Day 106,
I'm starting to realize that people use two reasoning processes in parallel:
1) A logical, plausible-sounding argument, usually the one stated aloud.
2) The actual, "emotional", soul-bound reason; the guardrails of our behavior.
The stated, plausible-sounding, "logical" reason is actually plausible and logical. That's why it's difficult to doubt another person, especially when they seem to be in earnest. They might actually believe themselves.
There are so many logical-sounding arguments for a given topic, many of which will contradict each other.
Why then, have you selected the ones you've selected? Of the dozens, you express *this* one?
The way to strip away the logical reason is to find contradictions and other use cases where they would not apply this logical-sounding reason, or where they simply will not apply it anywhere else in their life.
People drop their pet theory when it gets dismantled, and they then jump to the next one. It was never about the argument, it's about the narrative their arguments are defending.
Without getting too political, there's a reason why the argument of "a big corporation has the right to do what they want" jumped from one political ideology to another, all in the span of ten years. Jumped from X-ian bakery to Big Tech to Pride month. The reason is that this talking point defended a practice, and we deploy the point if we like the practice.
Kevin Samuels attacked the logical-sounding reasons of his call-ins, but he also projected the 'soul-bound' reasons onto them, right or wrong. In fact, the whole manosphere projects women's "nature" onto them anytime a woman reports a loss in her dating life. Who knows if their explanations are truly valid? But I do know that they are usually uninformed guesses.
In practice, I'm realizing that I might have been able to bullshit myself for a long time about why I avoid certain behaviors.
For example, I speak quietly to people, one-to-one, even in groups. I'm not always heard in a conversation.
I have been telling myself that it's because 1) I don't want to impose on other people, when it's really that 2) I don't want to be judged or overheard by external people who would judge.
Or, if I'm not as outgoing or conversationally dominant, it's because 1) I don't want to scare people who are smaller than me (women, children, smaller men), when it's probably really 2) I don't want to challenge people and risk being attacked, physically or otherwise.
Before having these thoughts, an easy way to "bust" my false perceptions about myself has been to ask the following questions:
If I think I am XYZ:
1) Do I have the life and results of somebody who is XYZ?
If I think I want XYZ:
2) Do I behave like someone who wants XYZ?
If I say that I want to become a boxer, can I truly say that I've spent my week in the way that a top boxer would?
I'm starting to realize that people use two reasoning processes in parallel:
1) A logical, plausible-sounding argument, usually the one stated aloud.
2) The actual, "emotional", soul-bound reason; the guardrails of our behavior.
The stated, plausible-sounding, "logical" reason is actually plausible and logical. That's why it's difficult to doubt another person, especially when they seem to be in earnest. They might actually believe themselves.
There are so many logical-sounding arguments for a given topic, many of which will contradict each other.
Why then, have you selected the ones you've selected? Of the dozens, you express *this* one?
The way to strip away the logical reason is to find contradictions and other use cases where they would not apply this logical-sounding reason, or where they simply will not apply it anywhere else in their life.
People drop their pet theory when it gets dismantled, and they then jump to the next one. It was never about the argument, it's about the narrative their arguments are defending.
Without getting too political, there's a reason why the argument of "a big corporation has the right to do what they want" jumped from one political ideology to another, all in the span of ten years. Jumped from X-ian bakery to Big Tech to Pride month. The reason is that this talking point defended a practice, and we deploy the point if we like the practice.
Kevin Samuels attacked the logical-sounding reasons of his call-ins, but he also projected the 'soul-bound' reasons onto them, right or wrong. In fact, the whole manosphere projects women's "nature" onto them anytime a woman reports a loss in her dating life. Who knows if their explanations are truly valid? But I do know that they are usually uninformed guesses.
In practice, I'm realizing that I might have been able to bullshit myself for a long time about why I avoid certain behaviors.
For example, I speak quietly to people, one-to-one, even in groups. I'm not always heard in a conversation.
I have been telling myself that it's because 1) I don't want to impose on other people, when it's really that 2) I don't want to be judged or overheard by external people who would judge.
Or, if I'm not as outgoing or conversationally dominant, it's because 1) I don't want to scare people who are smaller than me (women, children, smaller men), when it's probably really 2) I don't want to challenge people and risk being attacked, physically or otherwise.
Before having these thoughts, an easy way to "bust" my false perceptions about myself has been to ask the following questions:
If I think I am XYZ:
1) Do I have the life and results of somebody who is XYZ?
If I think I want XYZ:
2) Do I behave like someone who wants XYZ?
If I say that I want to become a boxer, can I truly say that I've spent my week in the way that a top boxer would?
UMS v2 Journal (current) || Overcoming Fear 5.75G Journal
