Does logic matter if it doesn't change the way I live?

[slobake]

I agree. How did you sum up my whole post in that one sentence?

Discrediting someone for being illogical is rarely productive. Sometimes certain people that affect policy or our immediate livelihood need to be called out, and I don't think you would oppose that.

Pointing out that someone is being illogical when they're providing a poor logical justification for what they did is.. murky. I look at that as being helpful, but understand that it could be hurtful and thread very lightly.

Pointing out that someone is being illogical when they knowingly did something illogical (what I think you're talking about) is completely missing the point. This criticism would make no sense.

We can also use it to try and discredit someone we disagree with. We can use it to write of someone or a whole group of people as invalid. They are illogical therefore anything they say is useless. Feel free to ignore them and disdain them without actually listening or trying to understand what they are saying or doing.

 

[Bocete]

We can also use it to try and discredit someone we disagree with. We can use it to write of someone or a whole group of people as invalid. They are illogical therefore anything they say is useless. Feel free to ignore them and disdain them without actually listening or trying to understand what they are saying or doing.

I really don't think so. Hear me out - the kind of people you are talking about want to discredit and use the label illogical to give a reason on why they're doing this.

I use logic as much and as honestly as I can, but I do not discredit anyone. It is illogical to dismiss a person for being illogical, as we all are to some extent. I would be discrediting myself. Is this making sense?

The kind of people you are talking about are illogical and hateful, only using logic as an excuse. And when I say 'using logic as an excuse' we hit a limitation of the English language, as they are not employing logic. What they're doing makes no logical sense. They're doing shunning, one of the foulest methods in a society of free speech and thought and goes against everything logic and skepticism dictate.

 

[Tom Lane]

I agree with all 3 of you, Slo, Bocete, and INTP. Logic isn't of much use if you don't use it, which all 3 of you said, in different ways. Similarly, math isn't of much use if you don't use it. Why count your change?

I'll add that if a person makes an illogical choice fully aware of a logical conclusion then either they weren't taking all of the criteria into account - flawed logic - or they're irrational. In most cases I've observed, the decider isn't using logic in their reasoning, instead they're responding emotionally and logic hasn't been used. Which is your case, Slo? Is your logic flawed or do you just choose to be irrational?

Based on INTP's handle, it looks like they're familiar with Myers-Briggs. In case you aren't familiar with Myers-Briggs, the last dimension, is "P" and "J". "P" stands for "perceiving". Its polar opposite is "judging". Most people's personalities are somewhere between the two. 70% of executives are J's. J's have some interesting traits. They're decisive and once they make up their mind, they can be unreasonably stubborn to change their minds. P's, on the other hand tend to be indecisive. They like to mull over decisions and tend to be more introspective. I don't know how people's personalities are distributed between the two polls, but it's probably safe to say that most people are pooled towards the middle. That implies that many of us are at times, quickly decisive and then may be stubborn to change our minds afterwards. The point I'm making is that it is innate in humans to jump to a conclusion and then defend it and some people do that more than others. And, no, I'm not talking about anyone in specific; just an observation on human nature for the sake of the discussion about why people might disregard a logical conclusion.

 

[Tom Lane]

We can also use it to try and discredit someone we disagree with. We can use it to write of someone or a whole group of people as invalid. They are illogical therefore anything they say is useless. Feel free to ignore them and disdain them without actually listening or trying to understand what they are saying or doing.

Trying to discredit someone is only about power. Challenging their ideas and assertions, in an non-discrediting way, is how people form and refine their opinions. Are you sure you're not mistaking "challenging" for "discrediting"? The difference being saying something like "New Earth Creationists are not seriously considering the scientific evidence" and saying "New Earth Creationists are crazy." The latter adds nothing valuable to an honest discussion.

 

[INTP]

My original intention was to point out that we all do things sometimes that are not logical and that we should think about that before we say someone else in not logical to discredit them.

When we say an action is "not logical", the statement is based on a set of values and factual assumptions. Selectively choosing information, asserting a decision based on that subset, and calling it logical is simply delusional, IMHO.

 

[slobake]

"New Earth Creationists are crazy." The latter adds nothing valuable to an honest discussion.

Yes that is what I am at trying to say. Thanks for clarifying that.
I have seen statement here on T.B. like this:
"I would never trust the opinion of a ...."

 

[slobake]

When we say an action is "not logical", the statement is based on a set of values and factual assumptions. Selectively choosing information, asserting a decision based on that subset, and calling it logical is simply delusional, IMHO.

Okay you guys are starting to lose me here. I dropped out of college after one year and haven't read much on this specific topic.
Please be gentle with a simple blue collar guy.

 

[INTP]

Based on INTP's handle, it looks like they're familiar with Myers-Briggs. In case you aren't familiar with Myers-Briggs, the last dimension, is "P" and "J". "P" stands for "perceiving". Its polar opposite is "judging". Most people's personalities are somewhere between the two. 70% of executives are J's. J's have some interesting traits. They're decisive and once they make up their mind, they can be unreasonably stubborn to change their minds. P's, on the other hand tend to be indecisive. They like to mull over decisions and tend to be more introspective. I don't know how people's personalities are distributed between the two polls, but it's probably safe to say that most people are pooled towards the middle. That implies that many of us are at times, quickly decisive and then may be stubborn to change our minds afterwards. The point I'm making is that it is innate in humans to jump to a conclusion and then defend it and some people do that more than others. And, no, I'm not talking about anyone in specific; just an observation on human nature for the sake of the discussion about why people might disregard a logical conclusion.

My understanding is that there's a fairly "normal distribution" of P/J, with roughly half of people falling on each side, and a clustering in the middle, as you indicate. I happen to be an outlier as being strongly P. It does make decision making "interesting". It also makes discussions like this, especially with those who are more strongly J a particular challenge to come to understanding.

I added emphasis to your point, which I refer to as "posturing". Taking a stand, then defending it. Unfortunately, that leaves us blind to new information.

Ultimately, we make decisions all the time, and mostly have to do so with insufficient information. We apply logic, where appropriate, but our intuition, values, preferences, etc. have to play a role in order to the bridge the knowledge gap.

 

[Tom Lane]

When we say an action is "not logical", the statement is based on a set of values and factual assumptions. Selectively choosing information, asserting a decision based on that subset, and calling it logical is simply delusional, IMHO.

Or just dishonest; trying to get their way, for a variety of reasons: power, stubborness, selfishness, what-have-you.

 

[INTP]

Okay you guys are starting to lose me here. I dropped out of college after one year and haven't read much on this specific topic.
Please be gentle with a simple blue collar guy.

I get that a lot.

quoting myself, for clarity, as I think it addresses what I meant there.

Ultimately, we make decisions all the time, and mostly have to do so with insufficient information. We apply logic, where appropriate, but our intuition, values, preferences, etc. have to play a role in order to the bridge the knowledge gap.

 

[INTP]

Or just dishonest; trying to get their way, for a variety of reasons: power, stubborness, selfishness, what-have-you.

Yes, all of those. I presume that people don't always realize these conflicting drivers, so I use the word "delusional". Included in the delusion is a lack of awareness of our own biases. Sure, it may be deliberate, but self-deception is a powerful thing.

 

[Tom Lane]

Ultimately, we make decisions all the time, and mostly have to do so with insufficient information. We apply logic, where appropriate, but our intuition, values, preferences, etc. have to play a role in order to the bridge the knowledge gap.

Yes! INTP's unite! We'll have our first meeting, sometime, somewhere, we can't decide. All of my scores were towards the middle on MB.

All good points, but on the last one, and hopefully furthering the discussion, is, in order to successfully apply logic to a decision, you have to KNOW yourself and how your values affect the criteria.

 

[slobake]

Yes, all of those. I presume that people don't always realize these conflicting drivers, so I use the word "delusional". Included in the delusion is a lack of awareness of our own biases. Sure, it may be deliberate, but self-deception is a powerful thing.

I have a relative how is dead set on starting his own business without doing the homework. He wants to be a franchise without checking the financial statements and other information about the current owner. My wife the accountant is an expert on this stuff and she can see that something is not right. His desire to be his "own boss" has blinded him to any reasonable logic.
His wife is seeing an attorney about doing a pre-nup to protect the house that she bought and has mostly paid for. It could get ugly.

 

[INTP]

All good points, but on the last one, and hopefully furthering the discussion, is, in order to successfully apply logic to a decision, you have to KNOW yourself and how your values affect the criteria.

That's pretty much my take on the question. People wave terms like "logic" around as somehow superior, but at the same time ignore all their own biases and misconceptions.

Yes! INTP's unite! We'll have our first meeting, sometime, somewhere, we can't decide. All of my scores were towards the middle on MB.

Yes, someone would have to make a decision.

 

[48thStreetCustom]

Trying to discredit someone is only about power. Challenging their ideas and assertions, in an non-discrediting way, is how people form and refine their opinions. Are you sure you're not mistaking "challenging" for "discrediting"? The difference being saying something like "New Earth Creationists are not seriously considering the scientific evidence" and saying "New Earth Creationists are crazy." The latter adds nothing valuable to an honest discussion.

I've seen a lot of both combined. Like "New Earth Creationists are not seriously considering the scientific evidence. So therefore they're crazy." That's like Bocete's 'using logic as an excuse' comment. I once heard someone refer to this as "the monopoly of definition" where it's a battle for moral high ground. That's when language gets involved and "rebels" become "freedom fighters" and why our military is called the "defense department."

 

[slobake]

Yes! INTP's unite! We'll have our first meeting, sometime, somewhere, we can't decide. All of my scores were towards the middle on MB.

All good points, but on the last one, and hopefully furthering the discussion, is, in order to successfully apply logic to a decision, you have to KNOW yourself and how your values affect the criteria.

My wife is very linear, organized and a planner. I am the opposite of that but I am getting better
One day our old washing machine was spinning wildly, rocking around and spewing water all over the floor. My wife screamed. I walked into the room and she was frozen with her hands over her mouth. I walked over to the washer and unplugged it.
She can go into a law office where the books are all screwed up. Within a very short time she can set up systems that will have everything organized and clear. She also cuts back on the time needed to maintain the books by at least 50%.
That about sums it up.

 

[Tom Lane]

I have a relative how is dead set on starting his own business without doing the homework. He wants to be a franchise without checking the financial statements and other information about the current owner. My wife the accountant is an expert on this stuff and she can see that something is not right. His desire to be his "own boss" has blinded him to any reasonable logic.
His wife is seeing an attorney about doing a pre-nup to protect the house that she bought and has mostly paid for. It could get ugly.

I had a housekeeper for a few years who decided to buy a plot of land-locked land - the only road in or out was on the seller's private property. Her lawyer recommended that she not buy the land without getting an appropriate clause for the right to use the road, regardless of who owned the property. When she discussed it with me, I thought it was a no-brainer and that her attorney was giving her smart advice. The owner refused to add the clause and her attorney recommended that she find something else. She went around her attorney and bought the land. I don't think she applied any logic at all in making her decision.

I have to deal with people who've already made up their minds all of the time. Smart, determined, articulate people who don't necessarily have any reason to trust me. It becomes a sales-job to get them to consider that there may have been information that they didn't consider, and, a ton of patience. The flip-side is not to decide that they're wrong if you don't agree with the decision, because, they may be considering aspects of which you have no knowledge.

In the case of your relative, it seems a frank discussion about how you're worried about them and how wise it is to do due diligence might help. The crux is to get them to be open to a different possibility.

 

[Tom Lane]

Yes that is what I am at trying to say. Thanks for clarifying that.
I have seen statement here on T.B. like this:
"I would never trust the opinion of a ...."

Ah, now I think I see where you're going. So "I would never trust the opinion of a..." is argumentative, no? and for that reason is easy to dismiss. What if the speaker had been less argumentative and said "I am skeptical of any opinion of a blechersplotcher." That might be more defensible because the speaker isn't saying that blechersplotcher's are always wrong but is calling into question blechersplotcher's ability to reason.

That is an interesting question to me. On the one hand, as you, Bocete, and INTP suggested, we're all guilty sometimes of faulty reasoning. On the other hand, I do wonder if some people do so more frequently than others. If that were true, then being skeptical of a blechersplotcher's opinions would be reasonable because they do more frequently employ faulty logic, irrational decision making, and form baseless conclusions. I can think of examples of people that I would be skeptical if they claimed the sky were blue. Usually, these folks are in the public sphere where it can be tough to tell if they genuinely believe the things they say. This seems to be a pervasive idea in our culture though. Doctor's, lawyers, professors, and scientists are automatically given more credibility than politicians or artists. Partially, I'm guessing, because we expect that the lawyers are smarter than most, but also, partially, perhaps, because we know that they are capable of complex logical thought to arrive at accurately predictive conclusions.

And, I wonder if that might apply to specific disciplines as opposed to the people. For instance, it's common to claim - and I'm not saying that it's true, just repeating the claim, so no offense intended - that psychology isn't a "real" science. Most of the social sciences get that dismissal from time to time, economics, sociology, etc. There are statisticians that would say that they are very skeptical of any sociology studies' conclusions. Would that extend to the sociologists themselves because they specialize in a discipline that necessarily deals with concepts that are difficult to precisely define and have few concrete predictable outcomes?

I think "I am skeptical of a blechersplotcher's opinions" may well be a defensible statement.

 

[ZenG]

No....logic doesn't matter if it doesn't change the way you live........

There are those that live by rivers.
Rivers that flood every year and damage the dwelling of the person that lives there and puts their lives at risk.
Logically it would make sense to move farther away from the river.
But they don't.
They reside there year after year...even defending it with statements like " I grew up here so I'm staying here"...or....." This my home no matter what happens".

Logic has no effect on them........so therefor it doesn't matter.

 

[fdeck]

No....logic doesn't matter if it doesn't change the way you live........

There are those that live by rivers.
Rivers that flood every year and damage the dwelling of the person that lives there and puts their lives at risk.
Logically it would make sense to move farther away from the river.
But they don't.
They reside there year after year...even defending it with statements like " I grew up here so I'm staying here"...or....." This my home no matter what happens".

Logic has no effect on them........so therefor it doesn't matter.

Maybe it's perfectly logical but you don't have all the facts. For instance, if for this person the value of their emotional attachment to their place outweighs the risk of flooding, then they have reached a logical conclusion based on the information at their disposal. There is nothing illogical about considering emotional factors along with material or economic factors.

In my view, "logical" is often an empty claim that attempts to prioritize some forms of information over others, or to rationalize behaviors that would otherwise raise ethical qualms. Can you use logic to separate all possible logical statements from illogical ones? Should there be a "logic checker" in our computers, like there are spelling and grammar checkers?