Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    It has come to my attention that some people refuse to accept the truth when it is given to them in its pure and direct form.

    People mostly only want to hear what they already accepted in their head (i.e. confirmation bias). Why is that? Why are these people so anti-Plato, anti-truth? It seems unnatural to me, or is it?

    An example can be found here on TSR; people post their troubles anonymously (with nickname Anonymous) and then when someone offers them the truth and the solution to their problem, they ignore this and they only talk to the people who provided them safety blankets/lies around their problem.

    This problem has been around for ages and it still lives in people now: from the old medieval times "hear ye! hear ye! This man tells lies! I predict evil creatures that reign upon this land" to current politics. Lies, lies, lies, people eat lies. The truth is not appreciated and often stigmatized.

    What a peculiar behavior.. What's behind this?

    P.S.: I think I watched a video about this problem on TED but I can't remember the name of the video.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    What is 'Truth'?
    My truth may be very different from your truth as 'The Truth' is a very subjective thing.

    While confirmation bias is a thing, your statement was very much a generalisation and aren't you looking for confirmation that your opinion that people never accept the truth in fact a question designed to get people to agree with you that 'other' people are stupid and don't accept advice or true things?

    What is a good answer for one person may not necessarily work out so well for someone else and depends on an individual's beliefs, values, emotions, knowledge, opinions and perspective and memory.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alex_Rasdra)
    What is 'Truth'?
    My truth may be very different from your truth as 'The Truth' is a very subjective thing.

    While confirmation bias is a thing, your statement was very much a generalisation and aren't you looking for confirmation that your opinion that people never accept the truth in fact a question designed to get people to agree with you that 'other' people are stupid and don't accept advice or true things?

    What is a good answer for one person may not necessarily work out so well for someone else and depends on an individual's beliefs, values, emotions, knowledge, opinions and perspective and memory.
    I should have put a higher study level on my thread because this type of material is not for everyone. This involves higher levels of metaphysics.

    The truth, as you know if you've studied Socrates and Aristoteles, is an objective matter. The truth is verified by being non-contradictable, fully sound, fully proven. This is why many Ph. D.'s in philosophy fight to bring us the truth and the tools to get to it so that we can make valid decisions in our lives without the stench of subjectivity and misguiding. Opinions have no place in truth.

    I don't welcome liberal thinkers because they are hippies with a new coat. "Ohh, it all depends, it's all relative".
    People like that are a prime example of those who failed statistics 101. If you say "it depends" and "A is not B" as an argument, your professor will fail you and laugh at you.

    Serious thinkers are welcome.

    P.S.: if you have at least a Bachelor's degree in Psychology or Philosophy, you may discuss on this thread. Ideally I'm looking for people with a Ph .D.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 571122)
    The truth, as you know if you've studied Socrates and Aristoteles, is an objective matter. The truth is verified by being non-contradictable, fully sound, fully proven. This is why many Ph. D.'s in philosophy fight to bring us the truth and the tools to get to it so that we can make valid decisions in our lives without the stench of subjectivity and misguiding. Opinions have no place in truth.

    I don't welcome liberal thinkers because they are hippies with a new coat. "Ohh, it all depends, it's all relative".
    People like that are a prime example of those who failed statistics 101. If you say "it depends" and "A is not B" as an argument, your professor will fail you and laugh at you.

    Serious thinkers are welcome.

    P.S.: if you have at least a Bachelor's degree in Psychology or Philosophy, you may discuss on this thread. Ideally I'm looking for people with a Ph .D.
    Really? Discussion on the fundamental parts of the universe, existence and truth on TSR? Where the majority of people are students at GCSE or A-level, prospective university students and some alumni/postgraduates?

    I love a good debate, philosophy is entirely about questioning and debating both traditional and new ideas and theories such as the one about truth, but part of that cannot be to exclude anyone who voices an alternative idea or perspective... If it is true, there would be no room for debate or reasoning but the very fact that debates exist means that this illusive idea of truth remains just that: an idea.

    (Original post by 571122)
    people post their troubles anonymously (with nickname Anonymous) and then when someone offers them the truth and the solution to their problem, they ignore this and they only talk to the people who provided them safety blankets/lies around their problem.
    With regards to the earlier example given, people's problems are rarely so simple as to offer a single solution. If Anon posted due to wanting advice about relationship breakdown, there is no single answer or solution available that would provide alleviation of emotional distress and help in returning life to a state of being single, independent and confident.

    Can you give a more specific example of a time you have seen an Anon post where they ignored the best solution offered and instead took comfort in the posts of others going 'yeah I know how you feel, aren't they crap lol'?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alex_Rasdra)
    Really? Discussion on the fundamental parts of the universe, existence and truth on TSR? Where the majority of people are students at GCSE or A-level, prospective university students and some alumni/postgraduates?
    Ah, I must have had a skewed image of this forum then. I was expecting to find uni students in their second and third years, but not anything like GCSE/A-level..

    I love a good debate, philosophy is entirely about questioning and debating both traditional and new ideas and theories such as the one about truth, but part of that cannot be to exclude anyone who voices an alternative idea or perspective... If it is true, there would be no room for debate or reasoning but the very fact that debates exist means that this illusive idea of truth remains just that: an idea.
    It can be said that the objective truths (axioms) are valid within this (our observable) universe. For example, 1+1=2 and Einstein's version of gravity (more precise than Newton's).

    I am simply tired of seeing people trying to short-circuit a debate by saying everything is different and everything depends. You realize that you can attack any reasoning that way. In statistics, for example, you can't say "the weighted average of the population is x but I don't accept this as truth because element A in the matrix is not element B".

    Now, for the truth in law it's slightly more 'relative' (a course in which I also got an A): the truth is weighed upon a case by case basis. This is why the statue of justice has a scale and a sword. It is the symbol of 'to judge what is just'.

    About your statement: Socrates was against that type of thinking: democracy - and I quite agree with him. Just because the majority agrees on something or has 'a right' to bring something into discussion, doesn't mean it's valid. By allowing people to participate into what's valid (e.g. voting), the fundamentals of a government collapse and problems come into existence. Most people think they are doing good but in fact they don't know what they're saying/doing.

    While debates exist, so exist the very annoying type of people who go around proclaiming their "it's my opinion" sheep voice. Constructive debate simply cannot take place this way - and it's those people that I want to avoid because all the bring to the conversation is noise.

    As for my two cents, I wrote a paper on cultural and metaphysical studies and I received an A+ on it. This was for my senior year at university and it's something to be taken very seriously - I was not graded lightly. I had to discuss what culture fundamentally is (note: requires reading a lot of books on sociology and metaphysics), how it relates to the metaphysics of Newton and DesCartes and how it translates to today's governments and their fundamental pillars of politics. Discussion about this topic can go very far, so I was of course looking for serious, deep-thought answers.

    With regards to the earlier example given, people's problems are rarely so simple as to offer a single solution. If Anon posted due to wanting advice about relationship breakdown, there is no single answer or solution available that would provide alleviation of emotional distress and help in returning life to a state of being single, independent and confident.
    I don't see it as relative - I see it as pure logic: if solution A, then feelings B. However, humans are more complicated than that. Humans are illogical, which is something I dislike.

    Can you give a more specific example of a time you have seen an Anon post where they ignored the best solution offered and instead took comfort in the posts of others going 'yeah I know how you feel, aren't they crap lol'?
    I admit that the following examples might not be the best solution but I do believe that I had spoken some truth there, more so valid than most posts:

    post 1

    Note that I am in no way saying that these posts of mine are the best solution but as for now I have little time to look up the good ones. I've also posted too many times on too many threads to go out there and find my good posts again.

    What I'll do instead is give you an arbitrary example:
    Anonymous: "I am so depressed, my boyfriend broke up with me. How do I get over this?"
    me: "What you feel is a classic psychological symptom known as 'attachment'. All you have to do is realize you are fine without the object of attraction and you will be happy again".
    Easy enough, no? That's how I got over my first love anyway. It was logical, it was clear. I told my brain: "You were fine before her, so you are fine now".

    I'm sure that people don't accept valid advice because the modern brain is somehow rewired/brainwashed into accepting socially accepted ideas instead of valid, logical ones.

    Please note that the type of discussion I am after is a logically, scientifically sound explanation (rather than debate). I am very interested into how the brain works and why it works the way it does, in all its peculiar little patterns. This is why I came to this section of the forum, expecting experts on the matter - or at least, people who are more knowledgeable than me on the matter because it's most probably their major.
    Ultimately I want to know what it fundamentally is that wires our brain into accepting social norms instead of pure logic. It must have something to do with the logical processing part of our brain. I know it has to do with evolution as well.
    So.. let's get scientific, shall we?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Freud can explain why!

    defence mechanisms to protect their ego aka denial.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Fair enough, I can agree with science any day. And I agree that people are highly irrational beings where logic rarely gets taken into consideration.

    As for the brain, I am neither an expert on neurochemistry nor neurogenesis. Why the brain would rather accept a social norm or cultural belief over logical evidence and fact..? It depends on who you ask as once again, with people there is unfortunately no clear answer and in the case of how the brain works, I can say with confidence that even the experts don't know how or why the human brain works the way it does. A psychologist will tell you one answer and a sociologist another, as would one who studies anthropology.
    And people don't all have brains that work the same way, so one would be predisposed to follow the social norm while another might challenge it. The brain is both electrical messages and chemical-hormonal messages and this is tied to all the different regions of the brain and to memory centres which perform different tasks and work together to create a functioning human consciousness. However even our memory is imperfect and recall is tied to how we associate events; how the synapses in the brain create the network.

    Using your example of the girl who just lost her relationship but didn't get back to normal life with the nice self-command of 'I was fine and happy and independent before and I will be the same now.' Ok yes, logically the girl in question probably knew that she was happy before and would probably be fine at some point again in the future. But in that moment, she was suffering from the psychological effects of loss and grief. Memories both good and bad, plus reminders of the other person everywhere and the loss of the support of a boyfriend, it isn't just loss of a person, but loss of the impact they had to their lifestyle. Humans are social species. Creating and forming bonds and attachments is part of healthy normal development from a very early age. You are lucky in your ability to recover from loss by using a coping strategy involving instructing yourself to be happy again.

    Have you ever looked into the theory behind cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT)? A lot of that is involved in helping people cope, not by giving advice, but by changing the way people think and approach situations.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Findlay6)
    Freud can explain why!

    defence mechanisms to protect their ego aka denial.
    Interesting note, but Freud mostly didn't have empirical proof for his claims.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alex_Rasdra)
    Memories both good and bad, plus reminders of the other person everywhere and the loss of the support of a boyfriend, it isn't just loss of a person, but loss of the impact they had to their lifestyle. Humans are social species. Creating and forming bonds and attachments is part of healthy normal development from a very early age. You are lucky in your ability to recover from loss by using a coping strategy involving instructing yourself to be happy again.
    Ah but you see, it is very dangerous and mentally unhealthy to make a part of yourself dependent of someone else. What happens when that person leaves you? A part of you is destroyed and we can't have that.
    Most people have this problem but a few very bright ones don't go that silly path.
    This is why my ex girlfriend stated in the beginning of the relationship: "I am an independent woman and I don't need a man to be satisfied or personally wholly fulfilled. You are my addition, not my identity replacement." As you can see, this is a much more healthier relationship style.
    People shouldn't emotionally attach and exhaust each other in a relationship, although many fervently disagree with this and claim these are the fundamentals of a relationship.

    Have you ever looked into the theory behind cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT)? A lot of that is involved in helping people cope, not by giving advice, but by changing the way people think and approach situations.
    [/quote]
    I'll look into it, thanks.

    As well, thanks for all the useful information.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 571122)
    Ah but you see, it is very dangerous and mentally unhealthy to make a part of yourself dependent of someone else. What happens when that person leaves you? A part of you is destroyed and we can't have that.
    Most people have this problem but a few very bright ones don't go that silly path.
    This is why my ex girlfriend stated in the beginning of the relationship: "I am an independent woman and I don't need a man to be satisfied or personally wholly fulfilled. You are my addition, not my identity replacement." As you can see, this is a much more healthier relationship style.
    People shouldn't emotionally attach and exhaust each other in a relationship, although many fervently disagree with this and claim these are the fundamentals of a relationship.
    Yes I can agree that over dependence in a relationship has the potential to be both unhealthy and devastating. For some though, they get a lot of satisfaction out of codependent relationships. Personally I agree with you more, a relationship should be an addition and support, not something you are dependent on for physical and mental wellbeing.
    Avoiding attachment and loss altogether though? -I don't see how unless i go through life too afraid to live and love. and there are some relationships -eg.familial, that I welcome, one day there may be pain but in the meantime I am very happily attached to them.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.