that they're wearing camo and a red hat with MAGA on it. In this situation I'm not likely to conclude that they're pro-Obama despite their critical statement wrt Bush. I've noticed this flaw in myself as well, and it's frustrating and takes effort to counter. When I see a politically loaded comment on HN, I really have to make an effort to not jump to conclusions. All that said, I have a little plugin that allows me to tag users and while plenty of commenters surprise me, I find that most are almost shockingly consistent when it comes to which 'bucket' I put them in (right, alt-right, conservative, liberal, socialist, libertarian, evangelical, etc.). So perhaps it's not so strange or inaccurate that many of us jump to conclusions based on very limited information. (not that I think it's a good thing to do so. I do agree with your comment.)
  - austincheney 7y ago
    > If I meet a person face to face who says 'Bush did x', I might also notice the tone of voice, that the have a Southern drawl, that they're wearing camo and a red hat with MAGA on it. In this situation I'm not likely to conclude that they're pro-Obama despite their critical statement wrt Bush. Stereotypes are convenient when you need to make decision in a pinch, but they are horribly ignorant and misguided when talking to people. You can easily dispel your ignorant bias by asking a single pointed question. As far as politically loaded hyperbole and labeled stereotype buckets I find Bush and Obama far more in common than Trump and that Trump and Clinton have far more in common. When I look at these people I don’t care what their politics are or how charming they are. I am trying to examine their motivations and how they interact with people. I am not sure which labeled bucket that would put me in and I don’t really care because I despise political labels.
- nickthemagicman 7y ago
d1zzy 7y ago
That's fine and all except we should at least recognize when we've decided by gut and when by logic. Unfortunately this doesn't happen in most cases which means that when weighing alternatives we give equal credit to gut and logic based decisions because we don't even know which is which. Saying "I don't know" is one of the most honest and correct things a human can say about most problems. Then starting from that they may attempt to gather some (partial) information and build a logic to support some solution. But if instead we're starting with "let's do this" then we already lost.
- afiori 7y ago
  I agree on the honesty part, but in many cases "because I think it is right" is a valid argument. It is wrong to pretend to have a logical reasoning behind your gut feeling where there is none, but there is nothing wrong in not wanting to work with a company because they give a 'bad feeling"
  - mewpmewp2 7y ago
    Yeah our gut/brain is like a machine learning tool. It will reach to a conclusion due to how experience has structured our brain to be however we always do not know the reason why. For simplistic and every day things it is very often right, but the more unusual and complex the scenario the more likely it is to misjudge. And it is also rather often that when we get that gut feeling we start to search for logical arguments only after and at which point there is danger that we will only look for arguments supporting our gut.
    - tabtab 7y ago
      One should strive to avoid reliance on their "gut". First, guts are often biased; second, it's hard to communicate gut feelings. Consider it a bad habit that should be corrected or reduced for things that impact others.
      - afiori 7y ago
        I completely disagree with this; gut feeling is how we are scared of unusually silent alleys, gut feeling is how some people just have the wrong smile and look scary, gut feeling is how we perceive the infinite complexity of the human experience. It is wrong to codify gut feelings into objective rules ("smiling too much is now a crime" obviously does not work). We should also strive not to be dominated by our gut feeling and to be self critical of how appropriate they are in any given situation. Sometimes the rational position is to realize that strict rationality is not the perfect solution to every problem.
Kim_Bruning 7y ago
Slightly aside; I wonder ... How large is the difference between arriving at an answer by "using your gut", vs. arriving at the answer using a Machine Learning system? Especially in cases where the ML system is a simulated neural net? In both cases you are using a neural net based optimizer, and in both cases it is hard to apply (post-hoc) introspection.

ska 7y ago

I think this is a false dichotomy. I value objectivity a lot, but recognize that there are lots of issues in human interactions that you just cannot solve well with this approach. In trying to break it down to something tractable, you throw out the important bits. I suspect that sometimes the resistance you find is not due to you applying logic, but instead misapplying it. For what it's worth, I also suspect that sometimes it is more like you present. And sometimes you just have different axioms, even if both parties cannot articulate them formally well enough to see this.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
austincheney 7y ago
It’s not a false dichotomy. Objectivity allows you to assess data and make decisions based upon that data opposed to a gut feeling. Objectivity is very helpful when it comes to persuading and manipulating people, as it means you are making decisions based upon your observations of them opposed to your personal opinions of them.
- mercer 7y ago
  Our senses are not objective, and our mental processing of said sensory input even less so. While generally I do agree that trying to be 'objective' in the way you describe is a solid approach, I've met plenty of people and had plenty of experiences where this backfired because I or others had too much trust in the ability to be 'objective' about something, overruling our very subjective but also correct 'gut feeling'.
  - austincheney 7y ago
    That is largely why objectivity is a personality trait. Most people, at least non cognitively, don’t want objectivity. They want comfort or reassurance. You can’t pretend to be objective when the appearance of such is convenient, because then you are just lying to yourself about dodging the emotional considerations that compose a decision. This sort of self deception is far more common than you might find comforting. Even highly objective people sometimes need guard rails to ensure their decisions are objectively quantifiable. All decision making is a highly emotional experience in all cases for all people. It’s just how our primate brains work. For highly objective people a careful consideration of data and perceptions of balance are a fundamental part of that emotional experience in a way they cannot be for other people.

tathougies 7y ago

> Another frustrating aspect of human nature is that most people don't know how to be logical. Many human philosophies reject logic (Or any mechanical system of derivation) as a valid epistemological device. Logic in the west is heavily shaped by Greek philosophers, like Plato and Aristotle, and then Latin Catholicism's embrace of them in the medieval times (logic is not particularly important in the eastern churches). Without the effort of the Church in the West, logic would not exist as a common form of 'proof' today. In Arabia, Greek logic was embraced by the Muslims. But, it is not a universally embraced philosophical framework. In fact, there's not even any such thing as 'logic'. There are multiple logics in Western thought (and in mathematics and philosophy and even computer science) that are often at odds with one another and cannot be reconciled. Western philosophers like Godel even admit that logic cannot explain everything. Of course 'logic' (and it's now in quotes to refer to your conception of it, which we've already established is ill-defined given the number of extant logical systems) in normal discourse now includes the law of excluded middle, which undermines the entire system, and is incompatible with logic's own embrace of rationality. Let's take a quick tour around the world though. Several branches of western philosophy do not admit logic (the way you think of it at least) as a valid epistemology: 1. Mathematical Constructivists reject universal applicability of the law of excluded middle. In the intuitionistic logic they use, the phrase 'P is either true or not true' is not one that can be assigned a truth value. This is not to say there are no propositions which one could argue successfully are individually true or untrue, they just reject the universal applicability of the law. This is really important, because in 'formal logic' the way you conceive it, the law of excluded middle makes the entire logic unsound. 2. Pragmatists (John Dewey, Charles Sanders Pierce) often reject logic outright (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatism#Logic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatism#Logic). Many branches of non-western philosophy do not admit logical inference as fully valid, or augment it such that it no longer fits with western conceptions. 1. For example, the Charvaka philosophy from India rejects logically inferred knowledge as always doubtful. In that philosophy, the only unqualifiably true knowledge is that which one observes. Studying 'logic' in an attempt to be 'rational' is not useful in that system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charvaka https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charvaka. 2. The Vaisheshika school of philosophy accepts inferences based on prior knowledge, but also accepts as true the testimony of reliable experts (shabda), thus invalidating logic as a means to truth (truth in the western sense). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pramana#Vaisheshika_school https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pramana#Vaisheshika_school 3. The Mohist philosophy of China (from the followers of Confucius) admits analogy as a form of knowledge, but rejects formal logic in the western way. 4. Zen Buddhism often castigates logic as not only useless but potentially harmful in one's quest to arrive at truth: http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-JOCP/jc26600.htm http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-JOCP/jc26600.htm Your idealism of 'logic' (and given that you didn't even specify which logic, I'm taking it mean you think there is only one, and that it is right) is, when considering the grand arc of human history, indefensible. You argue that it is 'right' and the way to the 'truth', but you can't even fathom that many societies, cultures, groups, and philosophers did not think it useful or necessary or valid. Simply believing logic is right, without any consideration for an alternative, amounts to a religious belief. Indeed, given that logic remains popular mainly due to the theological musings of Thomas Aquinas, it is moreover, a heavily Christian (from Aquinas) or Muslim (from the Muslim theologists studying Aristotle) belief.

internet_user 7y ago

Implicit learning is real. Some guts are more accurate than others. Just like not everyone is a great logician.

DoreenMichele 7y ago

A good many are addicted to authority figures to tell them how to think. To be fair, if you have (for example) a high school education, simply taking the word of someone who has (for example) a PhD in X subject is a best practice. From the article: In theory, resolving factual disputes should be relatively easy: Just present the evidence of a strong expert consensus. Though I've spent time in an anti-vax community -- because it was a good source of useful health info if you could sidestep the emotional baggage and conspiracy theories -- and some members had PhDs and at least one was also a published author. So they had their own respected and credentialed experts to argue against the respected and credentialed experts that friends and family were trying to use to attack them. Most don't return the favor. Regardless of argumentation style or approach, most people are basically saying "This is my best understanding of life, the universe and everything." This includes people claiming to have the logic high ground for some reason and lots of people have been burned by people looking to win the argument and making no effort to understand why they might see it differently.

mercer 7y ago
Good point. The world would be a better place if we at least learned /who/ to trust when it comes to expertise...

analog31 7y ago

I suspect that there are many situations where the "facts" are poorly established or just wrong, and "logic" is just a set of assertions rendered plausible by the rhetorical skill and popularity of the debater. Stubbornness may be a survival trait for a social animal. We humans are flooded with facts and logic contrived to cause us to sacrifice our own self interest in favor of someone else's. I've even read that the game of social manipulation is why we evolved our huge brains. I was born stubborn, according to my parents. The same people who accuse me of being stubborn are often the ones who are the most vigorously opposed to gathering additional information that they can't predict or control.

joe_the_user 7y ago
The "logical" thing to do in most real world situations is to be extremely uncertain. I think just about only way that logic enters into real world considerations is through maintaining a set of not-logically-arrived assumptions and heuristic arrived at models and then using some logic and math to keep your behavior consistent. A lot of what people call logic are things like "not expecting a different result from the same behavior" and "not follow an impulse with no relation to reality" but even those are heuristics. Usually good heuristics but not logic.
- tabtab 7y ago
  Re: A lot of what people call logic are things like "not expecting a different result from the same behavior" That can be semi-formal logic if it's stated as a given rule-of-thumb. Most of the time your debate partner(s) will agree with such rules of thumb, barring some odd edge case. If an edge case is allegedly in play for the context, that path is then explored in more detail. In IT, often rules of thumb will conflict, such as "a stitch in time saves 9" versus "keep it simple" (YAGNI). In such cases I often use labor hours and finance-like decision making techniques, not unlike deciding on insurance: what are the monthly premiums (ongoing costs), how likely is the targeted/prevented event to happen, and what's the cost of not having the prevention or preparation in place. It's not a perfect model, but at least is a numeric framework to discuss with rather then "I feel that...". Probabilities and money (labor hours).

kunglao 7y ago

The problem with trying to be "define any assumptions" and using "a clear chain of logic" is that, if you do this right, you will realise that there's really very few things you can actually say about anything at all. This is a problem when it comes to day to day dealings. On the one hand, average population do not agree on what can be construed as "self-evident". On the other hand, what seems self-evident within our limited capacity is often misguided or frustratingly incomplete. Even if we sorted both these out, being logical means having to deal with details. My experience has been that average person does not like to deal with the details.

toasterlovin 7y ago
> you will realise that there's really very few things you can actually say about anything at all This really only applies if you require absolute certainty. But most of the time being reasonably certain is enough to operate in the world. And you can be reasonably certain about lots of stuff.
- tabtab 7y ago
  Ask each side to give a probability. If both sides have a similar estimate, then you move on to the next logic step(s). Don't bother debating things you already agree on. We don't have to dissect everything. If it varies too much, then explore the reasons for the different estimates. Often times it comes down to different past experience, which is obviously going to vary per individual. (Ex: "when users see X on UI screens, they usually do Y, in my experience".) But at least one can narrow down recommended decision logic to observed patterns of history. Narrowing down the point of disagreement is often still helpful even if both sides still disagree.
tabtab 7y ago
First you find out what each side agrees on and what they don't. Part of the "logic" exercise is teasing out such info. Both sides may not agree in the end, but at least have a better idea of what assumptions (givens) each is using, and maybe test those once narrowed.

herval 7y ago

I lost track of how many people around me claim they’re “logical”. In reality, they’re perceived by others exactly as you’re perceiving others here (yes, me included, of course)

johnsonjo 7y ago

> Another frustrating aspect of human nature is that most people don't know how to be logical. I strive to be logical as a personal goal, but it's often not valued in the work-place, or anywhere. Keep in mind "logical" is not necessarily the same as "being right", at least not my working definition. Being logical is being able to back up your viewpoint and claims using a clear chain of logic. I define any assumptions I make as givens, and my conclusion can be formed directly from those givens. I don't necessarily write it out in formal logic, but if one questions a specific informally-written step, I can and do formalize/clarify it. Logic can only get you so far. Your argument can be perfectly chained together logically, but logic says nothing about whether your premises/givens are true this is the difference between sound and valid arguments. This is probably what you meant by being logical is not always being right. Honestly you can be as valid in your arguments as you want, but that doesn’t always make your argument sound, because when your givens turn out to be false your whole chain of logic is moot and your conclusion is not true (as some might think) but instead inconclusive [1]. Just as someone with invalid logical chains and possibly even correct assumptions conclusion would be inconclusive and not false as some may presume (I’m thinking of the fallacy fallacy [2].) Sure it’s important to have a valid argument, but people with unsound valid arguments can make a lot of confusion too and possibly even more so. > Most don't return the favor. "My guts have proven accurate and I'd rather trust my gut feelings" is a common response. Screw Guts, I want logic, damn humans! Human guts have proven dumb. Your givens you describe on setting up your logic could also be categorized as a gut feeling as well. As they say it’s turtles all the way down. Now don’t get me wrong I agree we should be more logical in our arguments. I just think people can take your reasoning too far which is why I added some input. [1]: https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_false_premises https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_false_prem... [2]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

tabtab 7y ago
Re: but logic says nothing about whether your premises/givens are true this is the difference between sound and valid arguments. As I mentioned nearby, finding each side's "givens" is part of the process of narrowing down the points of disagreements. For example, after long debates with die-hard conservatives I've discovered that they are not necessarily against social safety nets, but rather they feel the more society relies on them the more powerful gov't gets in general, giving it more control over OTHER things, not just safety nets. They'd rather risk dying than let "the beast" grow. That's their personal choice. It's the "feeding the beast" theory. But they won't admit this up front, one has to tease it out of them.

mettamage 7y ago

I like your goal. I also wrote a literature review on when humans should and should not trust their gut. It was a personalized assignment that I fought to obtain as it was not a standard assignment. Writing it taught me a lot. If you’re interested, email me and I’ll send it to you.