Intellectual Incompetence & The Slow Strangulation Of Integrity

Bykes Rool!

 

LOL and

 

No, it is not rational behavior. I do not exempt myself from my belief, as discussed above. If I did exempt myself, the rational choice would be to lie about it on an anonymous internet forum, which I don't.

There are actually people who spend their whole life doing research on irrational behavior. Sales people use their knowledge of irrationality to get better deals for themselves. A famous protagonist of the concept is Dan Ariely, behavioral economist. Here is a link with a list of examples of irrationality:

https://www.businessinsider.com/pre...n-more-about-human-behavior-and-perception-13

What you are alluding to in your above post is rather the question whether someone gets an emotional benefit from acting irrationally. That is probably true. For example, altruistic behavior is irrational in a world dominated by money in exchange for labor and goods. However, people receive an emotional benefit from doing good for others without being paid. That was Rand's basis for her theory of self interest ruling every human deed, even altruistic ones.

 

That is correct. From a 10,000 foot view, we become very predictable, as a whole, even though there are outliers from normal behavior on an individual basis. Just like we can predict the behavior of billions of gas molecules in a flask very well, but we won't be able to know the exact speed and energy of each individual gas molecule at any time. We just know that, averaged over long time, they all have some average speed at a given temperature.

As to everything coming back, that's an interesting thought I have quibbled with in the past. If, in fact, time is infinite, then, yes, everything will come back, even it most improbable, you just have to wait long enough. Maybe that's the comfort we can give ourselves before dying. We'll be back, even if it takes 1000s of trillions of years. But maybe that time passes in the blink of an eye in the great nothingness of not living.

 

You say you don't exempt yourself from your belief, but you have already stated that you drive when it's raining, and you fly when it's necessary for your profession. If that's not an exemption, I don't know what else to call it. You just want others to do better while excluding/exempting yourself from having to save the planet.

I wouldn't call any of those things irrational behavior.

1. Lines and people in a restaurant mean that the food is probably good, and if not, then it's at least fresh since it's rolling out faster than it can rot in the fridge.
2. I'm not even sure why the author thinks that "imprinting" is irrational. We know where we can get something for X dollars, so anything below that is better and anything above is not. A baseline has been established.
3. Starbucks never marketed themselves solely as a coffee shop, but rather added a cozy environment to go with the coffee. There's nothing irrational about wanting something that makes the experience seem nicer. If they provided girls that give blowjobs while customers enjoyed their coffee, they could charge even more. Nothing irrational about that.

The rest of it is pretty much the same. Easily dismissed.

I do know that it appears that we are irrational creatures, but there is always an underlying rationality to our behavior. What trips some people up is that behavior is oftentimes learned, which is rational on the face of it, but can appear irrational to others when learned behavior becomes irrational. Like drug addicts, they appear to be completely irrational, but the dopamine rush that certain drugs give people can become learned. You and I might see some guy sleeping on a scrap of cardboard shoving a needle into his arm as completely crazy, but to him, he's as happy as a pig in warm mud. To atheists, it appears that theists who believe in sky gods and talking snakes are insane. Yet, religion is a human universal that can be found no matter where you go or how far back into history you care to look. It's actually linked to the fact that we're tribal people, and it doesn't matter what the belief is, so long as the tribe is held together by common values. It's perfectly rational to be tribal because our tribe will fight to protect us. It doesn't matter if we worship snakes or a basketball. What matters is the common value that differentiates us from the tribe on the other side of the river that worships a baseball.

Is it not completely rational to want to be among people who have a common goal of preservation of the tribal gene pool?

 

I admit I'm guilty of that. I see people waiting at the bus stop as I drive by in my nice comfortable pickup with the AC on and good tunes on the CD player and I think " man it must suck to be poor and have to take a bus everywhere.

 

I think the purely intellectual end of this is fascinating, but the ways in which we deliberately blind ourselves, including how we seek information or refuse to do so - that's the key to a great deal.

 

Some fantastic points.

There is the self-sustaining rationality of what we perceive to be our personal needs, but also an objective contextual rationality which exists to some perceptible degree.

And the former almost invariably wins out over the latter if they come into conflict.

 

True as far as it goes. But like everything else it is a little more complicated than that. You have to have some sort of information filter or you wind up with what is called paralysis by analysis. The question then becomes, "How effective is your info filter and is it causing you to miss info you ought to pay attention to?

Fanatics regardless of political view, tend to have extraordinarily effective filters that keep out almost every last shred of information that is counter to their views because of that they tend to miss the obvious flaws in their own belief system. Even worse when others on their side try to shore up these obvious weaknesses they in the minds of the fanatics become traitors to the cause what ever the cause is and the cause itself begins to fragment.

 

That describes Trump fans to the tee.

 

Thanks for the proof of your own fanaticism

 

I have admitted my own irrationality and denial of reality in this thread. Can you?

 

Did you read my first post? Oh and irrationality has nothing to do with it.

 

Fantastic points/post.

 

Well...

I think it describes any true believer regardless of affiliation.

 

Its called "living in a bubble" . And yes plenty of people on every side there is do this: lock themsleves in with like minded people/media/...

 

I realize this post was to someone else but - I can say the same That said - while in the realm of self deception - I do not believe that it is necessarily hypocrisy to drive a car but claim to respect the environment. As you state at the outset - it is not black and white.

There is a difference between individual actions of individuals within a society and systemic issues within society as a whole - even though one is related to the other.

For example - in the list of environmental issues facing the planet, CO2 is number 4 on my list. The top spot is pollution of the Oceans with heavy metals, persistent organic pollutants (POP) and fertilizer. If we wanted to we could turn off the CO2 tap (meaning significant reductions). Filtering the Oceans is a much more difficult task.

We can survive global warming - life did just fine in the past when CO2 levels were much higher. If we change the equilibrium of the Oceans - by using it as a garbage can - such that the Oxygen supply was altered - we would not.

Number 2/3 are industrialization of the population and population growth. These relate both to CO2 and pollution.

I read a study about a decade ago that looked at consumption. First world nations were at 36 compared to someone eating a bowl of rice a day in Africa (1). China at the time was at 11. The study stated that if China was to reach our level of consumption world resource production would have to double.

At the time roughly 1.4 Billion were industrialized ... leaving 6 Billion yet to industrialize. When you look at the pollution and CO2 emissions based on these stats. Imagine if all 7 Billion were to industrialize.

Well .. guess what - the world is industrializing at a rapid rate. Cutting first world emissions by 10% is not going to help much if industrialization is increasing emissions by 20% in the same period.

Global warming is all the rage - dollars moving into this sector via media focusing on this issue created a bandwagon effect. While CO2 is an issue - what about issues 1-3 ?

While CO2 is splashed on the front page - you are lucky to find an article on Ocean pollution stuck on page 47 of the NY-Times in the bottom corner. Sure you can find stuff in Scientific publications but, who reads those except for wierdo's like you and me

We get clowns like Obama - for purely political reasons - blocking a pipeline from Canada. Not building that pipeline will not change oil consumption by one drop. 46% of crude going to US refineries comes from 72 different nations. The only thing that changes is where we get our supply from and how it gets here.

So which is the more environmentally friendly option. Nigeria or Canada ?

Its a friggen no brainer. Obama's own study concluded that there was no significant CO2 difference (not that we needed a study - most CO2 comes out the tailpipe or refinery stack and not from how that oil is produced- a few back of a napkin calculations quickly demonstrate this)

Nigeria are huge dumpers of toxic chemicals into the Ocean. Canada ? not so much.
Pipeline is a far safer way to transport crude than Oil Tanker.

We went from incandescent to compact florescent and LED. Great right ? Less CO2. The problem is that these others contain mercury- which goes into the landfill (in first world nations) many of which leak this stuff into the groundwater - some of which finds its way into the Ocean. In non first world nations ???? Nightmare.

Look up "dead zones". This is caused by fertilizer draining into the oceans. It stimulates the bacteria which uses up the oxygen creating an anoxic zone. The rate of dead zones has been increasing at an alarming rate - and those are just the one's we know of.

As we increase population this problem gets worse. Industrialization is an even bigger issue. When you go from eating a bowl of rice a day to having a piece of meat once in awhile .. the fertilizer equation kicks in.

China is now moving away from its one child policy - I guess 1.4 Billion people is not enough. First world nations - despite not having the birth rate to maintain population - are increasing in population due to immigration. Increasing a nations population is viewed as "desirable".

The move from private to publicly traded corporations has created a monster. A private company is just fine with maintaining its size. Everyone gets paid - the owner continues to make money - life is good. The publicly traded corp is a different kind of monster. It must grow at least 10% a year to satisfy shareholders.

Well - obviously it is impossible for every company to infinitely increase at this rate. This is what drives the desire to increase population. "We must grow bigger". Why ?

We could run emissions from coal plants through a biofilter. The bacteria would convert the CO2 to methane which can be used to fuel the plant. The technology exists ... google it ... yet, why do we not do this ?

 

How is it hypothetical in the least to use something you paid for rather than let it go to waste. Especially someone labeled as a conservative. Now if you want to knock someones behavior- try putting a house in trust so that the government can pay for your nursing home. Now they don't want to pay and want the public to pay for health coverage, but they want to keep funds from the government.

 

You are familiar with the old saying "people believe what they want to believe". This has always been true. It is true now, it was true centuries ago, and will be true centuries from now.
Having said that, what we see today is not intellectual incompetence, rather intellectual dishonesty. Not even being true to your own thoughts.
A perfect example of that was the Kavanaugh trial. And make no mistake...it was not a hearing, it was a trial.
Pure facts you had an accuser whose own witnesses contradicted her testimony, along with quite a bit of counter witness statements. Yet... those that believed her or did not believe her, fell almost 100% down party lines.
That is intellectual dishonesty. You want it to be true, so you propagate the lie knowing full well it isn't true or most likely isn't true..
This is very dangerous territory.

 

I agree - it is a perfect example. And I also noted the party lines clearly drawn. But where I disagree is with your assertion that it was intellectual dishonesty. I don't believe that those against BK were propagating lies...they were focused on an entirely different picture than those who stood firmly behind him. In order for there to be a clear debate, there needs to be a mutual understanding of each other's stance...and I don't think that happened in this case.

And to avoid the accusation of thread derailing, I will answer the original question. I believe we avoid "exposing ourselves to the contradictions, weaknesses & incompetence in our thinking and expression of ideas, and slowly damage our integrity in the process" by engaging in an ongoing process of self questioning. There is no shortage of information coming, daily, from sources believing differently. I read and watch and evaluate that information and balance it against my own views/beliefs on a regular basis. This forum, as an example, has provided me with yet another source to question what I believe.

 

It's incredible; there's more information than ever, but people insist on embracing ignorance.

 

I would say there is more misinformation than ever...
We honestly have an epidemic of information in this country. There is no quality, unbiased news source available today. Not one.

 

True as well.

I think there's never really been an unbiased human source of information, though some are better than others.

I'd love to see more people applying logic filters.

 

The problem is not misinformation, which is erroneous and can be cleared up by correcting the error. There is lots of misinformation on the internet, but it is not systematic.

The REAL problem is disinformation, or deception. This is an active process where the disinformant uses propaganda to make a point not in evidence or contrary to established evidence. This is particularly widespread on today's internet and becomes amplified by echoing of millions of people who like being disinformed.

 

Symantics.
Disinformation and misinformation are basically the same meaning, both are bad information intending to deceive or influence.
And I am talking mainstream Cable/TV media. There is no good source for important news anymore. It is all propaganda and shiny object of the day rather than important, needed information that serves us.

Edward Murrow speech in 1958...one of the best speeches ever. Hard to believe it is 60 years ago, but applies even more today than then.
This is obviously from the movie, but they used the exact same words that Ed Murrow wrote at the time.



THIS SHOULD BE REQUIRED VIEWING OF ALL COLLEGE STUDENTS.