Why People Claim Chains Of Deduction Don't Work For Human Issues

[David Sklansky]

And of course they are right to some extent as compared to using logic to examine scientific issues. But most people go way overboard. Giving little credence even to being caught in logical contradictions about their own beliefs.

I used to think that this syndrome occurred because most people are weak in the academic subject of properly applying logic. Thus they don't want to believe that the subject can be very useful for everyday issues.

But after many discussions on this and other forums, I now realize that there is another reason people resist the idea that logical arguments, such as those that expose contradictions in a person's worldview, are strong (if imperfect) impetuses to make people change their minds. Its not that people don't want to admit their weakness in logic. Rather it is because people hate to change their minds. Minds that for the most part were originally made up based on gut feelings. Without regard to whether it contradicted a gut feeling on another issue.

Some people, like me, resist any urge to make up their mind before carefully examining the points involved. Pair The Board calls them boring. But for me the alternative is worse. Having a bunch of conflicting ideas about the world (though it may take some deep thought to see the conflict) and then going on to make a fool of yourself by claiming the chain of reasoning necessary to see those conflicts contains serious flaws. Just so that you can desperately hold on to those ill thought out ideas.

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
Minds that for the most part were originally made up based on gut feelings. Without regard to whether it contradicted a gut feeling on another issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Haha, it's funny you choose a visceral metaphor here---N did as well, assaulting the German nation for

[ QUOTE ]
...becoming ever lazier and more impoverished in its instincts...continu[ing] with an enviable appetite to feed on opposites, gobbling down without any digestive trouble "faith" as well as scientific manners, "Christian love" as well as anti-Semitism, the will to power as well as the gospel of the humble.---Such a failure to take sides among opposites! Such neutrality and "selflessness" of the stomach!

[/ QUOTE ]
(Ecce Homo)

[roblin]

each person is defined by what they think. change what they think and change them, thus killing the old self and giving them a new self. of course they are scared [censored] of dying.

[chezlaw]

Who makes that claim, maybe a few but not many? generally those who disagree with you think you have analysed the issue incorrectly.

There's the danger of the management fallacy. Management works on things they can measure so they find something they can measure, work on it (hopefully correctly) and then make decisions based on it. All the time forgetting that the thing they can measure often doesn't reflect very well the thing they were supposed to manage in the first place.

but try telling them that.

chez

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
Most people, like me, believe that they resist any urge to make up their mind before carefully examining the points involved. Of course, I'm in no position to judge whether I'm one of the few people who are actually correct in this belief.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fixed you post. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Aside from that, I agree with your post. I know that I, for one, feel a palpable anxiety when I sense that some longstanding belief of mine might be incorrect.

[knowledgeORbust]

[ QUOTE ]

There's the danger of the management fallacy. Management works on things they can measure so they find something they can measure, work on it (hopefully correctly) and then make decisions based on it. All the time forgetting that the thing they can measure often doesn't reflect very well the thing they were supposed to manage in the first place.

but try telling them that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry I'm a little dense, you're saying that managers are supposed to be managing things they can't measure? right? And/or that most managers just can't do their job right?

[ QUOTE ]

Who makes that claim, maybe a few but not many? generally those who disagree with you think you have analysed the issue incorrectly.

[/ QUOTE ]
And, um, I guess I agree with DS here: chains of deduction aren't exactly efficient with most people, but they're pretty much the only way to really converse with each other.

So what are some ways people would say that DS has analyzed poorly? i.e. what's not to agree with?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


There's the danger of the management fallacy. Management works on things they can measure so they find something they can measure, work on it (hopefully correctly) and then make decisions based on it. All the time forgetting that the thing they can measure often doesn't reflect very well the thing they were supposed to manage in the first place.

but try telling them that.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Sorry I'm a little dense, you're saying that managers are supposed to be managing things they can't measure? right? And/or that most managers just can't do their job right?


[/ QUOTE ]
Its a tough old world and the real things can't easily be measured (not claiming they always cannot be). So many end up managing something that can easily be measured even through its not much to do with the hard to measure thing they were supposed to be managing.

[ QUOTE ]
And, um, I guess I agree with DS here: chains of deduction aren't exactly efficient with most people, but they're pretty much the only way to really converse with each other.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree with DS about the chains of deductions but its no use if people have started from different premises and don't realise it. The deduction bit is generally very simple, often trivial.

chez

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Who makes that claim, maybe a few but not many? generally those who disagree with you think you have analysed the issue incorrectly.

There's the danger of the management fallacy. Management works on things they can measure so they find something they can measure, work on it (hopefully correctly) and then make decisions based on it. All the time forgetting that the thing they can measure often doesn't reflect very well the thing they were supposed to manage in the first place.

but try telling them that.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Your point is easier to make with people that have seen 'the China Syndrome'. I spent a few years on a state committee with environmental powers and my main argument when it was setting up was the one you are making. Setting 'indicators' to monitor needs to be closely watched for 'managing the indicators' rather than the underlying main issue. Unfortunately the group had few movie buffs and they now manage the gauges.

Fortunately, it turns out DS wasn't arguing any of those positions from the randomly choses premises ... merely using them in place of X's and W's in a logic class he's practicing for. No bearing on the complexity of the real world, which was usually where he ran into objections ... faulty premises and oversimplification. Now he's fessed up things may go easier.

luckyme

[knowledgeORbust]

[ QUOTE ]

I agree with DS about the chains of deductions but its no use if people have started from different premises and don't realise it. The deduction bit is generally very simple, often trivial.

chez


[/ QUOTE ]
But you CAN help other people realize there are different premises, right? It's not impossible; I mean... for some people it might be, But there are even some steadfast religious folk who will still exchange and engage philosophy logically. I agree 100% with what you say, and disagree with forcibly trying to change people, but I still think it's worthwhile to bring up and talk about the premises with most people.

[Bill Haywood]

[ QUOTE ]
Its not that people don't want to admit their weakness in logic. Rather it is because people hate to change their minds.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then there's confirmation bias. We are hard wired to sort data into already established patterns. New information usually isn't even recognized as a challenge to one's beliefs, it is quickly interpreted to conform to what we already think.

It's not (usually) that people are too proud or lazy to change their minds. The new information simply is not recognized as requiring a new set of deductions.

This is one reason rationalism is overrated (though it's the best we have).