I have never believed in the notion that "you're only as smart as the people around you," but perhaps it does have some merit in that the people you surround yourself with constantly can have a significant influence on how easy/difficult it is to obtain your ideal self. In other words, hang around with stupid people and it may become more difficult to maintain one's intelligence, and if you hang around intelligent people it may become easier, perhaps even provide you an advantage, to develop your intelligence. That seems sound to me.
Such is what I have been worrying about for the past few weeks; that is, whether or not if I am surrounded by irrational people that means my own psycho-epistemology is in danger. I do not associate with irrational people on a consistent basis purposely, but it is the case that I must deal with them for the time being.
There is one person I deal with on a regular basis that particularly worries me, however. His psycho-epistemology is so corrupt that despite his maturity he has the intellectual ability of a child, and, worse yet, he randomly switches between recognizing his fallacies and evading them. For instance, there has been much strife between us on the topic of the proper principles and applications of nutrition: I practice a high fat, high protein, and moderate carbohydrate diet while he practices a low fat, low protein, and high carbohydrate diet. We disagree most adamantly on the role of fat in nutrition. We'll call him Y.
After I had read part of Good Calories Bad Calories and began applying my conclusions to my eating I tried convincing Y that his dietary practices were mistaken and that he should reconsider them, but he rejected my views on the spot, invoking multiple logical fallacies in his defense, such as the appeal to authority ("That's not what my doctor tells me!") and the appeal to popularity/tradition ("That's not what everyone's been telling me all my life!"). Try as I might, he would refuse to give my views any serious consideration and condemned me for my "unhealthy" diet, once even going so far as to suggest that I might have a heart attack by the age 22 (I'm 21 now).
When we would have these discussions I would also make sure to ask for his justification for his conclusions -- only to find out that he doesn't have any. During the very start of the conversations he would act fully like the man who is entirely certain in his conclusions, but when I asked him how he knew what he knew he would grow hesitant, quiet, and start speaking in shorter sentences. When I press him further and expose his fallacies to him he does one of two things: he recognizes that he is engaging in fallacies and then attempts to change the topic of the conversation or end it altogether, or he completely ignores my points and restates his conclusions as if I had never spoken at all. Given a few good nights' sleep and he will reengage on an old subject as if it had never been discussed at all.
So here we have a man who, when unchallenged, states his conclusions with full certain tones; collapses into uncertainty and evasions when he is asked for justification, or else continues on speaking as if nobody is addressing him; and then a little while later throws his beliefs out again despite having had repeated and unfruitful discussions about them.
I almost literally cannot convince this person of anything in contradiction to his already established beliefs. He does not exercise reason and logic, and is therefore not open to them, so I cannot reason with him. Almost any time I apply a rational conclusion to my life it is followed by weeks or months of one-sided arguments about how uncomfortable Y is that I'm doing things that contradict his worldview. Our discussions advance nothing, but still every now and then Y brings forth repeated topics. Of course I obviously shouldn't deal with this man since he is so thoroughly irrational, but for the time being I must deal with him.
The thing I'm worried about is the health of my own mind given a recent development: during the past few weeks when he would ask me a question that would require extensive explaining -- and such explaining could only amount to a few sentences in order to establish a proof -- my mind goes blank and I'm nearly incapable of answering, even though earlier when I had formed my conclusion on the subject I had well in mind my justifications for holding such a conclusion. Just a few nights ago he asked me as to whether or not the consumption of nuts was healthy (ironic: he disagrees with me vehemently about fat and cholesterol but solicits my nutritional advice still) and all I could do was give him a yes or no answer. Whenever he asks me intellectual questions that I have given great thought to I suddenly cannot remember the details of my thinking and so give short answers or refuse to engage in the subject.
My theory is that my mind is "jamming" since I fully know that Y is so irrational that I cannot reach him, thereby making it a waste to utilize cognitive resources on him, but still I'm worried as to whether or not any actual damage to my psycho-epistemology may be occurring due to my extensive exposure to this person. It is frustrating to have a problem (Y's presence) and have no long-term means at present to be able to deal with it.
To defend myself I have limited my contact with Y, but even with that I am still in regular contact with him, which still leaves me open to the frustrations of dealing with his irrational processes. Is this sufficient action for the present? Should I be doing more, or perhaps something else? I have found that a continued, consistent advocation of my views (when challenged) wears Y out and causes him to engage less often, though perhaps not entirely.
Perhaps I ought to boost a book on logic up in the hierarchy of my reading list.
1. If you must deal with him, then can you limit your dealings to the "must" part and drop all other communications with him?
ReplyDelete2. In answer to your main question, I would say, based on personal experience, that such a situation, properly managed, shouldn't have any adverse affect on your mind. To the contrary, you might learn some valuable lessons -- such as never arguing about specialized scientific subjects when neither of you is an expert or never ever argue with an evader (unless there is someone in your audience you are indirectly addressing).
With diet -- and mine is radically different from yours -- I have found the best approach for me is to make the information available in some form, for example, . . .
http://anti-itisdiet.blogspot.com/2007/10/history-of-inflammation.html
. . . and then teach by example, without evangelism.
I think you should limit your conversations with Y to stuff like weather and small talk. Do not waste your cognitive effort on him. The logic book won’t help a lot since you already seem to be able to use it quite well and Y doesn’t use it at all. Perhaps you could suggest the book to him although somehow I suspect he wouldn’t read it.
ReplyDeleteAt some point just saying something like. “that is my informed opinion and I am not going to argue about this any further.” is probably indicated.
I’ve had similar experiences to what you describe as your mind going blank. Mental exhaustion, excessive repetition may be at least partly causing this as well as the mental jamming you suggest. It might be a good idea to have conversations with rationale people when you can as a possible counter to this.
“ironic: he disagrees with me vehemently about fat and cholesterol but solicits my nutritional advice still”
This is saying something very interesting about his psychology although what it is I am not exactly sure. At some level it seems he may recognize your arguments are valid and his are not and perhaps he may resent that?
Mr. Laughlin - 1. Yes, I could (and am) do that, but the difficulty is that even the bare minimum can be frustrating. There's a larger context I'm not revealing (due to it being personal) that makes even a few minutes with this person enough to grate on my nerves.
ReplyDelete2. Hmm, yes, there is a Mark Twain quote to that tone isn't there? Possibly paraphrased: "I've never met a person so stupid that I didn't learn anything from him."
duffne: "The logic book won’t help a lot since you already seem to be able to use it quite well and Y doesn’t use it at all. Perhaps you could suggest the book to him although somehow I suspect he wouldn’t read it."
I'm about 100% positive he wouldn't read it. A few months ago I was getting irritated with his constantly complaining of the prices of his medicines, in which he implied it was terrible of the drug companies to charge such a high price. After trying over and over to explain to him why prices were so high (the FDA's imposed operating costs) I finally grabbed the appropriate copy of *The Objective Standard* and pointed him to the proper article, but, with a bit of guilt on his face, he refused to read it, stating his doctor had already given him a lot to read. He consistently complains about being bored and having little to do, and here he is suddenly too busy with other reading to read an article.
"At some point just saying something like. 'that is my informed opinion and I am not going to argue about this any further.' is probably indicated."
Good idea.
"'ironic: he disagrees with me vehemently about fat and cholesterol but solicits my nutritional advice still'
This is saying something very interesting about his psychology although what it is I am not exactly sure. At some level it seems he may recognize your arguments are valid and his are not and perhaps he may resent that?"
I agree. He's a type of person that's terrified to apply his own judgment to his actions, so instead he depends on the feelings (and sometimes thinking) of other people. He knows I'm interested in health issues and so asks for my thoughts, but when my thoughts happen to clash with a greater number of people in his life he refuses to make a rational assessment of who's right and who's wrong and so instead goes with the judgments of the larger body of people.
Burgess:
ReplyDelete“With diet -- and mine is radically different from yours.”
This is not surprising and it emphasizes a point I often make when talking with people fanatical about specific diets. If you look closely at the scientific literature closely you find one thing that stands out the most is the substantial variability between people. This is one reason why epidemiological studies have to be so large in order to get significant results.
The best solution is individual experimentation - applying the scientific method to your personal diet. You seem to have done this well, ending up with a what looks like a pretty all around healthy diet and solving the problems you listed. If only everyone would take control of their diet and life to that extent.
Its amazing how much a simple diet change can do. It emphasizes how great a change you can make to your internal metabolism by changing what is fed into it.
Ben:
“He's a type of person that's terrified to apply his own judgment to his actions, so instead he depends on the feelings (and sometimes thinking) of other people.”
Wow. Sound like some stereotypical character right out of a novel. I don’t usually have to deal with people that irrational. Doesn’t sound like there is really very much you can do. I would second the advice to not evangelize.
I don’t think your mind is in any real danger unless of course you see this problem with other people on other subjects.
As far as diet is concerned, I think there are several strategies which will work, depending upon the metabolism of the person involved. It is quite possible that Y’s diet works for him, although from your description I suspect that he might not know it if it did. I guess, a diversity of good food, experimentation and listening to your body are always good advice. Also one of the major problems most people have is they simply consume too many calories.
I also think there could be a certain level of truth to the proposition ‘you're only as smart as the people around you’ of course it is not true in the literal sense but definitely if you are surrounded by intelligent people you have access to some of their knowledge and thought processes which you do not have when surrounded by less intelligent people. That can help you.
Steve D
"It is quite possible that Y’s diet works for him, although from your description I suspect that he might not know it if it did."
ReplyDeleteExcuse the late reply, but that's one of the things that irritates me the most: Y's diet is *horrible*. He's diabetic, obese (I'm almost a foot taller than he and yet we weigh almost exactly the same), can hardly walk more than a few steps before needing to rest, is losing his teeth, has heart disease, is developing memory problems, and so on. Sadly enough he resorts to the excuse that it's all a natural part of aging or his set-in-stone genes, and cannot be convinced otherwise.