|
WhipTheHip -> RE: Cynical assumptions. (8/30/2006 8:55:06 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: popeye1250
Whip, no I don't think that's impossable at all. But you get some in here and
elsewhere who are "purists" I call them; "there's only one way to do it" people.
Thank you, Popeye. I've said this before, and I will say it again.
Every group is controlled by the most fanatical members of
the group. This is true for Democrats, Republicans, Christians,
Muslims, atheists, animal rights groups, vegetarians, enviromental
groups, developers, etc, Every group has their own ayotollahs,
and party purity police, their own Taliban who insist on some
extreme.
The extremists are more active, more vocal, and more forceful.
So people who tend to have a more balanced position or view
tend to be identified with the opposition. There is an "either-or
mentality." Either you are this way, or you are that way, you
can't be both this way and that way. Either you are for this
or you are against this. This is called the doughnut fallacy.
But a large number of people think there are only two sides
to every issue, that if something is not black, it must be white.
Reality tends to be analog, spectrum and continuum, rather
than digital and quantum. Fuzzy logic is more appropriate for
most real problems than binary logic. I disliked Bill Clinton, but
he understood the concept of fuzzy logic. Conservatives tend
to use binary logic. "Either he lied under oath or he didn't."
"Either he was a criminal or he wasn't." "Every lie under oath
is perjury and must be treated like every other lie under oath."
"The vote was counted two times."
Liberals tend to see every person as an individual, and
do not make any inferences based on the larger class
that person may belong to. Conservatives tend to see
every person first as a member of some class of people,
and secondly as an individual. So, conservatives are
more likely to miss the fact that someone is different
in some major way from the class of people they belong
to. And liberals are more likely not to draw any probabilities
about an unknown person from the larger class of people
they belong to.
In other words conservatives tend to over-use generalizations,
and liberals tend to underuse generalizations. The liberal
airport screener may not take a closer look at young, male
Muslims even though they are more likely to likely to be
terrorists than old, female, Buddhists. A conservative
airport screener may ignore all old, female Buddhists under
the false presumption that an old, female, Buddhist can't be
a terrorist.
I used to manage a hotel on Miami Beach. At first I rented
to everybody, and gave everyone the benefit of the doubt.
Then I discovered I almost always ran into problems with
certain types of person. For example, everytime I had to
eject a low-income, young, black, male from the hotel for not
paying their bill, they would almost always become physically
violent. A lot of times, I would have never guessed this person
would become violent from my first lengthy interview with them.
A lot of people have the ability to change their personality from
friendly to hostile in the blink of an eye when things don't go
their way.
I didn't have security, so every time this occurred, my physical
safety was put at risk. The police had little interest in helping
me. So, I reached a point where I became very, very selective
when young, low-income, black males wanted to rent a room.
On the other hand, the two best friends I have ever had in life
were both black guests who lived at this hotel. Both kept
to themselves. I only got to know each of them after quite
some time. From their apparance and their superficial behavior,
I never would have guessed their true nature. They were both
the kindest, nicest, gentlest people I have ever met.
I don't believe in astrology, but those who do ought to be able
to figure out my astrological sign. It is my ideal, what I strive for.
|
|
|
|
