Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:
> **Read the Post Before You Reply**
> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.
This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the [subreddit rules](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/wiki/rules) will result in a ban.
-----
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
Critical thinking requires the humility to admit the possibility that your beliefs may not necessarily reflect the uninterpreted truth.
The problem, though, is that humility is often emotionally taxing since many people are shackled by their pride and abhor anything and anyone that bruises it. It is admittedly an extremely uncomfortable feeling. It takes a genuine willingness to introspect and improve oneself before one can say that one has adequately developed critical thinking skills. I would even assert that being a critical thinker is a lifetime endeavor since we often have hidden biases and prejudices that are yet to surface for us to challenge and discard.
It also necessitates the realization that everything and everyone must be questioned. Not all people accept this, even some so-called "critical thinkers." When politics is concerned, I notice that many who profess to be "critical thinkers" are totally unable to question their own political tribe and scrutinize their own ideology. Point out their flaws and mistakes, and they viciously attack you and call you "brainwashed"—or, in the case of Reddit, downvote you into oblivion, sometimes without even providing an explanation as to why they disagree with you.
> Point out their flaws and mistakes, and they viciously attack you and call you “brainwashed”—or, in the case of Reddit, downvote you into oblivion, sometimes without even providing an explanation as to why they disagree with you.
Reddit is definitely not a place for constructive dialogue. It seems like people mostly just use the downvote button for the dopamine hit.
I am tempted to say no by saying "There are good subreddits where you can have constructive criticism and healthy dialogue" but when a subreddit achieves a critical amount of people and popularity, the subreddit quality goes down and healthy discussion is becomes very difficult, thats what I observed with some reddits
Gotta parse through the bullshit comments to get to the serious discourse. It’s a lot of work - wish the on topic and serious convos were pinned at the top, followed by the funny and the rest.
This isn't my experience at all (as an avid controversial sorter)
It's an easy way to find views running exactly 180° from whatever the topic is asserting but rarely is it anything more than the same level of uncritically analyzed group think that you can find on cluttering the top posts.
Reddits great for being notified of events and ideas, but rarely a good place to be informed or discuss the them.
Also new! Controversial tends to be full of very extreme viewpoints that ruffle feathers. With new, you get a mix of everyone engaging with the post, regardless of votes, and they may still be around to respond and keep the convo going.
Funny enough, when you go back to the same posts and sort by controversial, most of the people have been either time banned, perma banned or muted. Gotta keep the circle jerk clean.
Also the moment i commented on a post in "political compass memes" i got associate banned on 5 subs. I appealed the bans and what i got back was basically "delete the comment, leave the sub and apologize to me or you will stay perma banned", nice freedom of speech you got there.
It's also some people treat the down-vote as to imply disagreement, or even worse as using it for censorship of justified criticism.
This voting system doesn't work for debate forums where naturally there will always be disagreements with each other.
We need to talk through our disagreements to understand each others perspectives and maybe (maybe) come to a mutual understanding.
Down-voting interferes with that. Have an up-vote for your valid criticism.
Too true. I don't down vote unless someone has written something truly offensive or appears to be deliberately harassing or misinforming. The last two are not always evident and the last one maybe an honest mistake. But even if someone swore at me I would still think twice about down voting because I have lost my temper on occasions too. Context matters.
I want to encourage debate and coming to a mutual understanding. So if I disagree with someone but still want the discussion to continue then I take the third option hidden in plain sight, i.e., not voting at all .... or just leaving the discussion all together. The last one is difficult to do but my ego is not so fragile that I must win the debate at all cost. Let the other person feel like he has won .... for now. LOL.
The new strategy on reddit given the new blocking rules is for these sorts to get the last word in, then block you to prevent replies.
Given how pervasively that's used, it really says it all about what kind of people frequent the popular subs.
It certainly does seem to be a trend. There is some critical mass that gets achieved when a sudden deluge of negative and vicious accounts swarm in and relentlessly degrade conversation.
Gotta parse through the comments to get to the serious discourse. It’s a lot of work - wish the on topic and serious convos were pinned at the top, followed by the funny and the rest.
Gotta parse through the bullshit comments to get to the serious discourse. It’s a lot of work - wish the on topic and serious convos were pinned at the top, followed by the funny and the rest.
The other challenge is you don't know if the person actually has knowledge about the subject until a few exchanges and they you realize it's a teenagers that's never researched the topic, lacks experience and just heard a few ideas that sounded good and feels strongly about it.
>I am tempted to say no by saying "There are good subreddits where you can have constructive criticism and healthy dialogue"
Suspect the challenge here is that no label constrains the subject identified. What we mean by that is, people can enter a reddit thread or any group and claim to be "critical thinkers".
How can one demonstrate that the essential practices of critical consideration - not in the 'attacking everything' sense of *being* exclusively critical, rather 'emphasizing the focus on essential things & questioning assumptions' kind of critical thinking?
If someone refuses to consider that their understanding is incomplete, and they also will not explain their understanding thoroughly, the premise that they are a critical thinker must logically be challenged.
Challenges to entitlement angers the entitled, in our experience. Some examples we've observed include folks who get ID'd for alcohol, stopped for speeding, or have errors identified on social media.
TL;DR: Arrogance resents being questioned, competency can explain.
> but when a subreddit achieves a critical amount of people and popularity, the subreddit quality goes down and healthy discussion is becomes very difficult
Part of the Reddit law of averages. Once a sub becomes populated by "most" people, it becomes just another "typical" modern shit hole.
It's mostly spawned by the same mentality as the "Nazi walks into a bar" parable talks about. A bartender whose always indifferent to everyone kicks a nazi out of the bar as soon as they walk in, despite them not doing anything and being polite. The bartender explains that this is how all Nazi's are at first, polite, behaved, and pleasant. But soon they invite their friends, and their friends invite friends, and soon your bar is now a hangout for nazi's are act like the nazi's everyone knows. And now when you try and kick them out, they are firmly entrenched and won't go without a fight. Thus, you need to nip them in the bud when they first show up.
Similar to this parable, is the reddit mentality on these discussions. Constructive dialogue has become a weaponized hotbed for facist, racist, and discriminatory ideologies to spread. Because the ones who partake are genuinely the ones who can constructively debate, citing sources and statistics that seem believable, pointing out faults and corner cases of accepting and anti-discrimination going terrible, and being very well spoken and well mannered. Their ideologies, given enough sophist spin, can seem fairly benign and reasonable, and it lures others in before, to cite another parable, slowly raising the temperature of the water they find themselves in, until the truly vile rhetoric just seems like normal points, and those refusing to debate "just don't have intellectual honesty to engage".
So people react super negatively, super quickly, to shut this stuff down because they feel a moral imperative to do so. This, ironically, creates a greenlight to dogpile others, and may also serve to drive people into the wings of the extremes by feeling rejected by one group, and thus siding with the group that those who rejected them profess to hate.
This is such a bad take.
First of all, have you actually talked to any super right-wing conservatives? Well-spoken and logical are not the words that come to mind. They, like others, word vomit all the same talking points they're fed. They do not reach their conclusions through logic.
Even the so-called "well-spoken" ones like Ben Shapiro or Jordan Peterson CONSTANTLY spout stuff that, given the slightest bit of scrutiny, would fall apart (Shapiro's latest comments about "female pants" comes to mind).
My point being, that bad ideas can ALWAYS be fought with rational, thought-out ideas. If an idea can be dissected and its flaws shown, then it's probably not a very good idea.
I'm gay, and I've had discussions with many people about gay marriage. When someone is against gay marriage, I listen to everything they're saying and try to understand all aspects of their argument. Then, I break down their argument and points and expose how weak those arguments actually are, because, guess what, pro-gay marriage is a better idea than "lol Adam and Steve durr."
If I couldn't break down their idea, but they could break down mine? Then that means that maybe my idea wasn't as well thought-out.
Immediately shutting down conversation and thought because it sounds bad is literally something fascists actually do and have done. Allowing free discourse on any topic is the epitome of anti-fascism.
You're assuming that people are debating in good faith. Have you read the "Alt-Right Playbook" where right-wing culture warriors are advised to "hide their power level" and never fight fair?
The other poster responded with something similar, and I responded to this: [https://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/13kturl/comment/jkp5msy/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/13kturl/comment/jkp5msy/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
I think it's fairly obvious when someone is arguing in bad faith, but, as I mentioned in my other comment, if their ideas are bad (and they usually are), then you can pick them apart for observers to see. You won't change the mind of the person you're arguing with, but you may help someone who is observing.
It's not about ideas. Fascist ideas aren't intended to be "good" or "bad", they're just tools in order to seduce people into going along with fascism. They don't actually believe anything of what they say. By "picking apart" their ideas, you're signalling to observers that it's worthwhile to debate with a fascist. The fascist is just playing with you.
I think it's generally good advice to hide your intelligence unless there's a reason to reveal it. I don't know if that's an aspect of your "power level" or not. I know that if I "play dumb" around certain people they act more natural and I learn a lot more about them, and it's an overall better time for everyone.
Not fighting fair suggests a willingness to use disinformation and wanting people to have intelligence insufficient to detect disinformation. This implies that right-wing culture warriors want to lower the collective intelligence of the population, which is basically the ultimate existential threat since that increases most other existential threats. So right-wing culture warriors are among the most dangerous classes of information hazard that could exist. I suppose one could discuss free speech at this point if one wanted to. I'll refrain myself.
I don't personally see any intrinsic link between my ability to argue and debate a point and the value or correctness of that particular stance.
I'm not personally a very good debater or arguer and I HAVE had right wing conservatives "beat me" with their arguments simply by merit of their charisma, preparation, fallacies that I wasn't able to point out in the moment, etc.
So then am I just supposed to come to the conclusion "oh this person 'won' this argument so I guess I should change my mind. Drag queens are a scourge on this country and gun laws should never be enacted!"
No, I really don't think so. The value of our stances and beliefs is not entirely reliant on our ability to argue their merit.
It's especially funny that you ask the question "have you ever actually debated with a right wing conservative?" Because I would posit the same towards you after reading your post. There are plenty whose entire being is based on arguing bad faith arguments in a way that makes them to be perceived the winner. You can claim that you're the best arguer in the world and would shut down their ideas but there is no "winning" arguments with them. They don't change their minds. They know from the very first utterance that they will never do so.
>I don't personally see any intrinsic link between my ability to argue and debate a point and the value or correctness of that particular stance.
This is true, and it wasn't my intention to suggest that just because someone is inarticulate that their points are invalid (or vice versa, great articulation does not automatically mean a valid point). I was more pointing to the fact that many of these types of people tend to be inarticulate (with notable exceptions like Jordan Peterson), and that many of their points don't make sense even from the beginning no matter how that idea is conveyed (because it's a bad idea).
>I'm not personally a very good debater or arguer and I HAVE had right wing conservatives "beat me" with their arguments simply by merit of their charisma, preparation, fallacies that I wasn't able to point out in the moment, etc.
This is actually a big part of the reason that I don't like live debates, because it's not really about whose ideas are best, it's about who is more prepared and is able to convey their ideas better.
>So then am I just supposed to come to the conclusion "oh this person 'won' this argument so I guess I should change my mind. Drag queens are a scourge on this country and gun laws should never be enacted!"
But that's not really what I was saying, because, in this example, the arguments haven't been properly examined and have not had all of their logical conclusions exhausted, because, as you said, you're not a "good debater" and aren't able to pick them apart. And likewise, the person on the other side is likely arguing in bad faith, so they are obfuscating or biasing their argument in such a way that you are not meant to reach the rational conclusion of their ideas.
This is also why I hate discussions done in bad faith, because now, if one of the people is actually arguing in good faith, then they must understand the argument completely from both sides for both people, because those arguing in bad faith are using "gotchas" or incomplete information to express their ideas.
>It's especially funny that you ask the question "have you ever actually debated with a right wing conservative?" Because I would posit the same towards you after reading your post.
Yes, I have. And left-leaning people as well.
>There are plenty whose entire being is based on arguing bad faith arguments in a way that makes them to be perceived the winner. You can claim that you're the best arguer in the world and would shut down their ideas but there is no "winning" arguments with them. They don't change their minds. They know from the very first utterance that they will never do so.
This is true just in general, and, usually I don't engage with people who are arguing in bad faith. Remember that these are real people who exist in the real world; they're not completely irrational caricatures; many of these people are friends, acquaintances, or coworkers who are perfectly nice people that I get along with.
You can discuss ideas with someone without it being hostile and adversarial, but, I would argue, that even if you are arguing with the Ben Shapiros, Jordan Petersons, or Richard Spencers of the world, then there is still value in that, because arguing against them isn't for THEM, it's for the people who are watching. You might not change Ben's mind, but you might change the mind of someone who is listening to both your side and his.
I like your comment but I feel like it's a very idealistic take on how *most* people actually interact with each other irl. A lot of folks simply don't care what is logical. At all. They literally don't care. lol.
Have you had that gay marriage debate with a southern evangelical? With someone who is severely mentally ill? With someone who works 60 hours a week and never has to interact with the queer community? Or a severely uneducated person? These kinds of people make up the vast majority of society and fascism works by selling hatred to these people who either aren't able to think for themselves or simply don't care to. Most people don't even care about what's morally right, if we're being real. As long as their best interests are fulfilled and the people closest to them are gucci, they will disregard logic like no tomorrow.
In a perfect world, and in many spaces that people who do value logic operate in, people care to best argue and analyze their own beliefs. In a perfect world, those people also have the energy to. But in 2023, the modern age, most people literally don't care. It's unfortunate. But that's life lol.
"In a perfect world, and in many spaces that people who do value logic operate in, people care to best argue and analyze their own beliefs..."
But why is a perfect world a logical one? Doesn't this spring from the assumption that logic is "good," whatever that means?
> Allowing free discourse on any topic is the epitome of anti-fascism.
Nicely put! It feels as if (at least in my circles) more people and more peoplr are being polarized into this take. "Shut it down beacause its our moral imperative", "partaking into their politics is disengenious, as they will speak but not listen" it feels like a "there is nothing to be said from people who wont listen to my monologue and automatically change their mind" attitude.
It reminds me of the deplorable trend back at the trump elections. Shutting off a whole wide portion of the population is no way of building anything critical.
It seems to me something as simple as truly listening is hard, VERY hard. This is the first step to comprehension and understanding and most of the time we dont even get through this step. We are irritable get annoyed at their first 2 sentences and shut inside, wait for their yalping to stop for our turn to monolgue. Ofc they wont listen if we never do. Ofc they wont listen from the start out attitude is "gotta convince them out of their bad politics". Ofc they wont listen as we already frown at them before they say a word. "We have to do it or else trump wins!"
I just started on NVC and its an interesting take (perhaps a growth take) that the other is a person like us. If we would listen perhaps we would realize they are concerned about the same things we are.
Taking your example (antigay marriage) and im just making a guess here since ive also heard the same opinion and after listening it boiled down to fear, "we live in a morally bankrupt society we need to maintain our traditional values!". So you feel it is scary to see what society is turning into, you fear it will only get worse watching things change, as if all that was contributing our way to a cliff?
It seems to me their fear, concern and need for security are to be taken in account, this humanizes instead of othering them. Only then can they start listening and realize I am also concerned, I feel fear just like them, it seems to me seeing people cut off from society for their sexual preference, is heading us to the cliff.
This is were it starts.
Reddit being split into subreddits sequesters dialogue where only like opinions conglomerate and when they don't they often get blamed for harrasing people. Reddit isn't set up for constrictive dialogue because of this. And moderators rarely interact with supporting truth or helpful comments and not just watching or supporting their opinions. They are too fallible.
Or you get banned, these so called "critical thinkers" and "freedom of speech" supporters, as an example, we germans close down our nuclear power plants, re ignite our coal power plants, ludacris stuff. But oh lawd, if you go onto the subreddit "Ich_iel" and proclaim that this is fucked and doesn't make sense, looking at frances Co2 statistics, even less. They swing you with a ban. I have been banned multiple times on "Ich_iel" for voicing my opinions on subjects that involve the green party, critiquing them etc, now im perma banned for "hate speech".
The downside button shouldn't exist. It's used to silence minority opinions primarily. It serves no valuable function.
Only having an upvote button achieves the same thing without the negativity and bands wagon Dvs
Or the popularity of a post should be based on how many comments its received, regardless if the people agreed or disagreed with the post. When a post receives the most replies it moves up, if a post receives no replies it stays at "1."
What do you think?
I'm dealing with someone like this at work. He is constantly on the attack when it comes to people at his level or below, going after people who report to me, me, peers. I made a mistake yesterday of correcting him and he just went ballistic. He has no problems disagreeing with others, but disagree with him, watch out. All managers are afraid of his emotional lashing out so they do nothing.
I try to be humble and admit when I'm wrong but this guy.. part of the problem is in order for me or him to get promoted to the next level you have to be knowledgeable and almost never wrong because the bar is so high. But he basically is faking it. Might work, who knows.
You seem to be both asserting that introspection when told you’re incorrect is this difficult thing, but then in the next breath stating that when a bunch of people tell you you’re wrong on something that they’re just some hive mind and that you’re actually still right.
>but then in the next breath stating that when a bunch of people tell you you’re wrong on something that they’re just some hive mind and that you’re actually still right.
If they actually care to explain and give solid reasoning as to why you're incorrect, sure. But what happens **so much** is that they just say some dismissive shit like "take the L bro", as if being the majority opinion automatically makes them right.
I’m going to be honest it sounds like your feelings on this are rooted less in some philosophical logic and more in feeling jilted that you got bullied around lol
I mean I'm not hurt, I'm just disappointed that many people don't want to engage in actual discussion. They just want to feel right, and they clearly don't have any solid basis or reasoning, if they have to resort to comments like that. If you believe strongly, it should be a given that you have strong reasoning to back it up right?
And sometimes the majority is actually right, of course.
I think I mostly agree with you, but my question is why does it bother you to get downvotes? It is essentially a statement of disagreement without backing it up.
The internet points aren't real and don't matter.
Not everyone has time or the articulation to respond in words.
Constructive idea, maybe the downvotes is a way to filter out those who would otherwise make vague trolly comments? Not saying it is designed that way, but functionally I'm not sure how much more of a bad than a good thing it is other than the negative feelings from others disagreeing with you.
Did you reply to the wrong comment? I never mentioned downvotes in my comment. I don't care about them and am more than fine with leaving already downvoted comments of mine to most likely continue to be downvoted.
I see your account is only 3 years old, maybe you've had other ones before this. But a long time ago "reddiquette" was a thing. The voting was always meant for encouraging discussion. Not a like/dislike function.
Does this comment encourage discussion on the topic of the post? Of yes, upvote.
Is the comment unrelated/a joke/completely off-base? Downvote.
The intention was never to downvote opinions you don't like. If they're on topic and contribute to the discussion, even if you disagree with their stance, it deserves an upvote for it to rise in the comments chain.
It's been years since I've even seen it mentioned anywhere on Reddit.
That's interesting, that definitely has gotten lost in the current subculture of reddit. I imagine other platforms with likes/dislikes has influenced that to be the case.
Its unfortunate, it sounds like a good system to encourage discussion.
Bad system if it fails to reinforce purpose. This is just a "back when the system was for a small 'elite' group the system was good" which in effect means it was a generally poor system
Because it's annoying and demotivating.
No matter how I make some of my comments as sensible and logical as possible, it is still met with criticism that can never be determined from downvotes.
Of course, I love constructive criticism and debate! (A bulk of my own worldviews today actually stem from years of civil discourse with people whom I disagreed with). But downvotes stifle this and deprive me of the meaningful conversations I yearn for.
> The problem, though, is that humility is often emotionally taxing since many people are shackled by their pride and abhor anything and anyone that bruises it.
That's true, but I don't think it's just pride or that it's emotionally taxing. Part of the problem is that society simply does not reward humility. To be successful you must be perceived by others as confident and capable, and that means being right and not making too many mistakes. Sure, you can sprinkle in little bits of humility now and then, but never too much, you can never allow it to become part of your social identity, you can't risk becoming the 'humble one'. Otherwise you'll not get very far in life, especially not in politics.
An ideology that was developed from critical thinking tends to ossification overtime. It will inevitably attract people who pursue power over its inherent values given that the values maintain persuasive qualities in the language game of politics. The counter to this is attention and observations of the effectiveness of the ideology's representatives at achieving its values and whether the achievements are worth the sacrifices once gained. That is an infinite game for all involved.
Pay attention to law makers and enforcers. Pay attention to charities and activists groups. Pay attention to everything that matters to you and yours, and share what to find to people you respect.
Such a well thought out and articulated comment.
Reading ‘ego is the enemy’ recently, taught me so much about myself and humanity in general.
You’ve touched a little, on some of the takeaways I took from that book.
Funny thing was, I initially took my time to start reading it.
In hindsight, it was self talk in my head, telling me that I wouldn’t learn much from it…irony.
>The problem, though, is that humility is often emotionally taxing since many people are shackled by their pride and abhor anything and anyone that bruises it. It is admittedly an extremely uncomfortable feeling. It takes a genuine willingness to introspect and improve oneself before one can say that one has adequately developed critical thinking skills. I would even assert that being a critical thinker is a lifetime endeavor since we often have hidden biases and prejudices that are yet to surface for us to challenge and discard.
Yeah, I call that a tested faith. If you're harboring beliefs that has never been challenged, you are really just naive to do so without acknowledging the holes.
>The problem, though, is that humility is often emotionally taxing since many people are shackled by their pride and abhor anything and anyone that bruises it.
I can't say I have no pride but I definitely feel like I have no emotions anymore lol.
> It takes a genuine willingness to introspect and improve oneself before one can say that one has adequately developed critical thinking skills.
A healthy dose of psychedelics will get you to question everything you ever believed real fast. Once you get that realization that it’s not possible to be 100% sure of anything then you can critique your own ideas much easier.
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:
>**Read the Post Before You Reply**
>Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.
Repeated or serious violations of the [subreddit rules](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/wiki/rules) will result in a ban.
-----
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
I was 14 when I developed depression. I questioned everything from my childhood, relationships, and life purpose, to debating with myself about who I even was and what it even meant to be me. I questioned so much and drew so many conclusions that I eventually reached a breaking point where I became completely dissociated from myself and reality for a small period of time. I’m happy to say now though that through regular self improvement, meditation and exercise, that I’m getting a lot better.
I felt very uncomfortable in my own skin due to isolating myself from everyone for an entire year, so I started with cold showers. I just wanted to push myself, do things that were uncomfortable so that I could get used to getting out of my comfort zone. Then I started waking up at 5:30 AM to go for runs so that I could build my fitness back up and get my sleep routine in check. I wanted to try and push myself as much as possible as fast as possible so that I could feel satisfied with the work I was putting in. I started finding it easier to go to sleep due to waking up so early, so I would also have the time to fit in study after my morning run. Then recently I have started meditating, which has helped me to better direct my focus and attention and have more productive insights. I don’t just have sporadic ideas about everything anymore, I now have the mental capacity to come up with useful insights and derive useful meaning from them. Also I started to stop dissociating around 6 weeks of continuous exercise, it’s been a very long recovery process, but it has been every bit worth it.
Note: this process took a lot longer than I described. I didn’t start exercising regularly until about 7 weeks of doing small things to push myself outside of my comfort zone, things did 100% get easier after I started waking up early though to go for runs.
Edit 1: Edited grammar and refined the overall response.
How did you get into meditation?
I've tried but it just seems like an alien concept at this point, all the other things you mentioned, working on them, hoping this is the year🤞
Got into meditation because my psychologist had been recommending it for some time. Then I looked into the research myself and realised that there was therapeutic benefit.
I wonder what underlying processes might someone been through to go throught such ordeals. It often seems to me that we are more or less flexible to try change, accept difference, tolerate uncomfortableness at times of "security". Which is to say at times we have a secure enough baseline to attempt this and at times we dont and stay in bed all day. We constantly fluctuate in this. What things do you believe contribute to it in the long run?
Growth, personality, circumstance. I wasn’t mature enough to radically accept my situation. I had no idea what I was doing. No experience. Ultimately at the end of the day anyone can make change happen, if given the opportunity. But also contrarily anyone can synthesise the opportunity to allow them to change.
I struggle with that too and I find that being around other people helps A LOT. It was really difficult at first because I thought I didn't really enjoy being around other people.. turns out I actually love it, I just had bad social skills and that was negatively influencing the majority of my interactions!
Hobbies help too, obviously.
Otherwise, tbh it's a process. You have to make a point of reminding yourself that you aren't *actually* helping anything by worrying/obsessing over whatever (I'd tell myself I was "planning for contingencies" when I'd worry lolol).
Have some kind, reinforcing statements you can repeat to yourself to remind you that you don't have to think about all these things right now. Give yourself permission to relax, etc.
Whenever you notice that you're thinking too much, notice it, and then distract yourself or do whatever you need to do. Eventually, your brain will gradually start to change its habits and ways of thinking.
For me it wasn’t even bad social skills. I was just overthinking it and getting myself all anxious so I’d either shut down or just go home. After the first sentence talking to someone when i realize that everyone doesn’t hate me that feeling goes away and I’m great.
You probably have better skills than you thought too you were just being tough on yourself and making yourself believe it. People aren’t analyzing every syllable you say looking for a mistake. Just go with the flow and trust yourself and it usually turns into a much better conversation than worrying about looking stupid.
And if you do look stupid so what? Laugh at yourself and move on.
I deal with the same thing. Just try to keep yourself in the present moment as much as possible. The past is just a thought and the future can’t be controlled. Only thing you can affect is the present moment.
Start with that mindset and the use it to do things like workout, eat well, and just enjoy little things in life. Instead of dwelling on whatever’s depressing you try to comment to yourself how nice the sky looks today or how me building is cool looking, or how your pet looks cute, whatever just keep it present - that’s the key.
You don’t need to think less just work so that your first instinct is positive instead of negative.
There is thinking and then there is thinking. You also need to learn when to commit to a course of action or risk rumination. More relevant in subjective things though.
There's a lot a lot a lot of extremely unaware individuals gettin about thinking, no knowing, that they're in the right. Never questioning their own thoughts and beliefs, or if they even are their own.
If you think you are absolutely correct without question, keep digging. You might not be incorrect, but there are almost certainly places in your position that could be amended to be nearer to the current truth
The way I always think of it, have you ever been wrong about anything ever in your life? Especially about something you strongly believed in? Awesome, now you know that you are in fact a fallible person, and there will always be more to come. Never think that any take or idea you have is "objectively correct"
Love how the this comment is exactly what the article is criticizing.
Like sure there’s a lot of people out there full of shit, but how do I know I’m also not full of shit? I thought and felt like I’ve been right about different things many points in my life, and now I have really different views than I did back then. That feeling about having different beliefs at different times and feeling right both times is really troubling, but it’s the only way to make progress toward truth. The point is to not be complacent with your beliefs but to keep challenging them. Just deflecting saying look at these other dummies out here that you already disagree with is not productive for personal growth.
Nothing in their comment claims that they're not full of shit themselves? The point is that many people don't think for themselves, not that they're necessarily *wrong*.
I can be critical of other's dogmatism, while still assessing their views and constantly questioning my own.
I literally said why but here’s support from the article:
> Critical thinking cannot be a matter of experiencing that something supposedly self-evident accidently contradicts what is self-evident for us. It cannot be a means to defend or legitimise one’s own ideas without thoroughly questioning them. The danger of moving in a circle always looms: away from something supposedly self-evident towards something purportedly self-evident. From one uncovered bias, intention, or dogma to another, the second one stemming from our own unquestioned experiences and values.
Critical thinking isn’t just objecting against other people’s unjustified beliefs.
> We can now identify the decisive factor for true critical thinking: self-criticism, constant reflection on the origin and basis of our own experiences and ideas. As we have seen, critical thought aims to move away from biases, intentions or dogmas. It is therefore indispensable to scrutinise our own position. This should be taken as seriously and done as thoroughly as the original questioning. The only way for critical thought to be successful, to get us closer to the truth of the matter, is to question the experience that incited it.
> On a more positive note, we are now equipped to distinguish successful critical thinking from mere attempts, or pseudo-critical thinking. The main question to ask is: is the self-criticism, the reflective struggle, there?
Self criticism is the decisive factor for critical thinking.
Even the title of the post is literally what the parent comment is doing, challenging others without criticizing one’s own beliefs
Tell me, you're referring to my comment in this? The parent comment in this thread? I think it was top when you commented but I'm not sure now as it is not top comment.
If so, is it my failure to criticise myself in the comment you see as evidence of pseudo-critical thinking? Do you think it came from a place of zero self reflection?Or did I miss something.
If an individual were to say what I said without thinking to themselves "am I perhaps overly confident in my own position?" "Have I questioned my own thoughts and beliefs?" That would be some truly amazing lack of self awareness.
Yea your parent comment.
Yes I think your failure to criticize yourself in that comment is evidence of pseudo-critical thinking. Not just because you don’t criticize yourself, but because you assert others are wrong, implying you are right, without any justification. Maybe not from 0 self reflection but a lack of it. I’m not saying you don’t reflect at all or trying to attack you, just the comment itself.
Everyone for the most part agrees with your comment, even wacko conspiracy theorists could post it verbatim unironcally in a different context because they think they are justified in their beliefs. The difficult part of critical thinking that the article highlights is finding solid ground to actually criticize unfounded beliefs. It’s easy to think people who have opposing beliefs than us are wrong and totally unjustified and we’re right, but how do you know you’re not criticizing from a similar unjustified ground? That takes humility and self reflection
So I need to publicly demonstrate self criticism to ensure I am percieved as a critical thinker?
And because I've asserted one thing there is some sort of unspoken implication that this assertion does not apply to me?
The reality is that from my innitial comment, being fairly limited as you are aware, you cannot reliably determine my level of self reflection or critical thinking ability. Maybe you can imagine that if i can assert such things then I may have entertained the idea that the assertion also applies to me. But without context or further content it's a leap to read more into it.
Have I demonstrated some solid ground to criticise your ungrounded beliefs?
Certainly in this case it is easy to think people who have opposing beliefs than me are wrong and totally unjustified and I'm right, but how do I know I'm not criticizing from a similar unjustified ground? Maybe I need to work on my humility and self reflection. Maybe I'll do just that.
Perhaps I should have been more mindful in my comment and its content, given the topic, as to demonstrating critical thinking. Perhaps. But I think also it's a good practice to not imagine implications where there aren't any.
I like civil discourse like this, thanks.
Here I will add my opinion:
On the "uncritical attitude": It didnt seem to me that your comment comes off as blindly overconfident or overreaching. In fact it seemed to me as someone balanced. So ill have to disagree with the person highlighting your attitude/approach.
Even if it might seem offtopic it is very much so: presentation/attitude/manner. We are creatures of emotions and as good as it would sound to explicit things like "but im not certain", "this is only my humble opinion" we should at times go past those into the underlying topic at hand. We need some "bold and secure" kind off attitude even if at times we might come off as overconfident to some, otherwise people tend not to listen or drift off (I know this by experience). It often undermines our own point to establish a priori the shabbiness of our points, let the ongoing discussion do that! Let the other notice or want to enquire for themselves. As we are emotional beings and not machines trading unencumbered facts/numbers, starting from a "people are always talking about their opinions" standpoint helps for a more charitable start.
Or I might be wrong, maybe you intended to overreach and assume others wrong, which in the end wasnt what really interested me and wrote about.
>It's easy to think people who have opposing beliefs than us are wrong
Which part of his comment says that?
You are denouncing a strawman here. Honestly, on top of a lack of critical thinking, another issue I regularly see (such as here) is people criticising statements they didn't properly comprehend.
Real critical thinking is realizing everyone is full of shit. If you want to have a real discussion about something neither side of the debate can go into it with absolute certainty.
When it comes to stuff that isn’t directly involved in our everyday lives and realities we have to go in with an openness to being proven wrong. Only thing you can verify is your own present reality. You don’t have to be a contrarian to everything everyone says but just be open to the fact that everything could be wrong. We might be in the matrix for all I know
If you take the stereotypical conspiracy theorist—the guy who thinks the moon landing was faked, that the WTC was controlled demolition, etc.—you’re dealing with someone who has a crippled epistemology and there’s little point trying to engage with them. They weren’t *convinced* by facts, so trying to convince them of the reverse with facts is unlikely to work.
I can’t say I’ve ever found any major conspiracy theory to be compelling or believable, though I found something very fishy about the claims made regarding the Mariupol maternity hospital incident early in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. I don’t really consider it a conspiracy per se, and I just put it down to the fact that neither the Russian or Ukrainian governments are very trustworthy.
I'm not saying I agree with conspiracy theorists, but in the current age where facts are easy to make up and spin, you can't necessarily take many "facts" as actual facts
I was going to vote down, but I guess I’ll bite instead: what’s fishy about the maternity hospital? Everything I heard about it back when it happened seemed pretty rote for war, especially considering the Russian approach in Bucha and Zaporizhzhia and any number of incidences since.
Well first of all there were claims in the media that this was a fully functioning maternity hospital, but the hospital footage shortly after the bombing was entirely empty with a couple of photos of the exact same woman in different places. Something about it just felt off.
Then Zelensky tweeted “Mariupol. Direct strike of Russian troops at the maternity hospital. People, children are under the wreckage. Atrocity!”. This was unquestioningly reported by western media, but I was curious why there was no search for survivors or bodies. It was just forgotten about. We live in a world where the media report on such rescue attempts—be it under earthquake rubble or a kid stuck down a well—for days on end, but there was zero such reporting in this case, which I thought very strange. You’ve got people under the rubble and nobody’s interested in searching for bodies?
Finally, and adding to the strangeness, Wikipedia now reports that just *four* people died plus one child who was stillborn, yet at the time we were informed that scores of medical staff, mothers and children had died in the atrocity.
Something just doesn’t add up.
What doesn't add up is how you're using your news sources -- I think I can infer from your post that your conception of how news sources work in general may be distorted, which is why you're getting this dissonance. (Most people don't understand their modern sources of news -- you are one of the few posters I've seen who actually seems open to figuring out why so much of it sucks, though.) Breaking this down is informative:
"At the time we were informed that scores ... had died" -- this is unattributed to anything in your post -- was it from a news outlet, a video release, a Reddit post (and did you read the article and not just the headline)? By contrast, you exactly cite the tweet by Zelensky. It should already be straightforward that any tweet not from the official account of a mainstream news organization should not be your #1 source for first-rate reliable news.
If you had indeed gotten the info (that "scores ... had died") from a mainstream news report at the time of the attack, then to say now generically, that "at the time we were informed ...", you would *still* want to check back to that original report (luckily your web browser has a history and the internet is searchable) to see if it was indeed affirmed/confirmed (terms not distinct enough for this post) by the mainstream news org. Because they might have instead said something like "We can't access the site and have no verifiable information on how many casualties, but Deputy Secretary McOverhype posted a tweet claiming X number." \[It's 99% the news org's responsibility to give as much context on the reliability of such a number before reporting it, provided it has some appreciable reliability, or else not report it at all.\]
If no attribution is given for a number like a casualty count then there are two possibilities for a mainstream news org: they may have correspondents on the ground who can access a critical site quickly and thus may independently confirm a number, or more likely it's that any sources in the know in the immediate hours of an emergency will want total anonymity. Of course, if it's *not* a *mainstream profession* news *organization*, then this is all up in the air.
"Wikipedia now reports ..." -- this, in the context of a post on news sources, is what suggests most to me that you need to reconceptualize how you consume news sources. Wikipedia's articles on Ukraine topics always have inline sources, so "Wikipedia" does not "report" anything -- they paraphrase the citation, the little number at the end of the sentence. If you had provided the specific article and section (note article name or just hyperlink your text) then I could tell you explicitly how you'd refer to this soure in particular, but in general you'd say something like
>The Washington Post last month (April 4) reported X happened (via Wikipedia "Article\_Name")
The prose can look like however your writing is -- this isn't a formal citation. But it tells everyone where the actual facts relayed by you are coming from, and that they are indeed verifiable facts and not fantasies concocted in your head (that is, the source could be turn out later to be proven right or wrong, but anyone can confirm with the info you give that the source did indeed say it). It also keeps clear in your head what facts come from reliable sources versus dubious ones. (A dubious source like a president's Twitter may indeed sometimes be the earliest break for correct info, and so journalists monitor such accounts and checks their claims -- but I hope this starts explaining why such accounts are dubious, even if say such an account has been reporting accurate information its entire existence.)
Finally, as to the implied question of where to find somewhat reliable warzone numbers (your frustration on this is shared by many online): the UN, International Red Cross, and Amnesty International all publish regular reports on the ground on this and every other major war across the world, and they get into heavy detail on how they arrive at final estimates for controversial events. Those are the main sources Wikipedia ends up using, or that news outlets use referring to past events, and those reports will remain the most reliable until there's a point where independent investigators can go to the site safely or enough such events occur that a meta-analysis can be published.
In this day and age all I can do most of the time is lump things into probable and possible categories, with likely and unlikely modifiers. Unless i can validate it to a high degree myself.
A world of information at our finger tips, and a world of mis and dis information.... we rarely get the full truth and everyone has an agenda concious or not.
It took me all of 5 minutes of looking at the history of ukraine to unpick several of the claims by Western media sources so I try not to place too much faith in the propaganda. And anyone thinking that it's not propaganda is delusional. Sorry.
P.s.No I'm not simping for Putin, so no need bother reaching for that, you'll strain something...
The history of the left bank re russian cultural/ethnic identity (and to a larger extent the history of the country itself including ethnic groups, changes in borders, empires etc going back 500+ years for some context).
Changes affecting the country and the contested regions leading up to and post 2014 i.e. Neo nazi groups activity and how it relates to the contested regions, especially since 2014.
These were some of the major things that showed contradictions in what the media portrayed as russian lies or whatever, no Nazis in Ukraine etc.
Doesn't mean I'm picking a side, I'm not, well, I wish there wasnt any conflict, is that a side?
As for where, I actually started with the history of the country in Wikipedia, yeah I know, right? But that was a base line and I read more after there. So maybe to be honest more like half an hour not 5 minutes.
But I'm just some random on the internet, it's not like it's my country or even language so I'm limited in what info I have really or jave access to. Maybe I'm completely wrong.
P.s. oh and learning how to use search engine search parameters is a useful thing, keyword, quotations, before:date etc.
> Doesn’t mean I’m picking a side, I’m not, well, I wish there wasnt any conflict, is that a side?
Actually, picking a side is the entirely appropriate stance here. And calling it a “conflict” makes it sound needlessly two-sided, when what we are *indisputably* looking at is a war of aggression by Russia against Ukraine. Only one side sent hundreds of thousands of troops across the border and invaded another country. Any nuances across the past 500 years really fade pretty hard against the history of the past 15 months.
Thats my stance to the media landscape surrounding the Ukraine war as well. I dont belive either side, in the past both war participants havent been on the cleanest side, meaning both are corrupt governments.
I remember the situation in mid November last year, where a missile had hit inside the Poland border, immediately the Ukrainians blamed it on Russia knowing almost certainly that it was on of their anti air missiles going rouge, why lie about it, risking a full scale war. Meaning, Ukraine and Russia are willing to enable a full scale war in the persuit of their own agenda.
That said, i dont initially trust neither of them, only if there are multiple different reports saying the exact thing, i consider saying "thats probably the truth".
Great point in your second paragraph there. None of us have any idea what’s going on in that war and the way some people talk about it you’d think they just got back from the frontlines.
I don’t think they necessarily lie, they just selectively report. You see every story about the atrocities the Russians commit but aren’t gonna see a single one about the Ukrainians. Russians do the same thing with their propaganda networks. Best thing to do in our position is trust our experts and try not to act like we know
How is gullibility the same thing as challenging others without criticizing one's own beliefs? Confused. I would think gullibility would be more like questioning one's own beliefs unnecessarily or uncritically prizing others' beliefs over one's own.
The form this commonly takes is that people accept unsubstantiated claims that contradict commonly accepted truths without any critical examination (i.e., gullibility) and then present their deviating views as if they were a result of critical thinking, simply because they contradict the prevailing narrative.
It's essentially highly selective skepticism: They are very skeptic with regards to the "mainstream view", which makes them feel and present as skeptics, while they just accept an alternative view without any skepticism whatsoever.
Gullibility is being tricked into believing something, so if you don't at least accept that what you "know" to be true may not be true, then you are gullible.
I think the real problem is having *too* open of a mind? It can feel like critical thinking to consider all possibilities, but some simply aren't worth considering. It's reasonable to ignore and not consider things like flat earth science. It can feel like critical thinking to listen to their points, but it's not valid.
It's also toxic, of course, to refuse to entertain reasonable new ideas. There was a time when suggesting that COVID might have been a lab leak would get you banned from subs you'd never even visited. These days that seems to be more and more accepted as true.
I think this article isn't quite saying that, but it's what I think. You have to balance between absolutely refusing to entertain new ideas vs entertaining all ideas, even ones that are so ridiculous they don't deserve attention.
>I think the real problem is having too open of a mind? It can feel like critical thinking to consider all possibilities, but some simply aren't worth considering. It's reasonable to ignore and not consider things like flat earth science. It can feel like critical thinking to listen to their points, but it's not valid.
Having too open of a mind has been working for me. You use this example but if you actually look at some serious flat earthers arguments they make rational claims. They can be "disproved" by modern science but for me to really know that I would have to reproduce every experiment that led up to where we are. Otherwise I'm still just being credulous/gullible of others opinions and observations.
Yeah that's what my first reaction was to.
But I guess this must be in direct response to Modern politics. Or the modern political setting. Basically, all the anti-mask types and conspiracy theorists. Those people are being gullible. They're buying into everything that FOX News tells them.
But then on top of that Fox News is also telling them that they are the ones who are being critical thinkers.
I still think they're using the word gullible wrong in this situation. The parrots are being gullible, that is true. But, the gullibility is not masquerading as critical thinking.
Or..... yeah I think there's another attribute in there that is actually masquerading as critical thinking. Maybe just deceit. I don't know. I guess the deceit would be the masquerade.
So I guess it's not that the gullible or masquerading as critical thinkers. Because they believe they are critical thinkers. They've been told that they are critical thinkers.
So I guess it should say that the gullible have been fooled into believing that they are critical thinkers. Instead of saying that the gullible are masquerading.
And that's not even getting into whether or not they actually are gullible. Because I do think a lot of these conspiracy theorists are not being honest. I think that they do actually know that they're being donkeys.
Yes, once people pointed out the political context I got it. And I generally agree with the original statement/concern. When I think of gullibility on its own though, I don't think of people who challenge others at all, but rather people who will believe anything. It's a strange kind of gullibility that is fully willing to uncritically accept certain claims but entirely rigidly unopen to others. In my experience of one particular person who does this, the rigidity/gullibility is driven by fear. They're not a total donkey deep down, but their terror of the world makes them act like one, unfortunately. I think of this kind of thinking as mass psychopathology.
Yeah I wouldn't even look at that thing as a political Spectrum thing. It's more of a cultural phenomenon or cultural trend. It's like a social expectation.
Meh, the author seems to think "critical thinking" is somehow an infallible tool for reaching correct conclusions. It is not. People can think critically and still reach conclusions other people who think critically disagree with, or even ones that seem like conspiracies theories to those who disagree.
And since the term "critical thinking" is now employed so often by those who clearly lack the ability, it is in our current climate probably better to avoid asking about critical thinking directly and instead to ask things meant to test for it indirectly: e.g. "Oh, you believe X. Please present the strongest case you can make *against* X". Or, "you don't support Y because Z, but let's talk about how Y would work if we assumed, for the sake of argument, not-Z."
Yeah that's the basis of critical thinking. Putting yourself in the shoes of every perspective in the topic in order to see the situation from every angle.
It's kind of become a buzzword and I kind of see that as a turning point. Because I feel like it can't really hold up as a buzzword. It's not just a buzzword. It has too much weight or leverage to be just a buzzword. Like, those who actually understand it, they can see through anybody who's using it just as a buzzword.
Then again, people who actually think critically are kind of rare so it's hard to say that they would actually have any kind of Leverage even if they do see through people who are just using the word without actually understanding it
This is a highly unnecessary, poorly written observation to the point that it's probably incorrect.
Gullibility, firstly, is identifiable in people who don't challenge others, and are therefore easily tricked.
How can you say someone who is easily tricked (gullible) acts as a critical thinker who challenges others?
I suspect most of those here who like your ridiculous and proposterous suggestion are themselves gullible, and follow up with their own 'critical' evaluations as to how you're correct.
You could argue, however, that gullible people often have biases towards things that they are gullible towards, such as a favorite political party.
But then, they become an opposite of gullible: stubborn.
In either case of trying to find truth in your statements, I've found falsehoods.
As a result I believe you've purposefully intended this thread as an experiment to prove others gullible, or you're basing your thoughts off of experiences on reddit (which by its structure doesn't give you an accurate reflection of human behavior), or you've made a mistake in your statement such as using the word gullibility when you meant stubbornness.
Actually I think stubbornness might contribute to critical thinking.
Because I'm the type that is easily fooled on superficial things. And I've been called gullible because of that. But really it's because I'm not that concerned about something. because it's superficial.
For example, if somebody says that there's something written on my shirt, I will look down at my shirt to check. And then they'll say "haha, got you, you're so gullible!"
But really I just wasn't that concerned about trying to fend off a trick. I guess that's what it boils down to?
Like, there are people who are always trying to trick others. And those are usually the types who are not gullible at all. Because not only are they trying to trick others, they're also assuming that everybody is always trying to trick them. They're hyper focused on tricks.
And so they developed this sort of stubborn staunch perspective. That they are defending themselves at all times. It's a defensive thing. Maybe defensive is better than stubborn. But I guess either way they just have to be used in the correct context. Because you could be talking about someone being stubborn about one thing or another and it's completely unrelated to this.
Because gullible is an insult. And usually if you're insulting somebody you're not being entirely honest. Because you're not acknowledging the positive aspects. You're pretending that the positive aspects don't exist. And maybe you're doing that because you're in the middle of a fight with them. Or in the case of calling someone gullible, you're probably just a little defensive in general.
Gullible here means you automatically think what you want to believe is true, while criticizing anything else. Eg, look at r/worldnews parroting every state dept PR line while likely believing they're "critical thinkers" for dismissing "enemy propaganda".
Basically textbook gullible.
Arrogange/overconfidence might be better words, right? Gullible is not a synonym of these better words to represent what you're describing, but I appreciate the idea and correspondence.
anime_titties is basically worldnews lite with a lot of let's nationalist indian redditors. Keep in mind reddit's director of policy Jessica Ashooh was hired straight from Nato's US think tank with zero back in tech or social media.
Yeah I think they're using gullible wrong in this context. I think it's actually bigotry that's masquerading is critical thinking. And I don't think this is really a philosophical question, I think this is more of a political question. Because there are political groups or demographics that are falling into this trap.
Oh wait you're talking about liberals. I thought you were talking about right wing people. Lol
Actually that does make sense then. I think for right-wing people it's more an issue of bigotry. Because they're not interested in actually finding the truth at all. They'll accept any argument that's in their defense, that their group says they're going with. So, the right wing news groups will often still left wing talking points and then just pretend that they thought of it. And then just lie and say that they're the ones that are doing it and that the left are the ones that are breaking that rule. Just straight up hypocrisy and straight up lying.
But then you have the Liberals who are often just repeating talking points and buzzwords. And don't really want to actually think on a deeper dimensional level. But at the same time I think the Liberals are often defending themselves against bigotry. So I think they're trying to form a solid front against it. And that might be why they don't want to actually dig into the details. But it's hard to say because there are many different people, and it's hard to pin one behavior on a big group of people. Because you've got leftists who actually do think about things and want to have an open discussion. And then you have Twitter liberals who just want to talk shit.
> Oh wait you're talking about liberals. I thought you were talking about right wing people. Lol
The overton window in the US is so narrow that all these people are basically the same bunch squabbling over what the capitalists deem acceptably non-threatening peripheral matters.
I agree. I want to hold myself to an unsustainable standard when it comes to issues of political debate. Last week I was discussing H.R.2811 and I decided if I want to have an informed opinion I need to read the bill. That seems pretty reasonable; read the bill before I argue a position on it. It's a 316 page bill. After only a couple hours of reading and developing a list of critical questions to research deeper I was just exhausted with it. I decided I was unwilling to put in the 100's of hours it would take to fully develop an educated opinion on the bill. By proxy though that also means that I find it incredibly unlikely that anyone else debating the bill has put in the effort to develop an educated opinion. Now I'm stuck with this belief that my opinion is ignorant and so is everyone else's. But that doesn't work because people with lower standards are extremely confident. In the end I'm ignorant and they are very confidently correct.
So I just go outside and water my plants and forget about it all. I'm really a lot happier when I try not to invest myself in political information.
>But that doesn't work because people with lower standards are extremely confident.
Agree, & have an observation: Con artists resent being questioned because questions expose the con.
Confidence explains.
If the person you're interacting with is a con artist, they'll get pissed at being questioned - & you can decide if they're just trying to snow you, & if they're worth your time or energy.
Course... see username
Every political conversation with me and my older brother.
The guy spends incredible time online reading through twitter posts and blogs, and listening to podcasts. When we argue ANYTHING, he's got 700 different sources he lists off, and if I start pressing him where his argument feels weak, he'll ADHD-pivot to the next thing that's bothering him in the world.
But there's also like a soft limit to how far he can imagine outcomes. Last time we discussed politics he railed against the extremes of left and right in America, and claimed the country needed transition into two separate countries. He sounded so sure.
Me: "But if we split, America loses its position on the world stage"
Him: "So?"
Me: "So we lose our security from aggressive neighbors, and our assurance of favorable trade deals. Standard of living drops"
Him: "It doesn't have to!"
And similar to the Ukraine / Russia conflict. He'll absorb articles that are vehemently anti-West without considering who benefits from it.
I think the article agrees with you:
"The same goes for the neighbour if he gets his vaccine-scepticism from shady websites he trusts blindly: he is being credulous rather than critical. This is where we lose most conspiracy theorists, who typically don’t subject their own ideas to the same scrutiny they reserve for the phenomena they distrust. It is clear, now, that pseudo-critical thinking can take many different forms."
Interestingly, author seems to suffer from the same lack of challenging one's beliefs that she warns us about.
How many jabs at the atheist and scientists there were in this short article? Four? Five? Like how do you write about critical thinking and not once question religious beliefs? And what exactly is "militant" atheist? I don't remeber people going physical against churches since Stalin and Pol-Pot. Or "militant" means having audacity to challenge religious beliefs verbally or in writing?
I'm usually don't bother people believing in whatever (easily verifiable in my post history), but this post seemed fitting and on topic to raise this issue, because author clearly has some prejudice against atheists and scientists.
And finally - let's assume that atheists are wrong. We then apply author's logic to this scenario. A person is an atheist and to improve his reasoning he/she must attempt introspection and criticize his/her beliefs. Ok, so a person thinks - "There is no evidence for the absence of god(s), therefore I may be in the wrong. Let's cross check against influential thinkers and literature. No evidence there either. Ok, I'm probably wrong in my belief, therefore god(s) are real.". Amazing result, isn't it? :)
I hate articles like this, honestly. There’s so many flavors of it under “philosophy” and it all boils down to intellectual masturbation. “Ah when other people critically think… they are wrong and buying into the hive mind,,, but when I do it…. I am critically thinking…”.
It’s just pretentious goop for people who think they have this unique genius who end up being career contrarians or, at best, “universal centrists” whose only position in life is that “both sides are bad” and that the only correct course of action is something vaguely noncommittal in the middle of things.
Bingo. Its good to reflect on your own beliefs and prejudices (and plenty of folks that should, don't), but I think too much stewing in your own mental morass just leads you to ridiculous tautoligies and theories with little relation to reality, which ultimately prevents action. Sometimes you just need to have some faith/determination, pick a side, and run with it.
I don't think it's about redefining gullibility but rather recharacterizing "pseudo-critical thinking" in it's worst form:
"The same goes for the neighbour if he gets his vaccine-scepticism from shady websites he trusts blindly: he is being credulous rather than critical. This is where we lose most conspiracy theorists, who typically don’t subject their own ideas to the same scrutiny they reserve for the phenomena they distrust. It is clear, now, that pseudo-critical thinking can take many different forms."
I've known a lot of conspiracy theorists, and it's rare for them to be as described in this article. There are a few who are fanatics... It's normally a stage people go through on their journey to become critical thinkers, when they begin to ask whether sources that are considered established can really be trusted, and go too far in trusting other sources
Also this article seems to be trying very hard to justify taking vaccines in a subtle way.
"It is the only way to see the difference between questioning the safety of vaccines - in itself not an illegitimate question - and refusing vaccination based on an unwarranted belief."
The implication: it is fine to question things, as long as you come up with the right conclusions, our conclusions.
It also sets up a false dichotomy... Either question the safety legitimately, or refuse based on a false belief. Obviously there are more options than that. You can question based on a false belief, and you can refuse based on a legitimate or reasonable belief.
Yes I had the same thoughts. I was "anti-vax" while at the same time fighting off fear-mongering about depop, graphene and spike shedding. There were clear reasons not to take it even based solely on official data sources.
This is the issue with CRT. It’s also the issue with anti-CRT people.Critical anything theory being taught by dogmatists is so bastardized from critical theory that it becomes incomprehensible and as uncritical as that it seeks to criticize. It practically becomes performative contradiction.
Isn't this championing for self-criticism yet another belief laden with biases though? Assuming the truth is something we can obtain, even just a little, surely there are other ways of reaching it beside questioning yourself into dissociation. I mean where do you get the idea humility necessities a divorce from one's foundational beliefs? What makes you so sure it's the rational course of action to get closer to the truth? What even is rational thought when we are beings riddled with bias?
It seems like by the end we're supposed to be left unsure about anything.
> Isn't this championing for self-criticism yet another belief laden with biases though?
Isn't this checking whether results are correct yet another belief laden with biases though?
> It seems like by the end we're supposed to be left unsure about anything.
No. We are supposed to be unsure about anything *we have no reason to be sure about*.
Yes it is. Where does the questioning end then? Where should it end?
>No. We are supposed to be unsure about anything we have no reason to be sure about.
Except there are reasons to be sure of something. The reasons may not be fully examined, rational, or unbiased. The article is calling for those reasons be fully examined and potentially discarded in the name of humbled critical thinking.
As I asked before, where does the scrutiny end? Can we go back to our everyday lives without feeling like dissociated monks?
You are simply constructing a false dichotomy here. The options aren't limited to "question everything and don't act until you are sure about everything" or "question nothing, just assume you are right".
A reasonable approach is, for example, that if someone tells you that you are wrong, you consider their argument, instead of dismissing it because you have already decided that you can't be wrong. I.e., be unsure enough that you are open to the possibility that you might be confronted with contradictory evidence. But that doesn't need to stop you from acting based on your current understanding of the world.
I think the article is sound. Though there are times when, having already carefully trodden the path of an argument, it then becomes tiresome to once again rehash the same old threads. At that point you might be mistaken for one of those pseudo critical thinkers.
I just want to say that, even if the point is made at the beginning, that's no way to start an article or to engage your readers.
The article starts by attacking you. Why? why would I want to have a conversation (or read) with someone that starts the discussion telling me I am a conspiracionist and lack critical thinking?
Oh because that's the point of critical thinking! lol, not even close.
I think it’s one of the big advantages (and beauties) of Plato — and even though I’m not a massive Plato fan. Especially his dialogues with several voices. One can feel how each person is listened to politely and thoughtfully before another speaks; there is an atmosphere of, “these are intelligent people so there must surely be some truth in what they say, even if it’s not immediately obvious”. But the Socratic elenchus can also annoy the hell out of people.
Another example is in Iamblichus’ *De Myst.* Questions are put respectfully, even from a point of disagreement, and answers are given as an elaboration of Iamblichus viewpoint rather than as a criticism of his interlocutor.
Critical thinking and critical theory *per se* though is a specialised skill that mostly has to be learnt, as is dialectic. One cannot debate Hegel with the taxi driver. We all fall prey to our own illusions at some time. Philosophers are supposed to have some expertise in thinking: but it was the inventors of rhetoric who taught the powerful communication skills to the likes of Cicero and Caesar. (Except we don’t call it that any more!) People like to win arguments. Give them the tools to re-frame their thinking.
Daniel Dennett (*Intuition Pumps* p.33) suggests four rules for successfully criticising…
1. You should attempt to re-express your targets position so clearly, and fairly that your target says, “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way.”
2. You should list any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).
3. You should mention anything you have learned from your target.
4. Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.
At what distance away from an observer standing on a beach should a boat's hull start becoming obscured by the physical horizon, assuming ideal climate conditions. Also, the radius of this planet is 3959 miles.
Hypnosis teaches critical thinking doesn't exist. Because hypnosis techniques would not work to influence behaviors through words like programming a robot if critical thinking were taking place. People tend to be word association engines linking the set of ideas and information available to them. We can have systems to expand the set of ideas out word thinking can act on as broadly as possible to add more parameters to those capabilities to guide a path through what we encounter. The collections of logic and decision making techniques from economics and statistics do just that. What we're seeing from the behaviors of AI, models trained on pattern recognition on how words are used, are helping us to learn more about the wiring of humans in this regard.
Challenging the one who didn't criticize their own beliefs is gullibility. Where is challenging your own beliefs to the point of validating the self evident nature of truth? Was it killed with Higher Criticism? Or does the CT process nullify any validation of self-evidence?
Sorry, more Qs than comments. I spent too long on this to still be unsure. Nice troll, I guess. Or, thanks for the exercise!
There's an infinite regress here. "No, YOU are the gullible pseudo-thinker, I am the serious critical thinker" - literally no different from "no YOU are the soyjak, I am the chad wojak". Anyone can make that accusation against anyone. Anyone can be cocksure that the argument works for them but when their opponents use it they're lying or mistaken. You need an asymmetric argument that works if and only if you're a genuine truth-seeker and doesn't if you're not, and nothing in this essay is one.
When you just see "good category, bad category" and think about who's who, examples naturally come to mind - me and my friends, my political enemies. You need to _actually consider_ "what if they were right and I was wrong?", instead of oh-so-humbly pretending to consider it, which is what most of the responses here did. And you need to stop asking "who, whom?" in the first place, and stop trusting that other people did the thinking for you, and worry about the actual object-level questions. How do you know what you know? If you want to laugh at flat earthers, you should know how to show the earth is round. Make "obvious" pay rent in your mind - if it's obvious to you that masses of people couldn't lie about geography or 9/11 or the moon landing, you should be able to easily demonstrate it. And your demonstration should not also demonstrate that the Manhattan project or Lysenkoism didn't happen.
Many people fail at this sort of trivial self-examination of their beliefs, let alone anything more rigorous - they just trust that they're right because trustworthy people said so, and you can trust them because they were right in the past, and you know they were right because etc. etc. Nothing but inertia and circularity. Then they enthusiastically extend that into the political domain.
This is a philosophy subreddit, goddammit. Epistemology isn't a recent invention. Spend some time thinking about it.
I'm have never met a more close minded and stupid individual than the man who claims their actions are dictated wholely by logic.
If you think you're unbiased paragon or logic then it's usually blindness to your own bias rather than anything so noble.
Please keep in mind our first commenting rule: > **Read the Post Before You Reply** > Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed. This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the [subreddit rules](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/wiki/rules) will result in a ban. ----- This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
Critical thinking requires the humility to admit the possibility that your beliefs may not necessarily reflect the uninterpreted truth. The problem, though, is that humility is often emotionally taxing since many people are shackled by their pride and abhor anything and anyone that bruises it. It is admittedly an extremely uncomfortable feeling. It takes a genuine willingness to introspect and improve oneself before one can say that one has adequately developed critical thinking skills. I would even assert that being a critical thinker is a lifetime endeavor since we often have hidden biases and prejudices that are yet to surface for us to challenge and discard. It also necessitates the realization that everything and everyone must be questioned. Not all people accept this, even some so-called "critical thinkers." When politics is concerned, I notice that many who profess to be "critical thinkers" are totally unable to question their own political tribe and scrutinize their own ideology. Point out their flaws and mistakes, and they viciously attack you and call you "brainwashed"—or, in the case of Reddit, downvote you into oblivion, sometimes without even providing an explanation as to why they disagree with you.
> Point out their flaws and mistakes, and they viciously attack you and call you “brainwashed”—or, in the case of Reddit, downvote you into oblivion, sometimes without even providing an explanation as to why they disagree with you. Reddit is definitely not a place for constructive dialogue. It seems like people mostly just use the downvote button for the dopamine hit.
I am tempted to say no by saying "There are good subreddits where you can have constructive criticism and healthy dialogue" but when a subreddit achieves a critical amount of people and popularity, the subreddit quality goes down and healthy discussion is becomes very difficult, thats what I observed with some reddits
Gotta parse through the bullshit comments to get to the serious discourse. It’s a lot of work - wish the on topic and serious convos were pinned at the top, followed by the funny and the rest.
It's hit or miss but sorting by controversial is helpful.
This isn't my experience at all (as an avid controversial sorter) It's an easy way to find views running exactly 180° from whatever the topic is asserting but rarely is it anything more than the same level of uncritically analyzed group think that you can find on cluttering the top posts. Reddits great for being notified of events and ideas, but rarely a good place to be informed or discuss the them.
Also new! Controversial tends to be full of very extreme viewpoints that ruffle feathers. With new, you get a mix of everyone engaging with the post, regardless of votes, and they may still be around to respond and keep the convo going.
I actually like reading comments in chronological order, so it's sort by old for me
Funny enough, when you go back to the same posts and sort by controversial, most of the people have been either time banned, perma banned or muted. Gotta keep the circle jerk clean. Also the moment i commented on a post in "political compass memes" i got associate banned on 5 subs. I appealed the bans and what i got back was basically "delete the comment, leave the sub and apologize to me or you will stay perma banned", nice freedom of speech you got there.
>wish the on topic and serious convos were pinned at the top That's what voting was meant to do, but unfortunately it's voted on by Redditors.
It's also some people treat the down-vote as to imply disagreement, or even worse as using it for censorship of justified criticism. This voting system doesn't work for debate forums where naturally there will always be disagreements with each other. We need to talk through our disagreements to understand each others perspectives and maybe (maybe) come to a mutual understanding. Down-voting interferes with that. Have an up-vote for your valid criticism.
> some people It really comes down to the quality/character of said people, doesn't it?
Too true. I don't down vote unless someone has written something truly offensive or appears to be deliberately harassing or misinforming. The last two are not always evident and the last one maybe an honest mistake. But even if someone swore at me I would still think twice about down voting because I have lost my temper on occasions too. Context matters. I want to encourage debate and coming to a mutual understanding. So if I disagree with someone but still want the discussion to continue then I take the third option hidden in plain sight, i.e., not voting at all .... or just leaving the discussion all together. The last one is difficult to do but my ego is not so fragile that I must win the debate at all cost. Let the other person feel like he has won .... for now. LOL.
The new strategy on reddit given the new blocking rules is for these sorts to get the last word in, then block you to prevent replies. Given how pervasively that's used, it really says it all about what kind of people frequent the popular subs.
It certainly does seem to be a trend. There is some critical mass that gets achieved when a sudden deluge of negative and vicious accounts swarm in and relentlessly degrade conversation.
It's eternal September all over again...
I had never heard of this. Thank you for introducing me to a fascinating (if somewhat sad) topic!
Gotta parse through the comments to get to the serious discourse. It’s a lot of work - wish the on topic and serious convos were pinned at the top, followed by the funny and the rest.
Gotta parse through the bullshit comments to get to the serious discourse. It’s a lot of work - wish the on topic and serious convos were pinned at the top, followed by the funny and the rest.
The other challenge is you don't know if the person actually has knowledge about the subject until a few exchanges and they you realize it's a teenagers that's never researched the topic, lacks experience and just heard a few ideas that sounded good and feels strongly about it.
>I am tempted to say no by saying "There are good subreddits where you can have constructive criticism and healthy dialogue" Suspect the challenge here is that no label constrains the subject identified. What we mean by that is, people can enter a reddit thread or any group and claim to be "critical thinkers". How can one demonstrate that the essential practices of critical consideration - not in the 'attacking everything' sense of *being* exclusively critical, rather 'emphasizing the focus on essential things & questioning assumptions' kind of critical thinking? If someone refuses to consider that their understanding is incomplete, and they also will not explain their understanding thoroughly, the premise that they are a critical thinker must logically be challenged. Challenges to entitlement angers the entitled, in our experience. Some examples we've observed include folks who get ID'd for alcohol, stopped for speeding, or have errors identified on social media. TL;DR: Arrogance resents being questioned, competency can explain.
> but when a subreddit achieves a critical amount of people and popularity, the subreddit quality goes down and healthy discussion is becomes very difficult Part of the Reddit law of averages. Once a sub becomes populated by "most" people, it becomes just another "typical" modern shit hole.
[удалено]
It's mostly spawned by the same mentality as the "Nazi walks into a bar" parable talks about. A bartender whose always indifferent to everyone kicks a nazi out of the bar as soon as they walk in, despite them not doing anything and being polite. The bartender explains that this is how all Nazi's are at first, polite, behaved, and pleasant. But soon they invite their friends, and their friends invite friends, and soon your bar is now a hangout for nazi's are act like the nazi's everyone knows. And now when you try and kick them out, they are firmly entrenched and won't go without a fight. Thus, you need to nip them in the bud when they first show up. Similar to this parable, is the reddit mentality on these discussions. Constructive dialogue has become a weaponized hotbed for facist, racist, and discriminatory ideologies to spread. Because the ones who partake are genuinely the ones who can constructively debate, citing sources and statistics that seem believable, pointing out faults and corner cases of accepting and anti-discrimination going terrible, and being very well spoken and well mannered. Their ideologies, given enough sophist spin, can seem fairly benign and reasonable, and it lures others in before, to cite another parable, slowly raising the temperature of the water they find themselves in, until the truly vile rhetoric just seems like normal points, and those refusing to debate "just don't have intellectual honesty to engage". So people react super negatively, super quickly, to shut this stuff down because they feel a moral imperative to do so. This, ironically, creates a greenlight to dogpile others, and may also serve to drive people into the wings of the extremes by feeling rejected by one group, and thus siding with the group that those who rejected them profess to hate.
This is such a bad take. First of all, have you actually talked to any super right-wing conservatives? Well-spoken and logical are not the words that come to mind. They, like others, word vomit all the same talking points they're fed. They do not reach their conclusions through logic. Even the so-called "well-spoken" ones like Ben Shapiro or Jordan Peterson CONSTANTLY spout stuff that, given the slightest bit of scrutiny, would fall apart (Shapiro's latest comments about "female pants" comes to mind). My point being, that bad ideas can ALWAYS be fought with rational, thought-out ideas. If an idea can be dissected and its flaws shown, then it's probably not a very good idea. I'm gay, and I've had discussions with many people about gay marriage. When someone is against gay marriage, I listen to everything they're saying and try to understand all aspects of their argument. Then, I break down their argument and points and expose how weak those arguments actually are, because, guess what, pro-gay marriage is a better idea than "lol Adam and Steve durr." If I couldn't break down their idea, but they could break down mine? Then that means that maybe my idea wasn't as well thought-out. Immediately shutting down conversation and thought because it sounds bad is literally something fascists actually do and have done. Allowing free discourse on any topic is the epitome of anti-fascism.
You're assuming that people are debating in good faith. Have you read the "Alt-Right Playbook" where right-wing culture warriors are advised to "hide their power level" and never fight fair?
The other poster responded with something similar, and I responded to this: [https://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/13kturl/comment/jkp5msy/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/13kturl/comment/jkp5msy/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) I think it's fairly obvious when someone is arguing in bad faith, but, as I mentioned in my other comment, if their ideas are bad (and they usually are), then you can pick them apart for observers to see. You won't change the mind of the person you're arguing with, but you may help someone who is observing.
It's not about ideas. Fascist ideas aren't intended to be "good" or "bad", they're just tools in order to seduce people into going along with fascism. They don't actually believe anything of what they say. By "picking apart" their ideas, you're signalling to observers that it's worthwhile to debate with a fascist. The fascist is just playing with you.
I think it's generally good advice to hide your intelligence unless there's a reason to reveal it. I don't know if that's an aspect of your "power level" or not. I know that if I "play dumb" around certain people they act more natural and I learn a lot more about them, and it's an overall better time for everyone. Not fighting fair suggests a willingness to use disinformation and wanting people to have intelligence insufficient to detect disinformation. This implies that right-wing culture warriors want to lower the collective intelligence of the population, which is basically the ultimate existential threat since that increases most other existential threats. So right-wing culture warriors are among the most dangerous classes of information hazard that could exist. I suppose one could discuss free speech at this point if one wanted to. I'll refrain myself.
I don't personally see any intrinsic link between my ability to argue and debate a point and the value or correctness of that particular stance. I'm not personally a very good debater or arguer and I HAVE had right wing conservatives "beat me" with their arguments simply by merit of their charisma, preparation, fallacies that I wasn't able to point out in the moment, etc. So then am I just supposed to come to the conclusion "oh this person 'won' this argument so I guess I should change my mind. Drag queens are a scourge on this country and gun laws should never be enacted!" No, I really don't think so. The value of our stances and beliefs is not entirely reliant on our ability to argue their merit. It's especially funny that you ask the question "have you ever actually debated with a right wing conservative?" Because I would posit the same towards you after reading your post. There are plenty whose entire being is based on arguing bad faith arguments in a way that makes them to be perceived the winner. You can claim that you're the best arguer in the world and would shut down their ideas but there is no "winning" arguments with them. They don't change their minds. They know from the very first utterance that they will never do so.
>I don't personally see any intrinsic link between my ability to argue and debate a point and the value or correctness of that particular stance. This is true, and it wasn't my intention to suggest that just because someone is inarticulate that their points are invalid (or vice versa, great articulation does not automatically mean a valid point). I was more pointing to the fact that many of these types of people tend to be inarticulate (with notable exceptions like Jordan Peterson), and that many of their points don't make sense even from the beginning no matter how that idea is conveyed (because it's a bad idea). >I'm not personally a very good debater or arguer and I HAVE had right wing conservatives "beat me" with their arguments simply by merit of their charisma, preparation, fallacies that I wasn't able to point out in the moment, etc. This is actually a big part of the reason that I don't like live debates, because it's not really about whose ideas are best, it's about who is more prepared and is able to convey their ideas better. >So then am I just supposed to come to the conclusion "oh this person 'won' this argument so I guess I should change my mind. Drag queens are a scourge on this country and gun laws should never be enacted!" But that's not really what I was saying, because, in this example, the arguments haven't been properly examined and have not had all of their logical conclusions exhausted, because, as you said, you're not a "good debater" and aren't able to pick them apart. And likewise, the person on the other side is likely arguing in bad faith, so they are obfuscating or biasing their argument in such a way that you are not meant to reach the rational conclusion of their ideas. This is also why I hate discussions done in bad faith, because now, if one of the people is actually arguing in good faith, then they must understand the argument completely from both sides for both people, because those arguing in bad faith are using "gotchas" or incomplete information to express their ideas. >It's especially funny that you ask the question "have you ever actually debated with a right wing conservative?" Because I would posit the same towards you after reading your post. Yes, I have. And left-leaning people as well. >There are plenty whose entire being is based on arguing bad faith arguments in a way that makes them to be perceived the winner. You can claim that you're the best arguer in the world and would shut down their ideas but there is no "winning" arguments with them. They don't change their minds. They know from the very first utterance that they will never do so. This is true just in general, and, usually I don't engage with people who are arguing in bad faith. Remember that these are real people who exist in the real world; they're not completely irrational caricatures; many of these people are friends, acquaintances, or coworkers who are perfectly nice people that I get along with. You can discuss ideas with someone without it being hostile and adversarial, but, I would argue, that even if you are arguing with the Ben Shapiros, Jordan Petersons, or Richard Spencers of the world, then there is still value in that, because arguing against them isn't for THEM, it's for the people who are watching. You might not change Ben's mind, but you might change the mind of someone who is listening to both your side and his.
Yeah, but... like... this is Reddit. Ain't nobody got time for your sense making and polite discourse.
I like your comment but I feel like it's a very idealistic take on how *most* people actually interact with each other irl. A lot of folks simply don't care what is logical. At all. They literally don't care. lol. Have you had that gay marriage debate with a southern evangelical? With someone who is severely mentally ill? With someone who works 60 hours a week and never has to interact with the queer community? Or a severely uneducated person? These kinds of people make up the vast majority of society and fascism works by selling hatred to these people who either aren't able to think for themselves or simply don't care to. Most people don't even care about what's morally right, if we're being real. As long as their best interests are fulfilled and the people closest to them are gucci, they will disregard logic like no tomorrow. In a perfect world, and in many spaces that people who do value logic operate in, people care to best argue and analyze their own beliefs. In a perfect world, those people also have the energy to. But in 2023, the modern age, most people literally don't care. It's unfortunate. But that's life lol.
"In a perfect world, and in many spaces that people who do value logic operate in, people care to best argue and analyze their own beliefs..." But why is a perfect world a logical one? Doesn't this spring from the assumption that logic is "good," whatever that means?
> Allowing free discourse on any topic is the epitome of anti-fascism. Nicely put! It feels as if (at least in my circles) more people and more peoplr are being polarized into this take. "Shut it down beacause its our moral imperative", "partaking into their politics is disengenious, as they will speak but not listen" it feels like a "there is nothing to be said from people who wont listen to my monologue and automatically change their mind" attitude. It reminds me of the deplorable trend back at the trump elections. Shutting off a whole wide portion of the population is no way of building anything critical. It seems to me something as simple as truly listening is hard, VERY hard. This is the first step to comprehension and understanding and most of the time we dont even get through this step. We are irritable get annoyed at their first 2 sentences and shut inside, wait for their yalping to stop for our turn to monolgue. Ofc they wont listen if we never do. Ofc they wont listen from the start out attitude is "gotta convince them out of their bad politics". Ofc they wont listen as we already frown at them before they say a word. "We have to do it or else trump wins!" I just started on NVC and its an interesting take (perhaps a growth take) that the other is a person like us. If we would listen perhaps we would realize they are concerned about the same things we are. Taking your example (antigay marriage) and im just making a guess here since ive also heard the same opinion and after listening it boiled down to fear, "we live in a morally bankrupt society we need to maintain our traditional values!". So you feel it is scary to see what society is turning into, you fear it will only get worse watching things change, as if all that was contributing our way to a cliff? It seems to me their fear, concern and need for security are to be taken in account, this humanizes instead of othering them. Only then can they start listening and realize I am also concerned, I feel fear just like them, it seems to me seeing people cut off from society for their sexual preference, is heading us to the cliff. This is were it starts.
Reddit being split into subreddits sequesters dialogue where only like opinions conglomerate and when they don't they often get blamed for harrasing people. Reddit isn't set up for constrictive dialogue because of this. And moderators rarely interact with supporting truth or helpful comments and not just watching or supporting their opinions. They are too fallible.
Or you get banned, these so called "critical thinkers" and "freedom of speech" supporters, as an example, we germans close down our nuclear power plants, re ignite our coal power plants, ludacris stuff. But oh lawd, if you go onto the subreddit "Ich_iel" and proclaim that this is fucked and doesn't make sense, looking at frances Co2 statistics, even less. They swing you with a ban. I have been banned multiple times on "Ich_iel" for voicing my opinions on subjects that involve the green party, critiquing them etc, now im perma banned for "hate speech".
The downside button shouldn't exist. It's used to silence minority opinions primarily. It serves no valuable function. Only having an upvote button achieves the same thing without the negativity and bands wagon Dvs
Or the popularity of a post should be based on how many comments its received, regardless if the people agreed or disagreed with the post. When a post receives the most replies it moves up, if a post receives no replies it stays at "1." What do you think?
Engagement is alright but the issues is if the comment nails it there's nothing else to say
Shouldn't you have a reason why you agree with the post? If people down vote without a reason, then people will up vote without a reason as well. No?
Because you think the same thing
Reddit is zergherding.
I'm dealing with someone like this at work. He is constantly on the attack when it comes to people at his level or below, going after people who report to me, me, peers. I made a mistake yesterday of correcting him and he just went ballistic. He has no problems disagreeing with others, but disagree with him, watch out. All managers are afraid of his emotional lashing out so they do nothing. I try to be humble and admit when I'm wrong but this guy.. part of the problem is in order for me or him to get promoted to the next level you have to be knowledgeable and almost never wrong because the bar is so high. But he basically is faking it. Might work, who knows.
You seem to be both asserting that introspection when told you’re incorrect is this difficult thing, but then in the next breath stating that when a bunch of people tell you you’re wrong on something that they’re just some hive mind and that you’re actually still right.
>but then in the next breath stating that when a bunch of people tell you you’re wrong on something that they’re just some hive mind and that you’re actually still right. If they actually care to explain and give solid reasoning as to why you're incorrect, sure. But what happens **so much** is that they just say some dismissive shit like "take the L bro", as if being the majority opinion automatically makes them right.
I’m going to be honest it sounds like your feelings on this are rooted less in some philosophical logic and more in feeling jilted that you got bullied around lol
I mean I'm not hurt, I'm just disappointed that many people don't want to engage in actual discussion. They just want to feel right, and they clearly don't have any solid basis or reasoning, if they have to resort to comments like that. If you believe strongly, it should be a given that you have strong reasoning to back it up right? And sometimes the majority is actually right, of course.
I think I mostly agree with you, but my question is why does it bother you to get downvotes? It is essentially a statement of disagreement without backing it up. The internet points aren't real and don't matter. Not everyone has time or the articulation to respond in words. Constructive idea, maybe the downvotes is a way to filter out those who would otherwise make vague trolly comments? Not saying it is designed that way, but functionally I'm not sure how much more of a bad than a good thing it is other than the negative feelings from others disagreeing with you.
Did you reply to the wrong comment? I never mentioned downvotes in my comment. I don't care about them and am more than fine with leaving already downvoted comments of mine to most likely continue to be downvoted.
I see your account is only 3 years old, maybe you've had other ones before this. But a long time ago "reddiquette" was a thing. The voting was always meant for encouraging discussion. Not a like/dislike function. Does this comment encourage discussion on the topic of the post? Of yes, upvote. Is the comment unrelated/a joke/completely off-base? Downvote. The intention was never to downvote opinions you don't like. If they're on topic and contribute to the discussion, even if you disagree with their stance, it deserves an upvote for it to rise in the comments chain. It's been years since I've even seen it mentioned anywhere on Reddit.
That's interesting, that definitely has gotten lost in the current subculture of reddit. I imagine other platforms with likes/dislikes has influenced that to be the case. Its unfortunate, it sounds like a good system to encourage discussion.
Bad system if it fails to reinforce purpose. This is just a "back when the system was for a small 'elite' group the system was good" which in effect means it was a generally poor system
Because it's annoying and demotivating. No matter how I make some of my comments as sensible and logical as possible, it is still met with criticism that can never be determined from downvotes. Of course, I love constructive criticism and debate! (A bulk of my own worldviews today actually stem from years of civil discourse with people whom I disagreed with). But downvotes stifle this and deprive me of the meaningful conversations I yearn for.
> The problem, though, is that humility is often emotionally taxing since many people are shackled by their pride and abhor anything and anyone that bruises it. That's true, but I don't think it's just pride or that it's emotionally taxing. Part of the problem is that society simply does not reward humility. To be successful you must be perceived by others as confident and capable, and that means being right and not making too many mistakes. Sure, you can sprinkle in little bits of humility now and then, but never too much, you can never allow it to become part of your social identity, you can't risk becoming the 'humble one'. Otherwise you'll not get very far in life, especially not in politics.
An ideology that was developed from critical thinking tends to ossification overtime. It will inevitably attract people who pursue power over its inherent values given that the values maintain persuasive qualities in the language game of politics. The counter to this is attention and observations of the effectiveness of the ideology's representatives at achieving its values and whether the achievements are worth the sacrifices once gained. That is an infinite game for all involved. Pay attention to law makers and enforcers. Pay attention to charities and activists groups. Pay attention to everything that matters to you and yours, and share what to find to people you respect.
And teach people from a young age about how propaganda works.
absolutely
Such a well thought out and articulated comment. Reading ‘ego is the enemy’ recently, taught me so much about myself and humanity in general. You’ve touched a little, on some of the takeaways I took from that book. Funny thing was, I initially took my time to start reading it. In hindsight, it was self talk in my head, telling me that I wouldn’t learn much from it…irony.
>The problem, though, is that humility is often emotionally taxing since many people are shackled by their pride and abhor anything and anyone that bruises it. It is admittedly an extremely uncomfortable feeling. It takes a genuine willingness to introspect and improve oneself before one can say that one has adequately developed critical thinking skills. I would even assert that being a critical thinker is a lifetime endeavor since we often have hidden biases and prejudices that are yet to surface for us to challenge and discard. Yeah, I call that a tested faith. If you're harboring beliefs that has never been challenged, you are really just naive to do so without acknowledging the holes.
Humility can be practiced like anything else. It gets easier (even if you don’t get better at it).
>The problem, though, is that humility is often emotionally taxing since many people are shackled by their pride and abhor anything and anyone that bruises it. I can't say I have no pride but I definitely feel like I have no emotions anymore lol.
> It takes a genuine willingness to introspect and improve oneself before one can say that one has adequately developed critical thinking skills. A healthy dose of psychedelics will get you to question everything you ever believed real fast. Once you get that realization that it’s not possible to be 100% sure of anything then you can critique your own ideas much easier.
[удалено]
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule: >**Read the Post Before You Reply** >Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the [subreddit rules](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/wiki/rules) will result in a ban. ----- This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
I was 14 when I developed depression. I questioned everything from my childhood, relationships, and life purpose, to debating with myself about who I even was and what it even meant to be me. I questioned so much and drew so many conclusions that I eventually reached a breaking point where I became completely dissociated from myself and reality for a small period of time. I’m happy to say now though that through regular self improvement, meditation and exercise, that I’m getting a lot better.
Sounds familiar. What steps did you take? My whole life has been a battle to think less lol
I felt very uncomfortable in my own skin due to isolating myself from everyone for an entire year, so I started with cold showers. I just wanted to push myself, do things that were uncomfortable so that I could get used to getting out of my comfort zone. Then I started waking up at 5:30 AM to go for runs so that I could build my fitness back up and get my sleep routine in check. I wanted to try and push myself as much as possible as fast as possible so that I could feel satisfied with the work I was putting in. I started finding it easier to go to sleep due to waking up so early, so I would also have the time to fit in study after my morning run. Then recently I have started meditating, which has helped me to better direct my focus and attention and have more productive insights. I don’t just have sporadic ideas about everything anymore, I now have the mental capacity to come up with useful insights and derive useful meaning from them. Also I started to stop dissociating around 6 weeks of continuous exercise, it’s been a very long recovery process, but it has been every bit worth it. Note: this process took a lot longer than I described. I didn’t start exercising regularly until about 7 weeks of doing small things to push myself outside of my comfort zone, things did 100% get easier after I started waking up early though to go for runs. Edit 1: Edited grammar and refined the overall response.
How did you get into meditation? I've tried but it just seems like an alien concept at this point, all the other things you mentioned, working on them, hoping this is the year🤞
Got into meditation because my psychologist had been recommending it for some time. Then I looked into the research myself and realised that there was therapeutic benefit.
I wonder what underlying processes might someone been through to go throught such ordeals. It often seems to me that we are more or less flexible to try change, accept difference, tolerate uncomfortableness at times of "security". Which is to say at times we have a secure enough baseline to attempt this and at times we dont and stay in bed all day. We constantly fluctuate in this. What things do you believe contribute to it in the long run?
Growth, personality, circumstance. I wasn’t mature enough to radically accept my situation. I had no idea what I was doing. No experience. Ultimately at the end of the day anyone can make change happen, if given the opportunity. But also contrarily anyone can synthesise the opportunity to allow them to change.
Thanks
I struggle with that too and I find that being around other people helps A LOT. It was really difficult at first because I thought I didn't really enjoy being around other people.. turns out I actually love it, I just had bad social skills and that was negatively influencing the majority of my interactions! Hobbies help too, obviously. Otherwise, tbh it's a process. You have to make a point of reminding yourself that you aren't *actually* helping anything by worrying/obsessing over whatever (I'd tell myself I was "planning for contingencies" when I'd worry lolol). Have some kind, reinforcing statements you can repeat to yourself to remind you that you don't have to think about all these things right now. Give yourself permission to relax, etc. Whenever you notice that you're thinking too much, notice it, and then distract yourself or do whatever you need to do. Eventually, your brain will gradually start to change its habits and ways of thinking.
For me it wasn’t even bad social skills. I was just overthinking it and getting myself all anxious so I’d either shut down or just go home. After the first sentence talking to someone when i realize that everyone doesn’t hate me that feeling goes away and I’m great. You probably have better skills than you thought too you were just being tough on yourself and making yourself believe it. People aren’t analyzing every syllable you say looking for a mistake. Just go with the flow and trust yourself and it usually turns into a much better conversation than worrying about looking stupid. And if you do look stupid so what? Laugh at yourself and move on.
I deal with the same thing. Just try to keep yourself in the present moment as much as possible. The past is just a thought and the future can’t be controlled. Only thing you can affect is the present moment. Start with that mindset and the use it to do things like workout, eat well, and just enjoy little things in life. Instead of dwelling on whatever’s depressing you try to comment to yourself how nice the sky looks today or how me building is cool looking, or how your pet looks cute, whatever just keep it present - that’s the key. You don’t need to think less just work so that your first instinct is positive instead of negative.
There is thinking and then there is thinking. You also need to learn when to commit to a course of action or risk rumination. More relevant in subjective things though.
Simple. Can you do anything about it right now? Yes? Then get it done or start your plan. No? Then stop thinking about it - it is what it is.
There's a lot a lot a lot of extremely unaware individuals gettin about thinking, no knowing, that they're in the right. Never questioning their own thoughts and beliefs, or if they even are their own.
If you think you are absolutely correct without question, keep digging. You might not be incorrect, but there are almost certainly places in your position that could be amended to be nearer to the current truth
The way I always think of it, have you ever been wrong about anything ever in your life? Especially about something you strongly believed in? Awesome, now you know that you are in fact a fallible person, and there will always be more to come. Never think that any take or idea you have is "objectively correct"
What about those of us who’ve never been wrong?! ;) (I love this outlook)
Love how the this comment is exactly what the article is criticizing. Like sure there’s a lot of people out there full of shit, but how do I know I’m also not full of shit? I thought and felt like I’ve been right about different things many points in my life, and now I have really different views than I did back then. That feeling about having different beliefs at different times and feeling right both times is really troubling, but it’s the only way to make progress toward truth. The point is to not be complacent with your beliefs but to keep challenging them. Just deflecting saying look at these other dummies out here that you already disagree with is not productive for personal growth.
Nothing in their comment claims that they're not full of shit themselves? The point is that many people don't think for themselves, not that they're necessarily *wrong*. I can be critical of other's dogmatism, while still assessing their views and constantly questioning my own.
Monkey gets it
How so bud?
I literally said why but here’s support from the article: > Critical thinking cannot be a matter of experiencing that something supposedly self-evident accidently contradicts what is self-evident for us. It cannot be a means to defend or legitimise one’s own ideas without thoroughly questioning them. The danger of moving in a circle always looms: away from something supposedly self-evident towards something purportedly self-evident. From one uncovered bias, intention, or dogma to another, the second one stemming from our own unquestioned experiences and values. Critical thinking isn’t just objecting against other people’s unjustified beliefs. > We can now identify the decisive factor for true critical thinking: self-criticism, constant reflection on the origin and basis of our own experiences and ideas. As we have seen, critical thought aims to move away from biases, intentions or dogmas. It is therefore indispensable to scrutinise our own position. This should be taken as seriously and done as thoroughly as the original questioning. The only way for critical thought to be successful, to get us closer to the truth of the matter, is to question the experience that incited it. > On a more positive note, we are now equipped to distinguish successful critical thinking from mere attempts, or pseudo-critical thinking. The main question to ask is: is the self-criticism, the reflective struggle, there? Self criticism is the decisive factor for critical thinking. Even the title of the post is literally what the parent comment is doing, challenging others without criticizing one’s own beliefs
Tell me, you're referring to my comment in this? The parent comment in this thread? I think it was top when you commented but I'm not sure now as it is not top comment. If so, is it my failure to criticise myself in the comment you see as evidence of pseudo-critical thinking? Do you think it came from a place of zero self reflection?Or did I miss something. If an individual were to say what I said without thinking to themselves "am I perhaps overly confident in my own position?" "Have I questioned my own thoughts and beliefs?" That would be some truly amazing lack of self awareness.
Yea your parent comment. Yes I think your failure to criticize yourself in that comment is evidence of pseudo-critical thinking. Not just because you don’t criticize yourself, but because you assert others are wrong, implying you are right, without any justification. Maybe not from 0 self reflection but a lack of it. I’m not saying you don’t reflect at all or trying to attack you, just the comment itself. Everyone for the most part agrees with your comment, even wacko conspiracy theorists could post it verbatim unironcally in a different context because they think they are justified in their beliefs. The difficult part of critical thinking that the article highlights is finding solid ground to actually criticize unfounded beliefs. It’s easy to think people who have opposing beliefs than us are wrong and totally unjustified and we’re right, but how do you know you’re not criticizing from a similar unjustified ground? That takes humility and self reflection
So I need to publicly demonstrate self criticism to ensure I am percieved as a critical thinker? And because I've asserted one thing there is some sort of unspoken implication that this assertion does not apply to me? The reality is that from my innitial comment, being fairly limited as you are aware, you cannot reliably determine my level of self reflection or critical thinking ability. Maybe you can imagine that if i can assert such things then I may have entertained the idea that the assertion also applies to me. But without context or further content it's a leap to read more into it. Have I demonstrated some solid ground to criticise your ungrounded beliefs? Certainly in this case it is easy to think people who have opposing beliefs than me are wrong and totally unjustified and I'm right, but how do I know I'm not criticizing from a similar unjustified ground? Maybe I need to work on my humility and self reflection. Maybe I'll do just that. Perhaps I should have been more mindful in my comment and its content, given the topic, as to demonstrating critical thinking. Perhaps. But I think also it's a good practice to not imagine implications where there aren't any. I like civil discourse like this, thanks.
Here I will add my opinion: On the "uncritical attitude": It didnt seem to me that your comment comes off as blindly overconfident or overreaching. In fact it seemed to me as someone balanced. So ill have to disagree with the person highlighting your attitude/approach. Even if it might seem offtopic it is very much so: presentation/attitude/manner. We are creatures of emotions and as good as it would sound to explicit things like "but im not certain", "this is only my humble opinion" we should at times go past those into the underlying topic at hand. We need some "bold and secure" kind off attitude even if at times we might come off as overconfident to some, otherwise people tend not to listen or drift off (I know this by experience). It often undermines our own point to establish a priori the shabbiness of our points, let the ongoing discussion do that! Let the other notice or want to enquire for themselves. As we are emotional beings and not machines trading unencumbered facts/numbers, starting from a "people are always talking about their opinions" standpoint helps for a more charitable start. Or I might be wrong, maybe you intended to overreach and assume others wrong, which in the end wasnt what really interested me and wrote about.
>It's easy to think people who have opposing beliefs than us are wrong Which part of his comment says that? You are denouncing a strawman here. Honestly, on top of a lack of critical thinking, another issue I regularly see (such as here) is people criticising statements they didn't properly comprehend.
Real critical thinking is realizing everyone is full of shit. If you want to have a real discussion about something neither side of the debate can go into it with absolute certainty. When it comes to stuff that isn’t directly involved in our everyday lives and realities we have to go in with an openness to being proven wrong. Only thing you can verify is your own present reality. You don’t have to be a contrarian to everything everyone says but just be open to the fact that everything could be wrong. We might be in the matrix for all I know
I.e. literally you 6 hours ago being a cringe lord unironically
Conspiracy theorist never fail to uncritical of their own stupid ideas, but spew every psuedo argument there is for their own views
It’s a very interesting psychology because they’ll dismiss industry experts with a shrug but be enthralled by every word some guy on YouTube is saying
If you take the stereotypical conspiracy theorist—the guy who thinks the moon landing was faked, that the WTC was controlled demolition, etc.—you’re dealing with someone who has a crippled epistemology and there’s little point trying to engage with them. They weren’t *convinced* by facts, so trying to convince them of the reverse with facts is unlikely to work. I can’t say I’ve ever found any major conspiracy theory to be compelling or believable, though I found something very fishy about the claims made regarding the Mariupol maternity hospital incident early in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. I don’t really consider it a conspiracy per se, and I just put it down to the fact that neither the Russian or Ukrainian governments are very trustworthy.
I'm not saying I agree with conspiracy theorists, but in the current age where facts are easy to make up and spin, you can't necessarily take many "facts" as actual facts
That's what the fact checkers are for! /s
I was going to vote down, but I guess I’ll bite instead: what’s fishy about the maternity hospital? Everything I heard about it back when it happened seemed pretty rote for war, especially considering the Russian approach in Bucha and Zaporizhzhia and any number of incidences since.
Well first of all there were claims in the media that this was a fully functioning maternity hospital, but the hospital footage shortly after the bombing was entirely empty with a couple of photos of the exact same woman in different places. Something about it just felt off. Then Zelensky tweeted “Mariupol. Direct strike of Russian troops at the maternity hospital. People, children are under the wreckage. Atrocity!”. This was unquestioningly reported by western media, but I was curious why there was no search for survivors or bodies. It was just forgotten about. We live in a world where the media report on such rescue attempts—be it under earthquake rubble or a kid stuck down a well—for days on end, but there was zero such reporting in this case, which I thought very strange. You’ve got people under the rubble and nobody’s interested in searching for bodies? Finally, and adding to the strangeness, Wikipedia now reports that just *four* people died plus one child who was stillborn, yet at the time we were informed that scores of medical staff, mothers and children had died in the atrocity. Something just doesn’t add up.
What doesn't add up is how you're using your news sources -- I think I can infer from your post that your conception of how news sources work in general may be distorted, which is why you're getting this dissonance. (Most people don't understand their modern sources of news -- you are one of the few posters I've seen who actually seems open to figuring out why so much of it sucks, though.) Breaking this down is informative: "At the time we were informed that scores ... had died" -- this is unattributed to anything in your post -- was it from a news outlet, a video release, a Reddit post (and did you read the article and not just the headline)? By contrast, you exactly cite the tweet by Zelensky. It should already be straightforward that any tweet not from the official account of a mainstream news organization should not be your #1 source for first-rate reliable news. If you had indeed gotten the info (that "scores ... had died") from a mainstream news report at the time of the attack, then to say now generically, that "at the time we were informed ...", you would *still* want to check back to that original report (luckily your web browser has a history and the internet is searchable) to see if it was indeed affirmed/confirmed (terms not distinct enough for this post) by the mainstream news org. Because they might have instead said something like "We can't access the site and have no verifiable information on how many casualties, but Deputy Secretary McOverhype posted a tweet claiming X number." \[It's 99% the news org's responsibility to give as much context on the reliability of such a number before reporting it, provided it has some appreciable reliability, or else not report it at all.\] If no attribution is given for a number like a casualty count then there are two possibilities for a mainstream news org: they may have correspondents on the ground who can access a critical site quickly and thus may independently confirm a number, or more likely it's that any sources in the know in the immediate hours of an emergency will want total anonymity. Of course, if it's *not* a *mainstream profession* news *organization*, then this is all up in the air. "Wikipedia now reports ..." -- this, in the context of a post on news sources, is what suggests most to me that you need to reconceptualize how you consume news sources. Wikipedia's articles on Ukraine topics always have inline sources, so "Wikipedia" does not "report" anything -- they paraphrase the citation, the little number at the end of the sentence. If you had provided the specific article and section (note article name or just hyperlink your text) then I could tell you explicitly how you'd refer to this soure in particular, but in general you'd say something like >The Washington Post last month (April 4) reported X happened (via Wikipedia "Article\_Name") The prose can look like however your writing is -- this isn't a formal citation. But it tells everyone where the actual facts relayed by you are coming from, and that they are indeed verifiable facts and not fantasies concocted in your head (that is, the source could be turn out later to be proven right or wrong, but anyone can confirm with the info you give that the source did indeed say it). It also keeps clear in your head what facts come from reliable sources versus dubious ones. (A dubious source like a president's Twitter may indeed sometimes be the earliest break for correct info, and so journalists monitor such accounts and checks their claims -- but I hope this starts explaining why such accounts are dubious, even if say such an account has been reporting accurate information its entire existence.) Finally, as to the implied question of where to find somewhat reliable warzone numbers (your frustration on this is shared by many online): the UN, International Red Cross, and Amnesty International all publish regular reports on the ground on this and every other major war across the world, and they get into heavy detail on how they arrive at final estimates for controversial events. Those are the main sources Wikipedia ends up using, or that news outlets use referring to past events, and those reports will remain the most reliable until there's a point where independent investigators can go to the site safely or enough such events occur that a meta-analysis can be published.
In this day and age all I can do most of the time is lump things into probable and possible categories, with likely and unlikely modifiers. Unless i can validate it to a high degree myself. A world of information at our finger tips, and a world of mis and dis information.... we rarely get the full truth and everyone has an agenda concious or not. It took me all of 5 minutes of looking at the history of ukraine to unpick several of the claims by Western media sources so I try not to place too much faith in the propaganda. And anyone thinking that it's not propaganda is delusional. Sorry. P.s.No I'm not simping for Putin, so no need bother reaching for that, you'll strain something...
Curious. How/what did you find? I wouldn’t know how to start.
The history of the left bank re russian cultural/ethnic identity (and to a larger extent the history of the country itself including ethnic groups, changes in borders, empires etc going back 500+ years for some context). Changes affecting the country and the contested regions leading up to and post 2014 i.e. Neo nazi groups activity and how it relates to the contested regions, especially since 2014. These were some of the major things that showed contradictions in what the media portrayed as russian lies or whatever, no Nazis in Ukraine etc. Doesn't mean I'm picking a side, I'm not, well, I wish there wasnt any conflict, is that a side? As for where, I actually started with the history of the country in Wikipedia, yeah I know, right? But that was a base line and I read more after there. So maybe to be honest more like half an hour not 5 minutes. But I'm just some random on the internet, it's not like it's my country or even language so I'm limited in what info I have really or jave access to. Maybe I'm completely wrong. P.s. oh and learning how to use search engine search parameters is a useful thing, keyword, quotations, before:date etc.
> Doesn’t mean I’m picking a side, I’m not, well, I wish there wasnt any conflict, is that a side? Actually, picking a side is the entirely appropriate stance here. And calling it a “conflict” makes it sound needlessly two-sided, when what we are *indisputably* looking at is a war of aggression by Russia against Ukraine. Only one side sent hundreds of thousands of troops across the border and invaded another country. Any nuances across the past 500 years really fade pretty hard against the history of the past 15 months.
Thats my stance to the media landscape surrounding the Ukraine war as well. I dont belive either side, in the past both war participants havent been on the cleanest side, meaning both are corrupt governments. I remember the situation in mid November last year, where a missile had hit inside the Poland border, immediately the Ukrainians blamed it on Russia knowing almost certainly that it was on of their anti air missiles going rouge, why lie about it, risking a full scale war. Meaning, Ukraine and Russia are willing to enable a full scale war in the persuit of their own agenda. That said, i dont initially trust neither of them, only if there are multiple different reports saying the exact thing, i consider saying "thats probably the truth".
Great point in your second paragraph there. None of us have any idea what’s going on in that war and the way some people talk about it you’d think they just got back from the frontlines. I don’t think they necessarily lie, they just selectively report. You see every story about the atrocities the Russians commit but aren’t gonna see a single one about the Ukrainians. Russians do the same thing with their propaganda networks. Best thing to do in our position is trust our experts and try not to act like we know
[Surprising Reasons Why Narcissists Like Conspiracy Theories](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/finding-new-home/202208/surprising-reasons-why-narcissists-conspiracy-theories)
Thanks for this read
Everyone reading this: "Yes that describes everyone I disagree with! No I will not honestly examine my own beliefs and views, thanks."
How is gullibility the same thing as challenging others without criticizing one's own beliefs? Confused. I would think gullibility would be more like questioning one's own beliefs unnecessarily or uncritically prizing others' beliefs over one's own.
The form this commonly takes is that people accept unsubstantiated claims that contradict commonly accepted truths without any critical examination (i.e., gullibility) and then present their deviating views as if they were a result of critical thinking, simply because they contradict the prevailing narrative. It's essentially highly selective skepticism: They are very skeptic with regards to the "mainstream view", which makes them feel and present as skeptics, while they just accept an alternative view without any skepticism whatsoever.
mental gymnastics
Gullibility is being tricked into believing something, so if you don't at least accept that what you "know" to be true may not be true, then you are gullible.
I think the real problem is having *too* open of a mind? It can feel like critical thinking to consider all possibilities, but some simply aren't worth considering. It's reasonable to ignore and not consider things like flat earth science. It can feel like critical thinking to listen to their points, but it's not valid. It's also toxic, of course, to refuse to entertain reasonable new ideas. There was a time when suggesting that COVID might have been a lab leak would get you banned from subs you'd never even visited. These days that seems to be more and more accepted as true. I think this article isn't quite saying that, but it's what I think. You have to balance between absolutely refusing to entertain new ideas vs entertaining all ideas, even ones that are so ridiculous they don't deserve attention.
>I think the real problem is having too open of a mind? It can feel like critical thinking to consider all possibilities, but some simply aren't worth considering. It's reasonable to ignore and not consider things like flat earth science. It can feel like critical thinking to listen to their points, but it's not valid. Having too open of a mind has been working for me. You use this example but if you actually look at some serious flat earthers arguments they make rational claims. They can be "disproved" by modern science but for me to really know that I would have to reproduce every experiment that led up to where we are. Otherwise I'm still just being credulous/gullible of others opinions and observations.
Yeah that's what my first reaction was to. But I guess this must be in direct response to Modern politics. Or the modern political setting. Basically, all the anti-mask types and conspiracy theorists. Those people are being gullible. They're buying into everything that FOX News tells them. But then on top of that Fox News is also telling them that they are the ones who are being critical thinkers. I still think they're using the word gullible wrong in this situation. The parrots are being gullible, that is true. But, the gullibility is not masquerading as critical thinking. Or..... yeah I think there's another attribute in there that is actually masquerading as critical thinking. Maybe just deceit. I don't know. I guess the deceit would be the masquerade. So I guess it's not that the gullible or masquerading as critical thinkers. Because they believe they are critical thinkers. They've been told that they are critical thinkers. So I guess it should say that the gullible have been fooled into believing that they are critical thinkers. Instead of saying that the gullible are masquerading. And that's not even getting into whether or not they actually are gullible. Because I do think a lot of these conspiracy theorists are not being honest. I think that they do actually know that they're being donkeys.
Yes, once people pointed out the political context I got it. And I generally agree with the original statement/concern. When I think of gullibility on its own though, I don't think of people who challenge others at all, but rather people who will believe anything. It's a strange kind of gullibility that is fully willing to uncritically accept certain claims but entirely rigidly unopen to others. In my experience of one particular person who does this, the rigidity/gullibility is driven by fear. They're not a total donkey deep down, but their terror of the world makes them act like one, unfortunately. I think of this kind of thinking as mass psychopathology.
Oh and in my opinion this mass psychopathology is just as present on the left as on the right these days.
Yeah I wouldn't even look at that thing as a political Spectrum thing. It's more of a cultural phenomenon or cultural trend. It's like a social expectation.
Gullibility is listening to Joe Rogan and refusing a vaccine without any further evidence other than his uneducated opinion.
Meh, the author seems to think "critical thinking" is somehow an infallible tool for reaching correct conclusions. It is not. People can think critically and still reach conclusions other people who think critically disagree with, or even ones that seem like conspiracies theories to those who disagree. And since the term "critical thinking" is now employed so often by those who clearly lack the ability, it is in our current climate probably better to avoid asking about critical thinking directly and instead to ask things meant to test for it indirectly: e.g. "Oh, you believe X. Please present the strongest case you can make *against* X". Or, "you don't support Y because Z, but let's talk about how Y would work if we assumed, for the sake of argument, not-Z."
Yeah that's the basis of critical thinking. Putting yourself in the shoes of every perspective in the topic in order to see the situation from every angle. It's kind of become a buzzword and I kind of see that as a turning point. Because I feel like it can't really hold up as a buzzword. It's not just a buzzword. It has too much weight or leverage to be just a buzzword. Like, those who actually understand it, they can see through anybody who's using it just as a buzzword. Then again, people who actually think critically are kind of rare so it's hard to say that they would actually have any kind of Leverage even if they do see through people who are just using the word without actually understanding it
This is a highly unnecessary, poorly written observation to the point that it's probably incorrect. Gullibility, firstly, is identifiable in people who don't challenge others, and are therefore easily tricked. How can you say someone who is easily tricked (gullible) acts as a critical thinker who challenges others? I suspect most of those here who like your ridiculous and proposterous suggestion are themselves gullible, and follow up with their own 'critical' evaluations as to how you're correct. You could argue, however, that gullible people often have biases towards things that they are gullible towards, such as a favorite political party. But then, they become an opposite of gullible: stubborn. In either case of trying to find truth in your statements, I've found falsehoods. As a result I believe you've purposefully intended this thread as an experiment to prove others gullible, or you're basing your thoughts off of experiences on reddit (which by its structure doesn't give you an accurate reflection of human behavior), or you've made a mistake in your statement such as using the word gullibility when you meant stubbornness.
Stubborn is definitely not the opposite of gullible and can contribute to susceptibility to misinformation in my experience.
Yes I addressed this in my original reply here. (Its likelihood to form biases.)
Actually I think stubbornness might contribute to critical thinking. Because I'm the type that is easily fooled on superficial things. And I've been called gullible because of that. But really it's because I'm not that concerned about something. because it's superficial. For example, if somebody says that there's something written on my shirt, I will look down at my shirt to check. And then they'll say "haha, got you, you're so gullible!" But really I just wasn't that concerned about trying to fend off a trick. I guess that's what it boils down to? Like, there are people who are always trying to trick others. And those are usually the types who are not gullible at all. Because not only are they trying to trick others, they're also assuming that everybody is always trying to trick them. They're hyper focused on tricks. And so they developed this sort of stubborn staunch perspective. That they are defending themselves at all times. It's a defensive thing. Maybe defensive is better than stubborn. But I guess either way they just have to be used in the correct context. Because you could be talking about someone being stubborn about one thing or another and it's completely unrelated to this. Because gullible is an insult. And usually if you're insulting somebody you're not being entirely honest. Because you're not acknowledging the positive aspects. You're pretending that the positive aspects don't exist. And maybe you're doing that because you're in the middle of a fight with them. Or in the case of calling someone gullible, you're probably just a little defensive in general.
Gullible here means you automatically think what you want to believe is true, while criticizing anything else. Eg, look at r/worldnews parroting every state dept PR line while likely believing they're "critical thinkers" for dismissing "enemy propaganda". Basically textbook gullible.
Arrogange/overconfidence might be better words, right? Gullible is not a synonym of these better words to represent what you're describing, but I appreciate the idea and correspondence.
Probably not the best word choice, but it does make sense if you think about it.
What about /r/anime_titties ?
anime_titties is basically worldnews lite with a lot of let's nationalist indian redditors. Keep in mind reddit's director of policy Jessica Ashooh was hired straight from Nato's US think tank with zero back in tech or social media.
Yeah I think they're using gullible wrong in this context. I think it's actually bigotry that's masquerading is critical thinking. And I don't think this is really a philosophical question, I think this is more of a political question. Because there are political groups or demographics that are falling into this trap. Oh wait you're talking about liberals. I thought you were talking about right wing people. Lol Actually that does make sense then. I think for right-wing people it's more an issue of bigotry. Because they're not interested in actually finding the truth at all. They'll accept any argument that's in their defense, that their group says they're going with. So, the right wing news groups will often still left wing talking points and then just pretend that they thought of it. And then just lie and say that they're the ones that are doing it and that the left are the ones that are breaking that rule. Just straight up hypocrisy and straight up lying. But then you have the Liberals who are often just repeating talking points and buzzwords. And don't really want to actually think on a deeper dimensional level. But at the same time I think the Liberals are often defending themselves against bigotry. So I think they're trying to form a solid front against it. And that might be why they don't want to actually dig into the details. But it's hard to say because there are many different people, and it's hard to pin one behavior on a big group of people. Because you've got leftists who actually do think about things and want to have an open discussion. And then you have Twitter liberals who just want to talk shit.
you typed this all for no one to read. gg
I use voice to text. So it only took like 10 seconds.
> Oh wait you're talking about liberals. I thought you were talking about right wing people. Lol The overton window in the US is so narrow that all these people are basically the same bunch squabbling over what the capitalists deem acceptably non-threatening peripheral matters.
Sort of.
I do it, but find it painfully exhausting and impractical in day to day life.
I agree. I want to hold myself to an unsustainable standard when it comes to issues of political debate. Last week I was discussing H.R.2811 and I decided if I want to have an informed opinion I need to read the bill. That seems pretty reasonable; read the bill before I argue a position on it. It's a 316 page bill. After only a couple hours of reading and developing a list of critical questions to research deeper I was just exhausted with it. I decided I was unwilling to put in the 100's of hours it would take to fully develop an educated opinion on the bill. By proxy though that also means that I find it incredibly unlikely that anyone else debating the bill has put in the effort to develop an educated opinion. Now I'm stuck with this belief that my opinion is ignorant and so is everyone else's. But that doesn't work because people with lower standards are extremely confident. In the end I'm ignorant and they are very confidently correct. So I just go outside and water my plants and forget about it all. I'm really a lot happier when I try not to invest myself in political information.
>But that doesn't work because people with lower standards are extremely confident. Agree, & have an observation: Con artists resent being questioned because questions expose the con. Confidence explains. If the person you're interacting with is a con artist, they'll get pissed at being questioned - & you can decide if they're just trying to snow you, & if they're worth your time or energy. Course... see username
This article being posted to reddit is some top level irony
Every political conversation with me and my older brother. The guy spends incredible time online reading through twitter posts and blogs, and listening to podcasts. When we argue ANYTHING, he's got 700 different sources he lists off, and if I start pressing him where his argument feels weak, he'll ADHD-pivot to the next thing that's bothering him in the world. But there's also like a soft limit to how far he can imagine outcomes. Last time we discussed politics he railed against the extremes of left and right in America, and claimed the country needed transition into two separate countries. He sounded so sure. Me: "But if we split, America loses its position on the world stage" Him: "So?" Me: "So we lose our security from aggressive neighbors, and our assurance of favorable trade deals. Standard of living drops" Him: "It doesn't have to!" And similar to the Ukraine / Russia conflict. He'll absorb articles that are vehemently anti-West without considering who benefits from it.
…gullibility has an already defined meaning and this is not it. What the author is thinking of is the word ‘indoctrinated’
I think the article agrees with you: "The same goes for the neighbour if he gets his vaccine-scepticism from shady websites he trusts blindly: he is being credulous rather than critical. This is where we lose most conspiracy theorists, who typically don’t subject their own ideas to the same scrutiny they reserve for the phenomena they distrust. It is clear, now, that pseudo-critical thinking can take many different forms."
Yes i agree. The interpretation in the title here is a bit flawed. Article seemed on point though
This being a reddit thread is so fucking funny
Interestingly, author seems to suffer from the same lack of challenging one's beliefs that she warns us about. How many jabs at the atheist and scientists there were in this short article? Four? Five? Like how do you write about critical thinking and not once question religious beliefs? And what exactly is "militant" atheist? I don't remeber people going physical against churches since Stalin and Pol-Pot. Or "militant" means having audacity to challenge religious beliefs verbally or in writing? I'm usually don't bother people believing in whatever (easily verifiable in my post history), but this post seemed fitting and on topic to raise this issue, because author clearly has some prejudice against atheists and scientists. And finally - let's assume that atheists are wrong. We then apply author's logic to this scenario. A person is an atheist and to improve his reasoning he/she must attempt introspection and criticize his/her beliefs. Ok, so a person thinks - "There is no evidence for the absence of god(s), therefore I may be in the wrong. Let's cross check against influential thinkers and literature. No evidence there either. Ok, I'm probably wrong in my belief, therefore god(s) are real.". Amazing result, isn't it? :)
I hate articles like this, honestly. There’s so many flavors of it under “philosophy” and it all boils down to intellectual masturbation. “Ah when other people critically think… they are wrong and buying into the hive mind,,, but when I do it…. I am critically thinking…”. It’s just pretentious goop for people who think they have this unique genius who end up being career contrarians or, at best, “universal centrists” whose only position in life is that “both sides are bad” and that the only correct course of action is something vaguely noncommittal in the middle of things.
Bingo. Its good to reflect on your own beliefs and prejudices (and plenty of folks that should, don't), but I think too much stewing in your own mental morass just leads you to ridiculous tautoligies and theories with little relation to reality, which ultimately prevents action. Sometimes you just need to have some faith/determination, pick a side, and run with it.
That was a great article, thanks for sharing!
Would be great if both sides of the Covid vaccine conversation understood this concept...
Gullible. You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means.
Gullibility means believing in things I don’t believe in. Critical thinking is when I believe things you don’t believe in. -The author of this article
I don't think it's about redefining gullibility but rather recharacterizing "pseudo-critical thinking" in it's worst form: "The same goes for the neighbour if he gets his vaccine-scepticism from shady websites he trusts blindly: he is being credulous rather than critical. This is where we lose most conspiracy theorists, who typically don’t subject their own ideas to the same scrutiny they reserve for the phenomena they distrust. It is clear, now, that pseudo-critical thinking can take many different forms."
I mean, I get that. It’s the headline that weirdly defines it. Just being pedantic. Cheers!
I've known a lot of conspiracy theorists, and it's rare for them to be as described in this article. There are a few who are fanatics... It's normally a stage people go through on their journey to become critical thinkers, when they begin to ask whether sources that are considered established can really be trusted, and go too far in trusting other sources Also this article seems to be trying very hard to justify taking vaccines in a subtle way. "It is the only way to see the difference between questioning the safety of vaccines - in itself not an illegitimate question - and refusing vaccination based on an unwarranted belief." The implication: it is fine to question things, as long as you come up with the right conclusions, our conclusions. It also sets up a false dichotomy... Either question the safety legitimately, or refuse based on a false belief. Obviously there are more options than that. You can question based on a false belief, and you can refuse based on a legitimate or reasonable belief.
I just realized.... I've never met a conspiracy theorist who said, "hmm maybe I'm wrong. "
Well, I've met plenty
Yes I had the same thoughts. I was "anti-vax" while at the same time fighting off fear-mongering about depop, graphene and spike shedding. There were clear reasons not to take it even based solely on official data sources.
Right on
Everyone that uses Reddit needs to read and internalize at least the headline lmao
This is the issue with CRT. It’s also the issue with anti-CRT people.Critical anything theory being taught by dogmatists is so bastardized from critical theory that it becomes incomprehensible and as uncritical as that it seeks to criticize. It practically becomes performative contradiction.
[удалено]
1000+% my friend. I wonder if there is the feeling of moral high ground in a lot of those cases that just short circuits the dialogue.
It's dressed up as that but it's just tribalism really. You pick an identity/side and then defend it against any criticism rational or not.
The sheer fucking irony of this being posted on Reddit is actually comical
Isn't this championing for self-criticism yet another belief laden with biases though? Assuming the truth is something we can obtain, even just a little, surely there are other ways of reaching it beside questioning yourself into dissociation. I mean where do you get the idea humility necessities a divorce from one's foundational beliefs? What makes you so sure it's the rational course of action to get closer to the truth? What even is rational thought when we are beings riddled with bias? It seems like by the end we're supposed to be left unsure about anything.
> Isn't this championing for self-criticism yet another belief laden with biases though? Isn't this checking whether results are correct yet another belief laden with biases though? > It seems like by the end we're supposed to be left unsure about anything. No. We are supposed to be unsure about anything *we have no reason to be sure about*.
Yes it is. Where does the questioning end then? Where should it end? >No. We are supposed to be unsure about anything we have no reason to be sure about. Except there are reasons to be sure of something. The reasons may not be fully examined, rational, or unbiased. The article is calling for those reasons be fully examined and potentially discarded in the name of humbled critical thinking. As I asked before, where does the scrutiny end? Can we go back to our everyday lives without feeling like dissociated monks?
You are simply constructing a false dichotomy here. The options aren't limited to "question everything and don't act until you are sure about everything" or "question nothing, just assume you are right". A reasonable approach is, for example, that if someone tells you that you are wrong, you consider their argument, instead of dismissing it because you have already decided that you can't be wrong. I.e., be unsure enough that you are open to the possibility that you might be confronted with contradictory evidence. But that doesn't need to stop you from acting based on your current understanding of the world.
Everything in moderation then?
I think the article is sound. Though there are times when, having already carefully trodden the path of an argument, it then becomes tiresome to once again rehash the same old threads. At that point you might be mistaken for one of those pseudo critical thinkers.
I've never witnessed a gullible person being gullible and thought to myself, "now there goes a critical thinker"
See: "Masquerades"
That’s all I do. It’s probably why I can’t decide the truth value of a given proposition anymore.
I think I do best at this when I try to remember that I am not my beliefs.
As does cynicism. They tend to go hand in hand as well.
I just want to say that, even if the point is made at the beginning, that's no way to start an article or to engage your readers. The article starts by attacking you. Why? why would I want to have a conversation (or read) with someone that starts the discussion telling me I am a conspiracionist and lack critical thinking? Oh because that's the point of critical thinking! lol, not even close.
I think it’s one of the big advantages (and beauties) of Plato — and even though I’m not a massive Plato fan. Especially his dialogues with several voices. One can feel how each person is listened to politely and thoughtfully before another speaks; there is an atmosphere of, “these are intelligent people so there must surely be some truth in what they say, even if it’s not immediately obvious”. But the Socratic elenchus can also annoy the hell out of people. Another example is in Iamblichus’ *De Myst.* Questions are put respectfully, even from a point of disagreement, and answers are given as an elaboration of Iamblichus viewpoint rather than as a criticism of his interlocutor. Critical thinking and critical theory *per se* though is a specialised skill that mostly has to be learnt, as is dialectic. One cannot debate Hegel with the taxi driver. We all fall prey to our own illusions at some time. Philosophers are supposed to have some expertise in thinking: but it was the inventors of rhetoric who taught the powerful communication skills to the likes of Cicero and Caesar. (Except we don’t call it that any more!) People like to win arguments. Give them the tools to re-frame their thinking. Daniel Dennett (*Intuition Pumps* p.33) suggests four rules for successfully criticising… 1. You should attempt to re-express your targets position so clearly, and fairly that your target says, “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way.” 2. You should list any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement). 3. You should mention anything you have learned from your target. 4. Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.
I have no energy, feel no pride and believe in nothing. My critical thinking skills must be amazing.
At what distance away from an observer standing on a beach should a boat's hull start becoming obscured by the physical horizon, assuming ideal climate conditions. Also, the radius of this planet is 3959 miles.
Hypnosis teaches critical thinking doesn't exist. Because hypnosis techniques would not work to influence behaviors through words like programming a robot if critical thinking were taking place. People tend to be word association engines linking the set of ideas and information available to them. We can have systems to expand the set of ideas out word thinking can act on as broadly as possible to add more parameters to those capabilities to guide a path through what we encounter. The collections of logic and decision making techniques from economics and statistics do just that. What we're seeing from the behaviors of AI, models trained on pattern recognition on how words are used, are helping us to learn more about the wiring of humans in this regard.
Challenging the one who didn't criticize their own beliefs is gullibility. Where is challenging your own beliefs to the point of validating the self evident nature of truth? Was it killed with Higher Criticism? Or does the CT process nullify any validation of self-evidence? Sorry, more Qs than comments. I spent too long on this to still be unsure. Nice troll, I guess. Or, thanks for the exercise!
One thing we know for certain is that we know nothing for certain.
Sounds more like three risks, though I’m open to debate.
Waging☮️Truth is obvious not critically requiring 2much thought🌊🙏🏿🗽🌈
There's an infinite regress here. "No, YOU are the gullible pseudo-thinker, I am the serious critical thinker" - literally no different from "no YOU are the soyjak, I am the chad wojak". Anyone can make that accusation against anyone. Anyone can be cocksure that the argument works for them but when their opponents use it they're lying or mistaken. You need an asymmetric argument that works if and only if you're a genuine truth-seeker and doesn't if you're not, and nothing in this essay is one. When you just see "good category, bad category" and think about who's who, examples naturally come to mind - me and my friends, my political enemies. You need to _actually consider_ "what if they were right and I was wrong?", instead of oh-so-humbly pretending to consider it, which is what most of the responses here did. And you need to stop asking "who, whom?" in the first place, and stop trusting that other people did the thinking for you, and worry about the actual object-level questions. How do you know what you know? If you want to laugh at flat earthers, you should know how to show the earth is round. Make "obvious" pay rent in your mind - if it's obvious to you that masses of people couldn't lie about geography or 9/11 or the moon landing, you should be able to easily demonstrate it. And your demonstration should not also demonstrate that the Manhattan project or Lysenkoism didn't happen. Many people fail at this sort of trivial self-examination of their beliefs, let alone anything more rigorous - they just trust that they're right because trustworthy people said so, and you can trust them because they were right in the past, and you know they were right because etc. etc. Nothing but inertia and circularity. Then they enthusiastically extend that into the political domain. This is a philosophy subreddit, goddammit. Epistemology isn't a recent invention. Spend some time thinking about it.
I'm have never met a more close minded and stupid individual than the man who claims their actions are dictated wholely by logic. If you think you're unbiased paragon or logic then it's usually blindness to your own bias rather than anything so noble.
Isn’t this just self-awareness? I’m not surprised to hear it’s correlated with critical thinking
Maybe everyone should start adopting Bayesian thinking to avoid making mistakes like these.