Endurance.Net Ridecamp Archives

Hello Bruce,
Very educational points on how we reason and argue. The other side of
this is how much I, as a person involved in the argument, am invested in
winning. Any tips on how to rethink one's position to allow for being
convinced to change before digging in the heels and going for broke?? At
some point agreeing to change is the same as losing the argument which is
really a tough decision.
To keep this endurance related, is my horse using #5 or #6 when he bolts
uncontrollably down the trail at the sight of a bear? I would like him to
stop and discuss it with me. X;{

At 07:43 AM 1/21/2007 Sunday, you wrote:

   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 everyone 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.

1. 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.)
2. Overgeneralization - Taking isolated cases and using them to make wide generalizations. (See hasty generalization.)
3. 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.)
4. Disqualifying the positive - Continually "shooting down" positive experiences for arbitrary, ad hoc reasons. (See special pleading.)
5. 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.)
6. 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.
7. Emotional reasoning - Making decisions and arguments based on how you feel rather than objective reality. (See appeal to consequences.)
8. 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.)
9. Labelling - Related to over generalization, 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.
10. 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

Don Huston  <donhuston@xxxxxxx>