Axioms Against Cognitive Distortion

[Daniel]

@NaturaNaturans,

 

Complaining is easy.  Explaining is hard.

 

---

 

It only takes a few words to criticize.  It take many more words to explain and moderate the criticism.  But the critic always and forever avoids those words, because it moderates their criticism.    

 

The more passionately one feels about the subject, perhaps they are perceiving an injustice targeting innocent victims, the more vigorously the critic will deny, deny, deny any opportunity to moderate their criticism.  It's because the passion feels so powerful.  And that feels good.  Star Wars?  The sith lords?  It's worth watching.

 

There's more that I could say about this specific cognitive fault,  But, I'll leave it here.

 

Edited July 7 by Daniel

[Sir Darius the Clairvoyent]

Jesus Daniel this is acctually getting silly, I am not even mad but this is something else. Lets see where it goes

[Sir Darius the Clairvoyent]

Can I ask you something? Why do you feel entitled to being viewed as special? I am talking about you as in individual and not you as in a jew. 
 

edit:

and what do you hope to achieve with this thread? What is the topic here

Edited July 7 by NaturaNaturans

[Daniel]

Certainty is the end of all learning. Agnosticism is your friend.

[Daniel]

Everything is special in its own way.

 

Over-generalizing leads to false stereotyping.

[Daniel]

3 hours ago, NaturaNaturans said:

What is the topic here

 

The topic is : "Axioms Against Cognitive Distortion".  Do you know how to recognize and avoid cognitive distortion?

 

[Daniel]

Framing is everything and everything is framed.

 

Don't forget it.  If you do, propagandists can paint a detailed picture, frame it, put it on a wall, and the audience will never realize there's an entire world outside of their awareness, outside of the frame of the picture which is being painted for them.

[Daniel]

3 hours ago, NaturaNaturans said:

I am talking about you as in individual and not you as in a jew. 

 

I am not the subject of this thread.  PM sent.

[Nungali]

6 hours ago, NaturaNaturans said:

Can I ask you something? Why do you feel entitled to being viewed as special? I am talking about you as in individual and not you as in a jew. 
 

edit:

and what do you hope to achieve with this thread? What is the topic here

 

lets see it for what it is .

 

Its a thread singling out one member  and linking them to a mental disorder  and doing it in a daniel passive aggressive ever so 'polite' suggestive Mr Sealion way .

 

Thats Daniel for ya ! 

 

Is that even within the rules and ethics of daobums ?  

 

What could he hope to gain ?  Self assertion , a feeling of superiority .   Struth mate ... he hasnt even done this to / about me  !

 

I mean WTF  ... what a strange person .

[Nungali]

2 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

I am not the subject of this thread.  PM sent.

 

No , you clearly tagged NN as the subject and who this is directed at .,

 

Go on ... try to worm your way out and explain, at length. how you are just  posting about a subject and not a person .... that you tagged .

[Daniel]

52 minutes ago, Nungali said:

No , you clearly tagged NN as the subject and who this is directed at .

 

What NN write about "not wanting to read an essay" was what prompted the thread.  Thus he was tagged.

 

Edited July 8 by Daniel

[Daniel]

53 minutes ago, Nungali said:

try to worm your way out and explain

 

It's very simple and straight forward.  Nothing wiggly or squirmy about it.

[Daniel]

57 minutes ago, Nungali said:

Its a thread singling out one member  and linking them to a mental disorder

 

You're over-reacting, Nungers.  You have lifted "over-reacting" to its maximum.  If you need that to be happy.  Please continue with my blessing.

[Nungali]

1 hour ago, Daniel said:

 

What NN write about "not wanting to read an essay" was what prompted the thread.  Thus he was tagged.

 

 

Wow ... someone not wanting to read an essay is 'cognitive distortion '    ! 

 

I would have thought his  choosing  that he doesnt want to was more a response to the way you have been treating him , including your continual claims, one of which recently he simply asked you to show proof of  and your response was 'no' .

 

Was your refusal ' 'cognitive distortion '     too , becasue you 'chose not to engage ' ? 

[Nungali]

1 hour ago, Daniel said:

 

It's very simple and straight forward.  Nothing wiggly or squirmy about it.

 

The only straightforward thing about it is you started converse about something ,  then you 'did your thing' , then you seemed to develop some 'attitude' or weird series of responses to NN , then you made a thread tagging him suggesting all sorts of psychological issues , and want it here for everyone to see .

 

  Cognitive distortions are involved in the onset or perpetuation of psychopathological states, such as depression and anxiety.

 

yeah, simple and straightforward .

[Nungali]

... and I am the one over-reacting am I .

 

    I am equally amused at your antics when you call 'everyone's attention '  to something  .  

 

" Please everyone, take a look at the bullshit that is being posted by Nungali. "

 

 

I got a new job for   you at Daobums ;

 

 

 

[Daniel]

34 minutes ago, Nungali said:

Wow ... someone not wanting to read an essay is 'cognitive distortion '  

 

Avoiding detailed information contributes to cognitive distortion.

[Daniel]

36 minutes ago, Nungali said:

he doesnt want to was more a response to the way you have been treating him ,

 

he asked me a question, but is avoiding a detailed answer.

 

36 minutes ago, Nungali said:

he simply asked you to show proof of ...

 

something I did not claim.  I can't be expected to have evidence for things I never wrote.

[Daniel]

27 minutes ago, Nungali said:

.. and I am the one over-reacting am I

 

Yes, you've admitted to having a condition.

[Daniel]

29 minutes ago, Nungali said:

Take a look at the bullshit that is being posted by Nungali.

 

Correct.  What you posted, Nungali, was bovine excrement.  You stated the pentagram was egyptian, then the very next post contradicted yourself.

 

[Nungali]

3 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

Correct.  What you posted, Nungali, was bovine excrement.  You stated the pentagram was egyptian, then the very next post contradicted yourself.

 

 

 

That is not what happened .  You are just stating that here .

 

You tried to  show .... something .... elsewhere and it didnt work  there either .  I was responding to the question about where the pentagram first appeared  , now that might be wrong as I have not cross checked  the dates with the hieroglyphic form and the Sumerian or Chinese  first pentagrams . And would be happy to admit I was wrong  if proof is shown that it is not the oldest form .

 

But you cannot show the post where you claim I then said  that the  Egyptian one  was not the  the oldest form , thus contradicting myself . ... because I never did

 

If you could find that you would cite it .

 

instead of making it up in your won words  and posting it in another thread you made .

 

You still seem confused about the difference between a pentagram and the symbol of your own religion . 

 

- and it was not just me that was pointing that out to you in that other thread , a few posters noticed it .

 

Its all very strange    ..... perhaps you need a break for a while  ? 

 

 

 

 

[Daniel]

3 hours ago, Nungali said:

That is not what happened .

 

It is.  I posted a screenshot, which you, of course deny.

 

[Daniel]

3 hours ago, Nungali said:

Its all very strange    ..... perhaps you need a break for a while  ? 

 

I'm not affected by your bullying Nungali.  You can't push me away from this forum like you do to others. 

 

Just like last time, when you were caught talking out of your ass, and I showed you, you started lying and putting on a circus performance to distract from it.  That's when I put you on ignore.

 

 

[Daniel]

Chains of Probability are ALWAYS decreasing in certainty.

 

This one is possibly one of the most common cognitive traps that I have noticed contributing to false conclusions coming from internet researchers operating outside their field of expertise. The individual feels they have many many points of evidence for their criticism or conclusion, but, the pieces of evidence are not actually increasing the certainty of the proposition because the data-points rely on each other to be significant.

 

The best examples of this come from conspiracy minded individuals.  They collect vast amounts of examples of the conspiracy, but, each individual example is utterly insignificant until it is brought together with all the others.  The key to identifying this cognitive fault is recognizing that the individual examples have no inherent connection to each other until the individual, the conspiracy theorist, creates the connection, themself.  When that connection is made by the individual, that signals the individual data-points are relying on each other in order to be significant.  Because of this, adding more examples does not increase the certainty of the conspiracy theory.  It is always decreasing.  It's simple math.

 

For example, Let's say:  I have 2 pieces of evidence which are supposed to be supporting a conspiracy involving mail fraud.  1)  A postal truck went missing from an overnight staging area.  2)  The manager of the staging area is a disgruntled employee who ash the opportunity to cover up the conspiracy.  Bringing these two data points together do not increase the likelihood that there is a conspiracy.  It actually reduces the probability.

 

The postal truck goes missing?  Let's assign that 50% odds this is producing mail fraud.

The postal manager is disgruntled?  Let's assign that 50% odds this is producing mail fraud.

 

Probabilities don't add.  They are products.  They are producing a likelihood.  And that is where the faulty thinking is coming from.  The conspiracy theorist is adding, when they should be multiplying.

 

In the conspiracy theorist's mind.  Two bits of evidence which are 50% likely to produce their conspiracy should be added which results in 100% certainty.  But they should be multiplying.

 

50% certainty * 50% certainty = 25% certainty.  When the data-points rely on each for significance, in a chain, the probability is always decreasing.  But the conspiracy theorist is not doing the math.  I see this happening often with outsiders doing internet research.  They're not necessarily conspiracy theorists.  But the outside internet researcher wants to prove that even thought they're not in the community which they're criticizing, they're accusations should be taken seriously.  So they amass many many examples from their internet research, but, they neglect the simple fact that each of those examples is decreasing the probability of their proposal not increasing it.

 

 

[Daniel]

Beware Drawing Conclusions from A Distance:  The smoke is not a fire. It's a cloud.

 

This is also a cognitive trap that internet researchers fall into.  Because their information comes from the internet on a screen it's easy to forget how far they are from the events which they are learning about.  Anytime a person is making a conclusion which ends with some form of the conspiracy theorist's favored expressions:  "where there's smoke there's fire" or in America there's another expression about a duck:  "It's walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's a duck", the audience should be cautious. That is only true if the individual is close enough to *actually* see how the duck is walking and hear how the duck is talking.   However, internet researchers are usually getting commentary about what an individual said, or commentary about what people are doing.  They are not seeing it themself.  They are not hearing it themself.  They might see a picture, but, they can't see what happened to produce the outcome.  Instead a reporter is commenting on what happened.  The audience is far from the action.  But they forget that, because the screen creates the illusion of proximity.

 

From a distance, the smoke, and the duck, are just clouds being created in the mind.  It's cognitive distortion.