First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
The Dual Paradox of Assumption
Posted 4/11/10

DomFortress wrote:


RisingEchoe wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


RisingEchoe wrote:
I think you're the one that's lost touch with reality, via trying to overcomplicate a straight-forward topic. You've fallen for the same irrationality you've described in the topic.
And what's your proof for your claim once again not at my topic, but instead at my person? How was my assumption being one of careless ignorance or over generalization? Thereby identifies me as an irrational individual via my own theory of "dual paradox of assumption".


You're the one who didn't provide evidence for your claims, by simply generalizing:


I think you just lost touch on reality via you overgeneralizing my topic


Your careless assumption was that you could just make blanketing statements like this and think you've made a rational argument.
Does that has anything to do with you purposefully left this out from my initial reply for the second time?
You've also left this out from my last reply:
And when I referred you being overgeneralizing, I meant this:

RisingEchoe wrote:

Isn't quoting yourself is a sign of skitzophrenia?

ok, so the "dual paradox of assumption" is just when someone is being irrational because they are ignorant or generalizing. That's a pretty simple concept, I don't know why you have to make it seem like it's so complicated.

So this whole goddamn topic is just about people being irrational? This is not that complex of a topic, what is all this other unnecessary crap you put in.

Ok, I agree, lots of people are irrational for various reasons.
Keep in mind that ignoring factual proofs in your own decision making process is the same as you unable to filter sensory stimuli, due to your disorganized method of you filter out facts from your own bias opinions.


I didn't ignore anything that wasn't irrelavant. You're being a hypoctire right now because you ignored most of my post as well:


RisingEchoe wrote:

Isn't quoting yourself is a sign of skitzophrenia?


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 ).


lol @ we all have sensory input organs....

I agree with this for the most part, although I would have said it differently. What do you mean by bad judgements due to "poor statistics"? Your links are pretty useless, I'm not gonna watch a random 20 minute vid every time I reach a new word.

Also, the bill is not 2300 pages long, I think that was the last proposed bill, and republicans hate it the same reason the majority of Americans hate it, because it's a horrible 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.


That's one of the stupidest quotes I've ever read. No offense, I'm just being honest.

Generalizing is a big problem today, especially when it comes to stereotypes invlving religion or ethnicity. And how can reality blindside rationality when rationality is based on reality?



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. ]


What's an "inspired" sociologist? Do you have a socioogy degree, that you were "inspired" into getting?

ok, so the "dual paradox of assumption" is just when someone is being irrational because they are ignorant or generalizing. That's a pretty simple concept, I don't know why you have to make it seem like it's so complicated.


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)


You're starting to see that people's deviant behaviour is related to how they make their decisions? Well that's a sociological breakthrough.




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.


So this whole goddamn topic is just about people being irrational? This is not that complex of a topic, what is all this other unnecessary crap you put in.

Ok, I agree, lots of people are irrational for various reasons.



And you only picked out the last statement to respond to. So is really unable to filter sensory stimuli, due to disorganized methods of filtering out facts from your own bias opinions.

You responded to the whole thing with a simple statement saying I overgenerazed without even explaining your resoning. Or do you think because you can type "the dual paradox of assumption" you're ammune from it?
Posted 4/11/10

RisingEchoe wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


RisingEchoe wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


RisingEchoe wrote:
I think you're the one that's lost touch with reality, via trying to overcomplicate a straight-forward topic. You've fallen for the same irrationality you've described in the topic.
And what's your proof for your claim once again not at my topic, but instead at my person? How was my assumption being one of careless ignorance or over generalization? Thereby identifies me as an irrational individual via my own theory of "dual paradox of assumption".


You're the one who didn't provide evidence for your claims, by simply generalizing:


I think you just lost touch on reality via you overgeneralizing my topic


Your careless assumption was that you could just make blanketing statements like this and think you've made a rational argument.
Does that has anything to do with you purposefully left this out from my initial reply for the second time?
You've also left this out from my last reply:
And when I referred you being overgeneralizing, I meant this:

RisingEchoe wrote:

Isn't quoting yourself is a sign of skitzophrenia?

ok, so the "dual paradox of assumption" is just when someone is being irrational because they are ignorant or generalizing. That's a pretty simple concept, I don't know why you have to make it seem like it's so complicated.

So this whole goddamn topic is just about people being irrational? This is not that complex of a topic, what is all this other unnecessary crap you put in.

Ok, I agree, lots of people are irrational for various reasons.
Keep in mind that ignoring factual proofs in your own decision making process is the same as you unable to filter sensory stimuli, due to your disorganized method of you filter out facts from your own bias opinions.


I didn't ignore anything that wasn't irrelavant. You're being a hypoctire right now because you ignored most of my post as well

And you only picked out the last statement to respond to. So is really unable to filter sensory stimuli, due to disorganized methods of filtering out facts from your own bias opinions.


You responded to the whole thing with a simple statement saying I overgenerazed without even explaining your resoning. Or do you think because you can type "the dual paradox of assumption" you're ammune from it?
Why should I respond to your bias and condescending opinions about my topic and my person? Especially when your only proof is your own ignorance, while your opinions about my person are irrelevant to my topic:

RisingEchoe wrote:

lol @ we all have sensory input organs....

I agree with this for the most part, although I would have said it differently. What do you mean by bad judgements due to "poor statistics"? Your links are pretty useless, I'm not gonna watch a random 20 minute vid every time I reach a new word.

Also, the bill is not 2300 pages long, I think that was the last proposed bill, and republicans hate it the same reason the majority of Americans hate it, because it's a horrible bill.

That's one of the stupidest quotes I've ever read. No offense, I'm just being honest.

Generalizing is a big problem today, especially when it comes to stereotypes invlving religion or ethnicity. And how can reality blindside rationality when rationality is based on reality?

What's an "inspired" sociologist? Do you have a socioogy degree, that you were "inspired" into getting?


You're starting to see that people's deviant behaviour is related to how they make their decisions? Well that's a sociological breakthrough.
If all you wanted to say were the highlighted red parts, then they were simply your entitlement claims without facts. When you were "honestly" offended by most of what I've said that you claimed to agree with. While you didn't even prove how "rationality is based on reality". Because I honestly think you don't know just how does a mind works from an evolutionary psychological perspective.

As for how I can be "immune" from my own theory, that's for me to know and for you to find out.
6717 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Earth
Offline
Posted 4/11/10 , edited 4/12/10

DomFortress wrote:


BrylleNoGotoku wrote:



Are you avoiding your responsibility as the person who started this topic by not giving me any practical answers to my question? I don't understand what the hell are you trying to say that's why I'm asking questions.It's like you are a teacher and I am a student but you do not actually answer my question. Fine. If you are not willing to answer my questions then I won't reply here again.
It's therefore not my responsibility to do your own research or rationalizing for you, when I'm neither your mentor, instructor, teacher, nor yourself. While all research materials were already made available for review.

Furthermore, if you pester me again with that same attitude of yours, I'll consider your action as trolling and respond accordingly. Consider this is your only warning.


Nice one. When you can't actually explain your topic in the simplest possible way even just one sentence, just force someone who do not know what you are talking about to explain it. Additionally it is a violation of the CR forum rules regarding making the first post CLEAR and complete. Note that I am stressing the CLEAR part because my problem is the clarity of your post. So even if there is sufficient research materials provided in your post, it won't help me understand what you are talking about BECAUSE I don't see the relevance of your materials in relation to the topic AND I don't see the connection of one of your paragraph to the other. I implied it in my past post. Your points in the first paragraph feels completely disconnected from the second paragraph causing your post to lose the connection. I said it. I am having problem understanding the flow of your post. So go ahead. If you can't explain it to someone else in the simplest way possible, then go label that person a troll or something when all that person is doing is trying to understand you. It's like you are telling your psychiatrist that he is a troll because he is trying to understand you by asking questions.

And any rational person would know that asking question is not a violation of CR rules.

EDIT: I got reported again...
Ronin
95039 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / California
Offline
Posted 4/12/10
RisingEchoe == Yei

That is all.
Posted 4/12/10

BasouKazuma wrote:

RisingEchoe == Yei

That is all.


Thou hast strucketh a mighty blow with thine hammer of doom.
Posted 4/12/10
BrylleNoGotoku, I fear your efforts are in vain, please refrain from speaking to this person as it seems that you are getting no where with your argument. I will throw out your report on the terms that you did nothing wrong.

DomFortress, BrylleNoGotoku is in fact, not trolling. A troll is a person that causes conflict in a forum or chatroom purposely for their own enjoyment; he is only asking a question which is obviously not getting an answer. Even if you believe you've explained it in the best way possible, it might be best to re-write your OP for those who might be confused.

That is all.
Moon Princess Moderator
287398 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / F / Heaven
Offline
Posted 4/12/10
Please start the thread over and try to keep it clean!

That is all!

~Locked
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.