BS: Feelings = Facts

Subject: RE: BS: Feelings = Facts
From: Donuel
Date: 09 Oct 16 - 03:40 PM

Inuition its more than a feeling

Subject: RE: BS: Feelings = Facts
From: Donuel
Date: 09 Oct 16 - 03:28 PM

wulf, I had it right the first time and even included a joke to highlight the difference between stupid and ignorance."you can't cure stupid."

At least that's the way I see it.

To go boldly...perhaps we can cure stupid pharmaceutically.

Janie has been very informative and brought clarity to mediation issues I had.


ps
Today the future self concept is used in therapy in the form of writing letters or painting portraits of the future self

Subject: RE: BS: Feelings = Facts
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Oct 16 - 03:14 PM

You can also be highly intelligent, well versed in relevant facts, and still completely wrongheaded. Getting hold of the wrong end of the stick means that even though the stick points in the right direction, you go the other way.

Subject: RE: BS: Feelings = Facts
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Oct 16 - 02:48 PM

I come from Radcliffe, just outside Manchester, as it happens, but belong to one of those families with a genetic, inbuilt and completely justified hatred of anything to do with M*n U.

Subject: RE: BS: Feelings = Facts
From: Raedwulf
Date: 09 Oct 16 - 02:42 PM

By the way, Don - ignorant is the word you are probably looking for. Stupidity is an inability to comprehend; ignorance is a lack of factual grounding - what you call "low information". You can be stupid, you can be ignorant; you can be both or neither.

"Low information" is probably more diplomatic if slightly obscure, though. People are more likely to take offence at being called ignorant & not give you a chance to explain precisely what you mean! ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Feelings = Facts
From: Raedwulf
Date: 09 Oct 16 - 02:33 PM

"We can tell ourselves and others we're rational and we're in control, but that's only true to a limited extent."

We're animals with some extra higher brain functions; nothing more, nothing less. Forget that & you're in trouble; remember that & suddenly a whole lot of things make a great deal more sense. It's probably the one thing more than any other that pisses me off about monotheism - "gaj (god / allah / Jehovah, that is) made this world for us & put us in charge of it". Or words to that effect. What a sad bloody loser gaj is then, cos look what we're doing & he's supposed to be omniscient which means he should have seen it coming...

If there is a gaj, he made the world (universe) and we are part of it. As you may guess (if you don't already know), I'm pagan, and I've sod all time for philosophies, religious or otherwise, that try to place humanity outside or above nature. But that is a whole other discussion!

"Now suppose I tell YOU that Liverpool are the greatest team in the world." Bugger off, Shaw, you Scouse git. And yes, I'm just as bad as you!! ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Feelings = Facts
From: Janie
Date: 09 Oct 16 - 01:22 PM

Well said.

Subject: RE: BS: Feelings = Facts
From: DMcG
Date: 09 Oct 16 - 01:21 PM

I also have a problem with analogies that don't work. This cornea/retina was supposed to be a helpful analogy but all it did for Steve and I was to set metaphorical teeth on edge. Bad analogies do that to me I am afraid.   I was at a staff training day which had a "motivational speaker". One of his slides was a signpost at a crossroads with directions labelled 'integrity', 'customer service', 'efficiency' and I forget the fourth. But hang on, what are you saying here? Customer service is opposed to integrity? Improving efficiency lowers integrity?

Apart from being a pretty picture, what is the signpost supposed to be saying?

And it is the same here. Why use the eye as a metaphor given everything you intend to use it for is erroneous? Pick a metaphor you understand and that actually supports your point.

Subject: RE: BS: Feelings = Facts
From: Janie
Date: 09 Oct 16 - 01:18 PM

I did not notice the mix-up between iris and cornea until you pointed it out. In part because I always have to stop and think "which is which" *blush* and in part because I pretty much skipped over the analogy part of the article since it was clear where he was headed after the first couple of lines.

I agree with you re being careful and thorough when writing for publication. Had it been a scientific or academic article it would have been peer reviewed. I also suspect you are more diligent and have to work less hard at critical thinking than do I.

Subject: RE: BS: Feelings = Facts
From: DMcG
Date: 09 Oct 16 - 12:50 PM

Begin. Sigh

Subject: RE: BS: Feelings = Facts
From: DMcG
Date: 09 Oct 16 - 12:46 PM

Let's being with an outright apology. When I read the article I also looked around a bit more of the site and came across the phrase "critical or negative thinking". It was a mistake on my part to think that came from the linked article when a 'find on page' shows the author didn't use the word negative at all. My blunder (which, as Donuel said, I may learn from!)

I didn't closely evaluate the article, though. Or at least, no more than anything else I read. Some level of critical review is second nature to me. But so is some level of other kinds of thinking. In the past month or so I have posted that I passed a lorry with the serial number MGL2560 and noticed it was (almost) a ceasar cypher of my surname, or that I passed a BMW 5350d and noticed that, upside down, that is POSES and so a hair's breadth from POSER. So a playful view of the world is also second nature. Then I was in Inverness recently where a lot of street signs are written in both gaelic and English and noticed the gaelic for church is similar to the French.   That's neither analytic nor playful. And so on.

So if the message of the article is simply don't stick to one way of thinking I am in complete agreement. But there's no reason to write a careless article to do that.

Subject: RE: BS: Feelings = Facts
From: Janie
Date: 09 Oct 16 - 12:21 PM

It's interesting and illustrative to notice how we interpret that article differently.

It is not a scientific or academic article and is targeted at a particular audience - attorneys who are mediators. That doesn't mean it should not be critiqued and it's flaws noted, but does suggest that context matters.

I did not interpret the article to be negative with respect to the merits of critical thinking, nor to suggest that intuitive thinking should be preferred over critical thinking. I interpreted him to be pointing out to attorneys who mediate that mediation may be more likely to be successful if the mediator is able to incorporate both intuitive and analytical thinking in their attempts to assist opposing parties come to agreement.

Now, my interpretation is shaped by my own personal and professional experiences, training and paradigm, which is oriented toward the psychosocial and interpersonal relationships and transactions. I'm not a researcher, scientist or academic. I am a practicing social worker. What comes to mind for me when I think of mediation are divorce and child custody issues. For some of you, when you think of mediation, you may think more in terms of mandatory arbitration between labor/business or customer/corporation. When the focus of the mediation is as much about the intangibles of relationships and the internal emotional states of people, some intuitive thinking on the part of the mediator is more likely to result in a mediated outcome vs. an embittered court battle that ultimately can be very destructive for all parties. The intangibles are less important, and perhaps not at all important in some instances.

I don't value intuitive thinking over critical thinking. The emphasis on critical thinking resulted in DmG closely evaluating the details of the article and finding the factual flaws, which then lead him to not just doubt the conclusion of the article, but to arrive at a different understanding of the conclusion than did I. What I came away with was more of a global, big picture impression, and found I agreed with the perspective that it was a useful article with a valid conclusion, dispite some problems with the details. I was aware of some of the flaws but not as many of the flaws as DmG noted. Even after reading DmG's criticisms, which I think are valid, I still agree with the premise of the article, and still don't understand the article to be dissing analytical thinking. I don't think comparing and contrasting, or noting the strengths and weaknesses of differing approaches constitutes being negative, and especially don't think suggesting that successful mediation is more likely to result from incorporating elements of both intuitive and critical thinking is negative or is advocating for intuitive thinking over critical thinking in this context. That is from my paradigm and frames of reference. I don't think it is a question of one of us is right or correct in our interpretations and the other is wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Feelings = Facts
From: Donuel
Date: 09 Oct 16 - 10:57 AM

On Sundays PBS often airs shows by Chopra, Tanzi, Dwyer, and a host of other shows with names like SUPER Brain which recommend a good diet and, in every case, what I would call fundamental hypnosis.
Only the presentation, jokes and new emerging brain science are different.

This not a criticism but rather a tribute to those who make their own brand name.

Subject: RE: BS: Feelings = Facts
From: Donuel
Date: 09 Oct 16 - 10:25 AM

When I was just twenty five and practicing hypnosis in a private practice I was too young to have the wisdom to tackle the big problems like domestic abuse in situations when the abuser was a respected sitting judge and the victims were his wife and daughter. There were no eye phone cameras so I suggested taped evidence of the abuse would be valuable at a future time and the courage to accept separation. This led me to the "future self" concept that probably has a name but I swear it felt like I had invented it.

In situations where it was a challenge to listen to a kid like me and people were suffering from anxiety, I deferred to the future self of the client to offer a solution and/or comfort. In as profound a state of hypnosis as possible I would suggest a chance encounter with their future self requires they listen and watch very carefully and then I would shut up, wait four minutes and suggest how good and happy they feel that they want to laugh out loud, remembering all their future self has said told them.

If they wanted to tell me what was said some would describe how their future self was dressed and how surprised they were to meet them at all. The message given them was usually short. It might be that they know more than they need to know. Or, the future self was the person they were striving to become in confidence and career.

I could go on and on but this really worked. If it didn't a direct classic PHS was used.


btw I used to steer subjects away who did not achieve deeper hypnotic states prior to suggestion. referrals are a good thing.


NOW WHY DO I BRING THIS UP?

I really don't know why, but intuitively I feel it will be of some value to someone.

Subject: RE: BS: Feelings = Facts
From: DMcG
Date: 09 Oct 16 - 09:14 AM

Janie.   Sorry!!!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Feelings = Facts
From: DMcG
Date: 09 Oct 16 - 09:10 AM

I'm afraid that the whole paragraph with the offending cornea reference in it is pseudoscientific bullshit.

Yep. There's a lot of it about. That's why we need the critical thinking.

Jamie made a comment about "intuitive" being misunderstood. The same is true of "critical thinking". It is not negative thinking as the offending article (!) claimed. It's sole purpose is to test a claim and a solid claim will withstand thorough criticism. Negative thinking, on the other hand, may well dismiss something on spurious grounds.

It is, by way of analogy, how skills are improved by recognising and addressing their weaknesses. That is not negative.

Subject: RE: BS: Feelings = Facts
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Oct 16 - 07:38 AM

I'm afraid that the whole paragraph with the offending cornea reference in it is pseudoscientific bullshit. And I'm trying to be kind. For thirty years I've been reading my local weekly newspaper and, for a while, was assuming that the reporters on it, some of whom I've known, have no tabloidistic axe to grind. One day there was an article about me (getting an A-star in GCSE music at the age of 46, I hasten to add). The "quotes" by me in the article bore no resemblance to what I'd actually said to the reporter. Made a good story though. Aha. From that day on I've found it impossible to trust the detail of any report I read in that paper. Same with yer man and his cornea. My analytical side would press me to read the rest of it and check every detail for its veracity. My intuitive side suggests that he's thrown out the baby with the bath water, the game's not worth the candle and that I'd better look elsewhere for edification. And that's definitely over-analysing my intuitive side ! 😉

Subject: RE: BS: Feelings = Facts
From: DMcG
Date: 09 Oct 16 - 03:56 AM

I would agree Donuel that confusing cornea and retina can be a straightforward mistake and in itself is no indicator of stupidity.   This is especially the case in conversation. If you were to judge my intelligence based on the number of spelling mistakes and grammatical errors I made on Mudcat you would put me prettyy low indeed. But published articles, even on the Internet, are not conversation. If you are serious about what you write, you check it, recheck it, ideally get someone else to check it... in short you put in effort to make sure it is as well expressed as possible. And these sorts of errors should be eliminated in the at process.

I was thinking about this last night and the situation appears to be this. A person you know tells you something with five facts. Two of them you knew and the person has told them correctly. This biases you to think that, if there is no other evidence available, the three remaining facts are more likely to be true. Now suppose the facts you knew before are incorrectly described. That biases you to think the remainder may not be true.
But this assumes an honest companion. Suppose he is dishonest and wants to persuade you of one false statement. This bias mechanism suggests the best way is to surround it with true statements. Hence th3 advice you sometimes hear that to lie successfully it is best to stick as close. To the truth as you can.
.

Subject: RE: BS: Feelings = Facts
From: Janie
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 11:05 PM

I think intuitive thinking gets confused with 'touchy-feely' because 'it feels right' can mean two separate things.

With intuitive thinking, there is an "aha" moment, when a piece of the puzzle snaps into place and suddenly the picture or pattern makes sense, or begins to make sense. Or at least a hypothesis presents itself that one can find a way to test.

"It feels right" can also refer to reacting or making choices purely from emotion without considering what the emotion is actually signaling.

Intuition may 'feel' instinctive, but is not. Emotion and instinct are not synonymous but are closely related with respect to the basic emotions rooted in the limbic system.

Disclaimer here. I don't entirely know what I am talking about. I'm a psychotherapist, not a neuroscientist.

Anyway, while I think emotions and the capacity for empathy figure somehow into intuition (when working with people), and that intuition involves some unconscious processes that involve emotion, I think those unconscious processes also likely involve rational cognitive processes taking place 'behind the scene' so to speak. My understanding is people like Einstein, Hawking, and Dyson, brilliant theoretical scientists, are/were both intuitive and critical thinkers.

Subject: RE: BS: Feelings = Facts
From: Donuel
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 08:46 PM

Writing cornea instead of retina seems like a pretty straight forward dyslexic mistake to me. Thinking that dyslexia is a backwards kind of problem is a myth. Word retrieval is central to the problem of dyslexia. To many that is an indication of stupidity.

It can be, but a dyslexic person can find work arounds and compensation strategies to avoid the outward appearance of stupidity.
Defensiveness can be exhausting and repetitive.

If you are dyslexic you are always thinking in translation of a picture or a double association with a word you are seeking. Sometimes it does not come especially in conversation and an awkward pause develops. It is like stuttering but is one step removed from pronouncing the word. It is a stutter of silence in search of the word you have already selected in thought.

Other people may assume that the person is having a dementia problem or is a sandwich short of a picnic.

Then again if the moron doesn't know a cornea from a retina he's got to be full of it overall.

Subject: RE: BS: Feelings = Facts
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 07:54 PM

For the third time, I never said that schools should be fact-free zones. For the second time, I'm very grateful that I was made to chant 7x8=56 a thousand times. Wise teachers know the difference between essential building blocks and inessential fact-stuffing. I'm really not a complicated chap. I sometimes think that people want to disagree with me about everything because I don't like God or something. Do proceed.

Subject: RE: BS: Feelings = Facts
From: Mrrzy
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 06:49 PM

I do not believe that it is factual, that facts are retained better when grabbed than when stuffed - the fact is, knowledge is retained when it is USED, regardless of how it got there.

If you wait till kids WANT to know the multiplication table, for example, they won't learn it; then when they need it, it won't already be there. Do the drills to make them memorize it by rote, then when they need it, they will have it.

Either way, once they have to use it they will retain it, but in the second case, they didn't have to go back and learn it with the difficulty of an adult learning a foreign language. Instead, they got it with ease.

Also, if children aren't made to work during the industry v. inferiority stage they don't develop into hard workers.

Subject: RE: BS: Feelings = Facts
From: DMcG
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 06:00 PM

I'd be happier with the link about analytical versus intuitive thinking if the author hadn't confused the cornea with the retina. Errors like that, rightly or wrongly, make you dubious about other statements in the article.

Subject: RE: BS: Feelings = Facts
From: Janie
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 05:43 PM

I'm inclined to think intuitive thinking can be refined and developed but not taught. Either one is wired for it or one is not. Don't know that I would assert one is either born with it or not. The early brain is very plastic and while genetics certainly factor into the potentialities, I think the matrix of nurture/nature in those very early years - the development and pruning of neural pathways in response or reaction to very early experiences, is more responsible for how our brains develop and ultimately operate than pure biology and genetics alone.

Which, now that I think about it, suggests that some children by school age may learn critical thinking skills more readily than others. While the brain is most plastic during the first 2-4 years of life than at any other time, still quite plastic well into adolescence, and never completely loses plasticity, so it is always possible to teach or to improve critical thinking skills.

Keeping in mind that critical thinking is about how to think, not what to think.

Subject: RE: BS: Feelings = Facts
From: DMcG
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 05:23 PM

De Bono

Subject: RE: BS: Feelings = Facts
From: DMcG
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 05:22 PM

I was never a great fan of Edward de Boho because I always felt he was adept at presenting unoriginal ideas. Nevertheless some of the ideas are worthwhile and the six hat approach, or whatever he called it has some merit. It is a bad idea to get too fixed to a single way of thinking. Critical thinking is is important for evaluating ideas that are presented to you, or that you came up with. But it is not an especially good way of coming up with ideas in the first place.

So yes, I value intuition as well.

There was a satirical programme years ago on British TV called "That was the week that was" and I remember being struck by a in one intro:

One eye open wide, one eye closed,
and between the two, the picture gets composed.

Sage advice.

Subject: RE: BS: Feelings = Facts
From: Donuel
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 05:18 PM

Holistic is by far more succinct than saying "Perhaps a three dimension form of objective thinking is what I call 'Perspectiveism' . A multidisciplinary, multi cultural, time omniscient and global point of view.

I guess you know what it is like to stop what you are doing and look in the direction that feels funny only to discover someone staring at you.

You can practice gaining access to a holistic mind but it is best to be born with holistic wiring. Some people may have a holistic mind but can not describe the holistic consciousness to others. Others may have full access and communication with a holistic brain and become impressive impromptu speakers.

People who are not holistic thinkers I have for years called linear.
They are geniuses of an essential order. Our society could not work without them. However they make poor navigators and leaders of humanistic goals&desires. Unfortunately they are more often chosen for clear cut leadership roles. The age old administration verses the teachers with vision is an example.

House MD is about a holistic knowledgeable doctor vs the administration.


Holistic thinkers can also be the new age con who mediates to the Aurealians who visit them via channeling. There are some major loons out there who take a good thing too far.

Subject: RE: BS: Feelings = Facts
From: Janie
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 04:19 PM

I'm a firm believer in the benefit of intuitive thinking, in combination with critical thinking, Donuel. My definition of intuitive thinking refers to unconscious pattern recognition. Interesting article here.   Analytical/Intuitive thinking

Subject: RE: BS: Feelings = Facts
From: Donuel
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 03:34 PM

DMcG We have both seen how a strategic blunder can lead to a new insight and provable fact. Blunders can lead to wonders solved.
I respect the blunder, of that I am resolved.

Subject: RE: BS: Feelings = Facts
From: Donuel
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 03:25 PM

Steve's thesis of objective thinking is an excellent base line for non prejudicial thinking.

Perhaps a three dimension form of objective thinking is what I call 'Perspectiveism' . A multidisciplinary, multi cultural, time omniscient and global point of view.

Subject: RE: BS: Feelings = Facts
From: Donuel
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 03:11 PM

I am glad some of you have left room for intuition or something like it. Modern science still sees the subject through controversial glasses.


In the US low information voters are people with little current events information and usually no college education. They are NOT knee jerk stupid. There is no cure for stupid. Ignorant possibly, but not slack jaw stupid. 5 beers short of a six pack maybe, but not...


Beware the Ives of Teribus when he agrees with you. It makes me wary.
He has never been stupid by a long shot. Its the long shot that worries me.


Steve we all get the lies shared by politics, religion and faith. No need to overplay your hand,

We are all a sum of our parts. Its how you manipulate those parts that matter. :*)

Subject: RE: BS: Feelings = Facts
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 06:04 AM

We're human beings. Critical thinking can be switched on and off. Some of the greatest scientists in history went, or go, to Sunday Mass and worship without demur a non-existent deity during a service with a lot of brainless chanting in it conducted by a man wearing a frock. On Monday morning they are perfectly capable of reapplying their critical faculties to the full back in the lab. That's what makes us different from Vulcans.

This is why it's really important to recognise that education is about enthusing people to grab knowledge for themselves and to accept nothing, especially when it's surprising or unexpected or appears to go against nature, without asking for evidence. Suppose I take my six-year-old to a match at Anfield. Liverpool thrash Chelsea and we're both over the moon. On the way home I tell the lad that Liverpool are the greatest team in the world. He's very likely to agree with me (and is that much more likely to become a long-term Liverpool supporter - I am his dad after all, and he is only six and still has plenty to learn).

That's a relatively harmless example but it shows how easy it is to use "dishonest" means to persuade someone of a "fact" that is no such thing. Now suppose I tell YOU that Liverpool are the greatest team in the world. You'd probably tell me to sod off or something, but let's suppose you decided to engage me instead. Either you'd try to disprove my claim by arguing the merits of West Ham instead (which makes you just as bad as me, but it's what football fans do) or you may decide to ask me for the basis of my claim. It wouldn't take you long, even if you weren't a particular footie fan, to take me to pieces on every piece of "evidence" I gave you. I won't labour the point.

OK, now apply that to religion (Kevin did warn you)...

And DMcG is dead right. To put the point another way, evidence is what stacks up. It is never proof. There will always be the balance of probabilities. Critical thinking requires inspecting evidence for its honesty and quality. We humans are rather good at not only coming to conclusions based on very shaky evidence but also living our lives according to it. It can be fun but it can have very serious consequences. Leaving the EU for example, or forcing faith on people.

Subject: RE: BS: Feelings = Facts
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 04:16 AM

"It is not hearts or minds it is hearts and minds. When whopper lies are told it is up to the mind to determine validity. People of low information do not take the extra step of using their mind. Not just willfully but due to the way they process information mentally." - Donuel

1: "It is not hearts or minds it is hearts and minds."

Totally agree.

2: "When whopper lies are told it is up to the mind to determine validity."

Very true but that should be done irrespective. When you are told anything that isn't blatantly obvious validity should always be determined.

3: "People of low information do not take the extra step of using their mind."

Again very true. Case in point is an incident that resulted in a fire and 134 deaths, where someone of low information, who did not use their mind managed to place the blame for the incident on a completely innocent party who had the available information been taken into account it would have become blatantly obvious that the person accused by this other person of low information could not possibly have been at fault.


Question is: Was that available information wilfully ignored or was it purely as a result of the way that someone processes information mentally?

Subject: RE: BS: Feelings = Facts
From: DMcG
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 03:34 AM

Another example of where facts needed to take a back seat is someone with a life long battle with anorexia. Even to the extent of being hospitalised. Much medical intervention was needed including CBT and the whole thing was being controlled with effort, including occasional CBT refreshes.

So when she went to the GP for something unrelated and the locum threw in the comment "You could do with losing a bit of weight" the factual correctness was the least important thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Feelings = Facts
From: DMcG
Date: 08 Oct 16 - 03:02 AM

It is worth remembering that evidence is not just the purely factual like my chemical flame tests. Much of the time of evidence is incomplete in that sense and then we have to rely on much less reliable stuff like balance of probabilities and interpretations based on empathetic judgements. We can still apply critical thinking but we need to recognise what it can and can't achieve in these circumstances.

Several members of my family have had CBT and they all found it incredibly helpful (as did those around them!) One, for example, was caught in a hurricane as a teenager and her quite understandable fears of that transferred themselves to any sort of bad weather for the rest of her adult life. CBT "cured" this for her, at least to a significant extent. You could say it was an example of critical thinking, as a significant part involved her recognising how often the roof didn't blow off, that the odd lost tile was replaced quickly and cheaply and so on. But I think that would be mistaken because it is all at the factual level and any "cure' must be at an emotional level because by definition the fear is an emotion.

Subject: RE: BS: Feelings = Facts
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Oct 16 - 10:07 PM

(Better not mention religion to Steve, Janie. It tends to set him off...)
.............
You're right to mention physiology - for example I'll find myself getting irritable, it's my blood sugar getting low, I need a meal, making mistakes, means I'm getting tired, need a rest. And there's all kinds of stuff like that, hormones, lack of sunlight...

We can tell ourselves and others we're rational and we're in control, but that's only true to a limited extent.

Subject: RE: BS: Feelings = Facts
From: Janie
Date: 07 Oct 16 - 09:26 PM

Not sure I can agree with you there, Steve. Critical thinking is a cognitive method. It certainly can be taught. But it is entirely a cognitive process.

I know some very good critical thinkers who are emotional morasses and feel mostly miserable outside of their work. Great engineers, researchers, physicians, scientists, etc. No personal insight whatsoever, though, or if they do have personal insight, unable to translate that insight into functional, satisfying lives and relationships. Often very poor social skills, numerous failed marriages, kids that want nothing to do with them. Critical thinking is a great skill to have. Don't make a religion of it however.

Subject: RE: BS: Feelings = Facts
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Oct 16 - 08:52 PM

Well, a good education in critical thinking would automatically preclude "self," as you would already have questioned the validity of you or anyone else assuming the mantle of authority. You don't take anyone's word for anything at all, no matter how high and mighty, unless they can produce evidence. And that definitely includes self.

Subject: RE: BS: Feelings = Facts
From: Janie
Date: 07 Oct 16 - 08:28 PM

Not sure I understand what you mean by 'low information', Donuel. I agree that it is not hearts or minds but hearts and minds, assuming that you mean emotions by hearts. And don't leave out the physiological. Also agree with you, Steve, assuming you also include 'the self' when you speak of those who assume authority.

Not a perfect model, but one I often use is what in CBT is called "the cognitive equation."

Event (may be internal, external or include elements of both) ---> Perception (what one takes in through the 5 senses and that varies by individual) --->Interpretation (this includes beliefs about ourselves, others and the world, value judgements, social learning, socialization, past experiences and the extent to which those experiences have been generalized, etc. knowledge, emotional learning or distortions, etc.)---> Reaction( in therapy usually call attention to the emotional response, but the reaction usually includes emotion, physiological response and cognitions.) I usually draw this as a circle and not as a linear process. The reaction itself is also an 'event.'

Subject: RE: BS: Feelings = Facts
From: Donuel
Date: 07 Oct 16 - 07:41 PM

It is not hearts or minds it is hearts and minds. When whopper lies are told it is up to the mind to determine validity. People of low information do not take the extra step of using their mind. Not just willfully but due to the way they process information mentally.

Subject: RE: BS: Feelings = Facts
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Oct 16 - 03:29 PM

That's right. Consciously recognising it in ourselves should be at the heart of true education. Seeking knowledge for ourselves, recognising the quality of evidence and never accepting the unsupported word of anyone who has assumed authority.

Subject: RE: BS: Feelings = Facts
From: Janie
Date: 07 Oct 16 - 03:29 PM

Didn't say that quite right. Our interpretations are influenced by emotion. If we are unaware of that, we are much more likely to accept our perceptions and interpretations as 'fact' or 'truth' (also not synonyms) and to assume beliefs are either 'true' or 'fact', and thus, not examine them. People who operate from the most closed paradigms are the least likely to understand they operate from a paradigm, thus mistaking paradigm for reality.

Subject: RE: BS: Feelings = Facts
From: Janie
Date: 07 Oct 16 - 03:19 PM

I agree, McGrath. There is great utility, however, in consciously recognizing that within ourselves. That makes for greater capacity to make conscious choices instead of unconscious choices.

Subject: RE: BS: Feelings = Facts
From: Senoufou
Date: 07 Oct 16 - 03:12 PM

I avoid blooming mirrors whenever I can. I just check my clothes are tidy and my hair is fairly normal-looking, and that's it. Avoidance tactics.

Subject: RE: BS: Feelings = Facts
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Oct 16 - 03:03 PM

"I feel" meaning "I think" - that reflects the way that our thought are a combination of what we believe to be the case concerning the outside world, and how we feel emotionally about this.

If I were talking about the outcome of the American election and said "I feel Trump might win" that would be a combination of my belief that that would be what would happen and my apprehension and fear of that happening. A Trump supporter using the words would be doing so with different emotions. If I said ""I think" that would tend to imply that I was at least attempting to be neutral and dispassionate.

But in most things our emotions and our beliefs are tied together. Even a scientist conducting an experiment is likely to have some emotional preferance for one result rather than another.

Subject: RE: BS: Feelings = Facts
From: Janie
Date: 07 Oct 16 - 02:46 PM

Donuel, going back to your op, I'd 'parse' that a bit more. I think it is more like people often don't distinguish between feelings (emotions) and thoughts (cognitions.) Then, they often don't recognize the difference between belief and fact. Beliefs are not limited to religion, spirituality or values.

I listen to way too much news radio on NPR. Often I notice how even very erudite experts who are being interviewed will say "I feel..." instead of "I think...," when what follows is clearly the expression of a thought or observation.

Subject: RE: BS: Feelings = Facts
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Oct 16 - 02:10 PM

I once stayed in a B&B in Bath in which our bathroom was smothered in mirrors on all the walls. I swear it was the first and only time in my whole life that I could see my own arse totally undistorted by having to indulge in at least a little contortionism.

Subject: RE: BS: Feelings = Facts
From: Donuel
Date: 07 Oct 16 - 01:44 PM

Senofou, I figured it was one of those Wikipedia things, don't worry about it. Besides,

I'm not actually a Jew. I did not do my bar mitzvah. Nor do I appear Semitic. My color is the pink side of the Powder character with blue eyes and strawberry blonde hair (white temples). (real Hitler youth looks)   My respect for education and curiosity is Jewish. I am not the scholar I was expected to be because of the reading thing.

In grade school They advanced me two grades to prove to me I was not the reader I thought I was.





DMcG

I love mirror stories. The book The Turbulent Mirror is full of cosmological mirror stories. I have 4 mirrors in the living room arranged in such a way you can stand right next to someone and see your reflections but if you take one step forward your image disappears.
I used to be fond of the symmetry theory.


Fiefer is a genius and a hero of mine.

Subject: RE: BS: Feelings = Facts
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Oct 16 - 10:04 AM

I think, looking back, that I'm far more influenced, or "modified" if you like, by the stuff I went and grabbed for myself (Aesop's Fables) than by the stuff I had poured over me (Catholic indoctrination). The former went deep and is strangely and obstinately persistent; the latter, eventually, washed off. But I still see the dirty water. If that's what you mean.

Subject: RE: BS: Feelings = Facts
From: Senoufou
Date: 07 Oct 16 - 09:28 AM

DMcG, that tale about the mirror reminds me of the Mirror of Erised in 'Harry Potter And The Philosopher's Stone'. Whoever looks in it sees what their heart desires, not the actual truth.
But of course, each one of us views the world from the standpoint of our own experiences, upbringing and even genetics. I remember a few fascinating tutorials in Moral Philosophy at Uni, about The Truth, and Self-Evident Truths etc.
And how much can one judge a person if they act in antisocial ways if their background and family life have been horrendous? Back to the old 'Punishment and Blame' conundrum.
I do think one can modify one's opinions and erroneous beliefs, but only if one wishes to. (And the fact one wishes to means that too is a part of one's character...)

Donuel, I did not wish to imply that the Jews actually were behind the financial disasters in Germany between the Wars, only that the majority of the population thought so, and used them a scapegoats for their shame at defeat in WW1. Hitler built on this, and manipulated minds towards feeling superior and nationally proud again by his bizarre speeches. Not hypnotism, but charismatic persuasion.

My rather superstitious mother used to say just after the War that the Devil had got into Hitler (she was Irish!) but my father used to reply that it was nothing to do with the Devil, just evil minds and manipulation, and a whole people willing to be uplifted and carried away by opportunist rhetoric that chimed with their innermost desires. (Like the Mirror of Erised in fact)