I've always been fascinated by the way people think. I don't make a value judgment on it, because everyone is wired differently. Still, the way a person reasons logically enables them to perform certain tasks effectively - or not.
For example, does an artist need to have the same logic ability as a computer engineer? I would say not, but how does the differences in logic systems affect their outlook on life? Does it affect politics?
What I'm getting at is filters. How can a person believe something that is patently false? Is it because they process information on an emotional level instead of a logical level? I think that's probably the case.
A person can believe something that is false because they do not have logic filters that catch the flaw, and discard it. Considering information on an emotional level allows that inaccurate information to be processed and at worst it becomes it's own truth, or at best, becomes something the mind finds irrelevant.
Example - we have somebody taking issue with my views in the comments area of the blog. Lets look at a conclusion they come to, and the rational used to justify it.
I stated that Kofi Annan made the statement that the invasion of Iraq was illegal under international laws. The commentator states: "LOL!!! This would be the same Koif Annan that over saw the OIL-FOR-FRAUD scandal?".
In my mind, I was wondering what relevance that had to do with the statement that the invasion was illegal. The commentator obviously allows irrelevant material to cloud their logic filter. One thing has nothing to do with the other, but in the mind, the issues become intertwined, creating a breakdown in pure thought. It is the same question I posed a couple of days ago when considering the CBS forged document flap. Why is it, in some peoples mind, the fact that the documents were forged somehow changes the premise of the conclusion? One thing has absolutely nothing to do with the other, but it does in non-logical minds.
Most all of the people that I work with have really exceptional logic ability. If they didn't, they could never do their job. Computer systems do exactly what they are told to do, no more, no less. They absolutely never, ever, allow any other condition to influence the way things are processed. If a computer ever makes an error, it is because it was instructed to at some level, through a flaw in design or implementation.
Human beings are not like that. I have to do my best to disregard irrelevant material at work, but due to bias and emotion, it's very difficult to do. I would argue that is why it would be impossible for a person without really strong logic systems to do my job. You could train them for years, but they would never be able to do it because of the way they think. On the other hand, I could never paint a portrait. I could take lessons for years, but I would never be able to process the visuals in my mind and translate it through mechanics.
And that leads us to politics. What logic systems does a person need to have to consider political issues critically and accurately? Politics is a highly emotional subject. When I'm at work, I'm looking at a bunch of numbers and characters on the screen. It does not lend itself to emotional thinking per-se. However, politics does from the get go. Doesn't that make it much more difficult to process a political idea logically?
Politics also lends itself to team mentality. Because we have a two party system, the parties become antagonists due to basic human nature. Us and Them. I struggle daily with evaluating a political idea outside of a team-based frame of reference.
So.. my thought for today, and which I hope to expand on in the future.. why people can believe things that are patently not true. Flawed logic systems, emotion, and team based thinking.
1 comment:
I hear what you're saying, but my post was more about thought processes. In a way, you proved my point. You are so hell bent on defending your teams position that you will grasp at any straw to defend an untenable position.
You do realize that the administration had drafted another resolution to present to the security counsel that specifically authorized an invasion of Iraq but did not follow through with it? Everyone knows that the only support would have come from the British.
My argument is based on the meat of the issue. You continue to introduce irrelevant material, even going so far as to post links refering to Kofi Annan's son. I find no relevance in that.
So Saddam was lying? That is justification in your mind? I find that absurd. Iraq had no WMD's. Iraq had no military to speak of. The sanctions imposed by the UN had effectively controlled all of Iraq's WMD programs.
What about Iran, who actually does have active WMD programs? What about North Korea, which has admitted to developing nuclear weapons. Both of those states are in direct violation of treaties.
You would have the United States be the policeman of the world. Well, guess what.. millions are starving in North Korea. Where is your outrage now?
Post a Comment