For my journalism class, i need to do an editorial piece. i figure that i'll write about why people always argue using faulty logic. As you are denizens of the Internet, I believe you will have quite a bit of knowledge on the subject.
Have any input?
Other urls found in this thread:
mpcdot.com
twitter.com
Trivial and Objectively Insignificant Problems are the BANE of humanity.
Dunning–Kruger effect
Fuck off faggot.
>Faulty logic
For the obvious reasons, I cannot help you.
Canadians try to prop up the # of young working population....
by..
wait for it..
wait...
wait..
bringin in thousands of uneducated rapefugees that only collect gibs and dont work.
Thank you, this will send me down the path of writing a nice filler paragraph or two that makes me sound smart by citing sources.
I do not follow
Yeah I know it's stupid. It'd be fun to try to make my own political party based around calling everyone else fucking stupid, having a fun time while campaigning by giving all my speeches in song, walking around wearing a 'vote for potential non-idiocy' and stuff.
Short Answer: people aren't made to logic
Long Answer: logic is a quite recent product of humanity, only coming to be a couple millennia ago. Around the time it was invented, society was already developed a fair amount, meaning natural selection effectively stopped applying to humans. Looking back to precivilization, people evolved to use instinct much more for one reason. It kept us alive. So now we have an irrational way of thinking that has been ingrained ever since life existed and a rational way of thinking that has only recently come to be and has never been made an inane tate of humanity, due to it not being necessary to survive and procreate.
>Why do people argue using faulty logic?
Simple answer. Emotions. You can't be fully logical and fully emotional together. It is a spectrum like hot and cold.
Ah yeah that makes a lot of sense. heh. I was working off the assumption that being logical allowed people to survive, as being aware of your surroundings and making informed decisions tend to lead to positive outcomes. I suppose it'd take a lot less energy and be a lot more efficient to just have emotions and shit.
Stupid fucking leaf, whatever you say is invalid. Get off this fucking board
Do your own fucking homework.
Wouldn't help you for such a bullshit class anyway.
Save yourself. Learn math.
I rest easy knowing that the people being assholes on this board are most likely really sweet people IRL because they let off all their steam here.
Either that or they even worse off because they have no friends and are really sad in which case at least they aren't a burden on society.
It also doesn't help that logic is more dependant upon how highly your brain functions as opposed to instinct and irrationality can be used by everybody to the same degree.
>A FUCKING LEAF
You know all you need to about faulty logic.
>learn math
Kek
>journalism class
why?
>leaf
oh
This is humanity 101: being "purely rational" isn't a good thing or even desirable. People have emotional/instinctual drives and pursue them using "reason/logic" as a tool. Most debates are just debates of values, framed as an argument over the "truth". This is why, even if you win a debate, you don't convince the other person. You've merely attacked their reasoning, their emotive drive is still there telling them you're somehow "wrong".
Go watch Jonathan Haidt lectures on Youtube, or better yet, read The Righteous Mind.
The drive to be "the most logical" is a naive sperg/libertarian teenager quirk. People who actually want power and change (like liberals) adopt machiavellian tactics and manipulate people according to their emotions (empathy, charisma, shaming, etc). Trump is a master of this, which is why he came out on top at the debates without ever making impressive arguments. Another good book on the futility of "reasoning" in the face of emotional drives and outward manipulation is Cialdini's "Influence: Science and Practice".
Taleb has an entire series of books that touch on the futility of naive rationalism (and the value of tradition as tried-and-tested shorthand for life), highly recommended.
Here's another form of this argument you might find useful or interesting:
mpcdot.com
I don't totally disagree with your main point, but:
>natural selection effectively stopped applying to humans
There's strong evidence natural selection has continued affecting human populations, civilized ones especially.
A good example would be Jews being selected for high IQ due to their role as bankers in medieval Europe.
The 10,000 Year Explosion argues this point very convincingly. Recommend it.
>i do not follow
You're arguing that one form of logic is better then another when the situation which forms that person's logic could be correct based on their environment.
Yes, there is almost always a correct way of doing something from a logical standpoint, but to argue their logic is wrong without a purpose and to simply state people who use your idea of faulty logic, is just retarded.
FOR YOU
This
Good luck fellow canadanon, however I did just want to say I find the way you format posts replying to other anons off-putting in a way I can't quite describe. Oh, also since this is Sup Forums, fag.
So you're saying it's less that they use faulty logic, and more that they extrapolate their position in the world onto everyone else?
>always
Yeah, sorry if my first post was kinda rude and offputting.
I should probably clarify here, natural selection in the most extreme sense of the kill or be kill we see applicable to animals stopped applying to humans as we didn't necessarily need to run extremely fast to stay alive or to catch food. Because of this logic was never an evolutionary advantage when it was thought up as being a logical person did not mean you became king of the pack and got all of the pussy to procreate with. We had already shifted to mating became somewhat less based on genetics. A case could be made though that if logic had been invented pre agricultural era, people would be more logical and we wouldn't have this discussion to begin with.
>This is why, even if you win a debate, you don't convince the other person
It's always been my understanding that the idea was to convince those listening to the debate to "come over" to your side or position on whatever was being debated.
>why people always argue using faulty logic.
You should really narrow that down a little bit. Do you mean within the field of politics? And what people, specifically? For what it's worth people don't always argue with faulty logic. They rarely argue with faulty logic. What people do all the time (esp. in politics, and ethics) is argue from false premises.
I'm thinking about people who argue for reasons other than informing themselves and others on different perspectives about a subject and attempting to establish what the best course of action would be.
bump