tribalism.
signalling of group affiliation is more powerful than rational thought.
well most things are more powerful than rational thought.
But why is that? Why isn't rational thought the most powerful thing?
Well, I guess these people think it's rational to submit to their political group.
Is rationality subjective? One would assume it to be objective.
rational thought is a hot house flower it does not hold up well when there are alternatives.
this of course makes me sad.
I don't know even aspies have contradictory opinions they claim to have arrived to by logic.
You would think that one day, people won't let their political views get in front of doing things that are good for the environment and reduce energy consumption. I'd like to think it's just people being short-sighted and not wanting to pay more money up front, which is still irritating.
Yes that is still irritating. When I started reading the article I was pretty upset because I thought that the problem was that people weren't buying them strictly on the premise of political orientation. I was a little relieved though when some just didn't want to pay the higher up-front cost.
I know I shouldn't use a blanket statement, but if people from both parties claim to be logical, why doesn't everyone act so?
Sadly logic seems to be something we use to defend the views that we arrived at through some other means.
Side note: By giving up 10 minutes of my time for a phone-survey I ended up receiving 11 of these energy efficient lightbulbs, and some other stuff. Maybe power companies should do more promotions like that.
That's fantastic!
I don't know that too many people participate in phone surveys though. I think most just hang up.
Fortunately it was a real person on the line who told me right off the bat who they were with and what the survey was about. There was nothing sketchy about it and I felt like they were being honest with me.
Well that's perfect. The only time I've done a phone survey it was under similar conditions.
If logic is affected by emotion/feelings, is it still logic?
You wouldn't say there's an absolute logical view?
Let's take the example of protecting the environment.
Some people believe that since we were given all of these resources, we should exploit them to the fullest in order to benefit ourselves in the present generation. Besides, we'll probably find another planet to colonize and trash after this one so who cares what happens to this one. It's not like the destruction of this planet would have any sort of affect on the cosmological environment. (It's very difficult for me to not write with a bias).
Then there are the environmentally minded folk. These people believe that since we were given all of these resources on this beautiful planet, we should do all that we can to ensure their continued availability for, as some Native American tribes say, the Seventh Generation. We can't be certain that another habitable planet exists (while in an infinitely expanding Universe, yes, there are an infinite number of possibilities. Among those is the slim chance that Earth is the only habitable planet) so why not stay on the safe side and ensure that this planet stays around until it ends on its own terms?
To me, the latter is by far more logical.
But your examples are coming from different perspectives. There is no absolute perspective. Also, what makes being "safer" inherently more logical? There are certainly instances where taking risks is logical.
Again, logic is a tool. It's often used to accomplish a goal shaped by a perspective. In your scenarios, the question is, "how do we best utilize our resources" and it's how the word "best" is interpreted that allows for such disparate views. Logic needs parameters to operate within.