Discussion in 'Just Talk' started by Deleted member 33931, Jul 28, 2017.
1. People shouldn't listen to their gut, but should use reason instead?
2. The British people shouldn't have been given a vote on Brexit?
The first point seems difficult to put into practice, and inefficient too. Gut instinct is useful for making fast decisions (probably not a great idea for voting though).
The second sounded very patronising.
But it was a short interview so it's unfair to judge his thesis based on a ten minute (croaky) chat.
Buy his book and give a book review DA.
Which bit? All it it - precisely.
Hard to put in to practice? Yep - nigh-on impossible in our current climes. But that's no reason not to try.
Inefficient? Well, nothing compared to the outcomes of not putting it in to practice. (Yes - yawn - I'm talking Trump and Brexit).
Patronising? Possibly. Isn't it impossible not to be, considering who and what we are talking about?
True. I concede the point.
I already agreed that "gut thinking" was not a good idea for political decision making.
It sounded like Professor Dawkins was arguing against it in general.
Someone's going to need to read the book to find out though.
Is that a rational argument or an emotional argument? I only accept rational arguments. May I see your data?
We are immersed on a daily basis with the 'data'.
Spookily enough, Dawkin's chat this morning coincided with a book review I'd just read and that I was planning to make a wee post on - the theory of the mind's 'two systems' of thinking.
And, yes, system 1 - automatic and intuitive - served, and serves, us well in our day interactions, but fails us when more complex judgements are required - the type of which was rarely required in our evolution. Sadly, for the majority, system 1 is the only one they ever act on.
Anyhoo, another time.
To paraphrase, "In your heart, you know (that's not) right."
What was the topic being discussed, Brexit or his deplatforming?
Neither really. It was about reason based decision making.
He (obliquely) used Brexit and President Trump's election as examples of where people make decisions on an emotional rather than rational level.
The "deplatforming" wasn't mentioned. Nor should it be here if we don't want another ban eh?
He has this book out. So really it was to tell his disciples that there's a newer testament.
Oh - that is clever. It's like a little paradox.
Anyhoo, could you please change your avatar - it really makes me uncomfortable.
I know that isn't rational of me, but...
Why these avatars of right wing conservative leader types (well Chump is no leader by any stretch of the imagination)
Much prefer a photo of someone like Sarah Haider for whom I have tremendous respect.
You gave no clues in the topic name or your post what you were talking about.
I think it was a ruse to smoke out radio four listeners.
A trick to identify your fellow wine-drinking, fair-trade-buying, art-gallery-visiting, middle class liberals who might be lurking in the forum.
...and I fell into your trap. Damn. I'm going to have to watch that.
So if someone says "viking" I must remember not to mutter "north utsire, south utsire".
I'm an R4 listener and last time I checked I conform to none of those stereotypes.
A tea drinking, bean buying, beach visiting, no class anarchist maybe
Honestly, not at all.
And no clues required. It is exactly as it appears - Dawkins spoke on t'radio this morning, and every single word made sense. I agree with it, wholeheartedly.
As for my 'fellows', yes, I would consider myself to be fairly liberal.
Sounds like Dawkins is another bad loser.
No, you're not.
a. Favoring reform, open to new ideas, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; not bound by traditional thinking; broad-minded. See Synonyms at broad-minded.
Nah, I haven't turned into one of them, yet.
I hope you're not hinting that such a hellish fate awaits all who listen for too long?
Was the interview on 'AM'?
Oh, I see what you mean.
Separate names with a comma.