That question on AskMetafilter yielded 100+ answers.
Samples:
Occam's Razor - the simplest explanation is usually correct.Here are mine:
We want the facts to fit the preconceptions. When they don't, it is easier to ignore the facts than to change the preconceptions.
When I realised that the vast majority of other people were too busy worrying about their own appearance/conversation topic/speaking voice to judge mine, and that random waiters, tellers or passers-by would forget me within a few minutes of seeing me, it was wonderfully liberating.
By the time you have paid enough attention to a work of art to know whether it was a waste of time to take seriously, it is already too late for the answer to be useful.
Any seemingly objective statement of the facts is actually slanted by the speaker's bias.
The fact that a lot of people believe something isn't a sufficient reason for you to believe it.
The fact that you live in the country you live in, or have the parents you have, is arbitrary.
Think about what's so taboo that it isn't said even though it's true; those things are especially worth thinking of for yourself, since you probably won't hear them said out loud.
Someone with a confident demeanor is trying to persuade; their demeanor doesn't prove they're correct.
The chances are slim that a whole social movement has gotten everything right.
Money is fungible. [And so are many other things.]
If the easy solution you thought of has never been successfully tried, there's probably a good reason for that.
Ask yourself why an intelligent person would disagree with you.
12 comments:
Being a hard worker is better than being "smart".
There's a difference between wisdom and knowledge.
If you're looking for wisdom, you need to look everywhere. You'll find it spread evenly between the educated and uneducated.
When reading a paper, look at the original source material.
No two people have ever met.
Reality is kinder than the stories we tell about it.
The value of a relationship is not necessarily proportional to its duration.
We're adults, we can do whatever we want, and it's almost always appropriate to have fun.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
"Most friendship is feigning, most loving mere folly."
Reality is kinder than the stories we tell about it.
Some in the Sudan, Sri Lanka, and Burma would disagree.
"Some...would disagree." -- They'd be wrong. It's mathematically self-evident. There is suffering, in quantity X. The story, the emotionalistic narrative interpretation we attach to the experience, adds quantity Y of suffering. X + Y is greater than X (assuming that Y, the story, is one of suffering -- a positive number). Without the story, the suffering is there, and when it isn't -- when the sufferer recovers or dies -- it's gone. With the story, the suffering is transmitted through periods of time and magnified along networks of people. For example, you tell yourself a story about the suffering in the Sudan. This increases the quantity of suffering in your part of the world and does nothing to reduce the suffering in the Sudan. One reply is, "We have to tell ourselves the stories of suffering in order to eradicate suffering." Actually, that's not true. A clear mind accomplishes more than a mind distorted by indignation, guilt, pity, and blaming -- qualities which inevitably introduce new suffering at the point of intervention.
It's only "mathematically self-evident" under your calculation if you change your principle from "Reality is kinder than the stories we tell about it" to "Reality would be kinder without the stories we tell about it." Actually, if you really want to follow your math, the principle should be "The stories we tell about reality are kinder than reality itself," since reality always includes narratives. People can't help but impose narratives on their experiences.
One reply is, "We have to tell ourselves the stories of suffering in order to eradicate suffering." Actually, that's not true. A clear mind accomplishes more than a mind distorted by indignation, guilt, pity, and blaming -- qualities which inevitably introduce new suffering at the point of intervention.
I couldn't disagree more. If we're talking about massive atrocities (as opposed to everyday hassles), "indignation, guilt, pity, and blaming" are essential for taking action. Maybe not literally that exact list, but at least some of them. There needs to be some kind of strong, negative emotional response to evil -- otherwise, where's the motivation to combat it?
RLC : It's mathematically self-evident.
You should watch Tyra. She often does episodes where she puts herself in other people's shoes to show us how things are worse for them than we think they are.
Reality is kinder than the stories we tell about it.
Reality could be kinder than the stories we tell about it, or less kind than the stories we tell about it. Mathematically I would assume there to be a 50% chance of it going either way. (Maybe there's a bell curve distribution around "truth"?)
1. Is RLC trying to justify not writing?
2. JAC and RLC remind me of this Obama quote:"I will seek someone who understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book. It is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people's lives... I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles as an essential ingredient for arriving as just decisions and outcomes."
Jason: Tyra disagrees with me? I rest my case.
John: "Reality would be kinder without the stories we tell about it." Not a bad rewording.
"The stories we tell about reality are kinder than reality itself." That shows a glitch in my analogy, but we're not really talking about math, we're talking about psychology.
"People can't help but impose narratives on their experiences." True. But one can learn not to be at their mercy.
"There needs to be some kind of strong, negative emotional response to evil -- otherwise, where's the motivation to combat it?" One way to combat evil is to not perform it, and a mind possessed by strong negative emotions is more likely to perform it. Evil is the result of confusion and ignorance, much more than of evil intentions. (Having evil intentions is itself confusion and ignorance.) The mind that isn't confused will perform good actions, and work to correct bad ones, naturally. Negative emotions, put into the service of fighting injustice, can eradicate the current evil, but cause unintended harmful consequences, perpetuating a cycle of injustice.
Ann: I'm writing very productively.
1. Is RLC trying to justify not writing?
He could just write about happy things. Using his math that would improve the happiness of the world.
I suggest... something with puppies?
One way to combat evil is to not perform it...
I was referring to one's actions or inaction toward evil in the outside world. Of course, one should also refrain from actively doing evil oneself.
The mind that isn't confused will perform good actions, and work to correct bad ones, naturally.
I think you're being much too generous in your estimation of humanity. It takes a lot more than a "clear mind" that "isn't confused" to get motivated to do good. I include myself in this: I couldn't begin to count the number of times I've read/heard about some evil going on in the world, had a clear understanding of how bad it is, and proceeded to do nothing about it.
JLC : Jason: Tyra disagrees with me? I rest my case.
Tyra doesn't disagree with you, she performed an experiment which disproves your statement.
"Don't be proud of your knowledge,
Consult the ignorant and the wise;
The limits of art are not reached,
No artist's skills are perfect;
Good speech is more hidden than greenstone,
Yet may be found among maids at the grindstones."
--Ptahhotep
Althouse : I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles as an essential ingredient for arriving as just decisions and outcomes.
Can someone who dismisses the ideas of the uneducated, who looks at someone's name instead of what they say, be said to have empathy? Perhaps, but that wouldn't be the first quality I would mention.
Post a Comment