I think that for many people, and I've noticed particularly for those coming out of religion, logic is held up as the ultimate tool for understanding the world, and non-logic-based methods are derided. But even for those who accept a certain amount of intuition, emotion or other non-logical elements in their decision making processes, there is still a pervasive norm priviligeing logical over illogical thinking.
I question that, though. Yes, it's true, not having a precise and rock-solid logical formula with which to explain your every action and reaction opens the possibility of being lead down the garden path of nonsense, but... the use of logic as the supreme (or only valid) way of figuring things out requires that you consciously know and mull over, verbalize and theorize about, everything in life. The part of your brain that is verbal and can construct logical arguments is only a tiny, tiny fraction of the processing power your brain has. The rest of it is constantly taking in data, summarizing it and drawing conclusions and laying down memories (or not) and suggesting responses. The study of how to manipulate those responses (marketing is one branch of this) is fascinating, and certainly someone who has more knowledge of how the unconscious human mind works will have great power over large swathes of humanity - so there is danger that if you follow a solely intuitive approach, you open yourself up to abuse and manipulation. But...
Think of catching a ball. One way to do it would be to have someone throw it to you, note down the approximate mass, momentum, distance from the centre of mass of the earth, air pressure and wind resistance, etc., and use quadratic equations to figure out where the ball will land, and then put your hand out. Perfectly logical, and if you do it right it will tell you precisely where to put your hand, every time (if you mess up a step in the calculations you could be off by a mile, though, but moving on...). Because computers are better at working with complicated math than our conscious mind is, we are programming robots to catch balls by doing the equations involved. But, we have another alternative. We have specialized areas within our brains that can quickly figure out where stuff that's being thrown at us is going to land, and we can just use that ability that we have. Granted, someone who has a deep knowledge of how that part of our brain works can set up optical illusions, and we'll never catch a ball they throw (or we'll put our hand where they want us to put it, thinking we're doing the right thing). Not understanding and using advanced mathematics opens us up to manipulation, but also allows us to make decisions in everyday life 100's of times faster than we otherwise would be able to do. It's a tradeoff. And the tradeoff makes sense because when someone throws you a ball, knowing where to put your hand 3 hours from now is no good, you need to know now. And so it is with many decisions in life - any decision can often be better than no decision, and computing power costs energy as well as time, so decisions that use shortcuts, imperfect-but-often-good-enough heuristics, etc. end up wired into the human brain. And the same is true with an emotional reaction as is true with catching a ball - very often, our emotions serve us well in making decisions.
Even though those emotional or intuitive decision-making processes are sometimes wrong in systematic ways that can be exploited, they use the full range and power of human thinking abilities - the full set of tools at our disposal, as King of Bashan would say. And I'm all for that, going in with eyes open, knowing the risks. To me it seems logical that sometimes (often) it's OK to make decisions based on factors other than having logically reasoned things through beforehand - because many of our intuitions are often right, and I don't have an infinite amount of time on this earth, and even if I did, I wouldn't want to spend 99% of it doing math or re-checking logical syllogisms. If intuition works (which it does) I say use it.
Meanwhile, if someone has already done the calculations, or my non-logic-based methods are consistently leading to poor results (let's say I've intuitively concluded based on early experience that yelling at people is a great way to get them to do what I want, and so I end up with anger management issues) then sitting down and spending hours, days or even longer thinking things through and changing direction to something more logical, may be warranted.
Thoughts?
Is logic really the best way to decide things?
by mankkeli 11 Replies latest jw friends
-
mankkeli
-
bohm
I primarily see logic (undestood in the inclusive sence) is a method to check the the integrity of the results we derive.
If a person suggest another method, then by all means, lets talk about it and asses how workable it is, especially when we let other people use it to support ideas we perhaps think are untrue.
-
bohm
I think Feynman said it the best:
- Get an idea
- Derive implications of the idea
- Make experiments to test implications
"logic" (again in the inclusive sence) is primarily usefull in 2, and perhaps to integrate results of experiments in 3. But in all steps --especially the first-- one need to use inginuity, creativity, beer and so on.
-
breakfast of champions
Yes, beer is helpful in the imaginative use of logic.
-
Twitch
Fascinating captain,...;)
Good thoughts all around. Yes, use of logic is invaluable and is a skill that should be learned and exercised. No, it should not and cannot be used to govern one's life exclusively, by means of our nature and emotion which is often irrational, lol. So it is a question of balance and acceptance of this duality of ourselves, to think and to feel. Not that they are distinct or in opposition rather each should influence but not dominate the other. When all parts of the machine are in sync and maintained, optimal performance is attained. Extreme settings result in extreme outcomes :)
I think I'm fairly logically, sometimes to a fault, lol. But I do find great comfort and reward in creative things, such as playing an instrument in a band and recording our music. It's a high octane mix of the logical and intuitive, an endeavor in form and function neither part dominating but the sum of which is greater than the parts. You have to learn the instrument and train your body and mind in the execution which is logical, the positioning, scales, technique, speed, notation, etc. But to play one steps outside this and taps into another part of conscious awareness where the nuances of the note or phrase don't exist on the page but from the fingers, the dynamics of the part changes when played with others and when you write a part that just "fits" and it is complete. I'm no virtuoso and can't read music but I understand this and know when it's happening; strange but i play best when I'm not really thinking about it at all, it just happens. A computer can play any number and complexity of notes I couldn't but you'll never jam with one,..;)
-
Twitch
Thinking of catching a ball...
It's more automatic really IMO. To catch the ball first you must see it. You learned long ago how your eyes focus and your brain learned to determine 3D position via stereoscopic vision. You learned how your arms and legs work and how to move them. You became conscious of and determined the idea of self, your distinction in the world around you. You learned to listen and speak, communicate and interact. You learned how to throw and catch a ball. You may later learn about classical physics and how accurately it describes and defines the actions going on. Still later, you may learn someone may not feel like throwing a ball today and that it's not important. Perhaps not. However, you were not born with any of this knowledge, you learned it and most of it through trial and error.
The brain is wired to "soak up input" and learn more in the first 3 yrs of life than any time after (or thereabouts). Much of that early knowledge is stored as automatic and on different levels, you don't need to think about how to walk, talk or grab a bottle (?) for instance, it just happens. Regulatory systems such as heartbeat, breathing, sleeping, etc are hardwired and maintained automatically but everything you know about yourself and the world around you was learned even if it's operating on a level you're not really conscious of. There is the question of whether certain actions/reactions are hardwired, such as in the limbic area, the "animal" instinct for food, sex, fight or flight, etc. But to catch the ball, your brain just accesses the ball catching database it's built with all it's necessary subcomponents. Let the autopilot take over and write some new data where needed. If you think about it too much, you'll miss it...
Much of what we do is automatic but anyone can catch a ball if they really want to :)
-
mankkeli
Twitch - You nailed it, thanks for your brilliant thought.
There are plenty of things that are hard-wired into our brains, which systematically cause us to make errors. One I read about just last night (although I'd heard about it before) was fundamental attribution error - our brains are systematically biased towards finding that something like success or failure is a result of the characteristics of the person who has succeeded or failed, rather than factors in that person's environment. An example was that when basketball players who had been found to be of equal skill were divided into two groups, and one was allowed to play in a well-lit court, while the other was playing in a poorly lit court, of course the second group was going to make fewer baskets. Even when this was explained to people, and they were told roughly how much difference the lighting makes, they still rated the people playing in the better-lit court as more skillful. I see attribution errors frequently on the forum (blaming the poster for being stupid or stubborn or otherwise deficient in character, without understanding how you yourself could reach the same conclusions) and it's possibly going to be another long post sometime soon. But, I do think that in order to evaluate the postulates your brain is using to guide your intuition, you have to be aware of them. Introspection, psychological experiments, brain imaging and other techniques of study are starting to unpick this unconscious stuff, but we still have a long way to go. But even if we can unpick the unconscious logic of our neural processes, and find some of the logic chains to be invalid in some circumstances, I wonder how much we can change. For example, even if you know someone has had liposuction and plastic surgery, certain physical features are still attractive, and even if we know someone is a great person on the inside, certain physical characteristics are still going to have the opposite effect - although faked signals do seem to have a smaller effect than ones believed to be genuine, in my own case the signals are still there. It may be that there are some instances where we can't stop ourselves from being fooled, even if we know we're being fooled, and we're going to have whatever emotional reactions we're wired for, regardless of whether we think that's wise.
-
Nathan Natas
Logic is SO over-rated and blinds us to alternate dimensions and realities that are all around us.
I used to use logic, and my life was dull and boring.
Then I decided to "vitalize" a Magic-8 Ball by reading the Necronomicon to it in a special circumstance.
Once vitalized, my M8B has become my sole source of guidance.
Believe me, you haven't LIVED until you've made pancakes according to the directions of an M8B!
-
EntirelyPossible
Logic? Most poeple don't even know what it is.
Use the right tool for the job. Logic is not the be all end all of making decisions. Emotion is not the be all end end all. Wisdom is knowing which to use and when.
-
tec
Wise words, EP.