Critical Thinking, logical fallacies and other manipulative techniques.

For discussing the Church, Gospel of Jesus Christ, Mormonism, etc.
User avatar
brlenox
A sheep in wolf in sheep's clothing
Posts: 2615

Re: Critical Thinking, logical fallacies and other manipulative techniques.

Post by brlenox »

Jonesy1982 wrote: June 22nd, 2017, 4:25 pm
marc wrote: June 22nd, 2017, 4:09 pm I suck at tough love. I'm not smart enough to try to do it any other way than how Jesus taught.
Oh, I think Jesus definitely used tough love. They produce the same results as the gentle love, which I try to use the most. I hate doing tough love with my kids, and it's not often; but sometimes it's an appropriate means.
I have to be honest and say I do not like to be in a position of using a tough love approach. I find that a little bit goes a long way. With each of our children as my wife and I grew more comfortable in our authority as parents we realized that we are the source of authority in our home. Our role as a Mother or a Father made us that and when you believe that deep inside there is little need to intimidate or bully into conforming behavior. Whether your children choose to be obedient or not it does not alter who you are.

That said with my last three children I developed a process which may have just been me over thinking things but while they were still 6 or 7 years old, I would observe and wait for a moment to put on a mask of behavior in response to something that was appropriately dealt with with sharpness. I am not a loud person, I never raise my voice, I am much better at discussing behavior changes rather than forcing them. However on this occasion and I always knew exactly when it showed up, I would manifest anger at their behavior, I would be especially sharp and because of the stark contrast between my nearly exclusively peaceable nature and this moment it would instill upon them a certain level of concern about ever getting Dad mad at you. Afterwards, a few hours later, because I needed them to let the moment sink in would come the welcoming back into the sense of unwavering love and acceptance.

As they matured into adult mentalities after they turned 8, that one event would serve to always remind my children in their minds that they should be considerate of my role as father and that they did not want to do wrong. Because I did this in their childhood phase of life it imprinted differently than it does on an adult mentality. Sometimes by the time we can logically think ourselves out of a pre-adult impression we are adult enough to maturely perceive correctly what was the reality. Until then it served as deterrent. I practically never had to deal with unruly teens or disobedient youth. I only have one left under 18 at 16 and he is a near perfect human being. A pure joy to be around.
Last edited by brlenox on June 22nd, 2017, 5:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
brlenox
A sheep in wolf in sheep's clothing
Posts: 2615

Re: Critical Thinking, logical fallacies and other manipulative techniques.

Post by brlenox »

Michelle wrote: June 22nd, 2017, 2:56 pm
It may be a logical fallacy (the slippery slope example) to say abortion will lead to euthanasia, but common sense said it was a real concern and reality has proven it to be true in six states so far.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assiste ... ted_States

Don't be fooled by semantics: intentionally helping someone die, whether you call it "medical aid in dying", "physician assisted suicide" or "euthanasia" is really all the same thing= A person is alive, another person provides the means or performs an act to kill them.

As for Ad Hominem, Satan will tell a thousand lies to get you to believe one truth. I would prefer to get my "truths" from a source that doesn't constantly require me to be on guard. Maybe Hitler said some things that were true, but I'm convinced a much more honest source can be found. Why even waste my time sifting through his untruths? His personal failings do call into question everything else he said. Said differently, I'd rather get truth from a pure fountain of living water than a polluted one that has to be cleaned up, if it can. Do we listen to anti Mormon spekers to learn about the church? Common sense says: they may say something that is true, but their message is tainted by their intent.

Appeal to authority: ever heard a prophet or apostle or parent say something like : Trust me. Lean on my faith until yours is strong enough. Why would we do that logically? How can you share faith? But common sense says because they demonstate love for us and they have strewardship, and even authority, we can trust them to have our best interest at heart. Are there exceptions? Sure, but again, common sense.

Common sense seems more practical in a lot if instances.
Sometimes someone says something in just the perfect way that you wonder why it doesn't make perfect sense to everyone else. This sentence seems so completely practical and sensible: " I would prefer to get my "truths" from a source that doesn't constantly require me to be on guard."

Thanks for your comments...oh just for fun did you know there is a logical fallacy that has to do with Hitler? It is not on the list as that is a top 20 type list but it is called Reductio ad Hitlerum also known as: argumentum ad Hitlerum, playing the Nazi card, Hitler card
The attempt to make an argument analogous with Hitler or the Nazi party. Hitler is probably the most universally despised figure in history, so any connection to Hitler, or his beliefs, can (erroneously) cause others to view the argument in a similar light. However, this fallacy is becoming more well known as is the fact that it is most often a desperate attempt to render the truth claim of the argument invalid out of lack of a good counter argument. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/too ... d_Hitlerum
Your comments were not even any where near that I just think it is funny to have a logical fallacy named after Hitler :) :) :D

User avatar
Jonesy
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1530
Contact:

Re: Critical Thinking, logical fallacies and other manipulative techniques.

Post by Jonesy »

brlenox wrote: June 22nd, 2017, 5:02 pm
Jonesy1982 wrote: June 22nd, 2017, 4:25 pm
marc wrote: June 22nd, 2017, 4:09 pm I suck at tough love. I'm not smart enough to try to do it any other way than how Jesus taught.
Oh, I think Jesus definitely used tough love. They produce the same results as the gentle love, which I try to use the most. I hate doing tough love with my kids, and it's not often; but sometimes it's an appropriate means.
I have to be honest and say I do not like to be in a position of using a tough love approach. I find that a little bit goes a long way. With each of our children as my wife and I grew more comfortable in our authority as parents we realized that we are the source of authority in our home. Our role as a Mother or a Father made us that and when you believe that deep inside there is little need to intimidate or bully into conforming behavior. Whether your children choose to be obedient or not it does not alter who you are.

That said with my last three children I developed a process which may have just been me over thinking things but while they were still 6 or 7 years old, I would observe and wait for a moment to put on a mask of behavior in response to something that was appropriately dealt with with sharpness. I am not a loud person, I never raise my voice, I am much better at discussing behavior changes rather than forcing them. However on this occasion and I always knew exactly when it showed up, I would manifest anger at their behavior, I would be especially sharp and because of the stark contrast between my nearly exclusively peaceable nature and this moment it would instill upon them a certain level of concern about ever getting Dad mad at you. Afterwards, a few hours later, because I needed them to let the moment sink in would come the welcoming back into the sense of unwavering love and acceptance.

As they matured into adult mentalities after they turned 8, that one event would serve to always remind my children in their minds that they should be considerate of my role as father and that they did not want to do wrong. Because I did this in their childhood phase of life it imprinted differently than it does on an adult mentality. Sometimes by the time we can logically think ourselves out of a pre-adult impression we are adult enough to maturely perceive correctly what was the reality. Until then it served as deterrent. I practically never had to deal with unruly teens or disobedient youth. I only have one left under 18 at 16 and he is a near perfect human being. A pure joy to be around.
I like how you say that you "manifest anger". That's exactly how I feel. I'm not angry at them, but I do manifest it. And very rarely do I use it outside my family.

I seem to use it in anything safety related or in regards to their immediate danger. Sometimes I do it in relation to how they treat others.

At work, however, although I'm in a position of authority, very rarely I feel the need to use it. But I still feel rather inexperienced, and I often see authority abused in my line of work. So, I guess I try to err on the side of gentleness. I can't say that I've experimented much with it, though, as well.

User avatar
brlenox
A sheep in wolf in sheep's clothing
Posts: 2615

Re: Critical Thinking, logical fallacies and other manipulative techniques.

Post by brlenox »

Jonesy1982 wrote: June 22nd, 2017, 5:48 pm
brlenox wrote: June 22nd, 2017, 5:02 pm
Jonesy1982 wrote: June 22nd, 2017, 4:25 pm
marc wrote: June 22nd, 2017, 4:09 pm I suck at tough love. I'm not smart enough to try to do it any other way than how Jesus taught.
Oh, I think Jesus definitely used tough love. They produce the same results as the gentle love, which I try to use the most. I hate doing tough love with my kids, and it's not often; but sometimes it's an appropriate means.
I have to be honest and say I do not like to be in a position of using a tough love approach. I find that a little bit goes a long way. With each of our children as my wife and I grew more comfortable in our authority as parents we realized that we are the source of authority in our home. Our role as a Mother or a Father made us that and when you believe that deep inside there is little need to intimidate or bully into conforming behavior. Whether your children choose to be obedient or not it does not alter who you are.

That said with my last three children I developed a process which may have just been me over thinking things but while they were still 6 or 7 years old, I would observe and wait for a moment to put on a mask of behavior in response to something that was appropriately dealt with with sharpness. I am not a loud person, I never raise my voice, I am much better at discussing behavior changes rather than forcing them. However on this occasion and I always knew exactly when it showed up, I would manifest anger at their behavior, I would be especially sharp and because of the stark contrast between my nearly exclusively peaceable nature and this moment it would instill upon them a certain level of concern about ever getting Dad mad at you. Afterwards, a few hours later, because I needed them to let the moment sink in would come the welcoming back into the sense of unwavering love and acceptance.

As they matured into adult mentalities after they turned 8, that one event would serve to always remind my children in their minds that they should be considerate of my role as father and that they did not want to do wrong. Because I did this in their childhood phase of life it imprinted differently than it does on an adult mentality. Sometimes by the time we can logically think ourselves out of a pre-adult impression we are adult enough to maturely perceive correctly what was the reality. Until then it served as deterrent. I practically never had to deal with unruly teens or disobedient youth. I only have one left under 18 at 16 and he is a near perfect human being. A pure joy to be around.
I like how you say that you "manifest anger". That's exactly how I feel. I'm not angry at them, but I do manifest it. And very rarely do I use it outside my family.

I seem to use it in anything safety related or in regards to their immediate danger. Sometimes I do it in relation to how they treat others.

At work, however, although I'm in a position of authority, very rarely I feel the need to use it.
At work I was the same way. However there is always one or two that think nice guy is short for take advantage. It only happened twice that I can remember - start to take advantage of me because I am a nice guy and I'll let it go once, maybe twice, but the third time I come down like a ton of bricks. Never happens again after that.

User avatar
marc
Disciple of Jesus Christ
Posts: 10354
Contact:

Re: Critical Thinking, logical fallacies and other manipulative techniques.

Post by marc »

Brlenox, I'm just being a stinker today. I zeroed in on your "other manipulative techniques" reference and used that for a springboard. In any case, I digress.

Michelle
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1795

Re: Critical Thinking, logical fallacies and other manipulative techniques.

Post by Michelle »

brlenox wrote: June 22nd, 2017, 4:17 pm
I think this is a good of time as any to reiterate the nature of the intent of this thread. If you refer to the OP I opened it with this quote:
…new research suggests that whether we believe may also have to do with how much we rely on intuition versus analytical thinking. In 2011 Amitai Shenhav, David Rand and Joshua Greene of Harvard University published a paper showing that people who have a tendency to rely on their intuition are more likely to believe in God. They also showed that encouraging people to think intuitively increased people’s belief in God. Building on these findings, in a recent paper published in Science, Will Gervais and Ara Norenzayan of the University of British Columbia found that encouraging people to think analytically reduced their tendency to believe in God. Together these findings suggest that belief may at least partly stem from our thinking styles. (Grewal, Daisy, How Critical Thinkers Lose their Faith in God, Religious belief drops when analytical thinking rises, May 1st 2012 accessed from this site: https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... faith-god/.)
Most people, especially those educated within the past 28 years have been trained in concepts of critical thinking. For the most part and I think this thread bears it out, most can't even remember the types of logical arguments let alone properly identify them. However, periodically they come up when individuals want to shut down or complain about certain types of commentary. They use the arguments precisely for their intended purpose as a means of stifling certain types of conversation or to distract from other elements of a post that they consider incriminating. So that is one aspect that we are seeking enlightenment on.

However, the greater point and I think should be understood by all is that even though most have completely lost touch with the specifics of their critical thinking classes it still had the powerful effect of reducing "their tendency to believe in God." That semester of education has had a long lasting effect that was beyond the obvious of class criteria and instead provided a brief exposure to a manner of thinking that clearly taught them something far more insidious. The class is over but the effects linger on in entire generations of yound adults. Here are some of the things that are taught in Critical thinking classes:
Whenever we base ethical conclusions on religious or cultural standards, we separate ourselves from those who hold contrary religious or cultural beliefs. It is critical, therefore, that we use shared ethical concepts and principles as guides in reasoning through common ethical issues. (Ethical Reasoning By Dr. Richard Paul and Dr. Linda Elder The Foundation for Critical Thinking)
In short, theological beliefs cannot override ethical principles.
We must turn to ethical principles to protect ourselves from intolerant and oppressive religious practices.
(Ethical Reasoning By Dr. Richard Paul and Dr. Linda Elder The Foundation for Critical Thinking)
Of course, another ethical principle that may be relevant to this issue is, ‘Life is good in itself and should be preserved.’ Most rational persons would argue that, all things being equal, life is good in itself and should be preserved. But that is a different matter from believing that ‘life should be preserved no matter what the circumstances.’ It seems that this absolute principle can be defended only by using theological claims (such as ‘God has absolutely forbidden suicide under any and all conditions’). But this theological belief is relevant only to those who accept the religious doctrines underlying it. It is not an ethical imperative as such and should not be confused with one. No one who rejects a theological belief system—and everyone has this right—need accept any assertions dependent on it.”(Ethical Reasoning By Dr. Richard Paul and Dr. Linda Elder The Foundation for Critical Thinking)
Members of religious groups often fail to recognize that “sin” is a theological concept, not an ethical one. (“Sin” is theologically defined.)(Ethical Reasoning By Dr. Richard Paul and Dr. Linda Elder The Foundation for Critical Thinking)
That ethical judgment must trump religious belief is shown by the undeniable fact that many persons have been tortured and/or murdered by people motivated by religious zeal or conviction. Indeed religious persecution is commonplace in human history. Humans need recourse to ethics in defending themselves against religious intolerance and persecution..)(Ethical Reasoning By Dr. Richard Paul and Dr. Linda Elder The Foundation for Critical Thinking)[/]
Perhaps, you are not seeing this thread for it's intent. It is not to win any arguments. But to reveal certain tendencies that are not sustained by actual introspection into scripture that occur quite commonly in forum discussions. It is also to illustrate a possible contributing factor for why we are seeing so many of our youth leaving the church. I am convinced that if we see some of these possibilities it may help us in having conversations with those who have completely forgotten the details of a line of reasoning that has subtly minimized religious necessity in our lives. They don't remember the class but they may have retained thoughts and feelings formed by it's exclusive insinuations during the short period they were exposed to its tenants.

I will further clarify that this be nice to everyone mentality is one of many elements of Critical thinking indoctrination. It causes people to see only one manner of interaction and falsely reads evil intent to boldness, candidness, and honesty and so on. When really we see over and over in scriptures that certain categories of thought must be addressed with clarity. The challenge is and always has been that sometimes boldness, candidness, and honesty can be used abusively and to hurt and maim and that reinforces the overwhelming desire for everyone to just be nice. Most of the time, the just be nice mantra is suitable but if by the standards of Moroni 7 one can honestly determine something is evil then within acceptable patterns of integrity a straightforward approach is not without merit.
I wasn't sure if ethics was outside the scope of your OP, I am so glad you brought it up.

Over the years I have come to the conclusion that ethics is the counterfeit to morality.

Morality is based on absolute truth. It is, in my opinion, inseparable from God because it is in fact God's laws that determine if something is moral or not. The 10 commandments are a great start. I think this can be expressed by the saying "The ends DON'T justify the means." There is no such thing as "moral relativism."

Ethics, however, is relativism defined. It can be used to justify all sorts of horror, through logic, of course. In ethics the ends ALWAYS justify the means and there are no absolutes. There is no God or lawgiver, just circular arguments that can lead to answers you know are wrong, but are hard to refute without an appeal to absolute truth and/or God.

Am I the only one that noticed most of the "ethical dilemmas" in classes were macabre extreme examples one was never likely to experience in real life?

Anyone remember this one? Your son is on one train track too far away to hear you shout. A full passenger train is on the other track and will fall off a cliff killing everyone on board if you, who happen to be standing near the lever, don't pull it and put them on the same track where your son is walking. If you pull the lever, he will surely be killed! Do you save the group or your son?

What purpose can such an insane scenario provide?

I think the purpose is to intentionally train people to believe there is no right answer. No right answer? "No right, no wrong, no rules for me?" (Yeah, that's a reference to Frozen. I hate hearing kids and Mormoms on YouTube sing that without a thought to what they were reinforcing in their own brains.) No right and wrong? No God, no Devil? No truth, no error?

Only one answer left: relativism and hedonism.

User avatar
brlenox
A sheep in wolf in sheep's clothing
Posts: 2615

Re: Critical Thinking, logical fallacies and other manipulative techniques.

Post by brlenox »

Michelle wrote: June 22nd, 2017, 6:50 pm
I wasn't sure if ethics was outside the scope of your OP, I am so glad you brought it up.

Over the years I have come to the conclusion that ethics is the counterfeit to morality.

Morality is based on absolute truth. It is, in my opinion, inseparable from God because it is in fact God's laws that determine if something is moral or not. The 10 commandments are a great start. I think this can be expressed by the saying "The ends DON'T justify the means." There is no such thing as "moral relativism."

Ethics, however, is relativism defined. It can be used to justify all sorts of horror, through logic, of course. In ethics the ends ALWAYS justify the means and there are no absolutes. There is no God or lawgiver, just circular arguments that can lead to answers you know are wrong, but are hard to refute without an appeal to absolute truth and/or God.

Am I the only one that noticed most of the "ethical dilemmas" in classes were macabre extreme examples one was never likely to experience in real life?

Anyone remember this one? Your son is on one train track too far away to hear you shout. A full passenger train is on the other track and will fall off a cliff killing everyone on board if you, who happen to be standing near the lever, don't pull it and put them on the same track where your son is walking. If you pull the lever, he will surely be killed! Do you save the group or your son?

What purpose can such an insane scenario provide?

I think the purpose is to intentionally train people to believe there is no right answer. No right answer? "No right, no wrong, no rules for me?" (Yeah, that's a reference to Frozen. I hate hearing kids and Mormoms on YouTube sing that without a thought to what they were reinforcing in their own brains.) No right and wrong? No God, no Devil? No truth, no error?

Only one answer left: relativism and hedonism.
Ethical thinking as the oldest child of Critical thinking is definitely on the topic list. Not many think it through as well as you have though. They see the word ethics attached to something and just automatically consider it something to advocate. A well you have read it just as I do, as a means to train God out of the process of making decisions.

I also thought I was the only one to see the Frozen tune as a poor statement Let it go, let it go That perfect girl is gone Here I stand In the light of day Let the storm rage on... the song seemed to extol the it's all about me, do what I want to do mentality. It played a bit better as a movie and I did like the music. The lyrics just left something to be desired.

eddie
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2405

Re: Critical Thinking, logical fallacies and other manipulative techniques.

Post by eddie »

marc wrote: June 22nd, 2017, 3:32 pm
Jonesy1982 wrote: June 22nd, 2017, 8:49 am
marc wrote: June 22nd, 2017, 8:44 am
Yes. I am a foster and an adoptive father who took boys off the streets and labored for years to take the streets out of my boys.
That's awesome. Not many more qualified to speak on this than you. So, you can identify with the methods above?
If you're referring to logical fallacies and all that manipulative mumbo jumbo, yes. I can relate. I have come to learn by experience (with children and with all kinds of adults whether work related or church related) that the only reason to engage in conflicts, jarrings, contentions, disputations, strifes, etc is to impose one's will on another, which ultimately means enforcing conformity. Jesus explicitly (not implicitly) taught us not to resist evil, agree with adversaries quickly, and do away with disputations and contentions. By doing what He commands us to do, and to keep His sayings, and not to do what He has commanded us not to do, we in effect begin to become as He is (Be ye therefore perfect...), which is perfect (greek: complete).

Children and adolescents tend to question parents in order to find loopholes out of their parents' will (clean room, don't stay up late, etc). The moment you give them a reason, they find excuses to manipulate their way out of doing your will and doing their own will. There is also the problem where parents exercise unrighteous dominion over their children (I'm your parent and you will do what I say). One of the biggest mistakes a parent can make is to match wits with their children. Joseph Smith advocated teaching others correct principles and letting them govern themselves. My boys constantly lied to me and manipulated me, despite all my efforts to be firm in teaching correct principles. By the time they left home, they clearly knew right from wrong and how all their bad choices affected them. You cannot protect them from themselves forever. The absolute best you can do is to point them to Jesus so they know ultimately where to turn to when Dad is no longer there to bail them out.

And that time inevitably comes sooner or later for every prodigal child. And even after they leave home, they still keep in touch because they need money or something. But how you raise them, or rather, if you do not exercise unrighteous dominion and love them unconditionally, they will remember that when they become parents. So you see, you not only raise children, you become the model by which they raise their children. So you really are raising grandchildren and great grandchildren, fostering either unconditional love and a desire to know Christ or fostering manipulative techniques to get your kids to bend to your will simply because you are the boss of the house.

i call it stewardship, not being the boss. I watched a family in the ward decide their older sons did not have to attend church because they chose not to, agency and all that. She openly admitted it was a big mistake, both boys have done prison time and struggled with life. In my house, I am teaching my children how I believe we should live, I go to church, you go to church. Do we really let them make decisions when they are not mature enough to make good ones? Stewardship. They are being led, not bending to my will. Stewardship, not manipulation. A loving parent does not manipulate, they lead.

All of this logical fallacy, straw man stuff is for people who engage in debates over issues that are meaningless to me. Just like all the religious revivalists in Joseph Smith's day. It's all manipulative mumbo jumbo. People would rather be right than ask God who gives to all men liberally. It's easier to manipulate people to agree with you than it is to get the God of heaven and earth to talk to you and to tutor you. This is why it doesn't matter if you succeed in winning an argument. You don't convince the person to turn to Christ and ask Him and foster a desire in others to seek Christ to open up as He has promised to do to those who ask, seek, and knock. Lehi had the truth because he sought the Lord and the Lord opened unto Lehi. Nephi believed his father, and even though everything his father said was true and he followed his father, that truth was not efficacious in Nephi's life until Nephi likewise sought the Lord until the Lord opened unto Nephi. And even though Nephi had the truth and it was efficacious in his life, teaching the same truth to Laman and Lemuel did no good to Laman and Lemuel, even though Laman and Lemuel had the truth and understood the truth only after Nephi explained to them. But understanding information isn't enough. That is why Nephi first asked them, "have ye inquired of the Lord."

This is why the veil is referred to as the "veil of unbelief" in the Book of Mormon. People simply don't believe the things they teach or understand to the point of inquiring of the Lord that He may open unto them as promised in James 1:5 and so many other places in the Book of Mormon. That leaves men their only recourse: becoming "learned." There are scholars at BYU who can explain all the literary devices in the scriptures, quote them backwards and forwards, know what the scriptures teach, and still be ignorant fools despite all their expert learning because they do not know God. They may know all about God, but they do not KNOW God.

Therefore all your (speaking generally and not to anyone specifically) degrees and certifications and diplomas and credentials amount to absolutely nothing except to pat each other on the back with praise and flattery. All your strawman arguments, ad hominem attacks, logical fallacies and all the mumbo jumbo smart people come up with to one up each other is foolishness. And it is why God calls and appoints shepherd boys and plow boys to do His work and uses weak things to confound the so called wise. Learned men tend to make bigger messes of God's work than uneducated nobodies. So engaging in debates and academic discussions about how to be smart and all that mumbo jumbo to me is just noise.

I never did manage to get the streets out of my boys. They glorified the lifestyle portrayed in violent video games like Grand Theft Auto. They have both been in prison. One is still in prison. They are still learning to deal with the consequences of all their bad choices, which they did anyway behind my back. But they know that no matter what, I will always be there for them and will do anything I can for them that is within my power. They know very clearly what I believe and they know not to ask me to do something contrary to what I believe (Jesus' commandments, sayings, etc). It would take up volumes to write about it all.

As far as manipulative techniques goes, the way I see it, simply engaging in disputations is a manipulative technique to get others to conform to your beliefs or your will whether or not you are right. The best thing to do is to take a page out of Nephi's book and ask, "have ye inquired of the Lord?" because providing correct information isn't enough until you point them to Christ.

User avatar
captainfearnot
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1966

Re: Critical Thinking, logical fallacies and other manipulative techniques.

Post by captainfearnot »

Michelle wrote: Am I the only one that noticed most of the "ethical dilemmas" in classes were macabre extreme examples one was never likely to experience in real life?

Anyone remember this one? Your son is on one train track too far away to hear you shout. A full passenger train is on the other track and will fall off a cliff killing everyone on board if you, who happen to be standing near the lever, don't pull it and put them on the same track where your son is walking. If you pull the lever, he will surely be killed! Do you save the group or your son?
I've been trying to start a conversation about the Trolley Problem for ages. Don't tell me we're finally getting there. I feel like I should pinch myself.
Michelle wrote:What purpose can such an insane scenario provide?
Well, for one, we need to know how to program our self-driving cars.

But in all seriousness, thought experiments tend to be extreme hypotheticals so that we can zero in on one principle at a time. It's like when you set up a scientific experiment that does not reflect natural conditions, but with the purpose of isolating the variable being tested.

User avatar
marc
Disciple of Jesus Christ
Posts: 10354
Contact:

Re: Critical Thinking, logical fallacies and other manipulative techniques.

Post by marc »

eddie wrote: June 22nd, 2017, 9:17 pm i call it stewardship, not being the boss. I watched a family in the ward decide their older sons did not have to attend church because they chose not to, agency and all that. She openly admitted it was a big mistake, both boys have done prison time and struggled with life. In my house, I am teaching my children how I believe we should live, I go to church, you go to church. Do we really let them make decisions when they are not mature enough to make good ones? Stewardship. They are being led, not bending to my will. Stewardship, not manipulation. A loving parent does not manipulate, they lead.
I think this is the part you inserted into my quote. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I don't think it was a big mistake. My boys came to church with me most Sundays, disturbed sacrament meeting with their rude behavior (which was patiently tolerated by most members), were an unruly element in their priesthood meetings, mutual activities, scouting events, etc. I was a very patient steward, never a boss (though I was their boss when they wanted to come work for me in my construction company). I never forced them to come to church with me, but I gave them choices and alternatives to coming along. As they got older, they would simply walk out the door and come home when they pleased. I got phone calls in the middle of the night from police officers. I can't even count how many times I had visits with their school teachers, principals, asst. principals, bus drivers, probation officers, etc. I had a neighbor visit me telling me such children should be shipped off to Africa. And she was in my ward. There was only ONE neighbor, no, wait, TWO neighbors, who exhibited genuinely love and patience for my family and they were also in my ward. So as I said before, as Joseph Smith advocated, teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves. In the parable of the prodigal son, the rebellious son had it all. And he wanted more. He wanted out. He wanted to do his own thing. Jesus knew what He was talking about in illustrating several principles, including and especially agency. The father gave his son according to his desires and let him do his thing. Otherwise enforcing your own will for his own good only delays the inevitable: consequences and repentance. And it strains the relationship, perhaps permanently.

I shared this with someone else privately, but I think it's worth sharing here (brlenox, I apologize for straying from the topic)...

One time I took my boys out to eat, inviting friends. One of my sons became very disagreeable and hot tempered. He walked out the restaurant, saying he was going to walk home. We were a good fifteen miles from home and it was late afternoon/early evening. He was about 12 or 13 at the time. We had finished eating and began driving home and caught up to him about a mile or so down the road. I pulled over so he could get in, but he completely ignored us and continued walking wrapped up in his indignation. I tried persuading him to get in and drove slowly for a time. He completely refused and kept walking, ignoring me. After doing everything I could to persuade him to get in, I finally gave up and went home. I think it was about 8 or 9 at night when he found a pay phone somewhere along the way and called home asking to be picked up. He sounded humble, but I knew his stubborn, manipulative pride. I basically denied his request and told him that's what he asked for. About an hour later or so, he was brought home by an elderly man who was coming home from the temple. I don't know how he and my boy connected. Maybe my boy knocked on a door and asked for a ride home or maybe the gentleman pulled over and kindly offered him a ride. In any case, it was dark, my boy had no fight left in him whatsoever and just walked in and straight to his room. The elderly brother pleaded with me not to let that happen again. I listened to him and smiled and nodded. Whether or not he understood the situation, I knew deep down that he wasn't wrong.

A few years ago, my son called me from behind bars. Or maybe he was just getting out again or going back in again. I can't remember. He told me over the phone, in essence, "thanks dad for everything. I know what we put you through and you never gave up on us. If it wasn't for you, we'd be dead in the gutter instead of where we are now." I think that was the first time he was being truly genuine. I will never forget that moment. Today he is in prison and I don't know when he'll get out. He writes once in a while and asks for money. I got a text the other day from an unknown number that my boy wished me a happy father's day. They do that on the inside--pass along a message from whoever can do a favor by sending some family member a text or call asking for money or sending some love.

Anyway, my boys are now in their upper twenties, nearing 30 years of age. Perhaps we can understand why Jesus emphasizes visiting the sick and the poor and the naked and those in prison (Matthew 25). I gotta get some shut-eye. Good night.

User avatar
captainfearnot
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1966

Re: Critical Thinking, logical fallacies and other manipulative techniques.

Post by captainfearnot »

Michelle wrote: Common sense seems more practical in a lot if instances.
I thought Michelle made a good observation earlier that I wanted to expand a bit.

Logical reasoning (as demonstrated by this list of fallacies) is no way to live your life. None of us has the time or wherewithal or metal energy to evaluate every proposition we are faced with every day with anything approaching logical rigor. That's why we rely on heuristics, or mental shortcuts.

Lucky for us, our brains are amazing at coming up with these shortcuts. That's what common sense is all about. And intuition.

The biggest source of heuristics for most of us is likely to be religion. Politics is another huge one. Family traditions, tricks of the trade, rules of the road, life experience, it all helps us navigate the world and evaluate our options. These shortcuts are not usually completely accurate, and rarely are they logically sound. But they work for us most of the time and that's why they persist.

When we are interacting with others who share our same mental shortcuts, that's all we need. We can make all kinds of logical leaps among members of our own tribes because we share the same mental models about the world. The problem is when people with different mental models, different "common senses," if you will, get together to debate a proposition. What is obviously common sense to one is anything but to the other.

That's when logical analysis can be a useful tool. Logic is like math, it's what we all agree on. Even if we don't speak the same language, we speak the same math. Democrats and Republicans agree that 2+2=4 and if A=B and B=C, then A=C. That's the common ground that we can build on to try and communicate. Neither side is going to accept an argument from the other that is not logically sound, and subjecting our ideas and beliefs to that kind of critical examination can help us refine and improve them.

Critical thinking is not a worldview. It is a tool for analysis. It helps us test ideas and see how strong they are, maybe how universal, but it's no way to operate on a daily basis. At best it might help you to decide to abandon one set of heuristics for another.

larsenb
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10813
Location: Between here and Standing Rock

Re: Critical Thinking, logical fallacies and other manipulative techniques.

Post by larsenb »

marc wrote: June 22nd, 2017, 9:38 pm
eddie wrote: June 22nd, 2017, 9:17 pm i call it stewardship, not being the boss. I watched a family in the ward decide their older sons did not have to attend church because they chose not to, agency and all that. She openly admitted it was a big mistake, both boys have done prison time and struggled with life. In my house, I am teaching my children how I believe we should live, I go to church, you go to church. Do we really let them make decisions when they are not mature enough to make good ones? Stewardship. They are being led, not bending to my will. Stewardship, not manipulation. A loving parent does not manipulate, they lead.
I think this is the part you inserted into my quote. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I don't think it was a big mistake. My boys came to church with me most Sundays, disturbed sacrament meeting with their rude behavior (which was patiently tolerated by most members), were an unruly element in their priesthood meetings, mutual activities, scouting events, etc. I was a very patient steward, never a boss (though I was their boss when they wanted to come work for me in my construction company). I never forced them to come to church with me, but I gave them choices and alternatives to coming along. As they got older, they would simply walk out the door and come home when they pleased. I got phone calls in the middle of the night from police officers. I can't even count how many times I had visits with their school teachers, principals, asst. principals, bus drivers, probation officers, etc. I had a neighbor visit me telling me such children should be shipped off to Africa. And she was in my ward. There was only ONE neighbor, no, wait, TWO neighbors, who exhibited genuinely love and patience for my family and they were also in my ward. So as I said before, as Joseph Smith advocated, teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves. In the parable of the prodigal son, the rebellious son had it all. And he wanted more. He wanted out. He wanted to do his own thing. Jesus knew what He was talking about in illustrating several principles, including and especially agency. The father gave his son according to his desires and let him do his thing. Otherwise enforcing your own will for his own good only delays the inevitable: consequences and repentance. And it strains the relationship, perhaps permanently.

I shared this with someone else privately, but I think it's worth sharing here (brlenox, I apologize for straying from the topic)...

One time I took my boys out to eat, inviting friends. One of my sons became very disagreeable and hot tempered. He walked out the restaurant, saying he was going to walk home. We were a good fifteen miles from home and it was late afternoon/early evening. He was about 12 or 13 at the time. We had finished eating and began driving home and caught up to him about a mile or so down the road. I pulled over so he could get in, but he completely ignored us and continued walking wrapped up in his indignation. I tried persuading him to get in and drove slowly for a time. He completely refused and kept walking, ignoring me. After doing everything I could to persuade him to get in, I finally gave up and went home. I think it was about 8 or 9 at night when he found a pay phone somewhere along the way and called home asking to be picked up. He sounded humble, but I knew his stubborn, manipulative pride. I basically denied his request and told him that's what he asked for. About an hour later or so, he was brought home by an elderly man who was coming home from the temple. I don't know how he and my boy connected. Maybe my boy knocked on a door and asked for a ride home or maybe the gentleman pulled over and kindly offered him a ride. In any case, it was dark, my boy had no fight left in him whatsoever and just walked in and straight to his room. The elderly brother pleaded with me not to let that happen again. I listened to him and smiled and nodded. Whether or not he understood the situation, I knew deep down that he wasn't wrong.

A few years ago, my son called me from behind bars. Or maybe he was just getting out again or going back in again. I can't remember. He told me over the phone, in essence, "thanks dad for everything. I know what we put you through and you never gave up on us. If it wasn't for you, we'd be dead in the gutter instead of where we are now." I think that was the first time he was being truly genuine. I will never forget that moment. Today he is in prison and I don't know when he'll get out. He writes once in a while and asks for money. I got a text the other day from an unknown number that my boy wished me a happy father's day. They do that on the inside--pass along a message from whoever can do a favor by sending some family member a text or call asking for money or sending some love.

Anyway, my boys are now in their upper twenties, nearing 30 years of age. Perhaps we can understand why Jesus emphasizes visiting the sick and the poor and the naked and those in prison (Matthew 25). I gotta get some shut-eye. Good night.
Regarding your comments about your experiences w/your adoptive sons, etc., just one word: Wow! Thanks for sharing.

User avatar
brlenox
A sheep in wolf in sheep's clothing
Posts: 2615

Re: Critical Thinking, logical fallacies and other manipulative techniques.

Post by brlenox »

marc wrote: June 22nd, 2017, 9:38 pm
eddie wrote: June 22nd, 2017, 9:17 pm i call it stewardship, not being the boss. I watched a family in the ward decide their older sons did not have to attend church because they chose not to, agency and all that. She openly admitted it was a big mistake, both boys have done prison time and struggled with life. In my house, I am teaching my children how I believe we should live, I go to church, you go to church. Do we really let them make decisions when they are not mature enough to make good ones? Stewardship. They are being led, not bending to my will. Stewardship, not manipulation. A loving parent does not manipulate, they lead.
I think this is the part you inserted into my quote. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I don't think it was a big mistake. My boys came to church with me most Sundays, disturbed sacrament meeting with their rude behavior (which was patiently tolerated by most members), were an unruly element in their priesthood meetings, mutual activities, scouting events, etc. I was a very patient steward, never a boss (though I was their boss when they wanted to come work for me in my construction company). I never forced them to come to church with me, but I gave them choices and alternatives to coming along. As they got older, they would simply walk out the door and come home when they pleased. I got phone calls in the middle of the night from police officers. I can't even count how many times I had visits with their school teachers, principals, asst. principals, bus drivers, probation officers, etc. I had a neighbor visit me telling me such children should be shipped off to Africa. And she was in my ward. There was only ONE neighbor, no, wait, TWO neighbors, who exhibited genuinely love and patience for my family and they were also in my ward. So as I said before, as Joseph Smith advocated, teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves. In the parable of the prodigal son, the rebellious son had it all. And he wanted more. He wanted out. He wanted to do his own thing. Jesus knew what He was talking about in illustrating several principles, including and especially agency. The father gave his son according to his desires and let him do his thing. Otherwise enforcing your own will for his own good only delays the inevitable: consequences and repentance. And it strains the relationship, perhaps permanently.

I shared this with someone else privately, but I think it's worth sharing here (brlenox, I apologize for straying from the topic)...

One time I took my boys out to eat, inviting friends. One of my sons became very disagreeable and hot tempered. He walked out the restaurant, saying he was going to walk home. We were a good fifteen miles from home and it was late afternoon/early evening. He was about 12 or 13 at the time. We had finished eating and began driving home and caught up to him about a mile or so down the road. I pulled over so he could get in, but he completely ignored us and continued walking wrapped up in his indignation. I tried persuading him to get in and drove slowly for a time. He completely refused and kept walking, ignoring me. After doing everything I could to persuade him to get in, I finally gave up and went home. I think it was about 8 or 9 at night when he found a pay phone somewhere along the way and called home asking to be picked up. He sounded humble, but I knew his stubborn, manipulative pride. I basically denied his request and told him that's what he asked for. About an hour later or so, he was brought home by an elderly man who was coming home from the temple. I don't know how he and my boy connected. Maybe my boy knocked on a door and asked for a ride home or maybe the gentleman pulled over and kindly offered him a ride. In any case, it was dark, my boy had no fight left in him whatsoever and just walked in and straight to his room. The elderly brother pleaded with me not to let that happen again. I listened to him and smiled and nodded. Whether or not he understood the situation, I knew deep down that he wasn't wrong.

A few years ago, my son called me from behind bars. Or maybe he was just getting out again or going back in again. I can't remember. He told me over the phone, in essence, "thanks dad for everything. I know what we put you through and you never gave up on us. If it wasn't for you, we'd be dead in the gutter instead of where we are now." I think that was the first time he was being truly genuine. I will never forget that moment. Today he is in prison and I don't know when he'll get out. He writes once in a while and asks for money. I got a text the other day from an unknown number that my boy wished me a happy father's day. They do that on the inside--pass along a message from whoever can do a favor by sending some family member a text or call asking for money or sending some love.

Anyway, my boys are now in their upper twenties, nearing 30 years of age. Perhaps we can understand why Jesus emphasizes visiting the sick and the poor and the naked and those in prison (Matthew 25). I gotta get some shut-eye. Good night.
I seldom criticize a parents choice for how to raise their children. No one knows but the parent what's really going on and is close enough to the problem to even have a hope or a prayer as to how to deal with it. I raised each one of my children different from the others. I went to great pains to evaluate their character and the best means of reaching into their being to move them along. On occasion someone might think I was being too indulgent but I always did what I felt was right for each.

Still what you went through sounds heart wrenching but it was exceptionally honorable. Good for you.

User avatar
brlenox
A sheep in wolf in sheep's clothing
Posts: 2615

Re: Critical Thinking, logical fallacies and other manipulative techniques.

Post by brlenox »

captainfearnot wrote: June 22nd, 2017, 9:02 am I gave my boys a copy of You Are Not So Smart by David McRaney, to read during rainy days at scout camp a few years ago, and I was surprised at how fascinated they were by it. It's just a Psych 101-level synopsis of several major cognitive biases and logical fallacies, but I guess I was kind of blown away the first time I learned about all that stuff, too.

There is definitely something compelling about those tools and other modes of critical thinking, maybe particularly for math/science-oriented minds. But I don't think we need to make too much of them. It's certainly useful to learn the difference between a well reasoned argument and a cognitively manipulative one, but as we've been over already in this thread, it's not the be-all end-all.

An argument is like a basketball game, and logical fallacies are like fouls. One side doesn't get to claim victory as soon as a foul is committed by the other, and you don't count up fouls at the end of the game to determine the winner. The underlying play is what matters—who is the best at the fundamentals of basketball determines who wins, in spite of the fouls on either side. The fouls are just a reminder that not everything goes, and you need to stop, regroup, and get back to good basketball. In an argument, logical fallacies are just reminders that we need to support our positions more thoroughly, and that the shortcuts we normally rely on in our day-to-day are not always sufficient to prove a point. Still, it's the strength of the underlying position that matters most.

Now, if your entire game is built on fouls, some no-holds-barred version of playground ball, then you are going to be in for a bad time if you try to play a refereed game where fouls are called. You'll soon learn how weak your basketball game really is. Likewise, a position that is fundamentally based on fallacious reasoning deserves to be taken down by the tools of critical thinking.

Applying this to religion, I think there are some ideas and beliefs that can be defended logically and others that cannot. I don't know the best way to deal with that. I think that rather than try and discredit critical thinking as a valuable tool, or morph religious beliefs into something logically sound, it would be better to define the game differently. I like Gould's idea of non-overlapping magisteria, that science and religion are in separate realms, answering different questions, and employing different methods. That way, religion doesn't need to apologize for not being logical. We can say things like "spiritual truths must be understood spiritually."
I agree that a tool is a tool and draws it's nature from those who use it and their goals of its use. I also am not trying to be the alarmist mentality that sees a sinister clown in every crowd. I think I am comfortable saying though that to be a critical thinking person you first need to think about being a critical thinker and what criteria you are going to hold onto as you weave through the dictatorial maze of critical thinking instruction. We should always be very cautious when people are telling us how to think.

Your fouls analogy is well received and a very good comparison for forum discussion. We all may have a couple of foul balls from time to time but that's part of the game. An egregious fouler though sometimes has to be restrained.

Good Comments thanks

eddie
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2405

Re: Critical Thinking, logical fallacies and other manipulative techniques.

Post by eddie »

marc wrote: June 22nd, 2017, 9:38 pm
eddie wrote: June 22nd, 2017, 9:17 pm i call it stewardship, not being the boss. I watched a family in the ward decide their older sons did not have to attend church because they chose not to, agency and all that. She openly admitted it was a big mistake, both boys have done prison time and struggled with life. In my house, I am teaching my children how I believe we should live, I go to church, you go to church. Do we really let them make decisions when they are not mature enough to make good ones? Stewardship. They are being led, not bending to my will. Stewardship, not manipulation. A loving parent does not manipulate, they lead.
I think this is the part you inserted into my quote. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I don't think it was a big mistake. My boys came to church with me most Sundays, disturbed sacrament meeting with their rude behavior (which was patiently tolerated by most members), were an unruly element in their priesthood meetings, mutual activities, scouting events, etc. I was a very patient steward, never a boss (though I was their boss when they wanted to come work for me in my construction company). I never forced them to come to church with me, but I gave them choices and alternatives to coming along. As they got older, they would simply walk out the door and come home when they pleased. I got phone calls in the middle of the night from police officers. I can't even count how many times I had visits with their school teachers, principals, asst. principals, bus drivers, probation officers, etc. I had a neighbor visit me telling me such children should be shipped off to Africa. And she was in my ward. There was only ONE neighbor, no, wait, TWO neighbors, who exhibited genuinely love and patience for my family and they were also in my ward. So as I said before, as Joseph Smith advocated, teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves. In the parable of the prodigal son, the rebellious son had it all. And he wanted more. He wanted out. He wanted to do his own thing. Jesus knew what He was talking about in illustrating several principles, including and especially agency. The father gave his son according to his desires and let him do his thing. Otherwise enforcing your own will for his own good only delays the inevitable: consequences and repentance. And it strains the relationship, perhaps permanently.

I shared this with someone else privately, but I think it's worth sharing here (brlenox, I apologize for straying from the topic)...

One time I took my boys out to eat, inviting friends. One of my sons became very disagreeable and hot tempered. He walked out the restaurant, saying he was going to walk home. We were a good fifteen miles from home and it was late afternoon/early evening. He was about 12 or 13 at the time. We had finished eating and began driving home and caught up to him about a mile or so down the road. I pulled over so he could get in, but he completely ignored us and continued walking wrapped up in his indignation. I tried persuading him to get in and drove slowly for a time. He completely refused and kept walking, ignoring me. After doing everything I could to persuade him to get in, I finally gave up and went home. I think it was about 8 or 9 at night when he found a pay phone somewhere along the way and called home asking to be picked up. He sounded humble, but I knew his stubborn, manipulative pride. I basically denied his request and told him that's what he asked for. About an hour later or so, he was brought home by an elderly man who was coming home from the temple. I don't know how he and my boy connected. Maybe my boy knocked on a door and asked for a ride home or maybe the gentleman pulled over and kindly offered him a ride. In any case, it was dark, my boy had no fight left in him whatsoever and just walked in and straight to his room. The elderly brother pleaded with me not to let that happen again. I listened to him and smiled and nodded. Whether or not he understood the situation, I knew deep down that he wasn't wrong.

A few years ago, my son called me from behind bars. Or maybe he was just getting out again or going back in again. I can't remember. He told me over the phone, in essence, "thanks dad for everything. I know what we put you through and you never gave up on us. If it wasn't for you, we'd be dead in the gutter instead of where we are now." I think that was the first time he was being truly genuine. I will never forget that moment. Today he is in prison and I don't know when he'll get out. He writes once in a while and asks for money. I got a text the other day from an unknown number that my boy wished me a happy father's day. They do that on the inside--pass along a message from whoever can do a favor by sending some family member a text or call asking for money or sending some love.

Anyway, my boys are now in their upper twenties, nearing 30 years of age. Perhaps we can understand why Jesus emphasizes visiting the sick and the poor and the naked and those in prison (Matthew 25). I gotta get some shut-eye. Good night.
Marc, I apologize, please forgive me for thinking I have the answers when I didn't understand the circumstances.

Those sweet children had a greater degree of difficulty, and my heart hurts for them. Prenatal alcohol or drugs could have been a factor, who knows. they are children of God, and you respectfully treated them as such. You are a hero in my eyes!

User avatar
gclayjr
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2727
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Critical Thinking, logical fallacies and other manipulative techniques.

Post by gclayjr »

Captainfearnot said,
It's certainly useful to learn the difference between a well reasoned argument and a cognitively manipulative one, but as we've been over already in this thread, it's not the be-all end-all.
I graduated from college long before "Critical thinking" became in vogue. While I believe that I have a good sense for when someone is using rhetorical devices or as you might say cognitively manipulative ones to make arguments for something which I know to be wrong, this discussion has made me ponder a possible new view on this.

I assume that when people use rhetorical or cognitively manipulative devices to support, say a heretical position in relation to God and truth, that they are generally being deliberately deceptive to either cover a discovered hole in their position, or maybe worse, to persuade someone away from the true gospel of Christ.

While I have seen times when I believe that someone is completely clueless as to the incoherence of their argument, or their attempt at cognitive manipulation of a train of thought, I generally believe it to be a sly deception. Am I wrong?

I guess my question is, when someone uses rhetorical or cognitive manipulation to support the unsupportable, how often is that a sly manipulation, and how often is the person actually clueless to their own incoherent logic?


Regards,

George Clay

User avatar
marc
Disciple of Jesus Christ
Posts: 10354
Contact:

Re: Critical Thinking, logical fallacies and other manipulative techniques.

Post by marc »

eddie wrote: June 22nd, 2017, 11:07 pm Marc, I apologize, please forgive me for thinking I have the answers when I didn't understand the circumstances.

Those sweet children had a greater degree of difficulty, and my heart hurts for them. Prenatal alcohol or drugs could have been a factor, who knows. they are children of God, and you respectfully treated them as such. You are a hero in my eyes!
No worries. Yes, prenatal alcohol was a factor in their lives. One of them was born a crack baby. They have the same mother, but different fathers, they were neglected during their childhood, locked in their rooms so their mother could get high. Their aunts and uncles and grandparents were in and out of jail. Hard liquor, drugs and pornography were all part of their upbringing. All siblings were taken by the state and put into foster care. I don't know how many children their mother has given birth to through today, but it seems that is how she gets help from the state. Anyway, thank you for your kind words.

User avatar
gclayjr
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2727
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Critical Thinking, logical fallacies and other manipulative techniques.

Post by gclayjr »

marc,

My sister, a licensed nurse practitioner, with her husband in their later years, adopted a girl that was in foster care, who was the daughter of a single woman with serious crack and other drug problems. This girl has been extremely difficult, manipulative, and has done much to create tension between my sister and her husband and great stress on their family.

I suppose that there is some joy in giving love to those who act so unlovable. Probably better her, and you, than me. I admire it.

It does however, beg the question, nature, nurture, or self determination. Glad I don't have to be the judge.

Regards,

George Clay

User avatar
marc
Disciple of Jesus Christ
Posts: 10354
Contact:

Re: Critical Thinking, logical fallacies and other manipulative techniques.

Post by marc »

George, maybe its' a little of each. In any case, it's an opportunity to learn to be like Jesus, infinitely patient, longsuffering, etc. I forgot to mention that one of my boys (the one currently in prison) did have soft moments. He was baptized at 12, was sealed to us in the temple and tried briefly before deciding that isn't what he wanted. His older half brother was baptized about age 15 or 16, the week after he was jumped in the park and had his faced smashed by a baseball bat from someone who jumped from behind. Luckily he's a big kid with a head made of steel. His face was like the elephant man for the baptism picture, but he's really tough. He was always picked on because, ironically he's big and was the "mountain to conquer" at school. He was persuaded to join the football team by the coach, which he tried briefly, but it didn't last. Today he's about 6'4 or 6'5. I think the Lord will have mercy in light of the conditions such children are born into every day.

diligently seeking
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1272

Re: Critical Thinking, logical fallacies and other manipulative techniques.

Post by diligently seeking »

marc wrote: June 20th, 2017, 5:08 pm
If we have the truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed. --President J. Reuben Clark
I have observed from scripture that prophets (and even Jesus) never needed defending. Such witnesses and messengers are by nature (new creatures having been sanctified) meek, patient, kind, charitable and longsuffering, capable of turning the other cheek when attacked. They suffer the will of the Lord unto the mocking of fools and persecuting of evildoers. They are able to persuade and never resort to control or compulsion. Truth cuts its own way and those who have received the Holy Ghost and have taken It for their guide do not need to fear truth.

The Prophet Joseph taught,
“We have heard men who hold the priesthood remark that they would do anything they were told to do by those who preside over them [even] if they knew it was wrong; but such obedience as this is worse than folly to us; it is slavery in the extreme; and the man who would thus willingly degrade himself, should not claim a rank among intelligent beings, until he turns from his folly. A man of God would despise the idea. Others, in the extreme exercise of their almighty authority have taught that such obedience was necessary, and that no matter what the saints were told do by their presidents they should do it without any questions. When Elders of Israel will so far indulge in these extreme notions of obedience as to teach them to the people, it is generally because they have it in their hearts to do wrong themselves.”--Joseph Smith, Millennial Star, vol. 14, #38, p 593-595
If one is to become as God, one must learn to know God's will by the Holy Ghost. One must become one with God so as to become one with each other. Prophets do not render the Holy Ghost obsolete, but the Holy Ghost bears witness of truth. The only reason to have "official interpretations" of doctrine or of the scriptures is to make it so that those who don't have the Holy Ghost can understand the scriptures, but the things of God can only be understood by the Holy Ghost so if the interpretations are understandable without the Holy Ghost, they are not of God and if they are of God, then they don't solve the problem for which they were supposedly produced, ie, to make the scriptures understandable by those who don't have the Holy Ghost. Therefore, if one does not have the Holy Ghost anyway, truth is not efficacious in his life and he has harmed himself because of ignorance. Therefore in no case is any official interpretation justified (for any good reason, anyway) and the real reason for such interpretations is to enforce or at least impose conformity (speaking of manipulative techniques).

Nephi admonished his brothers to inquire of the Lord, but they would not. Nephi was then left to expound his father's dreams (of which He obtained interpretations directly from God) to them, which were not efficacious in their lives anyway. So there is no need to protect the ignorant who will not seek the Lord but are content to be informed even if they are informed correctly without the Holy Ghost.
D&C 45:56 And at that day, when I shall come in my glory, shall the parable be fulfilled which I spake concerning the ten virgins.

57 For they that are wise and have received the truth, and have taken the Holy Spirit for their guide, and have not been deceived—verily I say unto you, they shall not be hewn down and cast into the fire, but shall abide the day.
Follow the prophet if you will, but if you do not seek the Lord and take His Spirit for your guide, it is folly.
A clear understanding and living reality for a person with the above expressions from Marc and those he quotes are the heartfelt longing desires of every true Prophet. 29And Moses said unto him, Enviest thou for my sake? would God that all the Lord’s people were prophets, and that the Lord would put his spirit upon them!

Let's not let anything stop us from receiving the Holy Spirit and the truth and freedom etc we receive as we do. Powerful post Marc. One of the better ones ever by estimation in the storied history of this forum! And there are some gems on this forum...

diligently seeking
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1272

Re: Critical Thinking, logical fallacies and other manipulative techniques.

Post by diligently seeking »

Mosiah 4
1 And now, it came to pass that when king Benjamin had made an end of speaking the words which had been delivered unto him by the angel of the Lord, that he cast his eyes round about on the multitude, and behold they had fallen to the earth, for the fear of the Lord had come upon them.
2 And they had viewed themselves in their own carnal state, even less than the dust of the earth. And they all cried aloud with one voice, saying: O have mercy, and apply the atoning blood of Christ that we may receive forgiveness of our sins, and our hearts may be purified; for we believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who created heaven and earth, and all things; who shall come down among the children of men.
3 And it came to pass that after they had spoken these words the Spirit of the Lord came upon them, and they were filled with joy, having received a remission of their sins, and having peace of conscience, because of the exceeding faith which they had in Jesus Christ who should come, according to the words which king Benjamin had spoken unto them.
4 And king Benjamin again...

...And behold, even at this time, ye have been calling on his name, and begging for a remission of your sins. And has he suffered that ye have begged in vain? Nay; he has poured out his Spirit upon you, and has caused that your hearts should be filled with joy, and has caused that your mouths should be stopped that ye could not find utterance, so exceedingly great was your joy.


Mosiah 5:
And now, it came to pass that when king Benjamin had thus spoken to his people, he sent among them, desiring to know of his people if they believed the words which he had spoken unto them.
2 And they all cried with one voice, saying: Yea, we believe all the words which thou hast spoken unto us; and also, we know of their surety and truth, because of the Spirit of the Lord Omnipotent, which has wrought a mighty change in us, or in our hearts, that we have no more disposition to do evil, but to do good continually.
3 And we, ourselves, also, through the infinite goodness of God, and the manifestations of his Spirit, have great views of that which is to come; and were it expedient, we could prophesy of all things.
4 And it is the faith which we have had on the things which our king has spoken unto us that has brought us to this great knowledge, whereby we do rejoice with such exceedingly great joy.
5 And we are willing to enter into a covenant with our God to do his will, and to be obedient to his commandments in all things that he shall command us, all the remainder of our days, that we may not bring upon ourselves a never-ending torment, as has been spoken by the angel, that we may not drink out of the cup of the wrath of God.
6 And now, these are the words which king Benjamin desired of them; and therefore he said unto them: Ye have spoken the words that I desired; and the covenant which ye have made is a righteous covenant.
7 And now, because of the covenant which ye have made ye shall be called the children of Christ, his sons, and his daughters; for behold, this day he hath spiritually begotten you; for ye say that your hearts are changed through faith on his name; therefore, ye are born of him and have become his sons and his daughters.
8 And under this head ye are made free, and there is no other head whereby ye can be made free. There is no other name given whereby salvation cometh; therefore, I would that ye should take upon you the name of Christ, all you that have entered into the covenant with God that ye should be obedient unto the end of your lives.
9 And it shall come to pass that whosoever doeth this shall be found at the right hand of God, for he shall know the name by which he is called; for he shall be called by the name of Christ.
10 And now it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall not take upon him the name of Christ must be called by some other name; therefore, he findeth himself on the left hand of God.
11 And I would that ye should remember also, that this is the name that I said I should give unto you that never should be blotted out, except it be through transgression; therefore, take heed that ye do not transgress, that the name be not blotted out of your hearts.
12 I say unto you, I would that ye should remember to retain the name written always in your hearts, that ye are not found on the left hand of God, but that ye hear and know the voice by which ye shall be called, and also, the name by which he shall call you.
13 For how knoweth a man the master whom he has not served, and who is a stranger unto him, and is far from the thoughts and intents of his heart?
14 And again, doth a man take an @#$ which belongeth to his neighbor, and keep him? I say unto you, Nay; he will not even suffer that he shall feed among his flocks, but will drive him away, and cast him out. I say unto you, that even so shall it be among you if ye know not the name by which ye are called.
15 Therefore, I would that ye should be steadfast and immovable, always abounding in good works, that Christ, the Lord God Omnipotent, may seal you his, that you may be brought to heaven, that ye may have everlasting salvation and eternal life, through the wisdom, and power, and justice, and mercy of him who created all things, in heaven and in earth, who is God above all. Amen.

eddie
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2405

Re: Critical Thinking, logical fallacies and other manipulative techniques.

Post by eddie »

marc wrote: June 23rd, 2017, 6:53 am George, maybe its' a little of each. In any case, it's an opportunity to learn to be like Jesus, infinitely patient, longsuffering, etc. I forgot to mention that one of my boys (the one currently in prison) did have soft moments. He was baptized at 12, was sealed to us in the temple and tried briefly before deciding that isn't what he wanted. His older half brother was baptized about age 15 or 16, the week after he was jumped in the park and had his faced smashed by a baseball bat from someone who jumped from behind. Luckily he's a big kid with a head made of steel. His face was like the elephant man for the baptism picture, but he's really tough. He was always picked on because, ironically he's big and was the "mountain to conquer" at school. He was persuaded to join the football team by the coach, which he tried briefly, but it didn't last. Today he's about 6'4 or 6'5. I think the Lord will have mercy in light of the conditions such children are born into every day.
We can't understand how merciful the Lord will be, if you had to judge one of your children that you love so much, think about the mercy you would have for them. I laid on my bed one day wracked with grief over a decision one of my children made, I thought about how much Heavenly Father loves His children and I was experiencing a part of it.

User avatar
brlenox
A sheep in wolf in sheep's clothing
Posts: 2615

Re: Critical Thinking, logical fallacies and other manipulative techniques.

Post by brlenox »

gclayjr wrote: June 23rd, 2017, 5:42 am Captainfearnot said,
It's certainly useful to learn the difference between a well reasoned argument and a cognitively manipulative one, but as we've been over already in this thread, it's not the be-all end-all.
I graduated from college long before "Critical thinking" became in vogue. While I believe that I have a good sense for when someone is using rhetorical devices or as you might say cognitively manipulative ones to make arguments for something which I know to be wrong, this discussion has made me ponder a possible new view on this.

I assume that when people use rhetorical or cognitively manipulative devices to support, say a heretical position in relation to God and truth, that they are generally being deliberately deceptive to either cover a discovered hole in their position, or maybe worse, to persuade someone away from the true gospel of Christ.

While I have seen times when I believe that someone is completely clueless as to the incoherence of their argument, or their attempt at cognitive manipulation of a train of thought, I generally believe it to be a sly deception. Am I wrong?

I guess my question is, when someone uses rhetorical or cognitive manipulation to support the unsupportable, how often is that a sly manipulation, and how often is the person actually clueless to their own incoherent logic?


Regards,

George Clay
I do not think you are wrong but I cannot say that I always consider the effort of those who depend on critical thinking devices to manipulate their messages do so with understanding. The glory of the critical thinking process is not that it teaches critical thinking, but is instead that it plants seeds of doubt. The seeds do not depend on retaining an ounce of the critical thinking material as most people do not but the seeds, like so many dandelion weeds, germinate and grow.

Nonetheless, I also feel that certain mindsets are drawn to certain devices simply from a sense of affinity. Dishonest people use tools of dishonesty because the tools support their natural tendencies to distort truth. I have never, ever heard, that I can recall a use of these tools by someone to negate elements of the conversation when they were sustaining correct principles. It has always been those who wish to shut down opposition to an errant doctrine or something that should be vehemently discounted who want to remove all oppositional efforts by citing a widely accepted and familiar intellectual tool. Or to state it another way, it is those who wish to change accepted norms of understanding into a different form of understanding. When a message lacks the authority of truth then it must draw authority from other venues to be sustained.

User avatar
Rose Garden
Don't ask . . .
Posts: 7031
Contact:

Re: Critical Thinking, logical fallacies and other manipulative techniques.

Post by Rose Garden »

I think the heart of the problem is the hypocrisy inherent in this world. I believe those teaching "critical thinking" aren't teaching critical thinking at all. They are teaching narrow-mindedness and calling it critical thinking. And so people are trained to believe that when they are being narrow-minded and judgmental, they are being objective and open-minded.

larsenb
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10813
Location: Between here and Standing Rock

Re: Critical Thinking, logical fallacies and other manipulative techniques.

Post by larsenb »

Jon Rappoport outlines manipulative techniques that are currently rampant among MSM outlets. One technique he doesn't directly mention is how they use fake polls to discount a particular viewpoint by showing how it is allegedly unsupported, or to entrain people to accept a view because, well, everybody is for it.

Here is the extract from his article, Ten forms of fake news used by major media, found here: https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2017 ... r-media-2/
Ten forms of fake news used by major media

By Jon Rappoport

The basic purpose of these ten forms: the presentation of a false picture of reality.

You could find more forms, or divide these ten into sub-categories.

The ten basic forms are:

Direct lying about matters of fact. (This sometimes includes doubling down on lies already told, or telling a bigger lie after the first one.)

Leaving out vital information.

Limited hangout. (This is an admission of a crime or a mistake, which only partially reveals the whole truth. The idea is that by admitting a fraction of what really happened and burying the biggest revelations, people will be satisfied and go away, and the story will never be covered again.)

Shutting down the truth after publishing it---includes failing to follow up and investigate a story more deeply.

Not connecting dots between important pieces of data.

Censoring the truth, wherever it is found (or calling it "fake news").

Using biased "experts" to present slanted or false "facts."

Repeating a false story many times---this includes the echo-chamber effect, in which a number of outlets "bounce" the false story among themselves.

Claiming a reasonable and true consensus exists, when it doesn't, when there are many important dissenters, who are shut out from offering their analysis.

Employing a panoply of effects (reputation of the media outlet, voice quality of the anchor, acting skills, dry mechanical language, studio lighting, overlay of electronic transmissions, etc.) to create an impression of elevated authority which is beyond challenge.

These are all traditional forms and methods.

Here's an example of a big story that deployed all ten forms of fake news: the Swine Flu pandemic of 2009.

In the spring of 2009, the World Health Organization (elevated authority whose pronouncements are beyond challenge) announced that Swine Flu was a level-6 pandemic---its highest category of "danger." In fact, there were only 20 confirmed cases at the time (direct lying about "danger"). And W.H.O. quietly changed the definition of "level-6" so widespread death and damage were no longer required (another aspect of direct lying).

The story was, of course, picked up by major media outlets all over the world (echo chamber effect, fake consensus, never connected dots re W.H.O. lies), and quite soon, Swine Flu case numbers rose into the thousands (direct lying, as we'll soon see).

Medical experts were brought in to bolster the claims of danger (biased experts; important dissenters never given space to comment).

In the early fall of 2009, Sharyl Attkisson, then a star investigative reporter for CBS News, published a story on the CBS News website. She indicated that the CDC had secretly stopped counting the number of Swine Flu cases in America. No other major news outlet reported this fact (omitting vital information).

Attkisson discovered the reason the CDC had stopped counting: the overwhelming number of blood samples taken from the most likely Swine Flu patients were coming back from labs with: no trace of Swine Flu or any other kind of flu. Therefore, a gigantic hoax was revealed. The pandemic was a dud, a fake.

Despite Attkisson's efforts, CBS never followed up on her story (shutting down the truth after exposing it). Never probed the lying by the CDC (failure to connect dots). In a sense, CBS turned Attkisson's story into a limited hangout---a further investigation would have uncovered acres of criminal behavior by both the CDC and the World Health Organization, to say nothing of the governments and media outlets that supported these lying agencies. The mainstream press essentially censored Attkisson's revelations.

Then, about three weeks after CBS published Attkisson's story, WebMD published a piece in which the CDC claimed that its own (lying) estimate of 10,000 or so cases of Swine Flu in the US was a gross understatement. Truly, there were 22 MILLION cases of Swine Flu in the US (doubling-down on lying).

And that was that.

And these mainstream sources are currently shouting and bloviating about independent media spreading fake news. I guess you could call that number 11: accusing their opponents of committing the crimes they are, in fact, committing [this is called 'projection']

Post Reply