5 Logical Fallacies That Make You Wrong More Than You Think
http://www.cracked.com/article_19468_5-logical-fallacies-that-make-you-wrong-more-than-you-think_p1.html#ixzz3JtiPcOxr
What the article says in short:
We're Not Programmed to Seek "Truth," We're Programmed to "Win"
Our Brains Don't Understand Probability
We Think Everyone's Out to Get Us
We're Hard Wired To Have a Double Standard
Facts Don't Change Our Mind
The questions I am thinking of are "what does it take to change a belief?" and "how do we know when we're deceiving ourselves?"
So what do you think?
Should we give up or just carry on knowing that our brains make us deluded egotists that like to form narratives with ourselves as the hero? (But perhaps that's from another book ;) )
This podcast is interesting also:
http://youarenotsosmart.com/2014/09/30/yanss-podcast-033-the-psychology-of-forming-keeping-and-sometimes-changing-our-beliefs/
The bourgeoisie are
The bourgeoisie are programmed to win because competition is fundamental to their economic system. Workers aren't programmed in the same way, just deceived.
Similarly we think everyone is out to get us because in a competitive society, and in the fight of all against all, which is capitalism, everyone really is out to get you.
Knowing who to blame is the key here. Capitalism is at the root of all our problems, neuroses, and misery. Change capitalism by getting rid of it and you change yourself.
Unfortunately the suppressed in The Hunger Games never get round to identifying and naming the enemy.
I certainly think that there
I certainly think that there needs to be a re-evaluation of the methods used to 'convince' people of the need to organise/for revolution/communism, etc. Simply waving leaflets/newspapers and using (what may seem to you as) purely rational arguments, and then holding demos as rather meek PR stunts would, to me, seem to offer more of an insight into the consolidation rituals of the 'activist scene' rather than a genuine, considered attempt to reach a critical mass of momentum. I'm aware that the first, rather trite article that shrouded itself in irritating self-help/clickbait terminology warned me against ascribing malignant motives to those I disagreed with, so I'll stick with saying that probably the tactics of demonstrations/propaganda are seemingly never really considered or comprehensively reflected on by many people, rather than saying it's some murky plot. ;)
Actually I agree that the
Actually I agree that the first article is a bit shite.
The main issues and the backfire effect and confirmation bias. The more you argue against a strongly held belief the stronger the other person will hold it and, the confirmation bias, we unconsciously look for evidence that supports our beliefs and forget or ignore evidence that doesn't. And there's also Consistency bias we rewrite our memories of our past attitudes and beliefs to be in line with our current ones.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Backfire_effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
So what can we do about it? Well even if we are aware of these things we will still do them, but in our efforts to persuade others we can certainly bring these things to mind. There's a little book called the Debunking Manual which has some ideas in it
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Debunking-Handbook-now-freely-available-download.html
Also this:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Debunking-Handbook-Part-1-first-myth-about-debunking.html
Schopenhauer's The Art of
Schopenhauer's The Art of Being Right (online) goes over this.
iirc he also appreciated people holding their ground (no pushovers).
Engels wrote: The American
[quote=Engels] The American workers are coming along already, but just like the English they go their own way. One cannot drum the theory into them beforehand, but their own experience and their own blunders and the evil consequences of them will soon bump their noses up against theory – and then all right. ...Their insular stiff-necked obstinacy annoys one often enough, but it also guarantees that once a thing gets started what is begun will be carried out.[/quote]
darren p wrote: What the
darren p
It's completely wrong you loser. Probably. Anyway, I don't care what you say so stop hassling me and leave me alone for I am King of Libcom.
Well that's it. I'm more
Well that's it. I'm more convinced that I am right now and that you are out to get me!
I saw Serge's post as
I saw Serge's post as basically a smokescreen for his latent liberal-bourgeois entryism.
Caiman, you... you're as bad
Caiman, you... you're as bad as... as... teh nazis!!!111
The Debunking Handbook seems
The Debunking Handbook seems like a good resource, and it's short which is great (only 6 PDF pages)
I found a synopsis of the chapters from The Art of Being Right here http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Being_Right
“[W]hat does it take to
“[W]hat does it take to change a belief?” Entropy.
The book of fallacies (1824),
The book of fallacies (1824), Jeremy Bentham:
https://archive.org/details/bookoffallaciesf00bent
(h/t Rancière)
Human activity is determined
Human activity is determined by input conditioned by an inherited mental process.
Looking at history, despite a great variety of input, the mental process has over and over again produced ugly and dangerous political systems.
We can't do much about the genetic inheritance. But right now the internet has created a flux in the style of input. The bourgeoisie are afraid of what might result and are trying to control it.
Maybe we should be afraid too. I sometimes worry that maybe all internet discussions are not doomed.
Human activity is determined
Human activity is determined by input conditioned by an inherited mental process.
Looking at history, despite a great variety of input, the mental process has over and over again produced ugly and dangerous political systems.
We can't do much about the genetic inheritance. But right now the internet has created a flux in the style of input. The bourgeoisie are afraid of what might result and are trying to control it.
Maybe we should be afraid too. I sometimes worry that maybe all internet discussions are not doomed.