Viewing a response to: @thecryptofiend/re-sigmajin-the-dwin-fallacy-in-defense-of-the-flag-part-ii-20170101t232801101z
If you're talking about kyle vs steemsports, I would say that it's true that we often object to things and justify it any way we can, using rational arguments if it makes sense to do so. So I think the idea of "acting irrationally" is a red herring, it's whether or not the arguments (re: objections) are true, rational and relevant, i.e. that they stand.
author | personz |
---|---|
permlink | re-thecryptofiend-re-sigmajin-the-dwin-fallacy-in-defense-of-the-flag-part-ii-20170102t001950476z |
category | voting |
json_metadata | {"tags":["voting"]} |
created | 2017-01-02 00:19:51 |
last_update | 2017-01-02 00:19:51 |
depth | 2 |
children | 5 |
last_payout | 2017-02-02 11:24:21 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 355 |
author_reputation | 42,452,361,038,560 |
root_title | "The Dwin fallacy(In defense of the flag part II)" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,136,141 |
net_rshares | 96,027,318,111 |
author_curate_reward | "" |
voter | weight | wgt% | rshares | pct | time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
thecryptofiend | 0 | 15,101,771,043 | 1% | ||
sigmajin | 0 | 80,925,547,068 | 100% |
I'm not talking about any individual - I'm talking about how we all believe we are rational after the fact. I would recommend listening to the [James Altucher Podcast](http://altucher.stansberry.libsynpro.com/rss ) it is episode 200. We make up our minds based on mostly emotional impulses and make up logical reasons to back them up later.
author | thecryptofiend |
---|---|
permlink | re-personz-re-thecryptofiend-re-sigmajin-the-dwin-fallacy-in-defense-of-the-flag-part-ii-20170102t002423186z |
category | voting |
json_metadata | {"tags":["voting"],"links":["http://altucher.stansberry.libsynpro.com/rss"]} |
created | 2017-01-02 00:25:03 |
last_update | 2017-01-02 00:28:48 |
depth | 3 |
children | 4 |
last_payout | 2017-02-02 11:24:21 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.016 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.005 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 342 |
author_reputation | 323,603,913,866,384 |
root_title | "The Dwin fallacy(In defense of the flag part II)" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,136,167 |
net_rshares | 643,000,438,534 |
author_curate_reward | "" |
voter | weight | wgt% | rshares | pct | time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
smooth | 0 | 560,276,545,975 | 1% | ||
sigmajin | 0 | 82,723,892,559 | 100% |
I think I will listen to that, thanks. To respond for the moment, I think that's a bit evasive, I don't believe you make that statement without reference to any individual. Also "emotional impulses" could be understood to undermine human decision making a bit too generally here. From what I currently know, the emotional aspect (I say think instead of impulse) isn't majorly guiding. But I may stand to be corrected.
author | personz |
---|---|
permlink | re-thecryptofiend-re-personz-re-thecryptofiend-re-sigmajin-the-dwin-fallacy-in-defense-of-the-flag-part-ii-20170102t014730098z |
category | voting |
json_metadata | {"tags":["voting"]} |
created | 2017-01-02 01:47:30 |
last_update | 2017-01-02 01:47:30 |
depth | 4 |
children | 3 |
last_payout | 2017-02-02 11:24:21 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 417 |
author_reputation | 42,452,361,038,560 |
root_title | "The Dwin fallacy(In defense of the flag part II)" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,136,642 |
net_rshares | 97,825,689,280 |
author_curate_reward | "" |
voter | weight | wgt% | rshares | pct | time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
thecryptofiend | 0 | 15,101,796,721 | 1% | ||
sigmajin | 0 | 82,723,892,559 | 100% |
Thanks for the response and I mean no offence but I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with many of the things you say:) >To respond for the moment, I think that's a bit evasive, No it is a statement of fact. You can read what you like into my statement but I think it says more about your thoughts than mine. To explain further I was talking about how people generally act and what I had in mind was the anger people feel towards Steemsports but it was not a particular individual I was thinking of. Further as far as I'm aware Klye only objected to the Steemygames thing not Steemsports hence my response. >I don't believe you make that statement without reference to any individual Exactly but the important point is that "you don't believe". That is an independent process from my thoughts and what I was thinking. I would suggest that is perhaps a projection of your own thoughts but that would be my "belief":) >Also "emotional impulses" could be understood to undermine human decision making a bit too generally here. Sorry I think you missed the point. I disagree I am not saying it is always the case but I think it applies often when people have a very strong response to something. I will elaborate a bit more below:) >From what I currently know, the emotional aspect (I say think instead of impulse) isn't majorly guiding. But I may stand to be corrected. If you do some research you may well find that you will be. It is actually a fascinating area of psychology and neuroscience which also in some respects ties in to the idea of free will. I am not saying it is always the case but I think that emotional reasoning is something we should all be aware of. Further it is not just about emotion but also unconscious "feeling" which is not exactly the same. It is what people call a "gut" feeling. I think for a lot of people who object to "Steemsports" it is due to such a gut feeling which they then rationalise to try to sound more reasonable because they don't consider it socially acceptable to just come out and say they don't like it. You see this sort of thing all over the internet. A person has a gut dislike of "x" but they don't feel comfortable expressing it either openly or even to themselves so they build up a whole set of rationalisations to support the dislike. The rationalisations are a result of the decision not the root of it. I hope this makes more sense and also I hope it doesn't come across to aggressive - I love a good discussion but my intent is to be friendly and not aggressive. Sometimes it is hard to convey the tone right in text:)
author | thecryptofiend |
---|---|
permlink | re-personz-re-thecryptofiend-re-personz-re-thecryptofiend-re-sigmajin-the-dwin-fallacy-in-defense-of-the-flag-part-ii-20170102t023243028z |
category | voting |
json_metadata | {"tags":["voting"]} |
created | 2017-01-02 02:33:21 |
last_update | 2017-01-02 02:33:21 |
depth | 5 |
children | 2 |
last_payout | 2017-02-02 11:24:21 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 2,623 |
author_reputation | 323,603,913,866,384 |
root_title | "The Dwin fallacy(In defense of the flag part II)" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,136,849 |
net_rshares | 82,723,892,559 |
author_curate_reward | "" |
voter | weight | wgt% | rshares | pct | time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
sigmajin | 0 | 82,723,892,559 | 100% |