Negative persona (mask) inhibits learning

[coberst]

Negative persona (mask) inhibits learning

‘To be negative’ is not the same as ‘to be critical’.

The dictionary has many definitions for this word, “critical”, but I would choose the critical (decisive) meaning, as regarding learning, to be—exercising or involving careful judgment or judicious evaluation.

A negative persona is an attitude of non-acceptance.

I think that part of the problem is that too many of us have only an accept button and a reject button.

Accept or reject are not the only options one has. The most important and generally overlooked, especially by the young, is the option to ‘hold’.

It appears to me that many young people consider that ‘to be negative is to be cool’. This leads them into responding that ‘X’ is false when responding to an OP that states that ‘X’ is true.

When a person takes a public position affirming or denying the truth of ‘Y’ they are often locking themselves into a difficult position. If their original position was based on opinion rather than judgment their ego will not easily allow them to change position once they have studied and analyzed ‘Y’.

The moral of this story is that holding a default position of ‘reject or accept’, when we are ignorant, is not smart because our ego will fight any attempt to modify the opinion with a later judgment. Silence, or questions directed at comprehending the matter under consideration, is the smart decision for everyone’s default position.

Our options are reject, accept, and hold. I claim that ‘hold’ is the most important and should be the most often used because everyone is ignorant of almost everything.

Do you accept, reject, or hold judgment regarding my claim?

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
Our options are reject, accept, and hold. I claim that ‘hold’ is the most important and should be the most often used because everyone is ignorant of almost everything.

Do you accept, reject, or hold judgment regarding my claim?

[/ QUOTE ]
I reject some of your claims. Others I accept others. The hold part is me remembering and leaving it there for future reference.

I vehemently reject your final statement in bold. The world is full of useless and confused information and opinions. The ability to prune away the nonsense quickly and decisively is what defines an efficient thinker. For example, I placed Freud on hold for a little bit, until I read a few pages of his work, and then rejected him out of hand. There is nothing in his insight that gives me insights comparable to other fields of psychology or my own observation and introspection. His prose is deranged. Therefore, he is worthless.

Similarly with conspiracy theories like Nielsio's WTC stuff. I don't need to investigate every single claim to reject the theory out of hand. Credible expert testimony, Occam's razor, lack of a credible mechanism for the conspiracy, and my own basic understanding of physics and politics are enough to call the theory deluded.

Homeopathy is another example. I don't need to delve into hundred of pages of homeopathy theory to reject it. I need to know three things:
- Its theory is based entirely on a faulty premise: "something that causes disease symptoms in large quantities will cure it in tiny quantities"
- It make claims which have no known physical basis (water memory)
- No scientific studies have demonstrated its validity.

That's enough certainty to stake my life on it. No "hold" required. What you seem to be advocating is that we should not form a judgment until we've read all the theories of homeopathy and tested every claim for every illness that it's supposed to work on. Good luck with that. I only have 70 or so years to live, I'm going to reject homeopathy/ancient Jewish fables/WTC conspiracies/Freud out of hand and move onto something else.

[coberst]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Our options are reject, accept, and hold. I claim that ‘hold’ is the most important and should be the most often used because everyone is ignorant of almost everything.

Do you accept, reject, or hold judgment regarding my claim?

[/ QUOTE ]
No "hold" required. What you seem to be advocating is that we should not form a judgment until we've read all the theories of homeopathy and tested every claim for every illness that it's supposed to work on.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you have misunderstood my post. What I am suggesting is "that holding a default position of ‘reject or accept’, when we are ignorant, is not smart because our ego will fight any attempt to modify the opinion with a later judgment. Silence, or questions directed at comprehending the matter under consideration, is the smart decision for everyone’s default position."

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Our options are reject, accept, and hold. I claim that ‘hold’ is the most important and should be the most often used because everyone is ignorant of almost everything.

Do you accept, reject, or hold judgment regarding my claim?

[/ QUOTE ]
No "hold" required. What you seem to be advocating is that we should not form a judgment until we've read all the theories of homeopathy and tested every claim for every illness that it's supposed to work on.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you have misunderstood my post. What I am suggesting is "that holding a default position of ‘reject or accept’, when we are ignorant, is not smart because our ego will fight any attempt to modify the opinion with a later judgment. Silence, or questions directed at comprehending the matter under consideration, is the smart decision for everyone’s default position."

[/ QUOTE ]
What does "when we are ignorant" mean? By many standards I'm ignorant of all the topics I mentioned, yet I put them in the reject box.

In my experience when people are truly ignorant (i.e. know nothing at all) of a topic, they do exactly as you describe. I guess I'm unsure if what you're advocating is any different to what most people actually do.

So unless you disagree with that, you're ultimately arguing that people are too quick to accept or reject. Who determines what's too quick? Where do you think the line should be set?

[coberst]

By hold I mean not make any decision until due diligence has been executed.