Logic: The Unused Science

[python862]

Every day, there are countless bad decisions that could be avoided by some simple common sense. Whether it be teenage pregnancy, high-speed car wrecks or what have you, the lack of logical thought in America is astounding. Is this just us, or is this problem everywhere? Discuss.

[Board of Command]

Stupidity is an incurable disease.

[Animeniax]

Just take a look at this forum and you have your answer. Idiocy comes from all corners of the globe.

[Kraco]

Yeah. I have always thought foolishness is the most rapidly replenishing natural resource. If it could be harnessed for energy production, we wouldn't need wind power, solar power, fossil fuels, or nuclear power.

[KitKat]

This is a very vague thread topic. By using logic, one can deduce that the population as a whole in terms of distribution of intelligence wouldn't be much different in other countries than as it is in America. This part likely won't yield much interesting discussion, but could instead turn into nationalistic bickering, so let's leave it for now.

I think your presupposition assumes too much though. We often look at other people, and find it quite easy to say, "Wow, that was stupid. That person has no common sense," but real life decisions aren't made based upon pure logic. Think about your day. What did you wear? Who did you talk with? Where did you go? Chances are, you made these decisions not based upon the calculations of your logic, but rather on instinct or emotion. Maybe you chose to wear a hat because your hair was messy. Maybe you talked to your buddy because you like hanging out with him. Maybe you went out the bar and got drunk (well, hopefully not if you're underage). Actually, maybe you did and you ARE underage, and you have a fake I.D. Logically, it doesn't make sense. There are consequences for getting caught, and by going and getting drunk you run the risk of losing control of your behaviour. Who knows what could happen after that. And yet lots of people do it. This doesn't mean that they cannot use logic. It means that there exist other reasons for doing these things that overrule the logical reasons not to.

Social pressure is huge. People will do incredibly stupid things in order to be accepted by a certain group, or to gain the affection of that guy/girl they like. They usually know just how stupid such actions are, but the social and emotional reasons are so much stronger that they overrule logic in their minds. I actually shouldn't refer to it as logic, but rather a ranking of outcomes. Logic, more properly, is the process by which someone will select one of these outcomes based upon what they value. The difference between people is how much importance they place on different outcomes they want to achieve in a certain situation. It will also highly depend on how important the 'here-and-now' is to a certain individual, rather than the future consequences. We make these kind of decisions all the time too. For example, I ate a bowl of ice cream tonight. This is an instance of me prioritizing my immediate future (delicious ice cream) over the somewhat farther future (potentially having to do more exercise later). Now, this is somewhat of a trivial example, but it makes you wonder, where do the consequences become severe enough that it would keep you from a certain action? People draw this line in certain places, and have different ideas of which consequences they consider 'worse'. Thus, someone who draws this line fairly early will look at someone who risks the consequences and call them stupid.

This being said, there still exist people who just don't have the consequences occur to them, and make their decisions without thinking them through. This might be considered instances of either the consequences being ranked so low in the hierarchy of decision-making that they simply aren't typically used in the decision-making process of an individual, or that the individual is simply not intelligent enough to be able to come up with these consequences from the situation.

Well, I think this should be sufficient for giving some room to discuss and debate on this topic. :p

[Animeniax]

I took a philosophy course that covered logic, but it was mostly mathematical formulae used to determine logic. I think in real world applications it would take too much time to apply a given situation to a formula to see if it satisfies logic or not, before the moment has passed and a decision is no longer required.

[Buffalobiian]

I just think us, as humans, are rather funny.

In general, we like to think of ourselves as logical beings. The very reason we think we're superior to other races is arguably solely because we can think and act logically, rather than reacting to our animalistic instincts. We call those who can't apply logic derogatory terms such as stupid, or idiots. Someone described as emotional is synonymous with unstable, unreliable, and unpredictable.

Yet we, as logical beings, dislike those who act on sole logic. We call them cold blooded, incompassionate, insensitive. Just where do we draw the line between the impulsive and the calculated? Do both aspects need to be taken account? If so, how do we weigh out logic and emotion?

Probably got sidetracked, nevertheless my thoughts on the topic.

[Edort4]

THE BASIC LAWS OF HUMAN STUPIDITY (http://lightlounge.org/articles/other_basic_law/index.html)

Funny and a great truth holder. There are a lot more of factors that can transform a smart person into a stupid one but this essay sumarizes it all quite well.

[Psyke]

I agree with what Kit Kat wrote, especially on instinct and emotions. These are the things which make us do things against logic, even though some post action reviews would make way for life long regrets. On the contrary, these are also the very things which makes us human.

Stupidity is another matter, if you're talking about how high a person's IQ is, instead of using logical thinking at the correct time and place. I do agree that, sometimes the stupidity of certain individuals are quite stunning. Ignorance, is not stupidity but it's often associated. You can get a frog in the well type of person to solve a rubiks cube in seconds.

[Sapphire]

I agree with the whole logic vs emotions bit. That's what I should have told the pregnant girl on my bus when she said, "What, I should stop having sex because you can't get some?!"

[KrayZ33]

all i can say to this is:

http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/6288/57ls3.jpg

and its true.
and there are statements like "i prefer the death penalty, the culprit must learn from this!" (or something like that i think it was britney spears or so)
and to be honest, thats not even the most stupid thing i heard...

[python862]

That pic pretty much sums up what I was trying to say.

@KitKat: Sorry for the skimpy start; I'm forced to use my PSP to post, so my posts unfortunately have to lack because of it.

[Abdula]

I'm forced to use my PSP to post, so my posts unfortunately have to lack because of it.
Posting on a PSP now that is hell.


Yet we, as logical beings, dislike those who act on sole logic. We call them cold blooded, incompassionate, insensitive. Just where do we draw the line between the impulsive and the calculated? Do both aspects need to be taken account? If so, how do we weigh out logic and emotion?
This pretty accurately describes me and the things I've been called since I was like 5. Anyway I agree with Psyke and Kitkat but I think the key is balance. Logic, emotions, intelligence and knowledge are all involved in even the simplest decisions so while making a certain decision in a specific situation may seem illogical or stupid there are always other factors involved.

A great example would be me and my girlfriend, people often ask me why I'm still with her after so long since from the outside I appear to be one of those logical cold blooded bastards which I must admit I am and she appears to be one of those emotional people who are always making seemingly stupid decisions. Anyway, I've known her for many years now and I always tell people that in any given situation we would analyze a situation in the exact same way come to the exact same conclusions but take the exact opposite actions. She just doesn't care much about self preservation or long term consequences or looking out for her best interests as opposed to helping out someone else, mostly because her life expectancy isn't much, but the point is, it has very little to do with her actual intelligence or whether she can think logically or I suppose one could argue that it does.

[XanBcoo]

I took a philosophy course that covered logic, but it was mostly mathematical formulae used to determine logic. I think in real world applications it would take too much time to apply a given situation to a formula to see if it satisfies logic or not, before the moment has passed and a decision is no longer required.
I was considering taking a Logic course, but my friend who's already taken one described it exactly like you just did. I suppose it teaches you how to think and argue, rather than how to analyze every little decision in your life. I'm considering taking one this summer.

Would anyone else advise for/against?

I've known her for many years now and I always tell people that in any given situation we would analyze a situation in the exact same way come to the exact same conclusions but take the exact opposite actions.
I guess opposites really do attract.

Also I think it's funny that everyone knows people like Psyke described: Intelligent people who have very little common sense. It's quite frustrating to be around them but also really funny.

[KrayZ33]

It's quite frustrating to be around them but also really funny.

i want to quote that sentence because its so true, especially the last part.

[Carnage]

Stupidity is an incurable disease.

What about death?

[Buffalobiian]

What about death?

I would say aging is an incurable disease, but death's a hard one. I'd say no, since it's not an impairment of physiological function (def: disease). It's the result of it.

[complich8]

Hmm ... one of these days I'm gonna have to upgrade to a newer vbulletin, just for multi-quote. I want to respond to a bunch of this though.

Incidentally, don't quote this whole post if you reply to it, or you'll look like a retard.

(¶ 2)
I can't place the originator or the exact wording anymore, but there was an aphorism I ran into once... probably in cognitive psychology. Something like "the reasons for our decisions are often found only after the decisions have been made"... it: for most decisions we tend to make snap judgments, then prop them up with rationalizations after the fact.

Incidentally, that's a big topic in Malcom Gladwell's Blink as well as Barry Schwartz's The Paradox of Choice (both good selections from the popular nonfiction sections if you're looking for some medium-density reading). Cognitive psychologists have known for a long time that we can't deliberate every decision we make, or we'd end up paralyzed for days trying to figure out whether to wear the black pants or the blue pants, or whether to buy Skippy of Jif for out peanut butter.


¶ 3
Mmm... ice cream...

But really, this is kind of interesting. There's two topics you've touched on here. The first is the social pressure side of things. One of my favorite Zen anecdotes: Once the Buddha was asked by a young disciple: "Lord, is it true--as I have heard-- that the sangha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sangha) is half of the holy life?" To which the Buddha replied: "No, the sangha is all of the holy life." Or, to use the more worked-over pop-sociological bullshit version, "it takes a village..."

Developmental psychologists have found that the community you grow up in (specifically your peers) generally provides about 70% of the contribution to your eventual socioeconomic status, while parental involvement is about a 20% factor (with the other 10% being other random influences) -- so if you want to raise kids who end up affluent, you're better off raising them as lower-status kids in a wealthy neighborhood than higher-status kids in a crappy neighborhood.

The other topic you've sort of skimmed over is originated by Ruby Payne, in many of her works including A Framework for Understanding Poverty (not recommended). Where you draw that threshold beyond which nothing matters depends heavily on your mindset. If you've spent your whole life struggling day-to-day, or at most week-to-week, you're not thinking in the long term because you can't afford to -- you're too busy staying alive to think about getting ahead.

Payne's thesis is that many people in poverty don't know anything but that poverty draw that threshold of the things they worry about extremely close, where as your social status rises you have time to raise your head a bit and look more towards the horizon. But even people who start in poverty and end up in the middle or upper classes tend to keep the same "here and now is all there is" survival mindset. You see a lot of people from poor backgrounds going out and getting rich and blowing it all in just catastrophic ways because they're not thinking more than a week ahead.


I took a philosophy course that covered logic, but it was mostly mathematical formulae used to determine logic. I think in real world applications it would take too much time to apply a given situation to a formula to see if it satisfies logic or not, before the moment has passed and a decision is no longer required.

Yeah, that would be "symbolic logic" ... which is only really useful if you're designing circuits, constructing proofs, or programming. But if you can internalize the mechanisms that it uses then you're going to be able to make fairly fast judgments about people's arguments. Not particularly useful in choosing what color socks to wear, but it's handy in debates and arguments with other rational people.


Just where do we draw the line between the impulsive and the calculated? Do both aspects need to be taken account? If so, how do we weigh out logic and emotion?
Reason and emotion are not a continuum with reason on the right and emotion on the left. Reason does not imply a lack of emotion, and emotion does not imply a lack of reason. The degree to which you let one supersede the other is the degree to which you become dysfunctional.


I was considering taking a Logic course, but my friend who's already taken one described it exactly like you just did.
Most logic courses are either "elements of logic" or "symbolic logic". "elements of logic" type courses involve turning real-world statements into symbolic expressions and evaluating them -- which is more generally useful. Symbolic logic is usually more tightly focused on purely symbolic manipulation of complex logical expressions, and is very likely to be extremely boring and tedious if you have any significant math background at all.


What about death?
Death is a forfeit, not a victory.

[Carnage]

Death is a forfeit, not a victory.

It's a victory for everyone else!

[python862]

Wow, Complich posting in a thread I started? Just... wow. /off-topic

I think I'm gonna pick up the titles you mentioned, because the authors seem to know what they're talking about.

[KrayZ33]

maybe 4 chan is @ fault for stupidity?

http://img377.imageshack.us/img377/6554/stupidityqx7.jpg


i don't know why but you shouldn't underestimated the stupid when they are in big groups :( they will overhelm you. intellect is as rare as a truffle

[bagandscalpel]

maybe 4 chan is @ fault for stupidity?
Cute, but hardly the case. It's just one of the many places where vocal stupidity is dumped.

[Board of Command]

4chan is an intellectual goldmine.

[KrayZ33]

btw what is more stupid.. the answer anonymous made "its called d"

or the question?

"how do you get that backwards b"

i mean, the answer doesn't really answer his question.. beastuk probably wrote "whats a d?" ( with copy&paste) or "how do i get that"

~~

[python862]

If that were the case, then how would Beast UK use the 'd' to ask how the anonymous poster got the 'd' without realizing what was up? I think Beast UK is the worst off of the two. BTW, awesome pic. I put it as my PSP background.

And that pic also kinda summarizes what (read: young) Americans are like now-a-days. If they just stopped and thought for maybe two or three minutes a day, maybe stupidity could be avoided and everyone would be made just so much happier. I know I'd be better off without having to deal with idiots every day at HS. And then I come home to a 300+lb retard who talks about you behind your back without knowing all the details. Which is another problem in and of itself. I don't really want to get into all of that right now, but the point remains.

[KrayZ33]

If that were the case, then how would Beast UK use the 'd' to ask how the anonymous poster got the 'd' without realizing what was up? I think Beast UK is the worst off of the two. BTW, awesome pic. I put it as my PSP background.


thats why i said he would use "copy&paste" ^^

[python862]

If he doesn't know his way around a keyboard, he needs to be shot. Simple as that.

Sorry about that earlier answer - I knew I read yours, I suppose I just disregarded that you said copy + paste, lol.

[XanBcoo]

i mean, the answer doesn't really answer his question.. beastuk probably wrote "whats a d?" ( with copy&paste) or "how do i get that"

He didn't write "what's a d?". He asked how to get a "backwards b" which is an idiotic question. Why are you analyzing one kid's mistake? It's not worth discussing.


"elements of logic" type courses involve turning real-world statements into symbolic expressions and evaluating them -- which is more generally useful.
This sounds like the one that my friends took. I'll consider taking it then. Thanks for the explanation.

Edit to below: hahaha, I didn't even consider that he even wrote "d" twice to ask his question. Wow.

[Board of Command]

Whoa...how did I get the upside down "i" in P!NK?

[KrayZ33]

Whoa...how did I get the upside down "i" in P!NK?
http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/8748/stupidbitchlw7.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

@ xanboco

i meant to say that BeastUK probably made another question after reading "its called d" because if he doesn't know what a "d" is, then the anonymous' answer won't help him at all (its just not in the screen :P)
but ya you are right its not worth discussing but its funny ^^ and i m pretty sure that this guy was serious..

[python862]

I'm pretty sure that this guy was serious..
One last thought: I believe he was being absolutely serious, elsewise he probably would've used an emote. Oh well, just an opinion.

[Mr Squiggles]

stuff about poor people prone to living in the now and not being good at handling money or looking towards the future.

Really? From personal experience, I've seen that most of the kids i know who grew up in a rich family and rich neighborhoods tend to be really stupid with their money because they're just so used to having a near unlimited supply of it. Like I remember for my highschool grad a bunch of them rented a limo just so they could show up in it and just generally look like a bunch of arrogant douchebags. I knew this one kid who assumed that every 16 year old should get a car on his birthday, it was as if the idea that most families cannot afford that did not occur to him. There was another who bought a car new on pretty much a whim(he already had one, and it was only like 3 years old), and is now in debt because of it, he's also switched colleges/programs like four times now, and keeps nearly failing all of them because he'd rather smoke retarded amounts of weed (when you're getting high every single day, that's just plain stupid) than actually work hard and study for his future. On the other hand, i've found those from more modest families are a lot more careful about how they spend their money and such. Of course, my experiences could just be exceptions to the rule...


One last thought: I believe he was being absolutely serious, elsewise he probably would've used an emote. Oh well, just an opinion.
You guys ever heard off something called trolls? :rolleyes:

[python862]

Well, I come from a relatively lower middle class family, and when I get my hands on any amount of money, it's gone in nearly an instant. I agree with what Complich said. The thrill of actually having money is too much to ignore. You just want to buy everything in sight. I've tried to cut down on my stupid spending of money, but sometimes it just doesn't work out. So, basically, poor kids do actually need to learn better spending control. That isn't to say the parents don't ration money, because they're more in need of it, be it for bills or other purposes. Basically, what I'm trying to say is that it depends on demographic. Older poor people (unless they're dirt poor) tend to be able to intelligently budget their money, while the little kids are more likely to blow it on bubble gum and soda.