This is us, and it's everybody else too...

[DiveCon]

Would it have been better if I had said "ME AND EVERYBODY ELSE"?? Once again, "US" referred to USMB posters, and "EVERYBODY ELSE" was meant to imply all the other people across the country engaging in the same type of conflict we (us) do here. Why is that so damned difficult to understand? I cannot believe that people have read into the title some sort of subliminal message. Paranoid much?

again, that means EVERYONE

who is excluded when you say "everyone"?

and it wasnt "subliminal"
it flat out said it

Oh gawd, I give up. It's like trying to explain fractions to the fractured.

yes, you are fractured

 

[xsited1]

I thought this thread would be in the Lame Zone by now.

 

[midcan5]

I couldn't find it there either...

Found this piece.

All Evidence to the Contrary - Lane Wallace


"In other words, if people start with a particular opinion or view on a subject, any counter-evidence can create "cognitive dissonance"--discomfort caused by the presence of two irreconcilable ideas in the mind at once. One way of resolving the dissonance would be to change or alter the originally held opinion. But the researchers found that many people instead choose to change the conflicting evidence--selectively seeking out information or arguments that support their position while arguing around or ignoring any opposing evidence, even if that means using questionable or contorted logic.

That's not a news flash to anyone who's paid attention to any recent national debate--although the researchers pointed out that this finding, itself, runs counter to the idea that the reason people continue to hold positions counter to all evidence is because of misinformation or lack of access to the correct data. Even when presented with compelling, factual data from sources they trusted, many of the subjects still found ways to dismiss it. But the most interesting (or disturbing) aspect of the Northwestern study was the finding that providing additional counter-evidence, facts, or arguments actually intensified this reaction. Additional countering data, it seems, increases the cognitive dissonance, and therefore the need for subjects to alleviate that discomfort by retreating into more rigidly selective hearing and entrenched positions. "

 

[Si modo]

Some phrases labeled sweeping generalization are indeed logical fallacies. But somebody labeling an idea or concept as a 'sweeping generalization' is also a logical fallacy when there is no foundation for the label. Wouldn't you agree?

If I was judging you in a debate, and one debater makes a statement accompanied by a reasoned argument for why the statement has merit, and you attempt to dismiss it purely by labeling it a 'sweeping generalization', which of you do you think I will award points? And which do you think would lose points?

LOL. The one using the fallacy as an entire hypothesis loses, almost by default.

And, it's not too difficult to identify a sweeping generalization when one uses an all-inclusive word. For those a bit confused on the concept, examples of such would be 'always', 'all', 'every', 'none', etc.

Oh, by the way, nonsensical verbosity wins no points in debate, either. Just thought you might want to ponder that.

Apologies. I might have been able to use fewer words to make my point, but simply didn't have time. ....

Did you actually think that made sense when you typed it? Just curious.

.... So, because the member posting the article failed to include any qualification in her introductory statement--a qualification she would have certainly made had she realized that the omission would become the focus rather than the content of the article she posted....

The ommission makes it a fallacy. Period. It is illogical. No one should pay attention to the illogical. And, that omission still is missing. It is still illogical. You are defending what remains illogical.

.... --we can therefore dismiss the entire article as a 'sweeping generalization'? ....

LMAO! First of all, what article? Secondly, of course we (those who are sane) can dismiss the illogical. Most sane persons do not consider nonsense as relevant. In my book, the illogical is nonsense.

.... Is there a nitpickers' anonymous somewhere on USMB?

LMFAO! If the difference between the logical and the illogical is what you call nitpicking, I have to wonder.........

Repeating the same nonsense does not make the subject nonsense or the repeated nonsense any less nonsensical.

 

[MaggieMae]

What's surprising is how truly upset and angry AT ME some people became over a simple theory, as if I posted it for some evil underlying purpose. I just thought it was interesting is all. C'est la vie...

I think most who know you and are interested in discussion instead of confrontational combat might cut you some slack by recognizing that there will usually be exceptions to most statements of fact.

I think most who don't know you or the author of the piece and are interested in discussion instead of confrontational combat would do the same. Or they might add their own observation that there would be exceptions of course, but the rule is generally a good one or not.

And some will assume that they are being dissed by the theory being presented at all, and they will attack the messenger be it you or the author of the piece.

Right or wrong or something in between, the author at least obviously struck some chords, hit some nerves, or simply peaked some interest among the group.

In a nutshell.

 

[MaggieMae]

What's surprising is how truly upset and angry AT ME some people became over a simple theory, as if I posted it for some evil underlying purpose. I just thought it was interesting is all. C'est la vie...

I think most who know you and are interested in discussion instead of confrontational combat might cut you some slack by recognizing that there will usually be exceptions to most statements of fact.

I think most who don't know you or the author of the piece and are interested in discussion instead of confrontational combat would do the same. Or they might add their own observation that there would be exceptions of course, but the rule is generally a good one or not.

And some will assume that they are being dissed by the theory being presented at all, and they will attack the messenger be it you or the author of the piece.

Right or wrong or something in between, the author at least obviously struck some chords, hit some nerves, or simply peaked some interest among the group.

Frankly, I dismissed the non-linked, non-referenced, and likely fabricated 'article' from the moment I saw it as nonsense as I usually do with such sweeping generalizations. What almost always piques my interest is lameness in logic. This thread is full of it.

And yet ironically, you could be the poster girl for what the article is all about.

 

[MaggieMae]

I couldn't find it there either...

Found this piece.

All Evidence to the Contrary - Lane Wallace


"In other words, if people start with a particular opinion or view on a subject, any counter-evidence can create "cognitive dissonance"--discomfort caused by the presence of two irreconcilable ideas in the mind at once. One way of resolving the dissonance would be to change or alter the originally held opinion. But the researchers found that many people instead choose to change the conflicting evidence--selectively seeking out information or arguments that support their position while arguing around or ignoring any opposing evidence, even if that means using questionable or contorted logic.

That's not a news flash to anyone who's paid attention to any recent national debate--although the researchers pointed out that this finding, itself, runs counter to the idea that the reason people continue to hold positions counter to all evidence is because of misinformation or lack of access to the correct data. Even when presented with compelling, factual data from sources they trusted, many of the subjects still found ways to dismiss it. But the most interesting (or disturbing) aspect of the Northwestern study was the finding that providing additional counter-evidence, facts, or arguments actually intensified this reaction. Additional countering data, it seems, increases the cognitive dissonance, and therefore the need for subjects to alleviate that discomfort by retreating into more rigidly selective hearing and entrenched positions. "

I guess I just didn't look hard enough. Thanks much.

 

[Foxfyre]

LOL. The one using the fallacy as an entire hypothesis loses, almost by default.

And, it's not too difficult to identify a sweeping generalization when one uses an all-inclusive word. For those a bit confused on the concept, examples of such would be 'always', 'all', 'every', 'none', etc.

Oh, by the way, nonsensical verbosity wins no points in debate, either. Just thought you might want to ponder that.

Apologies. I might have been able to use fewer words to make my point, but simply didn't have time. ....

Did you actually think that made sense when you typed it? Just curious.

Yep. And within the context in which it was used and considering the comment which it addressed, it still does.

The ommission makes it a fallacy. Period. It is illogical. No one should pay attention to the illogical. And, that omission still is missing. It is still illogical. You are defending what remains illogical.

What 'omission' was there other than in the thread title?

.... --we can therefore dismiss the entire article as a 'sweeping generalization'? ....

LMAO! First of all, what article? Secondly, of course we (those who are sane) can dismiss the illogical. Most sane persons do not consider nonsense as relevant. In my book, the illogical is nonsense.

The article excerpted as the thread starter. Did you overlook that in some kind of obsession with how the thread title was worded? The member has already clarified her intent with the thread title and explained that it was not intended as a blanket condemnation. It was not repeated in her posts. But that apparently isn't sufficient for some here.

.... Is there a nitpickers' anonymous somewhere on USMB?

LMFAO! If the difference between the logical and the illogical is what you call nitpicking, I have to wonder.........

Repeating the same nonsense does not make the subject nonsense or the repeated nonsense any less nonsensical.

The only illogical thing I've seen here is nitpicking to death a thread title that was not insulting to anybody in particular and was obviously an attempt to spark interest in a concept in a particular article. It is frustrating to those of us who would have liked to discuss the topic instead of a nitpicked thread title.

Unless you have something new to offer here, I am unlikely to respond further re this as I am sure it is insufferably boring to other members and accomplishes nothing. Thank you for understanding.

 

[MaggieMae]

What's surprising is how truly upset and angry AT ME some people became over a simple theory, as if I posted it for some evil underlying purpose. I just thought it was interesting is all. C'est la vie...

I think most who know you and are interested in discussion instead of confrontational combat might cut you some slack by recognizing that there will usually be exceptions to most statements of fact.

I think most who don't know you or the author of the piece and are interested in discussion instead of confrontational combat would do the same. Or they might add their own observation that there would be exceptions of course, but the rule is generally a good one or not.

And some will assume that they are being dissed by the theory being presented at all, and they will attack the messenger be it you or the author of the piece.

Right or wrong or something in between, the author at least obviously struck some chords, hit some nerves, or simply peaked some interest among the group.

Frankly, I dismissed the non-linked, non-referenced, and likely fabricated 'article' from the moment I saw it as nonsense as I usually do with such sweeping generalizations. What almost always piques my interest is lameness in logic. This thread is full of it.

For someone who "dismissed" it right out of the gate, you sure spent an enormous amount of time with your psychobabble trying to explain why it's "illogical."

May I remind you that this is an open forum, and if I feel like posting something with political relevance in the POLITICS category, I will do so. If it gets moved elsewhere, I'm fine with that. But if you don't like it, then grin and bear it, feel free to respond, or move on. It's not up to YOU to decide whether a topic is appropriate. And it is not up to YOU to determine for, yes, EVERYONE ELSE (collectively) whether or not what is posted is illogical. That is determined by each reader.

 

[midcan5]

MaggieMae,

You have hit a core human trait, it centers around the idea of 'I.' People think they are unique and different, it is a debate I had with JB in the consciousness thread. Evolution has given each of us this wonderful (?) ability to be conscious of an internal 'I' and that 'I' must be special. It must be unique because if it were not unique then it would not be special. I would be like others. Some call it soul and judge that their soul is more rational than other souls. This past summer I read a great deal into this topic. Imagine the person suffering Capgras syndrome who fails to recognize their kin. What evidence would convince them? While Capgras is a brain problem, I think it also becomes true for all people that ideas come out of the 'I' frame. It is like seeing past the mirror that is us. Weirdly conservatives by definition, or whatever you choose to call it, are closer (more attached) to their frame than liberals are. The reasons seems obvious - tradition and change is anathema to them. But mention that and all sort of denials begin, the 'I' does not like being lumped together with other I's. I am special, my mind tells me so.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/scien...neuroscientific-basis-of-consciousness-3.html

Dan Dennett on our consciousness | Video on TED.com

"...it is what we do with this information..."
Beau Lotto: Optical illusions show how we see | Video on TED.com


"The beginning of thought is in disagreement - not only with others but also with ourselves." Eric Hoffer

 

[MaggieMae]

MaggieMae,

You have hit a core human trait, it centers around the idea of 'I.' People think they are unique and different, it is a debate I had with JB in the consciousness thread. Evolution has given each of us this wonderful (?) ability to be conscious of an internal 'I' and that 'I' must be special. It must be unique because if it were not unique then it would not be special. I would be like others. Some call it soul and judge that their soul is more rational than other souls. This past summer I read a great deal into this topic. Imagine the person suffering Capgras syndrome who fails to recognize their kin. What evidence would convince them? While Capgras is a brain problem, I think it also becomes true for all people that ideas come out of the 'I' frame. It is like seeing past the mirror that is us. Weirdly conservatives by definition, or whatever you choose to call it, are closer (more attached) to their frame than liberals are. The reasons seems obvious - tradition and change is anathema to them. But mention that and all sort of denials begin, the 'I' does not like being lumped together with other I's. I am special, my mind tells me so.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/scien...neuroscientific-basis-of-consciousness-3.html

Dan Dennett on our consciousness | Video on TED.com

"...it is what we do with this information..."
Beau Lotto: Optical illusions show how we see | Video on TED.com


"The beginning of thought is in disagreement - not only with others but also with ourselves." Eric Hoffer

Those look like interesting reads. To dismiss the premise would make us mere robots having no emotions at all.

[Damn...there I go with that "us" word again. Must be careful, as I'm sure there are robots lurking.]

 

[MaggieMae]

Apologies. I might have been able to use fewer words to make my point, but simply didn't have time. ....

Did you actually think that made sense when you typed it? Just curious.

Yep. And within the context in which it was used and considering the comment which it addressed, it still does.



What 'omission' was there other than in the thread title?



The article excerpted as the thread starter. Did you overlook that in some kind of obsession with how the thread title was worded? The member has already clarified her intent with the thread title and explained that it was not intended as a blanket condemnation. It was not repeated in her posts. But that apparently isn't sufficient for some here.

.... Is there a nitpickers' anonymous somewhere on USMB?

LMFAO! If the difference between the logical and the illogical is what you call nitpicking, I have to wonder.........

Repeating the same nonsense does not make the subject nonsense or the repeated nonsense any less nonsensical.

The only illogical thing I've seen here is nitpicking to death a thread title that was not insulting to anybody in particular and was obviously an attempt to spark interest in a concept in a particular article. It is frustrating to those of us who would have liked to discuss the topic instead of a nitpicked thread title.

Unless you have something new to offer here, I am unlikely to respond further re this as I am sure it is insufferably boring to other members and accomplishes nothing. Thank you for understanding.

Fox -- thanks for your wise input, and I'm sorry you got drawn into a no-win situation with this person. I know I've learned my lesson that it's useless to try to engage in a sane conversation with someone like that.

 

[Si modo]

I think most who know you and are interested in discussion instead of confrontational combat might cut you some slack by recognizing that there will usually be exceptions to most statements of fact.

I think most who don't know you or the author of the piece and are interested in discussion instead of confrontational combat would do the same. Or they might add their own observation that there would be exceptions of course, but the rule is generally a good one or not.

And some will assume that they are being dissed by the theory being presented at all, and they will attack the messenger be it you or the author of the piece.

Right or wrong or something in between, the author at least obviously struck some chords, hit some nerves, or simply peaked some interest among the group.

Frankly, I dismissed the non-linked, non-referenced, and likely fabricated 'article' from the moment I saw it as nonsense as I usually do with such sweeping generalizations. What almost always piques my interest is lameness in logic. This thread is full of it.

For someone who "dismissed" it right out of the gate, you sure spent an enormous amount of time with your psychobabble trying to explain why it's "illogical."

May I remind you that this is an open forum, and if I feel like posting something with political relevance in the POLITICS category, I will do so. If it gets moved elsewhere, I'm fine with that. But if you don't like it, then grin and bear it, feel free to respond, or move on. It's not up to YOU to decide whether a topic is appropriate. And it is not up to YOU to determine for, yes, EVERYONE ELSE (collectively) whether or not what is posted is illogical. That is determined by each reader.

Moron can't read can she? I will repeat what I typed before for the morons who can't read. I AM interested in logic and the lack of it.

Moron.

Analyzing the logic is not psychology, you moron.

You are pathetically spinning your wheels.

 

[saveliberty]

Case of belief triumphing over "facts""

Remember the big deal of Ida? The newest link between apes and man back in May. Well scientists have studied Ida carefully since. Ida is a Lemur. A really old Lemur. According to MaggieMae, I should have been running around these last five months with my belief system crushed and adjusted to reality. Looks like you need Lemur avatars, not cats MaggieMae. Maybe in your next life?

 

[MaggieMae]

Case of belief triumphing over "facts""

Remember the big deal of Ida? The newest link between apes and man back in May. Well scientists have studied Ida carefully since. Ida is a Lemur. A really old Lemur. According to MaggieMae, I should have been running around these last five months with my belief system crushed and adjusted to reality. Looks like you need Lemur avatars, not cats MaggieMae. Maybe in your next life?

Huh? Believe what you want. I never implied anyone should do otherwise. But thanks for playing.

 

[saveliberty]

Case of belief triumphing over "facts""

Remember the big deal of Ida? The newest link between apes and man back in May. Well scientists have studied Ida carefully since. Ida is a Lemur. A really old Lemur. According to MaggieMae, I should have been running around these last five months with my belief system crushed and adjusted to reality. Looks like you need Lemur avatars, not cats MaggieMae. Maybe in your next life?

Huh? Believe what you want. I never implied anyone should do otherwise. But thanks for playing.

Your original article, which you have been defending poorly ever since, stated that people hold on to beliefs, despite facts to the contrary. My point is completely relevant. You now say, "Believe what you want." So, was there a point to you bringing this up to begin with?

 

[Si modo]

I think most who know you and are interested in discussion instead of confrontational combat might cut you some slack by recognizing that there will usually be exceptions to most statements of fact.

I think most who don't know you or the author of the piece and are interested in discussion instead of confrontational combat would do the same. Or they might add their own observation that there would be exceptions of course, but the rule is generally a good one or not.

And some will assume that they are being dissed by the theory being presented at all, and they will attack the messenger be it you or the author of the piece.

Right or wrong or something in between, the author at least obviously struck some chords, hit some nerves, or simply peaked some interest among the group.

Frankly, I dismissed the non-linked, non-referenced, and likely fabricated 'article' from the moment I saw it as nonsense as I usually do with such sweeping generalizations. What almost always piques my interest is lameness in logic. This thread is full of it.

And yet ironically, you could be the poster girl for what the article is all about.

If that were so, I would have bought the 'article' hook, line, and sinker. But I didn't. Let that tidbit of deductive reasoning ricochet around your skull for a bit and let's see if it actually collides with anything other than bone.

 

[MaggieMae]

Case of belief triumphing over "facts""

Remember the big deal of Ida? The newest link between apes and man back in May. Well scientists have studied Ida carefully since. Ida is a Lemur. A really old Lemur. According to MaggieMae, I should have been running around these last five months with my belief system crushed and adjusted to reality. Looks like you need Lemur avatars, not cats MaggieMae. Maybe in your next life?

Huh? Believe what you want. I never implied anyone should do otherwise. But thanks for playing.

Your original article, which you have been defending poorly ever since, stated that people hold on to beliefs, despite facts to the contrary. My point is completely relevant. You now say, "Believe what you want." So, was there a point to you bringing this up to begin with?

The point was (and is) that people do not like to admit when they are wrong (and I am no exception, by the way). I posted it because I thought the people who post here would recognize that fact in themselves, but from all the negative responses, this subject hit a nerve because they will NOT admit that!! I think that's the part that has become hilarious at this point! Instead, they launched into an attack on ME in order to make the subject itself go away because it's unpleasant.

You implied earlier that you have strong religious beliefs, I presume as opposed to others who believe more in evolution. That's fine too. You have your evidence you rely on, and until other hard evidence proves you might be wrong, you have every right to your opinions. BUT, if that hard evidence came along, wouldn't it be difficult for you to let go of your prior beliefs? You said something about that fossil, Ida, being a lemur instead of a humanoid. I hadn't seen that story, but if there have been scientific facts justifying that, then I'm most certainly willing to concede that hey, it sure looked human, but I guess I was wrong. If I wanted to argue the point instead of conceding just because YOU had posted it, I might say something like "Yes, but lemurs don't look like that these days, so that proves evolution has played a part..." See what I mean?

Frankly, I just don't get why the concept is so foreign to some of you. People don't like to lose: Elections, political arguments, religious arguments, arguments with spouses/parents, fistfights, etc., etc. It's an entirely human reaction to want to be right (correct). And that, dear friends is NOT illogical.

 

[MaggieMae]

Frankly, I dismissed the non-linked, non-referenced, and likely fabricated 'article' from the moment I saw it as nonsense as I usually do with such sweeping generalizations. What almost always piques my interest is lameness in logic. This thread is full of it.

And yet ironically, you could be the poster girl for what the article is all about.

If that were so, I would have bought the 'article' hook, line, and sinker. But I didn't. Let that tidbit of deductive reasoning ricochet around your skull for a bit and let's see if it actually collides with anything other than bone.

The fact that you so passionately argue against a perfectly normal reaction is what says volumes. You're also a hypocrite standing at the head of that class. Who is using ad hominem insults now? And you didn't stop with me. Your attacks yesterday evening were directed at a very patient FoxFyre who wisely dismissed you as not being worth anymore time. (I'll bet you can clear a room real fast too.)

 

[saveliberty]

I think survival instincts kick in when beliefs are challenged too. Since beliefs are held by the individual, an attack on that is going to be met with the survival instinct. Compromise in issues is almost a necessity. Compromising a principle is not for me. So, when it is suggested the government wants to take from me to benefit someone else (many taxes), I have a problem. That government wants to tell religion what is a marriage, problem.