Rationalisations that fly in the face of reason

[andrewfi]

[align=left]We see it all the time, especially, it seems, in the realm of guys chasing around the world after women who neither like nor understand them. It seems almost impossible to shake many of the memes that hold sway in this area of endeavour:[/align]

[align=left]They like older guys[/align]

[align=left]Language is not necessary to build a relationship[/align]

[align=left]She loves me[/align]

[align=left]It is not about the money[/align]
[align=left] [/align]
[align=left]They are are more beautiful than American women[/align]
[align=left] [/align]
[align=left]They are not fat[/align]
[align=left] [/align]
[align=left]They are more 'family oriented'![/align]
[align=left] [/align]
[align=left] [/align]
[align=left]All of the above are memes that quite demonstrably fly in the face of reason and yet many hold fast to these beliefs. Well, as it happens, there may well be a reason. Not a justification, but an explanation and it is due to the way we are wired up in our brains. But according t the author, those who are best able to examine the evidence tend to be the most successful in life.[/align]

[align=left]H. L. Mencken observed: "The most common of all follies is to believe passionately in the palpably not true."[/align]

[align=left] [/align]

[align=left]Anyway, here is the article I read this morning, the one that rang some bells. Enjoy.[/align]

[align=center] [/align]

[align=left]Monday, April 3, 2006 - Vol. 8 No. 66
In Today's Letter:
Comment: Evidence vs. Beliefs
Offshore: Swiss EU Tax Directive Comes Up Short
Wealth: Bernanke Surprise
Privacy & Rights: Secret Panel Can't Keep Quiet 
Evidence vs. Beliefs[/align]
[align=left]Comment by John Pugsley, Chairman of The Sovereign Society and leading author on economics, investment, and libertarianism.[/align]
[align=left]Dear A-Letter Reader,[/align]
[align=left]A few months back in The Sovereign Society Offshore A-Letter, I argued the case for value investing. I referenced scientific studies that didn't support technical analysis or market timing. Some readers strongly objected to my conclusion, but no readers addressed the question of my evidence.[/align]
[align=left]Similarly, over the years I've written extensively about individual liberty, and found myself puzzled when I couldn't convert followers of socialism, communism, or any other forms of big government to the principles of individual sovereignty. Once again, this in spite of the historical evidence.[/align]
[align=left]I've puzzled over this phenomenon throughout my life. Arguments for a free-market fail to sway those who believe in government intervention.  Evidence for Darwinian evolution fails to convince believers in religion. And studies showing the random nature of price movements fail to sway believers in technical analysis.[/align]
[align=left]It seems that evolution has endowed us all with wiring that demands we support whatever beliefs that have been "stamped" into our brains. This has been demonstrated by a recent research study at Emory University in Atlanta, a study that has potentially wide implications, from politics to religion to investments.[/align]
[align=left]The investigators used functional magnetic-resonance imaging (fMRI) to study a group of committed Democrats and Republicans during the three months prior to the last U.S. Presidential election. The Democrats and Republicans were asked to evaluate threatening information about their own candidate while undergoing fMRI to see which parts of their brains were activated. [/align]
[align=left]As reported by Emory, "...the partisans were given 18 sets of stimuli, six each regarding President George W. Bush, his challenger, Senator John Kerry, and politically neutral male control figures such as actor Tom Hanks. For each set of stimuli, partisans first read a statement from the target (Bush or Kerry), followed by a second statement that documented a clear contradiction between the target's words and deeds, generally suggesting that the candidate was dishonest or pandering. Next, partisans were asked to consider the discrepancy, and then to rate the extent to which the person's words and deeds were contradictory." [/align]
[align=left]Drew Westen, director of clinical psychology at Emory who led the study, said: "We did not see any increased activation of the parts of the brain normally engaged during reasoning, What we saw instead was a network of emotion circuits lighting up, including circuits hypothesized to be involved in regulating emotion, and circuits known to be involved in resolving conflicts." [/align]
[align=left]In other words, in most cases no amount of logic interferes with our strongly-held beliefs. The brain automatically rationalizes discrepancies in facts to support beliefs. Evidence that contradicts our beliefs fails to reach the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain most associated with reasoning (as well as conscious efforts to suppress emotion). The finding suggests that the emotion-driven processes that lead to biased judgments occur outside of conscious awareness.[/align]
[align=left]Do you and I succumb to emotionally-biased judgments when we have a vested interest in supporting our beliefs? Only when we find ourselves resisting the evidence. Success in life tends to be proportional to our willingness to examine the evidence.[/align]
[align=left]H. L. Mencken observed: "The most common of all follies is to believe passionately in the palpably not true." Beliefs, at least false beliefs, are an impediment to us all. [/align]
[align=left]Or, as Mark Twain put it, "It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so."[/align]
[align=left]JOHN PUGSLEY, Chairman,
on behalf of The Sovereign Society Ltd.[font="Times New Roman, Times, serif"][/align][/font]

[rose]

To reach from point A to point B one needs to keep his mind open, be able to accept new information and analyze it, no matter how illogical or ridiculous it might seem at first. That's why we need our head: not use it as a box  for keeping some organs, but to exercise our brain by thinking and analyzing.
Actually, it is a rather difficult task if one doesn't have a habbit to do it.

[andrewfi]

As the author suggests, the more emotional involvement we have, the harder it is to use reason. When one has a bunch of lonely, lost guys seeking the love of their life, it is easy to understand, on the evidence presented above, why so much desperate rationalising takes place. Mix in, as you point out, Rose, a large number of people, unused to rational thought, faced with circumstances where rationality is in great need and it is no surprise that some decide to simpy throw dice.

For me, the piece was insightful, although it was primarily referring to economic issues, not romantic ones.

[rose]

Ok, andrew, let's make an experiment. Since I don't know you well, I almost don't know you at all. The only thing about you I know is your strong opinion about "lazy" RW, by which really was kind of offended. I believe that your statement was too strong. Additionally, you generalized all this huge category of women into "lazy category". I don't know how much emotions you put into producing of this great idea, but you stay on it dead. What about turning on your reasoning and try to think that every single case is unique? Try to think that maybe the people who disagree with you have some point in their part of the argument, which deserves to be heard...
Don't answer me at once, think about it at least for 15 minutes, ok? And we'll see if you can use reasoning...
As to me, I know at this forum only one person with whom all my reasoning is totally dead. And you'll never guess who this person is.

[Bruno]

As to me, I know at this forum only one person with whom all my reasoning is totally dead. And you'll never guess who this person is.

ME ...

[Bruno]

I referenced scientific studies that didn't support technical analysis or market timing. Some readers strongly objected to my conclusion, but no readers addressed the question of my evidence.  

...  

The investigators used functional magnetic-resonance imaging (fMRI) to study a group of committed Democrats and Republicans during the three months prior to the last U.S. Presidential election. The Democrats and Republicans were asked to evaluate threatening information about their own candidate while undergoing fMRI to see which parts of their brains were activated.

[align=left] [/align]
I address the question of the evidence ...

It should be noted that these data have not yet been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal; all the information presented has been culled from non-scientific journalistic reports based upon interviews with Westen.

So, not scientific evidence of these work was presented... only a interview from usual journalist... until proved by test and result, the word of Dr Drew have no scientific value

But on the musical side, Dr Drew is a interesting man :

http://66.36.240.12/%7Ea000065b/drew/professor.html

[font="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"][size="2"][/size][/font]

Drew Westen
I'M A PROFESSOR
Songs for Mediocre Guitar and Inadequate Vocals
Drew Westen is a popular professor of psychology, who uses his psychological knowledge to manipulate students, patients, and audiences alike. Recorded mostly live at the U-Club, University of Michigan, before a predominantly live audience.

[font="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"][size="2"][/size][/font]
;)

[Bruno]

More funny :

How to spot a baby conservative[color="#0066cc"]
KID POLITICS[/color] | Whiny children, claims a new study, tend to grow up rigid and traditional. Future liberals, on the other hand

Code: [Select]

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1142722231554

[andrewfi]

Rose ~ In making the case in respect of women and language it should be realised that I was, of course, generalising. Life is like that, there is no way to be specific about everything. You know that and thus for you to take any offence, given that I was not addressing you and you were not a part of the group that was described in my remarks, is somewhat, shall we say, self indulgent? (And yes I am now addressing you!)

I was also making a strong statement, because frankly, most people do not begin to question their preconceptions unless you give them a good reason to do so. Intellectual capacity and readiness to expend effort work or thinking are not absolutes. For this reason, as I noted elsewhre, it may well be that many guys here are well matched with those women that they so strenuously defend.

But, let us look at the givens, the things that we can know about the situation:

All school kids in Russia are taught a language.
A large proportion of those learn English.
All students going to university must normally successfully complete a language course, usually, if not always, English, in order to graduate.

I had already excluded from my case all those who learned a language other than English whilst at school. I should also have excluded older women, perhaps those over 40 or so, on the grounds that they have had a good time to forget what they were taught and also because a couple of decades or so ago there was less emphasis on the learning of a foreign language.

So, if we take a universe that includes perhaps 80% of the women that guys are looking for, she is going to be under 35 years of age, often MUCH younger than 35! (not so long to forget her lessons) She will have been taught English and she will have had a daily opportunity to be exposed to the language, albeit that some TV programmes are easier to follow in English than others. Hereabouts, for example, we have 'LifeTV' which is religious broadcasting. This is very easy to follow behind the Russian overdubbing. Some other shows are much harder.

So, riddle me this. How does a woman who has been taught English for several years and, if a university graduate, supposedly reasonably fluent, manage to claim that she has no English at all?

It seems more charitable to assume that she is stupid or lazy than to suggest she is being dishonest. If you wanna go with dishonest, that's fine with me. Many people are lazy and many are a little dim. Many of those people are entirely delightful people, but they are still lazy, or dim...

I am still interested, but this is not the right thread, that nobody has answered my question about choices. This really is instructive as to the mindset of the men here.

Now, I have no emotional attachment to the issue. I am not importing a bride and I am not claiming to either 'know' or 'love' a woman with whom I can not talk. But I have had relationships with people with whom shared verbal communication has been very limited. I know by dint of comparison the differences and shortcomings. BUT, many of the guys here DO have a strong emotional atachment to the idea of marrying, knowing and loving a person with whom they can not communicate. Perhaps this the reason why this kind of issue raises a firestorm with very little solid basis in fact and huge amount of rationalising and accepting of weak excuses.

If you ask me 'can you feel affection for a person with whom you an not talk?' I would say yes. But I can feel affection for a pet cat or dog. We do not share a relationship of equals! Of course this also hearkens back to the post I made a couple of days ago in respect of the (mis)use of language in the US. I know there is a difference between the feelings of lust and affection that occur early in a relationship and those deeper feelings characterised as 'romantic love' that most would agree tend to grow with time and familiarity. I would warrant that I could fall in 'love' as imagined by many posters here, several times in a weekend...

Bruno ~ Thanks for your superfluous hit at Google. It think that, in reality, unless you were wishing to have a seriously pointless discussion, even you would agree that the empirical evidence supports the good professor's observations. We tend to become more attached to opinions and ideas in which we are most strongly emotionally invested. The experiment, as I understand it, only served to bear out the relatively common observation.

[Bruno]

It think that, in reality, unless you were wishing to have a seriously pointless discussion, even you would agree that the empirical evidence supports the good professor's observations. We tend to become more attached to opinions and ideas in which we are most strongly emotionally invested. The experiment, as I understand it, only served to bear out the relatively common observation.

Are you new on these forum ? Of course, politic is emotional and not rational... certainly more that relationship when i browse RWD... politic topic have always turn in kip fight... but i can see that about relationship, the big majority here ( not everybody ) can use the rational part of the brain... You justify your view on relationship by view of other on politic... You mix pig and cow...

[rose]

Andrew~ Maybe all your reasons right, but, remember, it was an experiment in which you were supposed use reasoning over your emotions... Instead of accepting the multiple probobilities and diversity of life, you again started insist on your point of view, using generalization, assumptions, and speculating the information in favourable for you direction. Ability to compromize, to doubt your own ideas, to step aside from your own opinion and to try to understand the point of view of your opponent are the first steps to reasoning thinking. Sorry, Andrew, you've failed it...

[swindoom]

Great stereotypying, generalisations and insults once again.

Maybe the real issue is you had problems which you were too lazy to overcome but of course it was the ladies fault for being lazy/dumb and you assume that this must be true for everyone else.

[FreddieK]

Thank you Andrewfin for your brilliant advise!  You have shown me the error of my ways!  I am going to dump my Russian Girlfriend and pursue my dream of moving to South Korea and becoming a Moonie..... now they know how to get married! :brightidea:

 

 

[Rvrwind]

I was a Moonie once or twice....oh pardon me that was mooner: one who moons others from the window of a car. Not quite the same thing is it? ROTFLMFAO

RVR-Canadian Cowboy/Agency Owner

[andrewfi]

Rose ~ read again what I wrote. It was not hard. I have no horse in the race. No emotional investment. The silly thing is that you agree with me.:huh:

Bruno ~ The article I cited came as a result of my work and interests. Google had nothing to do with it. This is a difference between learning and knowing and simply using a search engine, without insight, to bolster poor arguments. The stuff you Googled, in this case, simply demonstrated that you had not understood what was going on.

Swindoom ~ No insults, but of course generalisations. When you have the hang of communication, you know that, in communicating, one is usually referring to classes of things, people or ideas. Whilst accepting that all people are individual, even you would surely accept that groups of people tend to have identifiable behaviour patterns, often shaped by their culture and sub-culture and the common beliefs they hold. This is clearly the case among those chasing after Russian women and of course, although less easily observed by those who have little ability to comunicate, so do the available women that they seek.

Given that I am actually living in a foreign country and relating wth the people that you sought to marry, the suggestion that indolence was at the root of my insight seems a tad, shall we say, underthought!

FreddieK ~ I do not think I have suggested that people should NOT marry Russian women, nor have I suggested that they should marry Koreans. I think if you read with an eye to comprehension, you will understand that I am suggesting that you find someboody with whom you can communicate. I have also suggested that different people have different needs and different standards. My comfort zone, in terms of communication is, I know, at a different level to some of the other posters on this board, but my practical experience of actually doing and living what you are hoping to do is probably a worthwhile datapoint for those who have not yet had a long term relationship with a woman with whom they can not talk.

The strange thing is that, in general, it would seem that those who are married and who seem, on the best evidence we have, happy, generally suggest that communication and shared language are vital. Those who are still looking, have failed in relationships, or who are as yet simply window shopping, tend hold a contrary view.

 

[Turboguy]

a worthwhile datapoint for those who have not yet had a long term relationship with a woman with whom they can not talk.

The strange thing is that, in general, it would seem that those who are married and who seem, on the best evidence we have, happy, generally suggest that communication and shared language are vital. Those who are still looking, have failed in relationships, or who are as yet simply window shopping, tend hold a contrary view.

 
After the one I was out with yesterday in Moscow I think one who didn't speak a word would be a blessing,

Congratulations  since you are in that group you must have found someone we don't know about.  Great

 

[swindoom]

The strange thing is that, in general, it would seem that those who are married and who seem, on the best evidence we have, happy, generally suggest that communication and shared language are vital. Those who are still looking, have failed in relationships, or who are as yet simply window shopping, tend hold a contrary view.

What total and utter rubbish, you have obviously ignored posts you do not agree with. You want to pigeon hole everybody with your over simplistic generalisations based on limited personal experience.

You have a right to believe that non-English speaking FSU women are dumb/lazy and the men who persue them are even dumber/lazier but this belief and religious espousal shows you to be the dumb/lazy one.

 

[BC]

Arrogant?.. rubbish?

Tell that to this married guy with over 40 years experience living overseas..

Much of Andrews POV is quite valid IMHO.. 

[jb]

Andrew arrogant? 
Maybe...  
Posting rubbish? 
Certainly not... 

Andrew is simply not in the business of fooling himself into believing he can develop a meaningful relationship to a woman with whom he cannot communicate.  I'd suggest you not worry too much about Andrew's horse and start to pay more attention to how well you don't know the woman you are so infatuated with.

[swindoom]

It is total rubbish to post, non-English speaking FSU women are dumb/lazy and men who persue them are even dumber/lazier.

And he is on a very high horse indeed stating that because he thinks something is true for him then it must be true "everyone" else. It may make life easier only communicating with English speaking FSU women but in the long run the chances of success are still the same because the women are actually the same which is the point he will not accept.

The last time I was infatuated with a woman/girl I was at school, along time ago.

[BC]

swin,

It is amazing how easily some get upset even when using a common language in written form. 

Andrew clearly states: "No insults, but of course generalisations." in his reply to you.

Funny how so many newbies come to RW related fora to find comfort in a pigeon hole, but then refuse to enter claiming their relationship is so exceptional that long standing principles and simple common sense do not apply.

If you walk like a duck and talk like a duck..

[Bruno]

The strange thing is that, in general, it would seem that those who are married and who seem, on the best evidence we have, happy, generally suggest that communication and shared language are vital. Those who are still looking, have failed in relationships, or who are as yet simply window shopping, tend hold a contrary view.

Funny, i was with one shared language with my ex-wife ( French ) ... but this have not stop us to have a failed relationship... and she have learn a second shared language in the first year in Belgium but it have change nothing... try to make a good lie when you don't master a language... very difficult...

So, take a lady who have some base in your own language for ease the procedure but never take a master your language and  who can create good lie... razy advice but in the same way that your own advice... if you have a women who speak russian, ukrainian, german and have base in French and Chiness... don't you think that she will learn very fast english... yes, i remember, she is lazy because she have not lean the "english" language...

If i good read your reply, these time, i will be very succesfull in my relationship since we share 2.5 language... the .5 is because of some other languages that i have only some base element...

Language is only one side of the relationship dice... don't forget the other face of the dice... if you need a b!tch who speak english, don't need to go in Russia, you can find plenty of them in USA

[jb]

A big majority of American speak only English

Whoa there big boy, I speak other languages besides English, although the primary languages spoken in this house are English and Russian, I also am conversant in Spanish, and have a good working knowledge of pig-latin.  Do not underestimate the amount of Americans who know more than one language.  I know a huge number of Anglos who also speak Spanish.  Besides Spanish, many people studied French or German in school. 

No one graduates without at least two years of foreign language study here.  Those who retain it may be the exception, but everybody gets it.

[rose]

[/quote][/quote]Bruno wrote:

So, take a lady who have some base in your own language for ease the procedure but never take a master your language and  who can create good lie...

What if I cannot create a good lie even in my native language?

 

jb wrote:

No one graduates without at least two years of foreign language study here.  Those who retain it may be the exception, but everybody gets it.

[/quote]
Show me those "no one". Sorry, but this is one of the most faulty statements on this board.

From what I've seen for some native speakers even English is too tuff to learn gramma.

[jb]

Rose,

There are a lot of really dumb people here.  (Sometimes I think they are all here on this RWD board)  You can also drop out of school at the age of 16 without completing the courses necessary of a HS diploma.  Perhaps the people you know who have so much trouble with English grammar are those who did not complete their HS education.

That being said, in my state, two years of a second language is required for a HS diploma.  I don't think Texas is exceptional in this.

[Jack]

jb, have to admit there are some dumb people here but I would have to say, in my opinion, if I were to compare the average intelligence level of members here compared to other Russian discussion boards that the RWD would come out as the board with the overall higher IQ per member.
 
Now about this discussion about cultures, countries, speaking multi-languages. What do you call a person who speaks three languages?  Tri-lingual. What do you call a person who speaks two languages? Bi-lingual. What do you call a person who speaks one language? American.