Rationalizations

[Verv]

Friends, I am going to talk about something that I tried to talk about before and failed miserably at (and in a fashion I deem even embarrassing). I am going to hobble around the same idea in some rehashed thoughts and bounce them off of you because I consider it an important idea to me. You may remember the original post entitled strength superior to intelligence. This was a gross oversimplification and a real babbling bit of nonsense.


I call it the idea of intelligence producing rationalizations, which falls into categories such as over analyzing something, dwelling on an idea too long, doubting inner conviction and strength and, more than this, rationalizing the negative.
It is quite difficult to define what constitutes excessive thought, just as it is difficult to define what constitutes pornography or brainwashing or even what constitutes strength. However, I feel that it is a pervasive problem in modern society and that our conceptions of intelligence and free will have undermined the inner strength that man ought possess.



Rather, to measure what excessive thought is we can see it from its results as opposed to its intentions. It is fair to say that thinking something over carefully is never wrong and is inherently a virtue, but it is also safe to say that sometimes during this process therein lies the rationalization of failures and the justification of defeatist attitudes. Doubt derides some good ideas and goals for a human being.


Excessive thought can be seen when people feed into cynical ideas concerning the impossible. Some people think long and hard about their personal problems and come to conclusions concerning kicking a bad habit or pursuing a goal, but seeing the difficulty in the situation they instead overthink the entire issue and end up doubting their own resolve and the possibility of attaining the goal.



Since intelligence and honesty are so valued by society, it is almost OK for a person to say, "I am an alcoholic and I have a predisposition to alcohol, so I am going to wallow in it. And even if it does interfere with my life, it makes me happy." A person who comes to these conclusions can be congratulated as somebody who is honest and rational when in reality I think it is a mere exhibition of weakness in many circumstances.
I know men who said they cheat on their wives and simply desire sex with other women, and that they are OK with that and they will proceed down that path. They justify it as their natural, human urges and essentially rationalize their affairs and adultery.


They do it because it all connects rationally. After all, what human does not have lust in their heart? And when they are celebrated for honesty and for intellectual integrity to some degree it encourages it further.


People have gone on to drop all conceptions of moral judgment in favor of a warped sense of integrity, a warped sense of rightness in following natural instinct which is base, crude and betraying to one's commitments. It is almost as if people value intelligent dissent to morality than moral situations themselves; it is as if people are willing to celebrate vice if it seems knowledgable in any strange, odd way.



Other people have always had dreams of being film directors and of being writers or Lawyers or doctors but they looked down the long road they would have to travel and gave up. They say that there were obstacles and having more time than effort, they sat and dwelled on the notion from time to time that for themselves to become a film director or a Lawyer it would require a lot of money, a second job to support oneself through extra school; it might even require decades of not being rewarded for their work in the cases of many artists. These ideas drew on the nerves of the people and the rationalized their defeats, convince themselves that their dreams and their goals are too far away through weighing things.


The root of defeat can often be thinking about something far too long.


In the game of Chess the wisest move often presents itself within your first few moments of viewing the board; however, the wisest move begins to look worse as you analyze your opponent and think that somehow this natural, instinctive move is the wrong one. Many chess players become plagued by the fact that they do not trust themselves. Chess master Jerry Silman spoke extensively of how he views a certain necessity in adhering to natural intuition; of course, one must think over your move and make sure that you are not being too rash and making an error, but there is something true in the initial thought.



A really wise bit I once heard is that one should try to make all of their conclusions within the first seven breaths of an idea, and if no conclusion can be made on it it is probably best to make no conclusion at all. It seems wise and appropriate.
Often times, people who spend their lives wrapped up in thought come to justifications of failure, rationalizations of defeats; they lose the will to fight on and to move forward.
It is people who lend a decent thought to something and then do not accept defeat.


In the Army, during training, we learned a very important and real lesson during a battle simulation: our squad came under an ambush and we could not identify the location of the enemy at all while our leadership was dying. People were incapable of making decisions as it was their turn, and these junior leaders essentially got the entire squad killed through inaction.
Later, during the after action review, the various killed off leaders noted that they simply didn't know what the right thing to do was. This answer was the product of being indoctrinated too long, thinking about rules concerning engagements that you are taught.



When presented with a scenario they were unfamiliar with, one that you cannot prepare for, instead we looked like inactive idiots being massacred. We were then essentially told that at this point a full scale retreat or a full scale attack or simply any action at all would be exponentially better than inaction.


I have taken the lesson to heart and have performed well in future exercises...



People want to sit and think about something and drive it into the ground, when in reality there is often far better, far simpler solutions and the mere action we take is better than no action at all. There is a virtue in simply being active and not thinking about it.


In combat, as in many scenarios in life, there is no real time to sit on your laurels but only a time to move forward and to come to a conclusion.


There was a famed Samurai clan that never studied a days worth of military doctrine because they found it to be an entire waste when wheel meets road, being that due to lack of intelligence, lack of direction and just general fog of war, it is always better to find the enemy and attack him int he way that makes the most sense at the time.


Thinking has its time, but rationalizing and justifying does not. Chances are if you have to rationalize something you are doing something wrong.


People should look at the situation and move forward and do the right thing. People should not dwell on anything.


I feel that in politics, there are a lot of people who sat and thought a lot about the Iraq war, and they came up with a giant web of rationalization of why we should never fight a war, a giant rationalization of how theoretically this is all merely to benefit the rich or some sort of bizarre conflict that hinges on something far more deep than it...


That is all a joke.


Evidence of repute from top agencies was produced suggesting he had WMDs; he is a dictator who massacred tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) in an ethnic cleansing campaign called al-Anfal; he invaded his neighbor; he paid money to terror groups that blew themselves up at Israeli civilians.. Even if but one of these were to be true, it almost serves enough of a good point to see his removal as beneficial to humanity.



Then came the counterarguments, and each one of these certainly does have one, but none of them have ever sat well with me because at the end of the day he is bad, we are good.
I think a lot of people thought long and hard to make excuses for not removing a dictator and a terroristic regime. There intnetion, of course, was to pursue justice and the common interests of mankind but I think they made a critical failure in rationalizing our own defeat and demise.


They have produced a world environment where good men hesitate to do good things, and that is utterly despicable.
We live in a day and age where a coach cannot comfort an injured player by fear of sexual harassment; an age where a man cannot comment on how a woman looks beautiful due to the same reason; an age where children are taught to fear men and where people are afraid to help strangers on the streets for fear of crime...



We have become subjects of our own fear and our good consciences have been subjected to so much rationalization that one day we find ourselves unhappy, indignant and in the most compromising of situations, talking about how since we failed at marriage through our adulteries "maybe marriage is just unnatural and wrong," how since we failed in a business venture "maybe business is just wrong and the government should help us all the time," or how since we spent more time typing up messages on the internet and watching movies and got fat, that somehow, "fast food is making me fat, not my own decisions."


We rationalize our defeats and blame other things...


And it only makes us worse people.

 

[quatona]

There is something that strikes me as ironic about your post, jmerville.

Don´t get me wrong: It takes a man to say "My previous thread was BS.", and this admission earns you my respect.
Also: I think that rationalization is a huge issue, and I currently I tend to the notion that basically every philosophical reasoning is to a great degree rationalization.

Now, what are your posts displaying here? Rationalization. For some reason unintelligible to yourself you feel intelligence is overrated and something else (strength? acting upon your gut feelings?). You are (desperately) looking for a rational substantion of this feeling. Your first attempt failed, now you try a different one.

As for your new theory itself: You make it sound like rationalization is somehow linked or exclusive to skepticism, whilst in fact rationalization can be and is used for affirmative purposes just the same. And, ironically, your OP itself illustrates this perfectly.

 

[Verv]

I see the irony now that it is pointed out...

And I kind of am laughing a little at the moment.

What misfortune to need two stabs at this one!

I think my initial premise was not entirely wrong -- wrong in some of the inner workings fo what transpired, but the idea... Strength superior to intelligence. It works for me in some literal ways.

I see something very conniving and contrived in intelligence, something that evades real substance often and cloaks things and manipulates ideas; something that banishes simplicity and straightforwardness to the nether regions.

I see something dubious and manipulative about it.

Instead of intelligence, I favor a strong moral compass and the desire to accomplish what seems to be good.

A thousand intelligent men will succeed only in disagreeing.

A thousand men with good morals and strength, though they may disagree about details, well.. There is no Marquis de Sade, no Hitler, no Stalin, no manipulation nor nothing that is contrived to pollute men...

There is something inherently very respectable about morally strong men, and there is nothing inherently respectable about smart men.

I would rather a leader have no vision but only a grounding in right and wrong than have a leader with a vision.

 

[quatona]

I call it the idea of intelligence producing rationalizations, which falls into categories such as over analyzing something, dwelling on an idea too long, doubting inner conviction and strength and, more than this, rationalizing the negative.
It is quite difficult to define what constitutes excessive thought, just as it is difficult to define what constitutes pornography or brainwashing or even what constitutes strength. However, I feel that it is a pervasive problem in modern society and that our conceptions of intelligence and free will have undermined the inner strength that man ought possess.

So, why again do you put so much effort in making your idea look intellectually sound?

Rather, to measure what excessive thought is we can see it from its results as opposed to its intentions. It is fair to say that thinking something over carefully is never wrong and is inherently a virtue, but it is also safe to say that sometimes during this process therein lies the rationalization of failures and the justification of defeatist attitudes. Doubt derides some good ideas and goals for a human being.

Well, this goes both ways: negative as well as positive rationalizations. The good thing about the intellectual approach, however, is that – although it cannot tell what was first (emotion or cognition) – it can tell sound reasoning from unsound reasoning. If we would eliminate all unsound reasoning consequently, that would make a better world than if we would eliminate reasoning in favour of acting immediately upon our emotions.

Excessive thought can be seen when people feed into cynical ideas concerning the impossible. Some people think long and hard about their personal problems and come to conclusions concerning kicking a bad habit or pursuing a goal, but seeing the difficulty in the situation they instead overthink the entire issue and end up doubting their own resolve and the possibility of attaining the goal.

Yes, and some people don´t think at all, act strongly and decisively upon their emotions and gut feelings - and cause a hell of a lot of damage to themselves and others.

Since intelligence and honesty are so valued by society, it is almost OK for a person to say, "I am an alcoholic and I have a predisposition to alcohol, so I am going to wallow in it. And even if it does interfere with my life, it makes me happy."

If this reasoning is false, this can be demonstrated. And that would be the thing to do, instead of valueing rational arguments low just because some lines of reasoning are flawed.
If the alcoholic would not feel the urge to give rational justifications for his behaviour, he would drink without wasting his time with rationalizing it.

A person who comes to these conclusions can be congratulated as somebody who is honest and rational when in reality I think it is a mere exhibition of weakness in many circumstances.
I know men who said they cheat on their wives and simply desire sex with other women, and that they are OK with that and they will proceed down that path. They justify it as their natural, human urges and essentially rationalize their affairs and adultery.

Whilst you do nothing but give a blank statement „this behaviour is wrong“. That makes your position extremely weak. Whilst if you´d come up with rational arguments, you´d violate your own theory.

They do it because it all connects rationally. After all, what human does not have lust in their heart? And when they are celebrated for honesty and for intellectual integrity to some degree it encourages it further.

Well, if you have no rational argument against this behaviour (and the reasons it is justified with) you disapprove of, you stand there with empty hands. No reason for me to accept your blanket assertion that said behaviour is wrong. Your emotions do not count as an argument, for me.

People have gone on to drop all conceptions of moral judgment in favor of a warped sense of integrity, a warped sense of rightness in following natural instinct which is base, crude and betraying to one's commitments. It is almost as if people value intelligent dissent to morality than moral situations themselves; it is as if people are willing to celebrate vice if it seems knowledgable in any strange, odd way.

Just keep in mind that this recommendation is heard by those who have a different sense of morality and integrity than you have, and the logical as well as pragmatic problems of your theory should be obvious to you.

Other people have always had dreams of being film directors and of being writers or Lawyers or doctors but they looked down the long road they would have to travel and gave up. They say that there were obstacles and having more time than effort, they sat and dwelled on the notion from time to time that for themselves to become a film director or a Lawyer it would require a lot of money, a second job to support oneself through extra school; it might even require decades of not being rewarded for their work in the cases of many artists. These ideas drew on the nerves of the people and the rationalized their defeats, convince themselves that their dreams and their goals are too far away through weighing things.

Sure, and others put all efforts in making their dreams come true, and end up as trainwrecks.

The root of defeat can often be thinking about something far too long.

And the root of defeat can be thinking to little, the root of pursuing and gaining the wrong goal can be thinking too little. I think these are far greater dangers.

In the game of Chess the wisest move often presents itself within your first few moments of viewing the board; however, the wisest move begins to look worse as you analyze your opponent and think that somehow this natural, instinctive move is the wrong one. Many chess players become plagued by the fact that they do not trust themselves. Chess master Jerry Silman spoke extensively of how he views a certain necessity in adhering to natural intuition; of course, one must think over your move and make sure that you are not being too rash and making an error, but there is something true in the initial thought.

Chess is a competitive game in which the only thing that counts is victory. Unless this is your take on life as well, the analogy is flawed in that it reduces the aspects to those that float your boat.

A really wise bit I once heard is that one should try to make all of their conclusions within the first seven breaths of an idea, and if no conclusion can be made on it it is probably best to make no conclusion at all. It seems wise and appropriate.

It didn´t take me two breaths to decide that your theory is wrong. How do you recommend me to do justice to this fact?

Often times, people who spend their lives wrapped up in thought come to justifications of failure, rationalizations of defeats; they lose the will to fight on and to move forward.
It is people who lend a decent thought to something and then do not accept defeat.

What is it with you and reducing life to being a fight against others?

In the Army, during training, we learned a very important and real lesson during a battle simulation: our squad came under an ambush and we could not identify the location of the enemy at all while our leadership was dying. People were incapable of making decisions as it was their turn, and these junior leaders essentially got the entire squad killed through inaction.
Later, during the after action review, the various killed off leaders noted that they simply didn't know what the right thing to do was. This answer was the product of being indoctrinated too long, thinking about rules concerning engagements that you are taught.

• I am not at war.
• Again: Keep in mind that you recommend this to those who you think fight for the wrong goals, as well.
  
  
  
  

  When presented with a scenario they were unfamiliar with, one that you cannot prepare for, instead we looked like inactive idiots being massacred. We were then essentially told that at this point a full scale retreat or a full scale attack or simply any action at all would be exponentially better than inaction.

Actually, I prefer being an inactive massacred idiot over an active idiot massacring others any day.

I have taken the lesson to heart and have performed well in future exercises...

Actually, you appear to be quite good and exhaustive at rationalizing.
Your problem is that your rationalizations are unsound, and the good thing is that this can be demonstrated rationally.

People want to sit and think about something and drive it into the ground, when in reality there is often far better, far simpler solutions and the mere action we take is better than no action at all. There is a virtue in simply being active and not thinking about it.

No, it is not. More often than not it is the cause of great misery.

In combat, as in many scenarios in life, there is no real time to sit on your laurels but only a time to move forward and to come to a conclusion.

Except that this doesn´t deserve the predicate „conclusion“.

There was a famed Samurai clan that never studied a days worth of military doctrine because they found it to be an entire waste when wheel meets road, being that due to lack of intelligence, lack of direction and just general fog of war, it is always better to find the enemy and attack him int he way that makes the most sense at the time.

Your obsession with comparing life to a battle on life and death against others is disturbing, to me.

Thinking has its time, but rationalizing and justifying does not. Chances are if you have to rationalize something you are doing something wrong.

What does that tell me about your attempts to rationalize your feelings here?

Again: The problem is not rationalization in itself. The question is whether the rationalization is sound or not.

I feel that in politics, there are a lot of people who sat and thought a lot about the Iraq war, and they came up with a giant web of rationalization of why we should never fight a war, a giant rationalization of how theoretically this is all merely to benefit the rich or some sort of bizarre conflict that hinges on something far more deep than it...


That is all a joke.


Evidence of repute from top agencies was produced suggesting he had WMDs; he is a dictator who massacred tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) in an ethnic cleansing campaign called al-Anfal; he invaded his neighbor; he paid money to terror groups that blew themselves up at Israeli civilians.. Even if but one of these were to be true, it almost serves enough of a good point to see his removal as beneficial to humanity.



Then came the counterarguments, and each one of these certainly does have one, but none of them have ever sat well with me because at the end of the day he is bad, we are good.

Uh, oh. This „us (good) vs. them (evil)“ mentality is certainly the cause for more misery in the world than intellectual consideration is.

I think a lot of people thought long and hard to make excuses for not removing a dictator and a terroristic regime. There intnetion, of course, was to pursue justice and the common interests of mankind but I think they made a critical failure in rationalizing our own defeat and demise.

Ok. Let´s say I want to follow your advice.
When I heard that the US were going to attack Iraq I knew within the time of less than two breaths that this was unjust and a terrible thing to do. I understand that you would have recommended me to do all efforts to assassinate Bush without further ado, instead of subjecting my intuitive response to rational investigation and discussion.

 

[quatona]

A thousand intelligent men will succeed only in disagreeing.

Whilst a thousand unintelligent men acting upon their emotions will agree with each other?

A thousand men with good morals and strength, though they may disagree about details, well.. There is no Marquis de Sade, no Hitler, no Stalin, no manipulation nor nothing that is contrived to pollute men...

Somehow you succeeded in introducing a new category: "good morals" - an entirely new can of worms. Complete change of subject.

Whilst thousand men with mere strength (the parameter you actually held against intelligence) will disagree and fight each other without thinking twice. Intelligent people are able and willing to reconsider, and this is a great thing, in my book.

There is something inherently very respectable about morally strong men,

In which strength is not the inherently respectable thing.

I would rather a leader have no vision but only a grounding in right and wrong than have a leader with a vision.

Really? Even if his understanding of right and wrong would be contrary to yours?

 

[Verv]

So, why again do you put so much effort in making your idea look intellectually sound?

I think logically sound would be better... I think it should stand up to criticism, naturally.

Well, this goes both ways: negative as well as positive rationalizations. The good thing about the intellectual approach, however, is that – although it cannot tell what was first (emotion or cognition) – it can tell sound reasoning from unsound reasoning. If we would eliminate all unsound reasoning consequently, that would make a better world than if we would eliminate reasoning in favour of acting immediately upon our emotions.

I think instead of emotions a word along the lines of basic, human reasoning; no overanalysis but rather immediate and utilitarian weighing of what is happening.

Yes, and some people don´t think at all, act strongly and decisively upon their emotions and gut feelings - and cause a hell of a lot of damage to themselves and others.

I can agree with that, I think that logic and reason should always be employed but rather I do not think that this should be the largest recourse that we have as humans.

If this reasoning is false, this can be demonstrated. And that would be the thing to do, instead of valueing rational arguments low just because some lines of reasoning are flawed.
If the alcoholic would not feel the urge to give rational justifications for his behaviour, he would drink without wasting his time with rationalizing it.

You are pointing out something that I will remember to be more clear about and something that really has its place in these ideas:

The notion that we should retain reason and logic.

It would be too much to say, simply, that all intelligence is wrong. However, rather, sophistry and over analysis of situations is incredibly inappropriate and does lead to these diversions from basic right and wrong.

Intelligence is often used to rationalize wrong behavior.

Just keep in mind that this recommendation is heard by those who have a different sense of morality and integrity than you have, and the logical as well as pragmatic problems of your theory should be obvious to you.

I think that their different sense in morality is more trustworthy than motives that are questionable and the intellectual capability of essentially writing off their opponents right in favor of their own personal interest.

Chess is a competitive game in which the only thing that counts is victory. Unless this is your take on life as well, the analogy is flawed in that it reduces the aspects to those that float your boat.

I use it in the context to show the natural intuition is often valuable.

It didn´t take me two breaths to decide that your theory is wrong. How do you recommend me to do justice to this fact?

Cute. But really, I think that that is entirely fair and rather, we can have a good ring around the rosey with this. But a fast one... We will not waste many breaths.

Actually, you appear to be quite good and exhaustive at rationalizing.
Your problem is that your rationalizations are unsound, and the good thing is that this can be demonstrated rationally.

I think that if we did really deduce this to some bare bones logic we would have surprising results.

For instance, I really think that when people think too much it produces doubts, doubts that make them question even the sound integrity of right and wrong.

That is partly why I really oppose a lot of intellectualism in a nut shell.

It becomes excuses.
Your obsession with comparing life to a battle on life and death against others is disturbing, to me.

I'll try to refrain from that in the future.

Uh, oh. This „us (good) vs. them (evil)“ mentality is certainly the cause for more misery in the world than intellectual consideration is.

That is quite true, really, that it is never so black and white and I take that as a good thing you pointed out. Most of the time it is never a crashing of black and white but rather a mix of everything.

Ok. Let´s say I want to follow your advice.
When I heard that the US were going to attack Iraq I knew within the time of less than two breaths that this was unjust and a terrible thing to do. I understand that you would have recommended me to do all efforts to assassinate Bush without further ado, instead of subjecting my intuitive response to rational investigation and discussion.

Why did yout hink it was so bad? It is probably the product of having thought in a pattern for a long time.

People do a lot of deep thinking and come to conspiracy theories and, IMO, twisted ideas of right and wrong. From these impulses they act later.

Marx would condemn capitalism immediately, but that is only after years of thinking up his strange Utopia.

Whilst a thousand unintelligent men acting upon their emotions will agree with each other?

They may not agree perfectly, but I would say that they agree enough, by and large, to act with more decency then men only armed with intelligence.

Somehow you succeeded in introducing a new category: "good morals" - an entirely new can of worms. Complete change of subject.

Whilst thousand men with mere strength (the parameter you actually held against intelligence) will disagree and fight each other without thinking twice. Intelligent people are able and willing to reconsider, and this is a great thing, in my book.


In which strength is not the inherently respectable thing.



Really? Even if his understanding of right and wrong would be contrary to yours?

I do not want to bring forth the strength comparison because I abandoned a lot from that post; I totally surrender that garbage to the past and though it does play a role in the greater idea, if I were to expand on it further... It does play a role, certainly, but more in terms of moral fortitude...

I am diverging already.

 

[MorkandMindy]

Are you saying the knee jerk response is quicker and often better than the results of analysis (analysis paralysis)?

Is that the message or did I miss something?

 

[quatona]

jmersville, as far as I am concerned I think this discussion has almost run its course. No disrespect intended (and I do enjoy the fact that this discussion could do without any personal attacks and such), but I think your position is indefensible, illogical, self-contradictory and paradox. On top, I think it is dangerous.
I think I have shown this, and all I can do is basically to repeat myself (just like I see you responding to my objections with merely repeating your ideas without further substantiation and without really addressing my arguments).
Unless there is a substantially new argument coming from you, this will be my last post in this thread. Thanks for the discussion!

I think logically sound would be better... I think it should stand up to criticism, naturally.

It isn´t logically sound – it is paradox. Criticizing thorough analysis and the questioning the validity of the intellectual approach by engaging in an intellectual discourse is a paradox if there ever was one.
On top, your criteria are utterly unprecise. You haven´t given us a means to draw the line between appropriate analysis and „overanalysis“ (except for the criterium that everything that leads to a result you don´t agree with, must be „overanalysis“ or „rationalization“).
„Rationalizing“ – problematic as it is – merely describes a sequence of things and doesn´t say anything about the validity of the results. Everything you have written here are rationalizations of something you just feel (instinctively, emotionally, derived from inherent „knowledge“, or whatever you prefer to call it), and if you want me to accept your idea that „rationalization“ is sufficient reason to reject a notion, this falls back on you immediately.
The only question that is of interest when facing an attempt of rational reasoning: Is this reasoning logically accurate and does it consider all relevant aspects for the question at hand?
If this is not so, this can be demonstrated, and this is what we have to do and all we can do – except when we don´t have any rational arguments and therefore allow ourselves to handwave the reasoning away with a blanket unsupported „That´s over-analysis“ or „That´s „rationalization“ .

I think instead of emotions a word along the lines of basic, human reasoning; no overanalysis but rather immediate and utilitarian weighing of what is happening.

Experience shows that „immediate and utilitarian weighing of what is happening“ leads different persons to different – often diametrically opposed – conclusions, hence doesn´t seem to be a reliable source.
I have no idea what „basic human reasoning“ is supposed to mean. It seems to be one of the buzzwords that are introduced when people are at logic´s end.

I can agree with that, I think that logic and reason should always be employed but rather I do not think that this should be the largest recourse that we have as humans.

Then please try to be precise and give us
1. a clear idea as to what should be the largest recourse
2. what should be the determining factor if the largest recourse of your idea and logic and reason contradict
3. an objective, measurable method to tell appropriate analysis from „overanalysis“

It would be too much to say, simply, that all intelligence is wrong. However, rather, sophistry and over analysis of situations is incredibly inappropriate and does lead to these diversions from basic right and wrong.

Sophistry indeed is to be rejected, and sophistry can be logically and rationally demonstrated to be sophistry. However, sophistry has not been the subject to discussion.
The term „over analysis“ is so far merely a valuating term without any objective capacity of distinction or measurement. As such it is unusable for a rational discussion.

Intelligence is often used to rationalize wrong behavior.

In order to discuss this we would first have to have established what „wrong behaviour“ is.

I think that their different sense in morality is more trustworthy than motives that are questionable and the intellectual capability of essentially writing off their opponents right in favor of their own personal interest.

I suspect that these two things are basically the same.

I use it in the context to show the natural intuition is often valuable.

Yes, you show it in a context in which the only paradigm is „victory“. However, concluding that it is equally valuable in situations in which ethical questions are involved is jumping to conclusions.

I think that if we did really deduce this to some bare bones logic we would have surprising results.

Go ahead. However, if you appeal to logic as the arbiter for the soundness of ideas, why on the other hand rely on something else?
Btw., even if your ideas were logically sound and demonstrably correct, this wouldn´t mean that you are not rationalizing.

For instance, I really think that when people think too much it produces doubts, doubts that make them question even the sound integrity of right and wrong.

Question begging and ultimately circular.

That is partly why I really oppose a lot of intellectualism in a nut shell.

Maybe I have missed it, but I think I haven´t seen any proposition from you as to what you want to replace it with. So far everything points to hitting each other over the head immediately without wasting time with discussion and reconsideration. Ironically, however, this is the opposite of what you are doing here.

That is quite true, really, that it is never so black and white and I take that as a good thing you pointed out. Most of the time it is never a crashing of black and white but rather a mix of everything.

Good we agree on at least something. I however suspect that doing justice to the complexity of situations requires a lot of reconsideration, and that our „intuition“ reacts only to those few aspects that appear on first face value, and chances are that our immediate response is dominated by emotions (which, in my experience, are kicking in faster than anything else).

Why did yout hink it was so bad? It is probably the product of having thought in a pattern for a long time.

Are you saying that the immediate intuitive response within a couple of breaths is not a reliable source?
And since you have brought it up: What has been the source of your intuitive reaction? And how do you tell that in my case it´s old thinking patterns and in your case it is not? Merely the fact that we disagree?

People do a lot of deep thinking and come to conspiracy theories and, IMO, twisted ideas of right and wrong. From these impulses they act later.

Yes, sure. The question, however, would be: How do we tell that it´s me and not you who is victim to this process?
There are two ways of dealing with disagreement: Either we discuss rationally, or we handwave away the opposite position with „overanalysis“ or some other non-argument.
If you prefer the latter, ok. That gives me the license to do the same, and we can drop any discussion. However, pretending to value a rational discussion, while keeping the „but I am right, and the arguments against my position are over analysis, anyways“ for the last resort, is futile.

Marx would condemn capitalism immediately, but that is only after years of thinking up his strange Utopia.

And you know this exactly how? Once such blanket assertions such as yours are valid in a discussion, I can say the same thing about your ideas.

I do not want to bring forth the strength comparison because I abandoned a lot from that post; I totally surrender that garbage to the past and though it does play a role in the greater idea, if I were to expand on it further... It does play a role, certainly, but more in terms of moral fortitude...

Another valuating term without proper definition. Unusable for a rational discussion, and likely to be used by everyone in a way that floats their own boats.

 

[MorkandMindy]

I think he's trying to persuade us to invade North Korea

 

[Verv]

Are you saying the knee jerk response is quicker and often better than the results of analysis (analysis paralysis)?

Is that the message or did I miss something?

I do not think of it as a knee jerk response... Somewhere inbetween knee jerk response and overanalysis there is this happy median that I am seeking; I have seen a lot of projects die due to a lot of people not thinking them through very seriously. That is criminal.

jmersville, as far as I am concerned I think this discussion has almost run its course. No disrespect intended (and I do enjoy the fact that this discussion could do without any personal attacks and such), but I think your position is indefensible, illogical, self-contradictory and paradox. On top, I think it is dangerous.
I think I have shown this, and all I can do is basically to repeat myself (just like I see you responding to my objections with merely repeating your ideas without further substantiation and without really addressing my arguments).
Unless there is a substantially new argument coming from you, this will be my last post in this thread. Thanks for the discussion!

Very fair. I enjoyed discussing this with you a bit and I have no response.

In hindsight: I think that my position is not tenable in the realm of philosophy or in th realm of having a course for everybody to pursue.

Rather, it is tenable from a personal application and tenable in a very personal way... It is tenable in the sense that I trust my own instincts and own ideas to such an extent and I feel like anything else would paralyze my ability to perform well.

I have destroyed a lot of my own ideas through too much thought and I am not going to let it happen anymore; I have rationalized too much in my life.

Perahps, if you woul dbe so kind, would you reply with something concerning how you feel people rationalize evil... And what that means to you?

I think he's trying to persuade us to invade North Korea

Haha, we really should have done that a long time ago and now it is practically too late simply because of the new, nuclear factors that now jeopardize everyone.



When will this great land see its unification?

 

[quatona]

Perahps, if you woul dbe so kind, would you reply with something concerning how you feel people rationalize evil... And what that means to you?

Ok, I´m gonna give you my basic ideas on rationalization.


Let me start from here:

I have destroyed a lot of my own ideas through too much thought and I am not going to let it happen anymore; I have rationalized too much in my life.

Don´t take it personally, but I am convinced that you – like everybody – will keep rationalizing like there´s no tomorrow. It´s not like we think by ourselves „Oh, my position is wrong – let´s find some fake reasons to justify it.“ Whenever you think in or argue for the pro´s and con´s of something it is safe to say that you are rationalizing.
Rationalization is the a posteriori attempt to rationally check the validity of spontaneous feelings (emotions, instincts or – if you believe there is such – the feeling of inherent knowledge).
Oftentimes, however, „rationalization“ is used in particular for the attempt to only look for such reasons that support our feelings. It is meant to indicate intellectual dishonesty. This dishonesty, as said above, is in most cases not intentional, not conscious. It is very hard for ourselves to distinguish whether we look seriously for the pro´s and con´s in order to get a complete picture and arrive at an appropriate conclusion, or – vice versa – try to disregard everything that threatens the validity of our position.
The issue is not the rational, intellectual approach, but intellectual dishonesty, and unfortunately our subconscious has a lot of tricks in store to sell us the latter for the first.

Questioning the validity of the superiority of rationality means throwing the baby out with the bath water. Whilst the rational approach bears the risk of rationalization (in the meaning of one-sided intellectual dishonesty) replacing it with „that feels right to me“ (or at least giving this feeling a greater priority) means skipping the process of a rational check and its potential for correcting one´s mistakes altogether. You do not even rationalize. In order to prevent to possibly have to correct, modify or qualify your immediate response, you simply avoid the whole process altogether – the process which is the only chance (though not guarantee) to find out you are mistaken. Thus if you criticize rationalization for being a potential means for confirmation bias, avoiding the rational approach and questioning its validity means absolutely waterproof bias confirmation.

Engaging in rational reasoning and intellectual considerations is always an a posteriori process. We don´t start from thoughts. Our emotions and instincts are kicking in much faster than our rational thoughts.

Emotions and instincts aren´t good advice givers.

Our instincts stem from a time when survival was our program, in a world which was much more simple. Flee or fight were the options, and instincts forced us to react quickly, because hesitation was the worst thing that could happen to us in a situation of immediate threat to our lives. 99,9% of the issues we deal with today are not of this kind, but our instincts still suggest these solutions which are utterly inappropriate.

As can be experienced hundredfold daily (and if we don´t have the honesty to admit it about ourselves we will at least observe it with others), emotions are completely unreliable reactions which more often than not are the direct results of our irrational fears, our insecurities, our vanity. Following the advice of our emotions is likely to cause damage to others and ourselves. Emotions – due to their power and their immediate impact – tend to control us, beyond reason, beyond appropriateness. Emotions shout „I, me, mine“.

On top, emotions and instincts – quick as they are – can only react to that which is obvious on face value.

Thus, while your idea that emotions and instincts are valuable in a situation where the only goal is victory, to survive an immediate threat, they are completely useless for handling complex issues.

Now, you are asserting that there is some inherent knowledge about right and wrong that kicks in similarly quickly and powerfully. I highly doubt that (in fact I think this is just an idea to dishonestly rationalize the convenience of simply acting upon our emotions and instincts without caring about the complexity of the situation, but let´s just assume it for the sake of the argument. The problem is that you would have to be able to tell emotions and instincts from this knowledge, and just like with intellectual consideration and bias confirming rationalization, our subconscious is likely to delude us and have us believe we „know“ whilst in fact we are in control of our emotions and instincts. Unless we have a secure method to tell one from the other, we are at a loss. Intellectual consideration is the only means of control we have for that. This control comes with its own problems, but at least it is a chance.

You say that intellectual consideration of all aspects of a complex situation might weaken our otherwise decisive acting. I agree, but I see that as an advantage (unless when we find ourselves in the situation of an immediate life threat, and the „I, me, mine“ impulse of survival is all that counts for us).
Simple example: War. Let´s assume that the leader of a country has a long track record of bad deeds. His leadership means a threat to every other country. Solution: war, invading the country to avert the threat. Everyone feels that this would be an appropriate response. Yet, this is only a small excerpt from a complex situation. For example, it is predictable and actually unavoidable that a lot of civilians who do not even sympathize with the evil leader, and even a lot of children who haven´t even had a chance to have an opinion or a position, will be killed in the invasion. Realizing, fully acknowledging this aspect and taking it into consideration is – as you say – likely to decrease the „strength“, decisiveness and enthusiasm with which we go to war. However, even if your considerations finally tell you that this is an acceptable lesser evil, simply refusing to acknowledge this con would have meant to refuse to acknowledge a relevant aspect. This aspect could as well have been so relevant that the result would have been to cancel the invasion. This, however, can only be told if we have rationally considered these aspects, as opposed to blinding ourselves for them for the benefit of mindless actionism.

The oppression of one´s doubts, of the con´s for the purpose of acting "strongly" is actually a much worse case of intellectual dishonesty and one-eyedness (and thus an indication of inner weakness) than rationalization is.