5 ms·

It's really hard (for me, and I imagine, for everyone else) to not put myself into my views and opinions. Like, when someone shows me that I'm wrong, it's natur

by alecst 5y ago

It's really hard (for me, and I imagine, for everyone else) to not put myself into my views and opinions. Like, when someone shows me that I'm wrong, it's natural for me to feel attacked, instead of just taking it as a learning moment. Noticing when this happens and working with it has been my main struggle in learning how to be more rational. Those views and opinions really don't need to be a part of what I consider "myself." Rationality, to me, is really about an open-minded approach to beliefs. Allowing multiple beliefs to overlap, to compete, to adapt, without interfering too much with the process.

XorNot 5y ago
> Allowing multiple beliefs to overlap This doesn't seem very rational. If your beliefs are in conflict and you're content to not resolve that, then pretty much by definition you're accepting a logical inconsistency. If resolving the intersection doesn't lead to a new stable belief system, then aren't you basically going with "whatever I'm feeling that day"?
- alecst 5y ago
  It's an ambitious and admirable goal to be completely logically consistent, but I've given up on that. Sometimes there are two different but consistent stories for the same thing. I get that maybe it doesn't seem rational, but sometimes there's no way to pick between stories. And, also, sometimes you think you've settled on the right path, but then you later get a new piece of information and have to reevaluate. So to me it's not so cut and dry.
  - mindslight 5y ago
    Your thinking is most certainly rational. The contraposition to Godel's incompleteness theorem tells us that any framework with sufficient explanatory power will necessarily contain contradictions. Since we attempt to reason about everything, our framework is necessarily large enough to be full of contradictions. Since we've got to deal with contradictions, they are not something to be avoided but rather acknowledged. If you're not acknowledging the contradictions and the "opposite side" for the implications you visit, then you will miss when that "other side" starts making more sense than the chain you're following. Not doing this means ending up at a nonsensical position while ignoring its contradictory obvious truth, a result we call cognitive dissonance. This dual-thinking is related to the computer security mindset - you can't naively write code thinking your assertions will simply hold as you intend, but rather you need to be continually examining what every assertion "gives away" to a hostile counterparty. There are alternative systems of logic that attempt to formalize reasoning in the presence of contradictions, to keep a single contradiction from being able to prove everything. For example, intuitionistic logic and paraconsistent logic. These feel much more in line with reasoning in an open world where a lack of a negative doesn't necessarily imply truth. The focus on a singular "logic" that asserts that everything has some single rational "answer" is a source of much of our modern strife.
- nvilcins 5y ago
  We all operate with abstractions and simplifications - because it's impractical (and actually impossible given the complexity of the world) to process end evaluate every single detail. Dealing with contradictions in our own beliefs (paradoxes) is a part of life. The rational approach is to accept that and "fuse" those beliefs carefully, not (a) accept one and reject the others or (b) avoid the topic entirely.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    The rational approach is to acknowledge that you do not have sufficient information to proceed, or acknowledge the various assumptions (better word than “belief) that you are using. If you are using contradicting assumptions, then you should probably check to see if you are doing so because you want the conclusion that you are getting from the assumption.
    - amanaplanacanal 5y ago
      We make decisions based on imperfect information and conflicting values every day. We generally can’t wait until we have sufficient information to proceed.
      - lotsofpulp 5y ago
        That does not require using conflicting assumptions though.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- jcims 5y ago
  >This doesn't seem very rational. If your beliefs are in conflict and you're content to not resolve that, then pretty much by definition you're accepting a logical inconsistency. This is just my perspective, but very few beliefs or values map to the whole of reality...they tend to bind to certain aspects of it with a variable priority along the spectrum of that particular dimension, wither its personal agency, the color red, public health, spiders, etc. However, reality rarely provides us with the ability take a position purely on one factor...nearly every context in which a decision is required operates at the nexus of an uncountable number of these dimensions. Some you can feel swelling to the fore as their slope in your mental 'values' model increases, others stay dormant because you don't see how they apply. This is how most of my decisions that might look outwardly 'inconsistent' arise, there are confounding factors that dominate the topology and steer me in a different direction.
- claudiawerner 5y ago
  I've personally come to see this as a more complicated issue. Often, rational priorities contradict and overlap in scope - for example, discrepancies between moral reasoning and instrumental reasoning. Although I try to be reasonable about these, it's not always possible or preferable to side with one over the other. However, the drive for total and pure consistency is also misguided in my judgement. One reason why we usually feel so motivated and conflicted (to the point where it can lead to depression) with inconsistency is the psychological effect of cognitive dissonance. It's not clear to me that the only way to quieten cognitive dissonance is to resolve the dissenting thoughts. Another way is to accept that not everything needs to be resolved. This can be great for mental health - again, just in my experience. Don't let the (sometimes irrational) effects of cognitive dissonance override your decision making. Resolution can work, but so can acceptance.
- karmakaze 5y ago
  People who gain knowledge by adding to a consistent/stable belief system are the ones who have the most difficulty adapting to new situations and processing new information that may upend volumes of settled knowledge. You can recognize them as the dogmatic types that remember the rules but forget how/why they adopted them and are at a loss to update them.
  - antisthenes 5y ago
    > People who gain knowledge by adding to a consistent/stable belief system are the ones who have the most difficulty adapting to new situations and processing new information that may upend volumes of settled knowledge. That's such an incredibly rare occurrence, that having a stable belief system far outweighs its potential drawbacks. Not to mention that rationality itself encompasses the ability to make such a switch anyway if the new information actually does upend volumes of "settled" knowledge. A much bigger problem, though, is people lacking critical thinking skills to adequately assign probabilities to the new information being valuable/useful/correct. Hint: it's very low. (in the current stage of civilization, there are definitely periods where it was different).
    - karmakaze 5y ago
      We may be in agreement and only categorizing 'stable' differently. Of course you want a single-coherent world view. What doesn't work well is if inferred or partial-case knowledge is committed as rigid facts that are incompatible with new information.
sjg007 5y ago
If you demonstrate an open mind when someone says you're wrong you are more likely to open their mind. That's a win. Focus on yourself and controlling your emotions. Be the calm.
polote 5y ago
The basis of a rational decision, is to work with hypothesis. When someone shows you that you are wrong. Just ask yourself, my belief is based of which hypothesis ? Did his points showed that the logic between my hypothesis and my opinion were flawed? Did he show that my hypothesis were false ? If you want to be rational about an opinion, you have to think first, "what are my hypothesis". Most people start with the opinion and then go down to the hypothesis. That can't work like that. That's the hypothesis + the logic that should create an opinion. Not the other way around
bluetomcat 5y ago
You can only be rational within a greater framework defined by a set of beliefs. When society at large believes that market capitalism is the only way for promoting prosperity, the rational action for a single individual is to get a job, pay the bills and have a life. Other possible actions might have a stronger moral justification, but aren't as beneficial or rational for the individual.
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  The is no division between moral action and rationality. People just pick what they wish to optomize for. You can rationally pursue any moral cause just as easily as personal comfort.

by alecst 5y ago

XorNot 5y ago

> Allowing multiple beliefs to overlap This doesn't seem very rational. If your beliefs are in conflict and you're content to not resolve that, then pretty much by definition you're accepting a logical inconsistency. If resolving the intersection doesn't lead to a new stable belief system, then aren't you basically going with "whatever I'm feeling that day"?

alecst 5y ago
It's an ambitious and admirable goal to be completely logically consistent, but I've given up on that. Sometimes there are two different but consistent stories for the same thing. I get that maybe it doesn't seem rational, but sometimes there's no way to pick between stories. And, also, sometimes you think you've settled on the right path, but then you later get a new piece of information and have to reevaluate. So to me it's not so cut and dry.
- mindslight 5y ago
  Your thinking is most certainly rational. The contraposition to Godel's incompleteness theorem tells us that any framework with sufficient explanatory power will necessarily contain contradictions. Since we attempt to reason about everything, our framework is necessarily large enough to be full of contradictions. Since we've got to deal with contradictions, they are not something to be avoided but rather acknowledged. If you're not acknowledging the contradictions and the "opposite side" for the implications you visit, then you will miss when that "other side" starts making more sense than the chain you're following. Not doing this means ending up at a nonsensical position while ignoring its contradictory obvious truth, a result we call cognitive dissonance. This dual-thinking is related to the computer security mindset - you can't naively write code thinking your assertions will simply hold as you intend, but rather you need to be continually examining what every assertion "gives away" to a hostile counterparty. There are alternative systems of logic that attempt to formalize reasoning in the presence of contradictions, to keep a single contradiction from being able to prove everything. For example, intuitionistic logic and paraconsistent logic. These feel much more in line with reasoning in an open world where a lack of a negative doesn't necessarily imply truth. The focus on a singular "logic" that asserts that everything has some single rational "answer" is a source of much of our modern strife.
nvilcins 5y ago
We all operate with abstractions and simplifications - because it's impractical (and actually impossible given the complexity of the world) to process end evaluate every single detail. Dealing with contradictions in our own beliefs (paradoxes) is a part of life. The rational approach is to accept that and "fuse" those beliefs carefully, not (a) accept one and reject the others or (b) avoid the topic entirely.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  The rational approach is to acknowledge that you do not have sufficient information to proceed, or acknowledge the various assumptions (better word than “belief) that you are using. If you are using contradicting assumptions, then you should probably check to see if you are doing so because you want the conclusion that you are getting from the assumption.
  - amanaplanacanal 5y ago
    We make decisions based on imperfect information and conflicting values every day. We generally can’t wait until we have sufficient information to proceed.
    - lotsofpulp 5y ago
      That does not require using conflicting assumptions though.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
jcims 5y ago
>This doesn't seem very rational. If your beliefs are in conflict and you're content to not resolve that, then pretty much by definition you're accepting a logical inconsistency. This is just my perspective, but very few beliefs or values map to the whole of reality...they tend to bind to certain aspects of it with a variable priority along the spectrum of that particular dimension, wither its personal agency, the color red, public health, spiders, etc. However, reality rarely provides us with the ability take a position purely on one factor...nearly every context in which a decision is required operates at the nexus of an uncountable number of these dimensions. Some you can feel swelling to the fore as their slope in your mental 'values' model increases, others stay dormant because you don't see how they apply. This is how most of my decisions that might look outwardly 'inconsistent' arise, there are confounding factors that dominate the topology and steer me in a different direction.
claudiawerner 5y ago
I've personally come to see this as a more complicated issue. Often, rational priorities contradict and overlap in scope - for example, discrepancies between moral reasoning and instrumental reasoning. Although I try to be reasonable about these, it's not always possible or preferable to side with one over the other. However, the drive for total and pure consistency is also misguided in my judgement. One reason why we usually feel so motivated and conflicted (to the point where it can lead to depression) with inconsistency is the psychological effect of cognitive dissonance. It's not clear to me that the only way to quieten cognitive dissonance is to resolve the dissenting thoughts. Another way is to accept that not everything needs to be resolved. This can be great for mental health - again, just in my experience. Don't let the (sometimes irrational) effects of cognitive dissonance override your decision making. Resolution can work, but so can acceptance.
karmakaze 5y ago
People who gain knowledge by adding to a consistent/stable belief system are the ones who have the most difficulty adapting to new situations and processing new information that may upend volumes of settled knowledge. You can recognize them as the dogmatic types that remember the rules but forget how/why they adopted them and are at a loss to update them.
- antisthenes 5y ago
  > People who gain knowledge by adding to a consistent/stable belief system are the ones who have the most difficulty adapting to new situations and processing new information that may upend volumes of settled knowledge. That's such an incredibly rare occurrence, that having a stable belief system far outweighs its potential drawbacks. Not to mention that rationality itself encompasses the ability to make such a switch anyway if the new information actually does upend volumes of "settled" knowledge. A much bigger problem, though, is people lacking critical thinking skills to adequately assign probabilities to the new information being valuable/useful/correct. Hint: it's very low. (in the current stage of civilization, there are definitely periods where it was different).
  - karmakaze 5y ago
    We may be in agreement and only categorizing 'stable' differently. Of course you want a single-coherent world view. What doesn't work well is if inferred or partial-case knowledge is committed as rigid facts that are incompatible with new information.

sjg007 5y ago

If you demonstrate an open mind when someone says you're wrong you are more likely to open their mind. That's a win. Focus on yourself and controlling your emotions. Be the calm.

polote 5y ago

The basis of a rational decision, is to work with hypothesis. When someone shows you that you are wrong. Just ask yourself, my belief is based of which hypothesis ? Did his points showed that the logic between my hypothesis and my opinion were flawed? Did he show that my hypothesis were false ? If you want to be rational about an opinion, you have to think first, "what are my hypothesis". Most people start with the opinion and then go down to the hypothesis. That can't work like that. That's the hypothesis + the logic that should create an opinion. Not the other way around

bluetomcat 5y ago

You can only be rational within a greater framework defined by a set of beliefs. When society at large believes that market capitalism is the only way for promoting prosperity, the rational action for a single individual is to get a job, pay the bills and have a life. Other possible actions might have a stronger moral justification, but aren't as beneficial or rational for the individual.

s1artibartfast 5y ago
The is no division between moral action and rationality. People just pick what they wish to optomize for. You can rationally pursue any moral cause just as easily as personal comfort.