How do they become grounds for erroneous reasoning?
Hi Q-1:
I do not know much about this topic, but I have learned a bit from discussions with knowledgeable people that there are some concepts not mentioned in your examples that might be relevant to your question.
It is frequently necessary for people to make decisions/conclusions on insufficient information, as well as failure to avoid non-relevant information that a person might think is relevant. One important way to minimize serious errors is to associate with any specific decision/conclusion a guess at the likelihood/confidence level that it is the right decision/conclusion. If you are on a criminal trial jury making a decision about the guilt of a defendant, your confidence level must be certainty beyond all reasonable doubts. If you are on a civil trial jury the criteria is preponderance of evidence, that is, the decision must be only better than 50% likely to be right. Other decisions/conclusions may be OK to use with a certainty somewhere between these extremes, but it is generally useful to choose a criterion for acceptable confidence. One contribution to "erroneous reasoning" is the lack of a well chosen confidence criterion.
Other decisions/conclusions may be OK to use with a certainty somewhere between these extremes, but it is generally useful to choose a criterion for acceptable confidence. One contribution to "erroneous reasoning" is the lack of a well chosen confidence criterion.
What do you mean by adhering to "a criterion"? Is this simply sound inferential, deductive, and abductive reasoning?
Have you read descriptions on the image? At least for some constructing an example that will show why the final conclusion of a reasoning will be erroneous is quite trivial.
Sorry I was not clear. By "criterion", in the context of my post, I mean a conscious sense of how confident you must be (either numerically or by whatever confidence categories you are comfortable with) before you make a decision/conclusion.
Have you read descriptions on the image? At least for some constructing an example that will show why the final conclusion of a reasoning will be erroneous is quite trivial.
Yes, I have read the description to the images, yet it is not trivial. Cognitive distortions can overlap and attain different affective states on a subject. I'm quite interested in the psychoanalytic aspect of their differing severity or level of overlap on one another.
Sorry I was not clear. By "criterion", in the context of my post, I mean a conscious sense of how confident you must be (either numerically or by whatever confidence categories you are comfortable with) before you make a decision/conclusion.
What do you mean by "confidence" here?
Thanks!
#9
Q-1
29
5
A follow-up question of mine is,
How do cognitive distortions reinforce their significance to an individual?
I would like you to respond to the following question with a percent number, which may if you wish include decimal places. For example: 99.9%
Q: How certain are you that the statement is correct?
When you consider your answer you may want to take into account that you might be an program in a computer simulation, and/or some other unlikely possibilities.
What this tells me is that you absolutely reject all the speculations that have been discussed in various places about the (very remote) possibility that the universe is an artificial intelligence simulation, and all the people on what seems to be the planet Earth are part of this simulation, together with all of the things these simulated people are simulated to see, hear, taste, smell, and feel.
I contrast my own philosophical thoughts about this as follows: I do not believe anything with 100% certainty. BTW, you may enjoy the movie "The 13th Floor". It is a very well done presentation of a story about such a simulation, except it is even more complicated.
What this tells me is that you absolutely reject all the speculations that have been discussed in various places about the (very remote) possibility that the universe is an artificial intelligence simulation, and all the people on what seems to be the planet Earth are part of this simulation, together with all of the things these simulated people are simulated to see, hear, taste, smell, and feel.
Oh dear. The Simulation Hypothesis is airtight. I just hope I'm not living in one, as that detracts from my statement about being a person.
