please empty your brain below
|
A pleasingly rational start to my day. I always think that if you feel negatively about what someone has done or said, you need to think about why they have made that choice/decision. That's more illuminating and useful than a knee-jerk reaction.
One of my well-worn comments is "it's not wrong, it's different."
Waterhouse | 10.06.19 - 7:15 a.m. | #
|
|
Amen.
MikeS | 10.06.19 - 7:22 a.m. | #
|
Excellent stuff. 'tis true of course. It has taken me a while to realise this. When I was a lot younger I used to think my opinions (especially political) must surely be "right". Now I realise other people have merely come to a different conclusion.
Regarding those things that are "wrong" because society/ legislation dictates so, again not everyone agrees with you, of course. The Tax payer's association (yes I know/ er believe) were yesterday arguing that speeding fines were some kind of unjust tax on the unwary rarther than a legitimate penalty for law breaking.
Lorenzo | 10.06.19 - 7:32 a.m. | #
|
|
This is an area where there is a big gender gap. Look at most opinion polls where people are asked a question which deals with a complex and often a non binary issue. Men are more likely to give a definitive answer and women more likely to say they don’t know. The reality is that the men don’t know any more than women but as we see from politicians are prepared to share their opinions with us on things they patently know very little about.
abc | 10.06.19 - 7:56 a.m. | #
|
|
I find the particular is generally very different from the universal. Ditto here.
B | 10.06.19 - 8:07 a.m. | #
|
I like the legal concept of a decision that could have reasonably and rationally be made. In other words if the decision is legal and not made irrationally or prejudicially then it is a reasonable decision for people/councils/official bodies etc to make.
So there is a world of difference between 'I wouldn't have made that decision in these circumstances' and 'no-one on any rational basis could have come to that conclusion'.
Note: the mere reason a lot of people conclude something (such as their life is influenced by the planets) doesn't make it a reasonable decision.
Denying climate change is becoming a case of being impossible to rationally argue against it. Those that publicly deny it seem more-and-more unable to argue against it on any rational basis. This wasn't the case in the early days when a plausible argument could have been made for denying it - even if one personally didn't believe that their argument would stand up.
Pedantic of Purley | 10.06.19 - 9:11 a.m. | #
|
|
You Didn't Wanna (Harry Enfield)
JonF | 10.06.19 - 9:11 a.m. | #
|
Being a bit devil's advocate-ish (because I fundamentally agree), that's rather dogmatic for what's essentially a criticism of dogmatism :-)
Sadly, when you're dealing with the media, or getting a campaigning message out, there often isn't that much scope for nuance and subtlety.
As for your last sentence, well, I'm not sure ... ;-)
Sarah | Homepage | 10.06.19 - 9:36 a.m. | #
|
"surely"is an interesting one.
When someone is really sure, they say simply "that's wrong".
But when they say "surely that's wrong" they're questioning their own opinion: "I think that's wrong, do you...?..."
So "surely"is bring used to mean "unsurely".
Joho | Homepage | 10.06.19 - 9:42 a.m. | #
|
|
Some years ago I made a very conscious effort not to judge everything as C**P, if it was not to my liking, taste, preference, etc; this was harder than it seems.
YDU | 10.06.19 - 10:07 a.m. | #
|
|
The media don't help. Whenever there is some sort of 'disaster' they always ask "what went wrong?" rather than "what happened?"
popartist | 10.06.19 - 10:08 a.m. | #
|
|
This is right.
The Banbury Man | Homepage | 10.06.19 - 10:59 a.m. | #
|
|
Apart from the important distinction which you highlight, there is also the issue, when you think something is wrong, of whether, when and how you say so. I think working in the tobacco industry is wrong, but I don't generally say this if I meet such a person, because what would that achieve?
Malcolm | 10.06.19 - 11:11 a.m. | #
|
|
There are two sides to every argument. Or maybe not.
timbo | 10.06.19 - 11:14 a.m. | #
|
The same applies to elections and referendums. For example on the Brexit referendum, there wasn't a wrong or right result, but rather a result you agree or disagree with.
I might disagree with how the country voted but in a democracy it's dangerous and frankly arrogant to say that the 17m who voted for Brexit were "wrong" as they were expressing an opinion, just like I was.
Mikey C | 10.06.19 - 11:14 a.m. | #
|
Brexit is a classic case. There are people on both sides who have come to a rational decision and I respect them for that even when I don't agree with it. But equally there are people on both sides who irrationally came to a decision who I would describe as simply wrong in their thinking.
Top of the list of irrational decision making is leaving because the NHS would have £350m more each week. Equally some remainers claimed our standard of living would go down according to government research and so we shouldn't leave but government research actually showed that leaving would mean our standard of living would go up by less that it would otherwise do - something completely different.
Some people are just wrong in their reasoning and others just have a different opinion or different set of priorities.
Pedantic of Purley | 10.06.19 - 11:25 a.m. | #
|
|
On Brexit, some people have indeed come to a rational decision, one way or the other. Some, however, voted the way they did because of feelings. To be honest, I think I did that, even though I can also justify my vote rationally. I just wish that those who used feelings only on the other side from me had not done so.
Malcolm p | 10.06.19 - 2:01 p.m. | #
|
|
https://xkcd.com/386/
Gerry | 10.06.19 - 3:04 p.m. | #
|
I am right.
Therefore, you must be wrong.
That is beyond argument.
Temp | 10.06.19 - 5:12 p.m. | #
|
|
To paraphrase Tim Vine, crime in a multistorey car park is something I wouldn't do on many different levels.
Martin | 10.06.19 - 7:25 p.m. | #
|
Well, “wrong” may be used colloquially to mean false, personally disgusting, unwise or immoral – or some nebulous or shifting combination thereof.
On a tangent: - “Mount Stupid” (SMBC Comics)
- “…just because infinite resources will produce truth doesn’t mean that truth as a function of resources has to be monotonic. Maybe there are some parts of the resources-vs-truth curve where increasing effort leads you the wrong direction…” (Slate Star Codex)
Rich G | Homepage | 10.06.19 - 9:14 p.m. | #
|
|
Well said Geezer.
Margot Walker | 11.06.19 - 12:06 a.m. | #
|
|
This reminded me of E Prime - an attempt to conceive an English without ‘is-ness’. The idea is we’d say “this appears to me wrong” and would be pushed into a place where we needed to clarify and justify our opinions with evidence, rather than taking the lazy shortcut of saying “this is wrong”. No-one much talks about E Prime now, but I try to keep its concepts in mind when I take a turn for the polemic!
Mike Nemwna | Homepage | 11.06.19 - 6:57 a.m. | #
|
|
Surely you can't be serious?
Platinum Geezer | 11.06.19 - 11:19 p.m. | #
|
|
|
TridentScan v2.10.0 | Privacy Policy
|