The Fallacy Of Debate
Grendel
All that is fear... Join Date: 2002-07-19 Member: 970Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, NS2 Playtester
All that is fear... Join Date: 2002-07-19 Member: 970Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, NS2 Playtester
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">Why this forum is so deliciously ironic</div> I'm good at manipulating people.
This was something I learnt at a relatively early age, turning on the charm full-beam when visitors came around to the house. Frequently my coffers would be swelled by family friends slipping me the odd note or two and giving me a patronising pat on the head. I quite happily accepted this, being fully aware of which of the two of us was more conscious of the realities of the transaction.
Skip forward many years and I've spent a large chunk of my adult working life in two fields: customer service and sales. To be good at either, you need to possess a keen understanding of what it takes to completely change someone's mind, usually in a five to ten minute window of opportunity. But these are fairly ad hoc situations, where you can "bluff" someone.
But I've always thought of myself as a logical kind of person.
Two years ago, I happened across an old psychology textbook that was kicking around the house. In it I came across a study (one which has been repeated numerous times) of people's responses to questions, designed to test which parts of the brain were accessed during the decision making process (If anyone can find a link to one of these studies, please post it).
Essentially, the researchers wired up a series of individuals to an EKG machine and asked them questions, varying from "What is your favourite flavour?" to "Who will win the Superbowl?".
The results were unequivocal. Brain activity was focussed in the amygdala and surrounding regions, i.e. the areas of the brain that are responsible for emotions. The only times during the questioning procedure that the subjects' higher, rational brain functions were being used was when they were asked to <i>rationalise</i> their decisions (i.e. explain why they made those choices). The net result of the study was to conclude that human beings base their decisions on emotion, not logic.
It was like a veil had been lifted from my eyes.
The irony of this was that not only had I read about this sort of study on a number of occasions before, but that it also fitted 100% with personal and professional experience. I had simply <i>refused</i> to believe it before, because it failed to fit in with my desire to perceive myself as a rational individual in an irrational world.
Why was I prepared to accept this, when previously I had been in chronic denial? Well, part of it was simply to do with age. With experience comes the realisation of one's own flaws. A younger person lacks the historical perspective and spends most of their early life trying to establish their own identity.
Another reason was my experience as QA Lead for NS. Alongside the main part of the role (finding, classifying and reproducing bugs), testers give a certain amount of opinion-based qualitative feedback. It becomes readily apparent when you examine this sort of feedback, that an most of it is based on spurious logic designed to support an emotional opinion, rather than a sensible conclusion based on solid data. In the past I too have been guilty of this. This is one of the reasons why in general I no longer provide game analysis on NS.
(This is why accusations of the "Dev team not listening" are 100% correct. They don't have the time to go through the emotional verbiage and work out what is a real problem and what is simply an emotional outburst.)
To meander towards the point:
Throughout life we build associations, both positive and negative. Those associations can be extremely hard to break. They affect the way we perceive the world around us. This is why people polarise into camps like "conservative" and "liberal" and find it hard to reach common ground. We associate certain types of politics or behaviour or people with certain positive and negative emotions and consequently anything associated with them takes on a similar connotation.
Everything is subject to these rules, even logical debate. Some of us will have grown up with a positive attitude towards people who argue their case in a passionate and emotive way. For example, if you have grown up going to Baptist church, you are more than likely to have a positive emotional response to emotive reasoning and flamboyant characters. Whereas the reserved and comparatively bloodless Kerry will more likely than not be associated with a distant and uncaring government or perhaps as having a sly and untrustworthy nature.
Conversely, if you have grown up in an austere environment, associating a quiet demeanour with a more positive connotation, you'll find rhetorical types noisy, brash and potentially unstable.
So if you take these basic facts of human psychology into account, by trying to convince someone with logic you are going to fail, <i>unless</i> the subject of your entreaties happens to be conditioned to have a positive emotional response to logic.
If they are positively predisposed towards logic, then the skill with which they construct their logic is going to have more of an impact on your decision than any inherent value in their arguement. If they associate the use of logic with intellectual bullying, then all you are going to achieve is to strengthen the negative association that they have with logical debate.
So the very basis of these forums (that they are a place for reasoned debate to take place) is entirely dependant on your fellow posters' willingness to agree with you to begin with and them sharing the same values/emotional responses. If they do share these values, then they will likely agree with you anyway. If they have a different value set to you, then by the very terms in which you couch your argument, you will be ensuring that your opinions will not converge.
This was something I learnt at a relatively early age, turning on the charm full-beam when visitors came around to the house. Frequently my coffers would be swelled by family friends slipping me the odd note or two and giving me a patronising pat on the head. I quite happily accepted this, being fully aware of which of the two of us was more conscious of the realities of the transaction.
Skip forward many years and I've spent a large chunk of my adult working life in two fields: customer service and sales. To be good at either, you need to possess a keen understanding of what it takes to completely change someone's mind, usually in a five to ten minute window of opportunity. But these are fairly ad hoc situations, where you can "bluff" someone.
But I've always thought of myself as a logical kind of person.
Two years ago, I happened across an old psychology textbook that was kicking around the house. In it I came across a study (one which has been repeated numerous times) of people's responses to questions, designed to test which parts of the brain were accessed during the decision making process (If anyone can find a link to one of these studies, please post it).
Essentially, the researchers wired up a series of individuals to an EKG machine and asked them questions, varying from "What is your favourite flavour?" to "Who will win the Superbowl?".
The results were unequivocal. Brain activity was focussed in the amygdala and surrounding regions, i.e. the areas of the brain that are responsible for emotions. The only times during the questioning procedure that the subjects' higher, rational brain functions were being used was when they were asked to <i>rationalise</i> their decisions (i.e. explain why they made those choices). The net result of the study was to conclude that human beings base their decisions on emotion, not logic.
It was like a veil had been lifted from my eyes.
The irony of this was that not only had I read about this sort of study on a number of occasions before, but that it also fitted 100% with personal and professional experience. I had simply <i>refused</i> to believe it before, because it failed to fit in with my desire to perceive myself as a rational individual in an irrational world.
Why was I prepared to accept this, when previously I had been in chronic denial? Well, part of it was simply to do with age. With experience comes the realisation of one's own flaws. A younger person lacks the historical perspective and spends most of their early life trying to establish their own identity.
Another reason was my experience as QA Lead for NS. Alongside the main part of the role (finding, classifying and reproducing bugs), testers give a certain amount of opinion-based qualitative feedback. It becomes readily apparent when you examine this sort of feedback, that an most of it is based on spurious logic designed to support an emotional opinion, rather than a sensible conclusion based on solid data. In the past I too have been guilty of this. This is one of the reasons why in general I no longer provide game analysis on NS.
(This is why accusations of the "Dev team not listening" are 100% correct. They don't have the time to go through the emotional verbiage and work out what is a real problem and what is simply an emotional outburst.)
To meander towards the point:
Throughout life we build associations, both positive and negative. Those associations can be extremely hard to break. They affect the way we perceive the world around us. This is why people polarise into camps like "conservative" and "liberal" and find it hard to reach common ground. We associate certain types of politics or behaviour or people with certain positive and negative emotions and consequently anything associated with them takes on a similar connotation.
Everything is subject to these rules, even logical debate. Some of us will have grown up with a positive attitude towards people who argue their case in a passionate and emotive way. For example, if you have grown up going to Baptist church, you are more than likely to have a positive emotional response to emotive reasoning and flamboyant characters. Whereas the reserved and comparatively bloodless Kerry will more likely than not be associated with a distant and uncaring government or perhaps as having a sly and untrustworthy nature.
Conversely, if you have grown up in an austere environment, associating a quiet demeanour with a more positive connotation, you'll find rhetorical types noisy, brash and potentially unstable.
So if you take these basic facts of human psychology into account, by trying to convince someone with logic you are going to fail, <i>unless</i> the subject of your entreaties happens to be conditioned to have a positive emotional response to logic.
If they are positively predisposed towards logic, then the skill with which they construct their logic is going to have more of an impact on your decision than any inherent value in their arguement. If they associate the use of logic with intellectual bullying, then all you are going to achieve is to strengthen the negative association that they have with logical debate.
So the very basis of these forums (that they are a place for reasoned debate to take place) is entirely dependant on your fellow posters' willingness to agree with you to begin with and them sharing the same values/emotional responses. If they do share these values, then they will likely agree with you anyway. If they have a different value set to you, then by the very terms in which you couch your argument, you will be ensuring that your opinions will not converge.
Comments
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Somehow i am feeling abused <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Your post was indeed quite a good read <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Even so, Grendle is right, when selling someone something, you need to be emotive when doing so. I was told to sell more Bullguard products (Yup, even engineers can be called upon to sell stuff in a small PC retailer), and I had to take a factual, yet emotive approch to selling it. Approch went as thus...
Me- Well, you've got Norton, Panda, and Bullguard. All of them are suitable for dial-up, seeing as you need to be protected well, but you don't want to have to spend hours downloading updates for everything.
Customer- I've never heard of Panda and Bullguard. Why are they better than Norton.
Me- Well all Symantec equipment is more expensive than most other solutions, due the the Norton brand being forced in to people's heads. If you just want an anti-virus, and nothing else, then I'd go for Panda. But, for the extra £10 that Bullguard is, you get a Firewall, and a remote backup location, which if you'd gotten this when you came in last time discussing this with me, then you would have saved about 3 hours of labour time in recovering your data from your accidently formatted hard drive. For the sake of ten pounds, it could potentially save you hundreds, especially if your grandchildren want to format your PC every 3 months.
See, emotive, yet factual... Damn I'm good!
Civil disagreement is the key to finding the better way.
However, poking people with sticks because they called you a poo-poo head is also wrong. But then, so is name calling.
That's about all I can come up with. Thanks for taking the time to write it though.
Anyone in the UK with Sky, just watch the Parliament Channel, and watch the UK MP's bickering in the House Of Commons. That is not a debate, it's an argument.
Is there a difference? Yes there is. A debate is made in a civil manner, and is continued to be classified as such, until the debate breaks down. Then we get House Of Commons syndrome.
Thank God for disagreement. Discussions would be so boring without it.
Civil disagreement is the key to finding the better way.
However, poking people with sticks because they called you a poo-poo head is also wrong. But then, so is name calling.
That's about all I can come up with. Thanks for taking the time to write it though. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I can see the point you are making (which has nothing to do with discussions, logic, the nature of debate or anything that wasn't touching your keyboard when you typed your post) and I can honestly say that not only do I disagree, but I find the subject of your post laughable.
Sophistry is all very well and good, but when engaging in it, one should ensure that you're capable of living up to it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Sounds like a lamentation for the lack of consensus.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Is this an emotional response or logical? Why?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I can see the point you are making (which has nothing to do with discussions, logic, the nature of debate or anything that wasn't touching your keyboard when you typed your post) and I can honestly say that not only do I disagree, but I find the subject of your post laughable.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Is this an emotional response or logical? Why?
Not quite sure how his self-compliment involving his manipulation skills fits into the main body of the discussion unless your saying that your good at deciphering a persons emotional influences and using them against that person in a debate, which is hardly appropriate behavior for debating and doesn’t really help covey your own opinion.
The only way you can really manipulate someone via an internet debate forum is if you find someone who is totally ignorant of the topic at hand. Why someone like this would be debating about the subject is beyond me, but without any preconceived notions to fall back on this person would be at the mercy of the first person able to take advantage of his sensibilities, knowledgeably or not.
I think you bring up a very good point, one that applies much more too real life then online debating. It would be interesting to go back through history and see how the experiences and preconceived associations of great leaders affected the decisions they made.
Thank God for disagreement. Discussions would be so boring without it. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You now know my purpose.
At the risk of hurting your feelings: AvengerX has been making you look sloppy. You've got a lot of catching up to do.
Au contraire, mon ami!
If you know if a certain person is more likely to accept a logical or an emotional aproach to discussing matters dear to them, you can get your opinion across in exactly the way, they like best, thus making them more susceptible to your arguments just because of how you say things.
That way you can still convey your opinion and make it more likely for the opposing party to consider it valid. If you do this, you are, in a way, already manipulating the other person because you are using information about them against them to make them accept your arguments.
If you can get away with this, without the other person noticing, you have mastered an important part of the art of manipulation.
People act and talk irrationally.
People don't listen to the opinions of the other side in an argument.
People don't change their minds.
Logic doesn't work unless people like logic.
Those who can rationlize emotions are generally our leaders, and those who can operate solely on rational thought are found doing math related functions (Engineering, Music, etc.)
My ego now mortally bruised, I can say the following ingenuously:
I hate this forum (you can smell the emotion fuming out of me like so much rotten vegetable).
I hate debate, I'm in it, at school. God, I bleeding hate politics, it's like the grown up version of youdiditnoyoudiditnoyoudidit playground squabbles, I've always hated it. If you look at some of my previous posts in this forum they're mostly nonsensical babble that is nonsensical. And a couple of pretty emotional responses -- I'll get to that later.
Now this is where your post comes in (and where I'll stop making new paragraphs every two lines). You got me thinking (it happens, occasionally), and here's something I want to add. I mean, you've got pretty much the most obvious (and the not so -- *points to NGE*) extrapolations and corrollaries and bebop sheeebop down, so here's what I think. I think, like a lot of people have pointed out, that there is a huge amount of irony swelling about to explode underneath this post, but I think the main part is in the original post. No offense I mean, I'm not sure you realized this, but there's an obvious endorsement of logical thought in your post. And of course, by saying that this forum is ironic (given that ironic has a normally negative connotation), you're pretty much questioning the practicality of this forum (and most debate/discussion) in one fell swoop.
Who came up with that phrase fell swoop? I didn't, but it has a ringing sensation. RINGGGGG.
Anyway, my argument (what's that stink, tis irony?) is that debate has a purpose, as lolfighter was about to point out. I hope to god everybody doesn't come to acquiesce (SAT word) to everything I say, that would be frightening, because I can't ever imagine George Bush advocating hot g4y anal sexzor. Now we talked about rationalization and all, and that's fine and dandy, but is that really so bad? I mean, we're social creatures, which just might by definition, not completely nullify any purpose discussion might have. What is the purpose of discussion then?
Why, rationalization! Take a moment, think about it. Do most of the discussions here have room for a logical approach, in any case? Short of divulging into a philosophical stupor with every thread, it's almost impossible to argue cogently one way or another about something like abortion, or MICHAEL F***ING JACKSON (oops did I put that in capital letters with the f-word in between i'm sorry) or **** marriage or even the war in Iraq. Has anyone here ever read Foundation? Remember psychohistory? Well let's face it, history is NOT a statistical science, and no matter how small or big our scope of argument is (the historians keep telling us we need a macrocosmic view), one side or another will be right, and the other won't be, and kudos to the winners, TEARRRRR to the loser. Debate, in its most prevalent sense on these forums, is not a logical approach to arrive at any conclusion, nor an attempt at excercizing intellectual muscles, but a recursive emotional response wherein each contributor merely reinforces his ideas through emotional playground squabbling (youdiditnoyoudiditnoyoudidit,ipresentthisevidencethatyoudidit,wellipresentthisevidence).
Now of course, there are the exceptions. Maybe some of you really like to burn away hours of day on these forums pressing buttons and stimulating little electronic wires to direct information to other computers and don't have any emotional insecurities that require compensation, but really, do you think it's those little electronic wires that need stimulating?
o-t:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Those who can rationlize emotions are generally our leaders, and those who can operate solely on rational thought are found doing math related functions (Engineering, Music, etc.)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Aside from the fact that this is maybe too wide a generalization, I'd agree with him. Here's an interesting paradox: Leaders must rationalize their beliefs in order to maintain the conviction required for the job. Ideally, philosopher kings would rule. But when you spend too much time thinking, part of your head asplodes, and you lack the conviction for leadership. Therefore, the most intellectual members of society must always pursue their lust for logic under the shadow of obsessive rationalizers. God, aren't I the most obvious person in the world?
Wow that was long.
I don't feel so bad about the size of my sexual organ now.
Also: Grendel, you need to become a Religious Cult Leader. I guarentee your success in that position to be in the high 90th percentile, easy.
<b>Everyone</b>, unless they are sitting down with a pen and paper and evaluating something numerically quantifiable, makes their decisions entirely based off emotion. Not some people, not sometimes. Everyone. All the time.
This is why health services use unambiguous clinical diagnostic tools which remove as much opinon as possible from an evaluation.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Example of part of the evaluation used for prioritising special needs wheelchairs:
"Does the patient have any bedsores greater than 1cm in diameter"
None - 0 points
Sores, but no greater than 1 cm - 2 points
A single sore greater than 1 cm - 4 points
Two or more sores greater than 1 cm - 6 points
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My point (apart from to dispel the myth that we think or evaluate things based on their logical merits) is to highlight the fact that you don't convince someone of something by appealing to their sense of logic, unless maintaing a pretense of logic is what will make them "like" your argument. My other point is that the idea of oneself as a logical individual is a seductive lie. You can believe otherwise, but I'd suggest you have a brief look at some of the thousands of pages of empirical evidence that specifically contradict such an assertion. If you are as logical as you think you are, then I'm confident that will be your next step.
Please mind the gap.
That's the whole point of debating, sales, customer service and in fact all human interaction based on the manipulation of others (you can call it what you will, but manipulation is what it is). You get people to agree with you by making them happy, by making them like you or your point or by making it so that it would make them unhappy to disagree.
Logic has no more place in a skilled raconteur's arsenal than racism, liberalism, conservatism or any other type of emotional flavouring. The dispassionate application of logic requires large amounts of time and evaluation. That simply doesn't happen over the timescales involved in human communication.
[Sidebar]What makes a leader?
A great leader needs three main traits:
1) The ability to utilise other people's emotions for whatever purpose you need.
2) Immense self-confidence.
3) The ability to delay gratification for extended periods of time.
That's it. Doubt the veracity of those three tenets all you like, but I'd be suprised if anyone with leadership experience beyond running a chess club would disagree.[/Sidebar]
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->2) Immense self-confidence.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd slightly change this to say "The ability to outwardly display immense self-confidence," but for the rest of it, you're right. I'm not sure that those are the only three traits a great leader needs, but I can't think of anything else at the moment.
I mean I was converted from a Christian to atheist, and conservative (politically, although this is more because of my parents beliefs than my own thinking) to moderate/liberal from internet discussions. I mean its not like any of my real friends are going to have a religious discussion with me. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> It's just not cool enough. It's too bad too, I think it's a real shame the average joe can't really talk about anything considered 'geeky' or whatever.
How many times have you heard someone say: "MAN I SUCK AT MATH!"
Like they are proud of it? Lots <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
It's not cool to be smart, it's cool to sell snake oil, be 'spiritual', and believe in tons of nonsense that doesn't hold up in the real world.
Sorry for the tangent <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
People act and talk irrationally.
People don't listen to the opinions of the other side in an argument.
People don't change their minds.
Logic doesn't work unless people like logic. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I disagree...
Joke.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->2) Immense self-confidence.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd slightly change this to say "The ability to outwardly display immense self-confidence," but for the rest of it, you're right. I'm not sure that those are the only three traits a great leader needs, but I can't think of anything else at the moment. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I conceed your points.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->2) Immense self-confidence.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd slightly change this to say "The ability to outwardly display immense self-confidence," but for the rest of it, you're right. I'm not sure that those are the only three traits a great leader needs, but I can't think of anything else at the moment. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I conceed your points. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
^
|
|
Look everyone, I manipulated Grendel into coming over to my side of the argument! <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
CUCUMBER?
No, seriously, agreed 100%
I am guilty of arguing things in a logical or informed manner based completely on emotion, and am generally aware of this as I do it - but I try also to analyse <i>why</i> my self has come to this emotional conclusion, kind of taking an informed 3rd person view of my own mind (though I know that's hardly possible in a literal manner). It is this way I think that I can come to understand why I feel about things the way I do, and so perhaps can improve in that area. But, having said that, I'm also aware that there are probably even deeper underlying reasons for my decisions which I am too afraid/uncertain to voice, so this is kind of a pointless point I guess? <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> Way to play mind games with yourself...
For example, the only reason I may be posting this is to display some kind of intellectualism on my part, as I believe I can, to make myself feel better. The actual contents of this post could really be just an excuse to <i>have</i> the post, even though I have already thought about what I have said before today - but those thoughts are likely to be the product of an earlier 'excuse' for an emotional response, likely in another situation where I feel I can sound like I know what I'm talking about when really I am just sorting through my own head.
So I beg the question, am I actually making some kind of intellectual progress here or am I just piling dirt on top of my brain?
Now I ask the other question – is there actually any point in me making this post as it’s occurred to me that I don’t really <i>need</i> to since I’m pretty much only writing it for myself anyway.
Thanks, Grendel – you’ve screwed up my brain <!--emo&:angry:--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/mad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <3
The two Grendel sampled seem primarily emotional in nature. It seems a likely outcome, but I want to see the data for myself.
I really hope that my response to the question, "What is the result of 2 + 2?" is not based on my emotions. Now maybe the nature of my response would be based on my emotions, to decide to sarcastically respond incorrectly or roll my eyes at how such an absurdly easy question was posed toward me, but other than that...