Ask MetaFilter questions tagged with reasoning

Looking for a video series. Narrator was male with British accent. All illustrated. Each about 5 to 8 minutes long.

querty — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 00:22:56 -0800

Looking for a video series. Narrator was male with British accent. All illustrated. Each about 5 to 8 minutes long. I don't remember if I saw one of the videos on Youtube or Dailymotion, but the series of videos were about logic, reasoning, critical thinking, and one of the topics had bits regarding the modern yellow dessert banana introduced by grafting.

What Makes a Dubya 2000 Vote an Understandable Decision?

WCityMike — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 09:38:18 -0800

I'd honestly like to know why half of America voted for George W. Bush in 2000: what their reasoning was. Please note right off the bat: I'm not asking this in order to encourage mockery of, or lambaste, those people who voted for George W. Bush in 2000. Quite the contrary: I am actually asking this in order to try to fuel an attempt to get rid of a mindset that does mock and lambaste them. (2004 was a different matter, as far as people's reasoning was concerned: the terrorist attack introduced the meme, appropriate or not, that Dubya was needed to continue to be tough on terror, that it was patriotic to vote for him, and so on. So that meme was there and can explain among other things the 2004 win.)

But in the 2000 election, patriotism while under attack was not a theme available to Dubya yet. Yet he got a huge part of the country. The precise vote count and the election controversy doesn't matter for this question: he convinced nearly (or over) half the country that he would be a good President.

My question is: why? Is there a way that this question can be modeled where that half of America doesn't come off as looking bad?

A few days ago, in order to write a comment in a thread (that ended up being deleted), I ended up digging up via the Internet Archive an old web post I wrote the first weekend of December 2000.

That made me realize this question was in my mind and had never been answered, and that it was really coloring my opinion of the people who live in this country with me towards the heavy negative. All that evidence was available before the election took place, if I was able to write that essay a few weeks after the election. Why didn't it count in the public eye? There's about ten to twelve good and even media-juicy stories, any one of which you would think would have sunk his campaign. Why didn't it?

Since the 2000 election, so for eight years now, my answer has been one that paints an extremely nasty picture of HALF of the country. "Those who voted for Bush in 2000 are fucking dumbasses who didn't bother to research their vote." Complete with the hostile anger implied by "fucking dumbasses."

I imagine some of you are going, "Yeah, that's exactly how I feel, they are dumbasses." But that's not what I want your answer to be! I don't want this thread to be a pile-on for Bush voters. I don't want to think that half of America are fucking dumbasses. I have walked around with anger and with cynicism, and while I'm not seeking to swing all the way over to the other pole of things ("Charrrrliiiiieee!"), I am trying to get a better framework — free of preconceptions made angrily a long time ago — of parts of my worldview. I think the world is filled with a lot more kindness and nobility than I gave it credit for, and I think I need to start thinking better of the world in general.

So in order to do that, I want to figure this out. I want to know why people thought about it and decided to themselves that George W. Bush would be a good President, a better one than Al Gore would. And, moreover, why that decision was made with such evidence as to have that decision repeated in such massive numbers that the 2000 election was so damn close. I don't want my explanation to be "nation of dumbasses" or "sheep led by media trends" or "neocon manipulation" or other cynical nastiness anymore, so I am trying to get a different perceptual framework of the event.

It doesn't necessarily mean that media trends or neocon manipulation wasn't at play. But I just want to get a handle on why it would be a understandable decision for half of America to make back in 2000.

Anyone?

Does the study of math sharpen critical thinking skills?

jason's_planet — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 12:07:16 -0800

If a man’s wit be wandering, let him post a question about mathematics and reasoning to MetaFilter. The quote that inspires this question is

“If a man’s wit be wandering, let him study the mathematics.” – Francis Bacon

Is Bacon’s recommendation accurate? Does the study of math sharpen the critical thinking and reasoning skills? I ask because I’m kind of . . . intellectually lazy. I don’t think things through as much as I should. I kind of blurt out opinions based on gut feelings and personal prejudices. I want to get into the habit of thinking and am wondering if there are tools available that will sharpen the mind the way that free weights and kettlebells can sharpen the body. And if math might be one of those tools.

Many thanks in advance.

Does anyone in the public eye use correct logic in arguments (anymore)?

geoff. — Wed, 24 Nov 2004 13:26:55 -0800

I have, per my Jesuit education, received too many logic courses. Many times I recognize people making the simplest of logical fallacies. Most often the slippery slope (if gays marry, then people will want to marry animals next) or the straw-man argument. I guess my question is, how valid is the medieval logic in our world today? I notice logical fallacies all over the op-ed and in everyday conversation to justify causes. I was beat over the head with the importance of using correct logic, but does it still hold validity? I've never seen the TV debates ever call each other out using logic. I'm not trying to ask a far out philosophical question, so more inside. I realize it is both impossible and not expected that everyone have an intimate knowledge of all logical fallacies, but I guess just because of how political the atmosphere has been around here and the media -- it begs the question if I'm the last person to have taken any logic courses. Seriously, has anyone seen someone in the media retort with "that's argument by consensus, a fallacy" or something similar? Maybe someone with news experience ever reject something based on illogical premises? Or is logic really not all it is said to be? I understand that most shows like "Crossfire" and columnists like Ann Coulter are mostly theater, but it would seem so easy to just shut them up by responding with simple logic. Why is this not done?

How to improve spatial reasoning?

sid — Sat, 21 Feb 2004 23:20:45 -0800

Does anyone know of exercises/games (or other methods) to improve spatial reasoning? [more inside] Although I'm pretty good with words and okay with numbers, anything involving manipulating or traversing 3D objects in my head leaves me in a lurch. Some symptoms of my disability:

-I get lost very very easily - I find it difficult to orient myself and I have little to no sense of direction. I guess most people make a 'map' in their heads but I tend to go by landmarks and 'feel'.

-I can't judge how big of a tupperware container to put leftovers in - they always end up too big or too small.

-Still can't park the car properly.

- I'm rubbish at physics and physical chemistry - I only get good marks in these subjects after tons of practice.

Is there anything I can do to get better at this stuff? I'm thinking exercises involving manipulating 3D objects in my head but I don't know where to go to find such exercises or if they would actually help.