First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
The Dual Paradox of Assumption
Posted 4/6/10 , edited 4/9/10
"Those who assume too little became creatures of habits" -by me

Everyone can assume an existence or a stance, when we all have sensory input organs for that function. However while assuming too little is a sign of ignorance, just assuming that whatever your senses are picking up is thereby automatically true is in and of itself lacking true intellect. When careless assumption can lead to bad decision making due to the existence of optical illusions, unrealistic expectations due to value bias, bad judgment due to poor statistics, all the way to decision paralysis due to too much choices(could that be the reason why the Republicans hate the 2300 pages long health care reform bill ).

In other words, just simply assuming "what" it is won't leads to the "how" or "why" it's there. And that's the inherent danger of careless generalization in the form of blanket statement; it creates a cognitive blind-spot up to the moment when reality blindsides rationality.

"Hatred leads to bias opinions, or do you think that compassion and understanding can result from hate?" -by me.

As both a naturalist and an inspired sociologist, I'm greatly interested in the nature of humanity, with its adaptive and adoptive capabilities as social animals. And when illogical and irrational reasoning is closely related to ignorance and over generalization; the dual paradox of assumption. I'm beginning to draw relevancy on a lot of sociological deviancy in relation to how people individually make their decisions, based on what they collectively assumed as the social norms:

Deviance in a sociological context describes actions or behaviors that violate cultural norms including formally-enacted rules (e.g., crime) as well as informal violations of social norms (e.g., rejecting folkways). It is the purview of sociologists, psychologists, psychiatrists and criminologists to study how these norms are created, how they change over time and how they are enforced.(citation)

Now one theory on how the acts of deviance could happen is public moral panic caused by an influx of repetitive information, aka deviancy amplification spiral caused by the mass medias(citation). However this still doesn't explain to me how and why individually people just decided to act like this, until phantomkirby brought forth her findings to my attention:

People who hate Rationality
by phantomkirby on Mon Mar 15, 2010 1:38 am

I think this thread is long Edward overdue...
I find debating about certain topics is a good way to learn both sides of the story, and to find out more about the topic. However, I dislike it when there is NO REASONING INVOLVED! e.g. too much insulting, accusing, assuming, etc.

Insulting someone because they have a different belief than you is just not right. In anyway. Even if it's just a little side note. e.g. "oh that's wrong. but i guess i shouldn't expect much from you."

Accusing is fine, with valid facts. :/ like say "fast food makes you fat, because there is a lot of fat and calories in the majority of fast foods". It's not right when you say "twilight sucks because it just does". (Well, I do think twilight sucks, but you need support your points with proof!
This includes making witty remarks, trying to be better than whoever your debating with. :/ it doesn't make you look good. It just makes you look like a moron.
some witty remarks include-
-you make no sense
-your just jealuz!
-are you twelve?

Assuming; people do this all of the time. Assuming can be good (e.g. you have common sense to go by), but people do not use common sense when assuming. Below are three different types of assumptions.
case 1-the assumptions that intertwines accusing with insulting. ("your just jealous!")
case 2-they use their assumption without any proof ("twilightsucks is a website runned by stephen king")
case 3-its actually their opinion instead of a fact, but they still think its a fact (PINK IS AN UGLY COLOR!)

Irrelevancy- Basically, going off topic. My question is for you, why? saying something totally different makes no prancing sense?

Not using any references, sources, evidences, etc. - then you are assuming/accusing (read those two above)

tl;dr- don't be a Stephenie Meyer when debating (a.k.a. insulting/accusing others). and also, don't be someone who only goes by opinion, and no damn facts(assuming, accusing). Stay on topic (irrelevancy), and try to prove what you are persuading!(citation)
"Hate rationalizing", now that's an interesting concept IMO. And when thinking and reasoning are how biologically our brain working hard changing itself, a negative attitude towards rationalizing can thereby result in poor decision making. Furthermore, when this attitude towards rationalizing is being amplified by the internet circle, it became a social norm due to deviancy amplification spiral.
Posted 4/6/10
People enjoy being irrational. It's like being told that something is wrong, so you do it for the thrill. If something is no longer considered wrong, people will often cease doing it. Laws make certain actions have appeal, also. Many people want to be "bad" but are little more than typical people with the same feelings about many things as anyone else. If I were to assume that some other person is bad simply because they are of a certain race or religion, nothing good ever comes of it, especially when you entirely refuse to see them for their true qualities.
Posted 4/6/10

Glock45 wrote:

People enjoy being irrational. It's like being told that something is wrong, so you do it for the thrill. If something is no longer considered wrong, people will often cease doing it. Laws make certain actions have appeal, also. Many people want to be "bad" but are little more than typical people with the same feelings about many things as anyone else. If I were to assume that some other person is bad simply because they are of a certain race or religion, nothing good ever comes of it, especially when you entirely refuse to see them for their true qualities.
I don't think that's the case, because that would be the opposite of what I suggested that there are those with negative attitude towards rationalizing. In other words they still like being right because that makes them feel good, and as long as they think that they're right then they should feel even better, wouldn't it?

Therefore either they don't think about what they feel when they're doing devious acts, or they don't think about what they do and just let their reflexes take over their actions.
Posted 4/6/10

DomFortress wrote:


Glock45 wrote:

People enjoy being irrational. It's like being told that something is wrong, so you do it for the thrill. If something is no longer considered wrong, people will often cease doing it. Laws make certain actions have appeal, also. Many people want to be "bad" but are little more than typical people with the same feelings about many things as anyone else. If I were to assume that some other person is bad simply because they are of a certain race or religion, nothing good ever comes of it, especially when you entirely refuse to see them for their true qualities.
I don't think that's the case, because that would be the opposite of what I suggested that there are those with negative attitude towards rationalizing. In other words they still like being right because that makes them feel good, and as long as they think that they're right then they should feel even better, wouldn't it?

Therefore either they don't think about what they feel when they're doing devious acts, or they don't think about what they do and just let their reflexes take over their actions.


Yeah, I think you're right. Most people don't think things through. They are spontaneous and lack the deviousness to enjoy doing something naughty. We'll save the diabolical schemes for the intelligent.
Posted 4/6/10

Glock45 wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


Glock45 wrote:

People enjoy being irrational. It's like being told that something is wrong, so you do it for the thrill. If something is no longer considered wrong, people will often cease doing it. Laws make certain actions have appeal, also. Many people want to be "bad" but are little more than typical people with the same feelings about many things as anyone else. If I were to assume that some other person is bad simply because they are of a certain race or religion, nothing good ever comes of it, especially when you entirely refuse to see them for their true qualities.
I don't think that's the case, because that would be the opposite of what I suggested that there are those with negative attitude towards rationalizing. In other words they still like being right because that makes them feel good, and as long as they think that they're right then they should feel even better, wouldn't it?

Therefore either they don't think about what they feel when they're doing devious acts, or they don't think about what they do and just let their reflexes take over their actions.


Yeah, I think you're right. Most people don't think things through. They are spontaneous and lack the deviousness to enjoy doing something naughty. We'll save the diabolical schemes for the intelligent.
Exactly... Hey!
18663 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 4/6/10
'The trouble is people have a predetermined thinking pattern programmed into them as kids, from family friends and Internet circles. '
So lack of evidence based idealism and insults over facts, is in-fact a programmed response to anything out of there social norm.

So yes I blame there family, schools, and the Internet for there mindlessness & spontaneous behavior patterns.

To fix this one must over hall the schooling system, and through that slowly reprogram a person to think observantly and rationally.



Posted 4/6/10

DomFortress wrote:


Glock45 wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


Glock45 wrote:

People enjoy being irrational. It's like being told that something is wrong, so you do it for the thrill. If something is no longer considered wrong, people will often cease doing it. Laws make certain actions have appeal, also. Many people want to be "bad" but are little more than typical people with the same feelings about many things as anyone else. If I were to assume that some other person is bad simply because they are of a certain race or religion, nothing good ever comes of it, especially when you entirely refuse to see them for their true qualities.
I don't think that's the case, because that would be the opposite of what I suggested that there are those with negative attitude towards rationalizing. In other words they still like being right because that makes them feel good, and as long as they think that they're right then they should feel even better, wouldn't it?

Therefore either they don't think about what they feel when they're doing devious acts, or they don't think about what they do and just let their reflexes take over their actions.


Yeah, I think you're right. Most people don't think things through. They are spontaneous and lack the deviousness to enjoy doing something naughty. We'll save the diabolical schemes for the intelligent.
Exactly... Hey!


HAHAHAHAHAAH! That was good!
Posted 4/6/10

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:

'The trouble is people have a predetermined thinking pattern programmed into them as kids, from family friends and Internet circles. '
So lack of evidence based idealism and insults over facts, is in-fact a programmed response to anything out of there social norm.

So yes I blame there family, schools, and the Internet for there mindlessness & spontaneous behavior patterns.

To fix this one must over hall the schooling system, and through that slowly reprogram a person to think observantly and rationally.



It won't be easy, but it can be done on an individual level. Otherwise we won't even be having this intellectual conversation due to our own individual efforts, while the public school system is mostly passing down trivial facts as knowledge with its drill and practice education model.

In other words, in order to gain more from the facts one must learn how to combine them by playing with the facts. That's a sign of individual creativity and originality; a true sign of intellect.
Posted 4/7/10
I am not 100% what your trying to say but are you talking about people that can tell the difference between reality and fiction, like some one that plays a game so much they think that's reality and their life gets sucked so much into it that the forget their friends and family??? Hmm like I said I am not 100% on this but that is the message I am getting.
Posted 4/8/10

CecilTheDarkKnight_234 wrote:

I am not 100% what your trying to say but are you talking about people that can tell the difference between reality and fiction, like some one that plays a game so much they think that's reality and their life gets sucked so much into it that the forget their friends and family??? Hmm like I said I am not 100% on this but that is the message I am getting.
Although the cause requires an information medium such as the internet or mass media, over-generalization isn't a game. But instead it's a cognitive pattern that spreads among individuals via social conducts, and thus became a social norm.

For example, last night I asked a group of Chinese immigrants "why tipping?" And instead of them answering to me that it's a social conduct of them showing gratitude to their servers for the kind of service that they provided. Their answer was "because their traveling guide told them to do so."

I know how and why the system of tipping works because my whole family had individual experience working in the service industry in a Western society, however that's not the same for those with a collectivist cultural background and influence. To them, it's a simple matter of them been told what to do by an authoritative figure.
Scientist Moderator
digs 
48106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 4/8/10
Have you read The Four Agreements by Miguel Ruiz? I am reading it now and a lot of it seems very interesting. I don't agree with all of it but it's a good reed (I think you would really enjoy it). One of the chapters talks about assumptions and how they are damaging to us. The third agreement is the book is to not make assumptions because they lead to unnecessary trouble and negative consequences. I won't spoil it just in case you chose to read the book, but I would highly recommend it. I really think you would enjoy it.
Posted 4/8/10

digs wrote:

Have you read The Four Agreements by Miguel Ruiz? I am reading it now and a lot of it seems very interesting. I don't agree with all of it but it's a good reed (I think you would really enjoy it). One of the chapters talks about assumptions and how they are damaging to us. The third agreement is the book is to not make assumptions because they lead to unnecessary trouble and negative consequences. I won't spoil it just in case you chose to read the book, but I would highly recommend it. I really think you would enjoy it.
That logic fails to make sense, when in order for someone to assume that it's true one must first not assume anything. It's therefore in and of itself a logical fallacy.

Furthermore, for you to introduce me to something that even you won't agree but still called it "good", suggest that you're withholding information but decided to mislead me instead. Or was I assuming too much?

So don't quit your day job, when you're not even convincing enough to be a sales rep.
6717 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Earth
Offline
Posted 4/9/10 , edited 4/9/10
Hai hai!! I have some questions!

1. What is assuming "too little"? Note sir, it is just an assumption so why is there quantity?

2. Explain.


just assuming that whatever your senses are picking up is thereby automatically true is in and of itself lacking true intellect


3. I don't get this.


the inherent danger of careless generalization in the form of blanket statement; it creates a cognitive blind-spot up to the moment when reality blindsides rationality.


What is the relation of "careless generalization" to "careless assumption" when not all assumption leads to generalization?

4. Explain:


And when illogical and irrational reasoning is closely related to ignorance and over generalization; the dual paradox of assumption.


5.


However this still doesn't explain to me how and why individually people just decided to act like this


Sorry sir. I don't get your definition of "dual paradox of assumption". When is it a paradox? And how is it dual paradox?

6.


However this still doesn't explain to me how and why individually people just decided to act like this


Act like what? Act with moral panic? If so, shouldn't you research on why people panic? Or is it the act of the media? If so, should it be because those people likes money (not really but you get the point)? How can people hate rationalizing when people can't rationalize because of "panic"?
Posted 4/9/10 , edited 4/9/10

BrylleNoGotoku wrote:

Hai hai!! I have some questions!

1. What is assuming "too little"? Note sir, it is just an assumption so why is there quantity?

2. Explain.


just assuming that whatever your senses are picking up is thereby automatically true is in and of itself lacking true intellect


3. I don't get this.


the inherent danger of careless generalization in the form of blanket statement; it creates a cognitive blind-spot up to the moment when reality blindsides rationality.


What is the relation of "careless generalization" to "careless assumption" when not all assumption leads to generalization?

4. Explain:


And when illogical and irrational reasoning is closely related to ignorance and over generalization; the dual paradox of assumption.


5.


However this still doesn't explain to me how and why individually people just decided to act like this


Sorry sir. I don't get your definition of "dual paradox of assumption". When is it a paradox? And how is it dual paradox?

6.


However this still doesn't explain to me how and why individually people just decided to act like this


Act like what? Act with moral panic? If so, shouldn't you research on why people panic? Or is it the act of the media? If so, should it be because those people likes money (not really but you get the point)? How can people hate rationalizing when people can't rationalize because of "panic"?
Interesting, the only observation I've made based on your reply is that you never contemplated the original post via rationalization. Otherwise how could you've missed the bold statements, as well as the several references plus citations I've made via hyper links.

Also, you seem to misunderstood the sociological meaning of morals; social conducts that are acceptable as the social norms among the society. On top of that, you also underestimated that in evolutionary psychology, "hatred" can also be a rationale, howbeit one with a negative annotation. It's therefore the overall display of "hatred" as the emotional information that's being circulated on the medias as social norms, that's causing people with high neuroticism value to panic as a general overreaction towards negativity.

Offhandedly, my neuroticism value is at 27.5%. And it has nothing to do with the entertainment programs that I consume, which I hardly do because they actually don't improve an individual's mood in the long run(citation). Furthermore, as an athletic and naturalistic intellectual, I can simply improve my mood just by me rationalizing about exercises and nature.

明鏡止水: tranquility naturally cast itself over calm water, by reflecting everything around it but not becoming a part of it. That's the mentality of Taoism. -by me.
6717 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Earth
Offline
Posted 4/9/10 , edited 4/9/10

DomFortress wrote:
Interesting, the only observation I've made based on your reply is that you never contemplated the original post via rationalization. Otherwise how could you've missed the bold statements, as well as the several references plus citations I've made via hyper links.
.


I've actually read every single words and citations that you've posted but I still do not understand.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.