It's rational, you see... So what?

I have always considered myself to be a rationalist, questioning everything and analyzing reasonably, using facts. I must admit that it has helped me solve quite a range of issues, staying calm and looking at facts, therefore avoiding any nonsense.

But recently I discovered, that it cannot take me the whole way. There have been occasions, where I have thought out everything, all facts checked, every derivation of arguments checked, but still it doesn't seem right. What's the matter then? I thought about it and realized, that everything that can be derived rationally is related to the human mind. It is reasonable, calm and if done correctly, always gets you the right theoretical conclusions. But the point is that they are not always applicable in practice. The reason is fairly simple: human evolution has given us not only our brilliant minds but our feelings, too.

People do things just because they feel so, having no proof whether it is going to work or not. It also means, that they leave some things undone because of the same reason. That is why every rationally derived idea may not work in practice: people just feel it is wrong and oppose - something that could be of the biggest drawbacks of feelings and intuition. But that is not all of it. We need that intuition for our everyday life, I'm quite sure that human species would have been perished long time ago without it. Decision made based on feeling is much faster than any rational discussion. Imagine 2 cavemen fleeing from a lion. They reach a cliff with a long drop to a lake. By the time our first caveman calculates the probability of survival, the other one have already jumped, taking the risk. Our first cavemen will be dead 100% but the other caveman could get lucky and successfully avoid being crushed by lion's teeth. That's called an advantage, which could be the cause of the existence of our feelings and intuition.

Therefore, whatever rationally derived idea we may have got, it is important to check whether it is going to work in real world or not. Too many times have I heard ideas proven to me using facts and solid arguments, which I can't deny and have to accept. But now I know that in the end I can still disagree, smile and answer: "So what?"

The boy who did not want to get a medal

Last few months I have been battling against my class teacher on whether I should, or should not get the silver medal, awarded to those who have worked diligently throughout three years. Strangely enough I am on the side who thinks that I should not get the medal. I may have lost a battle or two meanwhile, but in the end I think I won the war. Today they threw their main force at me, using different teachers and techniques, even cheap shots like using my conscience.

Why do I resist then? To put it simply: I haven't got a good answer for a simple question - Why should I? There is no use of couple of grams of Mendelejev's 47th element for me. Neither do I need it for future studies nor do I feel the need inside. Quite opposite actually, deep inside I feel that it is not right for me to get this medal, is it because I think I don't deserve it or just the laziness to do something for it, it doesn't matter - I just don't want it. Later another reason rose, when it became an opposition between me and my teachers - I had to stand up for myself and for what I believe in, even if it was just for the heck of it.

Today I think they had their last chance at me, they have to make some decisions or something today. If they won't give me the medal, then I'm glad of winning and staying true to what I believe, if they still give me the silver medal, well... I will have one hell of a laugh. Whatever happens, I'll be glad to be remembered as the boy who did not want to get a medal.

This was more of a part of my life than something really thoughticious, but I still felt that it had to be said.

Movie review: The Avengers

Before seeing this movie, I decided to get familiar with its main characters: Thor, Hulk, Iron Man and Captain America by watching the newest movie of each individual hero. After I had seen those I was sure of one thing: they either nerf Thor and Hulk or Captain America will look like a complete wuss in the Avengers.
Well, they did both - Thor was nerfed to a puny demigod, which was even mentioned during the film even though he is a god and... Captain America was more of a wuss than I dared to imagine. I was wrong of one thing - they made Hulk stronger, much stronger than he should have been. I perhaps might forgive them messing with an epic myth of Thor by making him a hero of the USA, but they should have been consistent with power levels which they defined.

Movie overall was actually quite humorous, more like a comedy than a normal super hero movie. It was fun to watch totally helpless Captain America or the complete inconsistency in the characters' nature. Of course it had enormous amount of special effects, which I don't mind when I'm watching a non-thoughticious movie, but it lacked the imagination I had seen before in other Marvel movies. The plot was quite predictable, but as I mentioned I wasn't hoping for anything thoughticious anyway. All in all, another example of the egoism of the USA, the country which will always stand between the bad guys and world's end.

PS: I still decided that I'm not going to forgive them the way they took an epic Scandinavian legend and dragged it into mud. Old Scandinavians believed into something much bigger than a weakling with hammer and cape.

Disputes

I have a principle which may be naive, but it is something I try to follow in my everyday disputes. I see a dispute as a discussion, where the most important goal for both sides should be to get nearer to the truth by perfecting the aspects of an idea or theory that is being discussed. It doesn't matter which side you're on, but what does matter is that you won't be trying to win at any cost.

What both sides should do is to take their opinion of the idea and test it against the opposite one, represented by the other side, to see where are its flaws and weak spots. Should there be a moment when you notice, that your opinion doesn't hold water, then it is time to change your point of view. But that doesn't mean the dispute is finished, continue protecting your initial opinion and try to search for flaws in your new point of view. By finding flaws and fixing them, the opinion of the matter gains more value, it is stronger. At the end of the discussion if you changed your point of view then you should, for good manners, tell the other side, that you agree with his point of view by stating the reasons why, which still has nothing to to with the pleasure of winning.

It may sometimes happen, that the participants are not equal and one has way more arguments to support his theory than the other. This is a good situation for the one with weaker arguments, because he or she can learn from it, change his point of view and therefore get nearer to the truth. Although the other one might be less motivated, because there could be no gain for him or her. This for example often happens in school, between teacher and student. 

This is all quite bright and shiny as a theory, but which rarely works in practice. It all goes well until the people involved are reasonable and somewhat intelligent, on almost every other case it fails miserably. Why? The principle has two main weak spots, one being the part of changing the point of view and the other not trying to win at any cost. There are two things that mostly happen when one involved in the dispute understands that his side of the idea is not quite true: he or she gets personal and starts insulting the other one or simply rejects logic. This is often a dead end. At this point it is most reasonable to stop the discussion and move on to something else. The reason why people cling to their side might be that they fear to be wrong. Being wrong, feeling stupid is something we all try to avoid. Well, in this case people should understand that when having a discussion, being wrong is normal and it is actually a good thing, because the newly obtained theory is stronger than your previous one, therefore they just got wiser. This also covers the 'winning at any cost' part.

Most of my ideas and theories have went through the fire of dispute, sometimes coming out alive and stronger, sometimes a bit specified or sometimes as the exact opposite. But that is the magic of it, now I can be sure, that each of those ideas or theories is now stronger than it was before regardless its current state. Whenever I get the chance to debate over something I take it trying to get most of it. I also really enjoy the process as long as my opponents are reasonable and calm.

I hope this was as thoughticious for you as it is for me.

My very first blog post

I think it would be appropriate to start by defining the new word I created:


thoughticious
adjective

• used to describe an idea or thought that one finds pleasant to think about

• an idea or thought that has potential to be developed further or to be discussed

For me the blog is a great way to write something down and make it accessible for whoever is interested, so treat it as such. I will also post some reviews of more important movies I watch.

I won't promise that everything you read here will be thoughticious for you, but they could have been or are for me and that's why they are here.