I sometimes experience the opposite. When I’m in a meeting and I haven’t been listening or couldn’t be arsed to prepare the topic we’re discussing and I am suddenly called to speak on it, I just go on autopilot and start talking. Very often I think to myself “Wow, I really made a lot of sense”. I am so glad it works most of the time, because I really don’t want to put the work in.
I did the same thing back in school. I used to not prepare for a topic because I’m better at yapping than at presenting actual facts. I used to always get a “woow we can tell how much you have read about the topic” form the teacher. I should really become a politician.
I regularly rubber duck to my partners to figure out if my idea is bad. Sometimes something sounds good bouncing around in your brain, but hearing the words out loud make you realize just how dumb some of the things you think are at times.
Unless you’re a professional philosopher, in which case you should keep on going with your argument even if you don’t like it. This, according to a formal philosophy professor, is a thing that happens–you start an argument and end up somewhere that you don’t like but that’s where the logic leads.
That is really clever! I was proud of myself as an undergrad for having gone through the Practical Reasoning/Critical Thinking classes. You took it to another level.
People need to have good faith dialogues with themselves more often, I don’t think it’s something most people do with any frequency or regularity. Easier just to occupy your internal monologue with a bunch of background noise, like a podcast or something.
I was hanging out with my friend in his backyard and we heard some incredibly loud birds. I asked if he knew what they were and he said he thought robins.
I suggested we should go out with [some other friends who recently got into birding] and he wasn’t on board…
“Ehhh birding is like…you gotta go out to the woods and walk around until you hear one…so you’re just kinda chillin there…”
I interrupted him. “Dude…you love hanging out. You love hiking. You LOVE the woods.”
“Yeah. I realized as soon as I started talking that I’d love it but I just let my mind form an argument anyway for some reason”
“-- on second thought, now that I’ve said it aloud I realize I’ve mischaracterized the issue. I rescind my case, sorry bout that folks, not sure how I mucked that one up”
Oh well then we must accept the potential consequences of people having new thoughts as they speak, namely the sudden understanding of the stupidity of what they’re saying. It happens.
I mean… that’s obviously better than letting stupidity persist, but still clearly interior to not saying stupid things in the first place.
To be clear, my belief is that we should all try to improve the signal-to-noise ratio. People that troll or don’t engage their brain before commenting are actively adding noise to our world and diluting meaningful communications. I’m not going to applaud someone for stopping any more than I applaud someone for not stealing – that’s basic decency and expected.
Ok thanks. Reading back my previous comment, it’s fairly harsh and reminds me of a relative I’m not particularly fond of. So, please don’t think I’m so stern. Nobody’s perfect; people can correct themselves and that’s a good thing. And yeah I’m aware of the potential irony in this comment. Have a nice day too.
Lazy thinking is a feature, not a bug. We’re social animals. Collective ideation is more effective and calorie-efficient.
The idea of individual intelligence kinda flies in the face of our evolutionary history.
But the “great man” myth helps powerful people stay powerful, so in some ways peddling the importance of individual intelligence is also part of our evolutionary history.
Yep, sometimes we’re talking about something at work and in the middle of explaining my point I understand the flaw and just “oh, nevermind, you guys are righ” always a good exercise in logic and humility
I regularly encourage my co workers to speak out loud with me when going over processes or thoughts because by bouncing it between the 2 of us it’s more likely that one of us will spot the massive glowing mistake someone made
So far it’s been working quite well as we build out an entirely new SOP from scratch
Yeah I’ve been going crazy as I don’t have anyone else in my department for this. Like I don’t see the flaws in my thoughts until I start explaining shit to my boss because when you’re working on something your head is in a very different place from discussing it
I’ve found writing emails can help with this. Many times I’ve started explaining a problem to someone when I’m stumped on what to do next but during the process of explaining, either the next step becomes obvious or I realize what the full solution is. I’ve got a friend coworker that has helped me solve many problems just by being willing to help. And he’s helped me solve some problems I never even mentioned to him because I figured it out while writing an email to him.
I have done this multiple times at work when discussing different approaches and my suggestion was missing some assumptions. Also at home when I start talking through what is needed to fix something and I switch to “Let’s call a professional.”
Wish more people were as open because when a few people do that together things get done really fast and with minimal issues.
I strongly think it’s because people can grow up trained to tie their identity to their beliefs and values. Self reflection becomes a direct attack on their identity.
Isn’t that literally the point of debate though? Like it’s not just a discussion, it’s about arguing your case the best? That’s how I’ve understood it anyway
I’d say that determining truth - or the closest we can get to it - is the point of debate. In a perfect world, both parties would be pleased to reach the same conclusion by the end, no matter whose original case was right.
Formalized debate, yes, but a lot of people go into all discussions like that to the point I’d say it’s poisoning our culture. The goal should be a collective arrival at a place closer to truth than either began at.
A distinction that sometimes gets lost is that winning a debate doesn’t mean being right. I had a friend who did debate and quite often she had to argue in favour of things she was vehemently against, and won doing so. I wish I could remember examples, but there were a couple of things where she actually thought it was easier to argue what she felt were the wrong positions, because there were more rhetorical angles she could take, whereas arguing the side she actually believed would be more reliant on things that she felt were self-evident.
Too many people think arbitrary lines in the sand on random topics before science has any means to catch up is a debate vs a discussion. The lens at which you’re looking at it through is one of the most important topics to start off with. The ‘debate’ which follows hinges almost exclusively on finding/arguing for the semantics of your definition.
I’ve had one too many ‘debates’ about whether true AI has a ‘soul’ when people can barely tell me how they define Artificial Intelligence (generalized now bleugh) succinctly.
The more recent one was whether humans have ‘free will’. Meanwhile every three paragraphs or so the other guy was dropping nonsensical memes with figurative ‘gotchas’ while two of us were sharing constantly lol.
After all the fun tangents from natural discussion the gotcha guy started to get a chip on the shoulder like so many of the types do. I had to flat out ask him how he even defined free will and he couldn’t even give me a clear answer lol. I started talking about semantics and he dropped the ‘you know arguing semantics isn’t a bad thing right?’
Like yeah dude… That’s nearly half the reason we make new words to better define things. It’s literally arguing semantics, that’s what half of debate is at it’s essence. People arguing positions wildly ‘different’ from the other person because they refused to believe this WORD/IDEA includes these definitions.
You then get to the point of ‘debate’ when you inarguably come to a line in the sand that becomes yes/no on opposite sides. Walk away knowing that’s why they believe what they believe because that’s the root of their definition.
Then you hopefully wait for science to catch up… or just arbitrarily declare you win!.. then get angry because everyone else isn’t as mad about it as you were so now you gotta pretend like you didn’t have a chip on your shoulder the whole time because you equate being right with your worth rather than being right for the sake of being right or trying to understand someone deeper.
Add comment