You left one out, somewhat
related to "overgeneralization" . The "argue and reason for more than
you expect, then be reluctantly happy with the new found "compromise" that is
exactly what you were really after in the first place". If you want a 5$
raise, ask for a $10 raise, then any "reasonable" compromise over $3
makes you very happy.
Eric Rueter Rueter Consulting, Inc. Eric@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 865.988.4134(W) 865.599.3594(C) 865.986.5966(H)
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
