These are basically unresolvable with anything less than a lifetime of philosophical work, but they usually allow mutual understanding and respect.
Why does this happen? How can smart people take up positions that defy any reasonable logic? So if nothing else this essay serves as a kind of personal therapy session. Majoring in logic is not the kind of thing that makes people want to talk to you at parties, or read your essays.
But one thing I did learn after years of studying advanced logic theory is that proficiency in argument can easily be used to overpower others, even when you are dead wrong. If you learn a few tricks of logic and debate, you can refute the obvious, and defend the ridiculous.
Opportunities for this are rare: It can be easier for smart people who have a habit of defending bad ideas to change jobs, spouses, or cities rather than honestly examine what is at the core of their psyche and often, their misery.
Short of obtaining a degree in logic, or studying the nuances of debate, remember this one simple rule for defusing those who are skilled at defending bad ideas: Simply because they cannot be proven wrong, does not make them right.
Most of the tricks of logic and debate refute questions and attacks, but fail to establish any true justification for a given idea. Death by homogeny The second stop on our tour of commonly defended bad ideas is the seemingly friendly notion of communal thinking.
The power of peer pressure is that it works on our psychology, not our intellect. As social animals we are heavily influenced by how the people around us behave, and the quality of our own internal decision making varies widely depending on the environment we currently are in.
Try to write a haiku poem while standing in an elevator with 15 opera singers screaming 15 different operas, in 15 different languages, in falsetto, directly at you vs. That said, the more homogeneous a group of people are in their thinking, the narrower the range of ideas that the group will openly consider.
Some teams of people look to focus groups, consultancies, and research methods to bring in outside ideas, but this rarely improves the quality of thinking in the group itself. Those outside ideas, however bold or original, are at the mercy of the diversity of thought within the group itself.
Focus groups or other outside sources of information can not give a team, or its leaders, a soul.
A bland homogeneous team of people has no real opinions, because it consists of people with same backgrounds, outlooks, and experiences who will only feel comfortable discussing the safe ideas that fit into those constraints.
If you want your smart people to be as smart as possible, seek a diversity of ideas. Find people with different experiences, opinions, backgrounds, weights, heights, races, facial hair styles, colors, past-times, favorite items of clothing, philosophies, and beliefs.
Unify them around the results you want, not the means or approaches they are expected to use. On your own, avoid homogenous books, films, music, food, sex, media and people. Be in the moment and be open to it.
Until recently in human history, life was much less predictable and we were forced to encounter things not always of our own choosing. We are capable of more interesting and creative lives than our modern cultures often provide for us.
If you go out of your way to find diverse experiences it will become impossible for you to miss ideas simply because your homogenous outlook filtered them out. Thinking at the wrong level At any moment on any project there are an infinite number of levels of problem solving.
Part of being a truly smart person is to know which level is the right one at a given time. But as ridiculous as this scenario sounds, it happens all the time. Some call this difference in skill wisdom, in that the wise know what to be thinking about, where as the merely intelligent only know how to think.
The de-emphasis of wisdom is an east vs. Other examples include people that always worry about money despite how much they have, people who struggle with relationships but invest their energy only in improving their appearance instead of in therapy or other emotional explorationor anyone that wants to solve problem X but only ever seems to do things that solve problem Y.
The primary point is that no amount of intelligence can help an individual who is diligently working at the wrong level of the problem. The survival of living creatures, for most of the history of our planet, has been a short term game.e-BOOKS.
There is a lot of interest across the region for electronic or e-books, books in digital form that can be read from a dedicated e-book reader such as the Kindle, Nook,I-Pad and Sony Reader among many.
In , Paul Graham wrote How To Disagree Better, ranking arguments on a scale from name-calling to explicitly refuting the other person’s central point..
And that’s why, ever since , Internet arguments have generally been civil and productive. Graham’s hierarchy is useful for its intended purpose, but it isn’t really a hierarchy of disagreements.
|Northeast Arkansas Regional Library System||Reply Fri 31 Oct, Here's my essayand I need feedback and any improvement tips that I have to know that would be great Thank you.|
|PTE Academic Essay Writing Topics List - Latest solved questions answers||Pick a topic that everyone is currently discussing.|
|Additional info about argumentative essay smoking in public places||It is an example of an essay where you have to give your opinion as to whether you agree or disagree.|
|PTE Academic Essay Writing Topics List – Latest Solved Questions Answers||Pick a topic that everyone is currently discussing. Pay attention to the rumours.|
|Original Argumentative Speech Essay Topics Ideas [Updated ]||When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.|
Free argumentative essay on why kids should get vaccines papers, essays, and research papers. Argumentative Essay: Why Public Smoking Should Be Banned Completely #1 Public smoking is an act that only has harmful effects on people. Secondhand smoke, medical costs, health problems, and even death that stems from public smoking is just the beginning of why public smoking should be .
Essay on Smoking In Public Places Should Be Banned Words | 2 Pages. Smoking In Public Places Should Be Banned There should be rules enforced for smoking in public places. Smokers just do not know the negative influence they are spreading.
A puff of cigarette can harm a smokers health. Smoking in Public Places Essay - Why Smoking Should be Banned in Public Places.
His bald head rests on a pillow. His bones from his cheeks and shoulders protrude under his skin. His mouth is open, but he cannot respond to his mother, wife or three-year-old son anymore. Doctors say there is no hope for Bryan Lee Curtis, a lung cancer victim.