5 ms·

>Why do you keep removing the word if and telling me I'm assuming things? Not only was acknowledging your "if" statement, I was quoting you directly in previou

by bumby 5y ago

>Why do you keep removing the word if and telling me I'm assuming things? Not only was acknowledging your "if" statement, I was quoting you directly in previous replies. The issue is that you're whole argument hinges on a conditional that, if anything, is the exception rather than the rule. If you heard a politician propose a policy that said "We can abolish the [insert arbitrary govt oversight organization here] because it isn't needed if people are rational, ethical actors", what would your reaction be? While that statement may still be true, the underlying assumption is flawed: people cannot be counted on to be rational or ethical in many circumstances. Likewise, your underlying assumption that decisions are made with our rational brain is not the general rule. Despite what we'd like to think, Region 2 governs our decisions and plans. Again, if your assumption was true, there would be no problem with a person making lunch plans if they had a damaged limbic system. Research shows otherwise, so either the research is flawed or your underlying assumption is flawed. >unless you're treating plan maker and plan decider as the same thing? I was already leaving it open for region 2 to be the decider Yes, I meant them to be the same, sorry if my terminology caused confusion. My point is the the plan decision/making is not initiated by our rational mind as a general rule. It's not that Region 2 "decides" and then Region 3 weighs that decision to figure out how to execute it. It's that Region 2 "decides" and Region 3 makes up a story so that the decision is congruent with our mental models. My Region 2 decides it wants a doughnut and my Region 3 says "Yeah, you've worked out hard this morning so the doughnut isn't necessarily unhealthy." Region 3 has ensured my decision is congruent with my mental model that I'm a hard worker who deserves a reward. That's easier than confronting a mental model where I'm a fatty who lacks willpower. Region 3 is our logic center so it will jump through hoops to make sure our mental models and decisions are logically consistent. Your "if" statement can be true, while also being largely inconsequential because the underlying conditional is not the general rule. This creates some irony in you underscoring that my point is irrelevant if your statement is about real world application.

Dylan16807 5y ago
> While that statement may still be true, the underlying assumption is flawed: people cannot be counted on to be rational or ethical in many circumstances. Except I'm trying to cover rational and irrational cases in separate halves of the "if". I know in many circumstances people aren't going to be rational. Those are covered by a separate argument entirely. > Likewise, your underlying assumption that decisions are made with our rational brain is not the general rule. Despite what we'd like to think, Region 2 governs our decisions and plans. Again, if your assumption was true, there would be no problem with a person making lunch plans if they had a damaged limbic system. How do you think I'm saying this!? I'm not saying this! All I'm saying is that region 3 is sometimes involved, and sometimes necessary to comprehend the options. If region 2 always makes the actual decision, that's fine. It doesn't undermine my argument. > My point is the the plan decision/making is not initiated by our rational mind as a general rule. It's not that Region 2 "decides" and then Region 3 weighs that decision to figure out how to execute it. It's that Region 2 "decides" and Region 3 makes up a story so that the decision is congruent with our mental models. Sometimes. Sometimes!!! > Your "if" statement can be true, while also being largely inconsequential because the underlying conditional is not the general rule. This creates some irony in you underscoring that my point is irrelevant if your statement is about real world application. It's irrelevant because you're talking about the ratio of people in the different if-statements, but all the if-statements have the same conclusion about showing up late.
- bumby 5y ago
  >Except I'm trying to cover rational and irrational cases in separate halves of the "if". I know in many circumstances people aren't going to be rational. Those are covered by a separate argument entirely. Your worldview is still to rigid to understand what I'm saying and maybe it's because I'm being too diplomatic. I'm not willing to say in absolute terms that Region 2 makes all decisions because science is never absolute; I'm trying to be generous in my wording and you're reading too much into it to fit your own aims. That's a perfect example of Region 3 rationalizing your mental model. You're essentially saying "It's perfectly safe to stare at the sun." and when presented with different evidence, you retort "Aha! What about during an eclipse! See!? I told you I was right!" It's superficially true, sure, but such a minority circumstance that it's not only of little value, but it fails to understand the actual principles that guide the counterargument. >All I'm saying is that region 3 is sometimes involved Nobody is denying region 3 is involved, the key part is if it's making a the decision or just rationalizing it to make us feel good. Do you actually know what the "ratio of people" is to make your statement true, or is that just a useful mechanism for avoiding backpedaling on the claim? If we were talking about performing long division rather than a social function, we'd probably have a different discussion, but Region 2 is what governs our social interactions. Look. Even the people at the forefront of cognitive psychology admit they can't overcome their Region 2 biases. These are Nobel laureates who've studied this stuff for decades and even they admit they are unable to make unbiased, rational decisions in real time. If they can't overcome it, the ratio of people who can is probably vanishingly small. If you were to say from the onset that you acknowledge that people don't make such decisions with their rational mind, but if they were to, it would be a bad decision, that's perfectly sensible. You'd have acknowledged you understand both the mechanisms underpinning human cognition and the fact that you're hypothetical scenario is limited to a theoretical thought experiment. But that's not what you did, you made a claim and kept rules-lawyering around it when presented with counterclaims. A thoughtful and curious person would say, "Huh. I guess I didn't realize that's the way the mind works." and then update their mental model accordingly. Those that aren't will dig their heels in to avoid the cognitive dissonance that occurs when their mental model is incorrect.

by bumby 5y ago

Dylan16807 5y ago

> While that statement may still be true, the underlying assumption is flawed: people cannot be counted on to be rational or ethical in many circumstances. Except I'm trying to cover rational and irrational cases in separate halves of the "if". I know in many circumstances people aren't going to be rational. Those are covered by a separate argument entirely. > Likewise, your underlying assumption that decisions are made with our rational brain is not the general rule. Despite what we'd like to think, Region 2 governs our decisions and plans. Again, if your assumption was true, there would be no problem with a person making lunch plans if they had a damaged limbic system. How do you think I'm saying this!? I'm not saying this! All I'm saying is that region 3 is sometimes involved, and sometimes necessary to comprehend the options. If region 2 always makes the actual decision, that's fine. It doesn't undermine my argument. > My point is the the plan decision/making is not initiated by our rational mind as a general rule. It's not that Region 2 "decides" and then Region 3 weighs that decision to figure out how to execute it. It's that Region 2 "decides" and Region 3 makes up a story so that the decision is congruent with our mental models. Sometimes. Sometimes!!! > Your "if" statement can be true, while also being largely inconsequential because the underlying conditional is not the general rule. This creates some irony in you underscoring that my point is irrelevant if your statement is about real world application. It's irrelevant because you're talking about the ratio of people in the different if-statements, but all the if-statements have the same conclusion about showing up late.

bumby 5y ago
>Except I'm trying to cover rational and irrational cases in separate halves of the "if". I know in many circumstances people aren't going to be rational. Those are covered by a separate argument entirely. Your worldview is still to rigid to understand what I'm saying and maybe it's because I'm being too diplomatic. I'm not willing to say in absolute terms that Region 2 makes all decisions because science is never absolute; I'm trying to be generous in my wording and you're reading too much into it to fit your own aims. That's a perfect example of Region 3 rationalizing your mental model. You're essentially saying "It's perfectly safe to stare at the sun." and when presented with different evidence, you retort "Aha! What about during an eclipse! See!? I told you I was right!" It's superficially true, sure, but such a minority circumstance that it's not only of little value, but it fails to understand the actual principles that guide the counterargument. >All I'm saying is that region 3 is sometimes involved Nobody is denying region 3 is involved, the key part is if it's making a the decision or just rationalizing it to make us feel good. Do you actually know what the "ratio of people" is to make your statement true, or is that just a useful mechanism for avoiding backpedaling on the claim? If we were talking about performing long division rather than a social function, we'd probably have a different discussion, but Region 2 is what governs our social interactions. Look. Even the people at the forefront of cognitive psychology admit they can't overcome their Region 2 biases. These are Nobel laureates who've studied this stuff for decades and even they admit they are unable to make unbiased, rational decisions in real time. If they can't overcome it, the ratio of people who can is probably vanishingly small. If you were to say from the onset that you acknowledge that people don't make such decisions with their rational mind, but if they were to, it would be a bad decision, that's perfectly sensible. You'd have acknowledged you understand both the mechanisms underpinning human cognition and the fact that you're hypothetical scenario is limited to a theoretical thought experiment. But that's not what you did, you made a claim and kept rules-lawyering around it when presented with counterclaims. A thoughtful and curious person would say, "Huh. I guess I didn't realize that's the way the mind works." and then update their mental model accordingly. Those that aren't will dig their heels in to avoid the cognitive dissonance that occurs when their mental model is incorrect.