I have stated that I am in support of the new 30 minute pulse down
rule, with the exception that 60 minutes should be allowed to complete
the vet exam thereafter. While eveyone is certainly entitled to their
opinion on this, and all other matters, I have been frustrated in
reading some of the lines of reasoning and rationales that have been
put forth in making a case for why someone is either in favor of an
idea or against it. I have been searching for a short list of thinking
and reasoning "traps" that we have all used from time to time, but
truly do hinder us from accurately and meaningfully debating ideas to a
reasonable conclusion. I thought I would include them here for all to
see, and as we reflect back on any given debate/argument that has taken
place on Ridecamp (or anywhere else, for that matter) we can easily
find examples of all of these methods throughout our postings. FWIW,
here they are:
Related links are suggested in parentheses.
All-or-nothing thinking - Thinking of things in absolute
terms, like "always", "every" or "never". Few aspects of human behavior
are so absolute. (See false
dilemma.)
Overgeneralization - Taking isolated cases and using them
to make wide generalizations. (See hasty generalization.)
Mental filter - Focusing exclusively on certain, usually
negative or upsetting, aspects of something while ignoring the rest,
like a tiny imperfection in a piece of clothing. (See misleading vividness.)
Disqualifying the positive - Continually "shooting down"
positive experiences for arbitrary, ad hoc reasons. (See special pleading.)
Jumping to conclusions - Assuming something negative where
there is no evidence to support it. Two specific subtypes are also
identified:
Mind reading - Assuming the intentions of others.
Fortune telling - Predicting that things will turn out
badly. (See slippery slope.)
Magnification and Minimization - Exaggerating
negatives and understating positives. Often the positive
characteristics of other people are exaggerated and negatives
understated. There is one subtype of magnification:
Catastrophizing - Focusing on the worst possible
outcome,
however unlikely, or thinking that a situation is unbearable or
impossible when it is really just uncomfortable.
Emotional reasoning - Making decisions and arguments based
on how you feel rather than objective reality. (See appeal to consequences.)
Making should statements - Concentrating on what you
think "should" or ought to be rather than the actual situation you are
faced with, or having rigid rules which you think should always
apply no matter what the circumstances are. (See wishful thinking.)
Labelling - Related to overgeneralization, explaining by
naming. Rather than describing the specific behavior, you assign a
label to someone or yourself that puts them in absolute and unalterable
terms.
Personalization (or attribution)
- Assuming you or others directly caused things when that may not have
been the case. (See illusion of control.) When applied to
others this is an example of blame.
I have been guilty of every one of these at some time or
another. I promise to do my best to avoid these traps in the future as
best I can. It sure is enlightening to see this list in such succinct
terms. Dr Q
