Deepstash brings you key ideas from the most inspiring articles like this one:
Read more efficiently
Save what inspires you
Save all ideas
Human beings tend to have two kinds of conflicting mindsets:
Our Higher Mind and the Primitive Mind always have a tug-of-war like conflict. The degree of the conflict can be placed in a spectrum, which is called a Psych Spectrum.
If the Higher mind is in control, we are placed higher in the Psych Spectrum and have the Primitive Mind under check. If we are placed at a lower degree in the Psych Spectrum, then the Primitive Mind is under control.
If we are low on the Psych Spectrum, our Primitive Mind is in charge, which means:
Truth-based mindset judges others by the way they think (HOW), while confirmation based mindset judges others by WHAT they think.
Truth based mindsets also have original viewpoints based on actual, objective reasoning, derived from the concept of first principles.
Confirmation-based mindsets are not concerned with truth so they are not having any original viewpoints, and only analogy based reasoning.
The Unbiased scientific thinker strives to arrive at the truth using knowledge and conviction in equal measure. His vision is clear but he believes that obtaining real knowledge is hard and the world is a complicated, foggy place.
Whereas when we go to the bottom of the Psych Spectrum, we see that Truth is not important; only sticking with existing beliefs is required. The vision is foggy, but the belief is rock solid.
Upwards of the Psych Spectrum, we see objective thinking and lack of ego, ready to accept the truth after we find it, rationally and by following an unbiased process.
As we go down the Spectrum we start to see flawed thinking and a stronger self-image, as preset and confirmed beliefs rule, not the truth.
It is a process. As each of us is essentially getting better in our thinking, maturing to grow up psychologically, we are climbing to the higher rungs of the Psych Spectrum.
While we are in the process of going towards the Higher Mindset, we can never discard the primitive mindset totally.
SIMILAR ARTICLES & IDEAS:
Many well-known problems of human reasoning disappear once you get a group of people together and let them talk about it.
It's a good way to see your ideas refuted or let stronger ideas win the day. Although there’s a risk of group think and conformity pressures, if you take a large and diverse enough group, you’re more likely to be exposed to the best reasoning, which will tend to win out over the majority opinion.
...doesn’t happen because you’ve studied some abstract logical form and come to valid deductions.
It happens because you know enough about how the world works to rule out certain possibilities as being unlikely or impossible.
This isn’t just false modesty or fishing for reassurance; some people do believe that they cause every bad thing all or most of the time.
Blaming yourself when something goes wrong might, relates to a general tendency to make internal attributions for failure in which you see yourself as inept, foolish, or irresponsible. That tendency might motivate you to attribute your successes to external factors, such as fate, chance or luck, as well.
Theoretically, anyone who intentionally practices an immoral act is culpable regardless of the consequences. But in most cases, people sign up for what is called “moral luck”.
Moral luck is the belief that you should hold someone to blame only if the action causes harm to others, not for their intent, and according to it, those whose actions bring harm are more culpable.