Bias and Value in Thought Processes

Fruiteloop

Community Member
MBTI
????
Enneagram
7
As per @TerryHauck suggestion:

We should make a thread that outlines how this works:
1. reasoning vs logic.
2. Confusing interpretation for truth observed or truth experienced
2. Extrapolating from what is disagreed with to what else Will likely be disagreeable
3. The assumptions we make in reasoning
4. The values or core attachments that we argue from and protect

The key point I think exemplifies the problem is the skills each person has in maintaining balance in their emotions well realizing or not that not everyone reasons in a different way from themselves.

Not everyone is going to be against you just because they disagree with you.

There is often the perception that disagreement = bullying.

Bullying does happen but rather at higher levels of disagreement where misunderstanding goes into the extreme. So little kids will bully more because they understand less and some adults will bully because they reached a limit in what they can tolerate and explain to others. Most people want to be understood more than they want to understand others because in the past this was the case for them and anything different may seem unfamiliar creating disequilibrium.

The more different people are or the more people cannot reach certain points of agreement the more they feel a disequilibrium and it comes out as an emotional disturbance. The subtle clues are in the fact that we generally have people keep a distance from those that disagree with themselves as this keeps us safe and secure in our minds. Fighting is bad so we avoid fighting by not talking about our differences that would make us consider things uncomfortable to us thinking about them. With those that do like to fight, most people see them as people to be avoided. So if anyone becomes too much trouble they are placed in that category in the other person's mind that cannot handle such thoughts being forced onto them. Unfortunately there are people that need to be right and this does turn into bullying but people sometimes cannot tell the normal discourse has a purpose which is to understand different perspectives without becoming involved emotionally and they simply cannot do it. So this will make people not understand that it is ok to talk about subjects sometimes but create a disillusionment of what can be discussed. It is simply a matter of what has put them beyond their limits in the past and made them have a disequilibrium, reinforcing an emotion on some issues they hold to be of importance because they get push back in the first place. People will want agreement and not disagreement and work hard to find that agreement making it an exception to listen to others on only those areas they can handle at any given time.

So it is like a self boundary on what people can and cannot discuss.

Depending on what they avoid and what they feel must be understood by others.

It is a psychological part of a person not to overreach but at the same time demand comprehension from others.

Rarely is is just about understanding others but wants other to understand them. So a distance is created by hurt feelings.

Sometimes a person can step back and distance themselves from themselves to see what is actually going on but emotions do not often let people do this.

Learning to listen is a tool for helping oneself not because in such delemias. People have problems listening and this inability does not help them.

We want to feel secure so the way we do so is keep around us people that listen to us, agree with and help us. That is the majority of people.
 
I
As per @TerryHauck suggestion:



The key point I think exemplifies the problem is the skills each person has in maintaining balance in their emotions well realizing or not that not everyone reasons in a different way from themselves.

Not everyone is going to be against you just because they disagree with you.

There is often the perception that disagreement = bullying.

Bullying does happen but rather at higher levels of disagreement where misunderstanding goes into the extreme. So little kids will bully more because they understand less and some adults will bully because they reached a limit in what they can tolerate and explain to others. Most people want to be understood more than they want to understand others because in the past this was the case for them and anything different may seem unfamiliar creating disequilibrium.

The more different people are or the more people cannot reach certain points of agreement the more they feel a disequilibrium and it comes out as an emotional disturbance. The subtle clues are in the fact that we generally have people keep a distance from those that disagree with themselves as this keeps us safe and secure in our minds. Fighting is bad so we avoid fighting by not talking about our differences that would make us consider things uncomfortable to us thinking about them. With those that do like to fight, most people see them as people to be avoided. So if anyone becomes too much trouble they are placed in that category in the other person's mind that cannot handle such thoughts being forced onto them. Unfortunately there are people that need to be right and this does turn into bullying but people sometimes cannot tell the normal discourse has a purpose which is to understand different perspectives without becoming involved emotionally and they simply cannot do it. So this will make people not understand that it is ok to talk about subjects sometimes but create a disillusionment of what can be discussed. It is simply a matter of what has put them beyond their limits in the past and made them have a disequilibrium, reinforcing an emotion on some issues they hold to be of importance because they get push back in the first place. People will want agreement and not disagreement and work hard to find that agreement making it an exception to listen to others on only those areas they can handle at any given time.

So it is like a self boundary on what people can and cannot discuss.

Depending on what they avoid and what they feel must be understood by others.

It is a psychological part of a person not to overreach but at the same time demand comprehension from others.

Rarely is is just about understanding others but wants other to understand them. So a distance is created by hurt feelings.

Sometimes a person can step back and distance themselves from themselves to see what is actually going on but emotions do not often let people do this.

Learning to listen is a tool for helping oneself not because in such delemias. People have problems listening and this inability does not help them.

We want to feel secure so the way we do so is keep around us people that listen to us, agree with and help us. That is the majority of people.


Is there a specific context of which we are evaluating these interactions?

IE internet

I think anymonoity on the internet allows people to explore parts of themselves they don't normally feel comfortable expressing in real life. This can give them a false sense if security with exploring their emotions creating the idea that they are simultaneously open and closed about certain things.



Or in general I might define what you are describing as a balance of being grounded but open.


ClosedOpen
GroundedGrounded + Closed
Has a stable understanding of reality but may resist reconsidering it.
Grounded + Open
Has a stable anchor while remaining willing to examine, question, and revise their understanding.
UngroundedUngrounded + Closed
Rigid, defensive, or detached from evidence; may cling to an unstable or inaccurate understanding.
Ungrounded + Open
Highly receptive to perspectives and possibilities but may lack a stable basis for evaluating them.
Notes

  • Groundedness = how firmly a person remains oriented toward reality, evidence, and what they actually know.

  • Openness = willingness to consider perspectives, possibilities, and evidence outside one's current understanding.

  • They are separate dimensions, not opposites.

  • Being grounded does not require being open.

  • Being open does not guarantee being grounded.

  • Grounded + open allows someone to seriously consider another perspective without automatically adopting it.

  • Grounded + closed can become rigidity.

  • Ungrounded + open can become easily influenced or destabilized.


IE

Be certain about what you know but being willing to discuss it, evaluate it, and even question it.


Granted there are things that a person does not want to discuss in certain situations and contexts or certain people. There is also recognizing your limits while being open to discussion outside of them. I think this recognition is good because it allows you to constructively challenge those limits without the discussion becoming chaotic.


"Most people want to be understood more than they want to understand others because in the past this was the case for them and anything different may seem unfamiliar creating disequilibrium."

This statement is interesting. I think there is a third dynamic which is to understand a thing being discussed without regard to to people involved. Too a degree, we still need to understand intent in order to agree on what we are actually discussing. In other words your understanding and my understanding is only considered where it is relevant to the things being discussed.
 
Back
Top
public:PAGE_CONTAINER::breadcrumb