but forums are way cool. Mind if I drop some random stuff in here from time to time? I'm a bored cubicle dweller as you might have guessed.
I kind of dig pretend baseball and cog sci and like to find ways to correlate the two. There's this cat named Jonathan Haidt...you can google him...that says the following:
"Reasoning was not designed to pursue the truth. Reasoning was designed by evolution to help us win arguments. That's why they call it The Argumentative Theory of Reasoning. So, as they put it, "The evidence reviewed here shows not only that reasoning falls quite short of reliably delivering rational beliefs and rational decisions. It may even be, in a variety of cases, detrimental to rationality. Reasoning can lead to poor outcomes, not because humans are bad at it, but because they systematically strive for arguments that justify their beliefs or their actions. This explains the confirmation bias, motivated reasoning, and reason-based choice, among other things."
I add my own layer to this which is reason often takes the form of cause and effect narrative. That is, chains of assumptions rolled up into the form of a story. Now what Grey does (what you do, Grey, if you're reading this) particularly well is reason, which is to say, argue. You give really convincing explanations based on relevant evidence. When you think about it, being a writer, that's kind of the job anyway. You create a story and you give it some heft and some plausibility.
But how much do these stories, especially the well told one's distract us from the actual facts. In this case the numbers, the role of chance and probability?