Cool thanks! I made that comment because a lot of what you speak seem to be a lot more in depth than what I would imagine comes with the " basic " training courses. But yeah, I have been agreeing with pretty much all of your assessments recently.
Is Max Eberle as big as a goof as I now think?
- Thread starter BmoreMoney
- Start date
Cool thanks! I made that comment because a lot of what you speak seem to be a lot more in depth than what I would imagine comes with the " basic " training courses. But yeah, I have been agreeing with pretty much all of your assessments recently.
No Bmore, I have no desire to become a psychologist..Most of them have been divorced 4/5 times, and are the most screwed up people on the planet!..I prefer to make my own observations, right or wrong, from a lifetime of watching con men (ie; pool, card and dice hustlers) ply their trade!..They make politicians look like school kids!
My natural curiosity about my fellow man, has given me an an education like no other in the world!..To say I have 'seen it all', would be a gross understatement! ..I have seen nice guys, turn into dispicable human beings, and vice versa!..It has been a real adventure!..You ain't all that bad a guy Bmore..when you grow up, you may see what I mean!
Last edited:
Thanks SJD! In regards to the growing up comment all I can tell you is this : people " grow " over their entire life. I am 37, I can tell you for sure I'm a different person from 5 years ago, 10 years ago, and even 20 years ago. I often fail but I do make a conscious effort to be a good person on a day to day basis. Every day I become a little more open minded, a little more compassionate , a tiny bit wiser, and just a tad healthier whenever possible. Obviously you don't know me but rest assured I've settled down A LOT from where I was at 18, 21, and even 30. I've learned what does and what does not matter in life. Often times I catch myself thinking about this or that and think damn, I used to think............ without sounding too too much like a hippie I came to the realization that it truly is the journey ---- NOT THE DESTINATION. Family and true friends are all we have regardless of how much money is in your bank account. Am I opinionated on some things, yup u betcha, BUT nowadays I do try to be fair with not only others but myself as well. As to your travels, boy ID LOVE to be able to read that book!!!! Any chance of one coming one day????
We are not as a general rule, "built", as a species to use logic to generate our beliefs. We are built to use logic to solve problems.
In fact, using logic to come to realistic beliefs about the world around us may be an evolutionary disadvantage.
Here is a good read. Be warned: It's long.
http://www.csicop.org/SI/show/belief_engine
Short Bus Russ
Russ, nobody has any more spare time than moi!..I read and enjoyed, the entire link you presented..It was obviously written by a very intelligent man!..However, you summed up his entire thought process, with your middle sentence. (**)....We have only the world around us, in which to gather our life experiences..How we interpret and evaluate that priceless information, is what makes us different from, say a mountain gorilla!
I firmly believe, that the most inarticulate, illiterate person among us, can have the same feelings as the author of your link..He may lack the ability to express them, but they are there nonetheless..."Never judge a book by its cover", has always worked for me!..Logic is a great tool, but our journey through life, is what ultimately makes us who we are!
PS..Look how well Bmore disguised his intelligence??? :grin:
Last edited:
It is a good article that says the same things I said, that emotion, bias, and laziness are a part of human nature and are a detriment to having truthful beliefs and good problem solving ability. I agree with all that.
I completely disagree that the use of critical thinking and logic to come to realistic beliefs about the world can ever be a disadvantage, evolutionary or otherwise. Anything that can be accomplished through emotion, intuition, bias, experience, perception or anything else can always--always--be better and more accurately accomplished solely with critical thinking and logic, or at least with critical thinking and logic leading the way while one or more of these other things are taken into consideration and critically weighed for their true value.
Letting critical thinking and logic be our master above all else may not always be human nature, but we can and should train ourselves to be that way. It isn't really all that difficult to do, and the payoff is that we will be orders of magnitude better off because of it.
come on, now you are describing 50% of the AZBilliard population
Not an orgasm.
Sounds like a chapter from " Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus " lol
The article gives a very specific example of a sentient rabbit that "thinks" about a rustle in the grass and awaits more information about whether it is a fox, or the wind. I.e., using "logic".
The thinking rabbit is gonna have a real short life span. The powerful autonomic association with rustling grass and a predator will make the rabbit continue to bolt time after time, and preserve it's life.
In war, "shoot first, ask questions later", out of fear for one's life, is the response that holds the greatest probability of survival. The "truth" of whether the enemy was attempting to surrender or playing opossum is not relevant, when survival is at stake. Better to shoot and make sure.
You cannot have both an instantaneous response for survival's stake, plus a logical analysis of the situation in order to make a more informed decision.
Our evolutionary history was built completely on preference for an automatic response that preserves life so that one can survive to reproduce.
It's all well and good that you "think" that all beliefs can be arrived at via logic, but it is simply not true. You can't just "turn off" a few million years of evolutionary programming.
Your response makes me believe that you did not read the entire article, as the reasons why you are incorrect about our ability to rely on logic alone are fully explained.
Short Bus Russ
I had read the whole article and could have written it save the bad rabbit example and another poor line or two. I stand by what I said. In the examples in the article neither rabbit used good critical thinking and logic. In reality a thinking rabbit with good critical thinking and logic skills would have said that he is going to run from every rustle in the grass because it is not prudent to wait to find out if it is in fact a fox or just the wind because the repercussions for it turning out to be a fox are so great (the loss of his life) as to not make it worth it to take that risk, and that what you lose by fleeing if it turns out that it wasn't a fox is very minor in comparison. Good critical thinking and logic from the rabbit says this one is a no brainer and to flee and don't wait to see it it is a fox or the wind.
Beliefs and solutions arrived at solely through critical thinking and logic, or with critical thinking and logic leading the way will always be at least as good and accurate, but usually far better than and superior to, beliefs and solutions arrived at any other way. In this case the rabbit would have only been equally served by using critical thinking and logic (it only led to the same and equal decision instead of a better one in this particular case) but for most things he would be better served by critical thinking and logic (because they will usually lead to more accurate beliefs and better decisions and results while never being inferior).
I think what you and the author are thinking and just haven't realized is that emotion, intuition, bias, experience, perception and various other things can be better than nothing at all (not thinking) or better than having bad critical thinking and logic (ie a dumb rabbit or a dumb person). I agree. But those things will never be as good as letting good critical thinking and logic lead the way which most of us are capable of with some training and discipline.
The article gives a very specific example of a sentient rabbit that "thinks" about a rustle in the grass and awaits more information about whether it is a fox, or the wind. I.e., using "logic".
The thinking rabbit is gonna have a real short life span. The powerful autonomic association with rustling grass and a predator will make the rabbit continue to bolt time after time, and preserve it's life.
In war, "shoot first, ask questions later", out of fear for one's life, is the response that holds the greatest probability of survival. The "truth" of whether the enemy was attempting to surrender or playing opossum is not relevant, when survival is at stake. Better to shoot and make sure.
You cannot have both an instantaneous response for survival's stake, plus a logical analysis of the situation in order to make a more informed decision.
Our evolutionary history was built completely on preference for an automatic response that preserves life so that one can survive to reproduce.
It's all well and good that you "think" that all beliefs can be arrived at via logic, but it is simply not true. You can't just "turn off" a few million years of evolutionary programming.
Your response makes me believe that you did not read the entire article, as the reasons why you are incorrect about our ability to rely on logic alone are fully explained.
Short Bus Russ
Thanx for this post, Russ....it brings back memories of school days.
I was trying to explain why logic is a tool....and not to be worshipped.
It's great for preparation and for analyzing after the fact....
...but it retards when you have to act.
Many pool players would get two balls better if they realized this.
...to get back to why this thread started, I think 'goof' was an unfortunate choice
of words....maybe kook?
It must be tough to live on a flat earth...and yet be spaced out.
I guess the author was only using a rabbit as an analogy...he clearly hasn't observed too many rabbits in the wild and their survival strategies.
I have. My dog was a rabbit hunter (rat terrier) and I got to watch hundreds of kills, near-kills and outright escapes. First, rabbits do not give off a strong scent...even to a dog whose sense of smell is 600x greater than ours. My dog would slowly move through the medium-to-high grass, waiting for a rabbit to bolt; that's how she learned the rabbit was there.
So, a smart rabbit would often stay completely still unless my dog nearly stepped on her. Running is what would get the rabbit in trouble.
BTW, contrary to popular opinion, rabbits aren't super fast. Their advantage is that they can change direction so quickly while maintaining most of their speed. If my dog had one on a dead (straight) run...well, it was a dead rabbit within seconds. But if it changed directions it could stay about six inches ahead of her teeth.
I have. My dog was a rabbit hunter (rat terrier) and I got to watch hundreds of kills, near-kills and outright escapes. First, rabbits do not give off a strong scent...even to a dog whose sense of smell is 600x greater than ours. My dog would slowly move through the medium-to-high grass, waiting for a rabbit to bolt; that's how she learned the rabbit was there.
So, a smart rabbit would often stay completely still unless my dog nearly stepped on her. Running is what would get the rabbit in trouble.
BTW, contrary to popular opinion, rabbits aren't super fast. Their advantage is that they can change direction so quickly while maintaining most of their speed. If my dog had one on a dead (straight) run...well, it was a dead rabbit within seconds. But if it changed directions it could stay about six inches ahead of her teeth.
Your description doesn't quite represent what the example from the article is supposed to show. It's supposed to show that being motivated by a search for the truth is not always best for survival, which is surely true, not that thinking or using reason is detrimental to survival. The thinking rabbit in the example dies not because it's thinking, but because its primary goal is not survival.
Yes, hearing the rustle and immediately running away because of a strong autonomic nervous-system reaction is probably the best way to insure survival, but there's nothing contrary to insuring survival in using thinking and reasoning in such a situation either. If my first priority is to survive then when I hear the rustle I can decide immediately to run away if I know that the rustle may be a hungry fox.
I wasn't even going to get into any of that and just went along with what the author believed to be the best method of survival for a rabbit (running) just to keep it simple. And maybe the author was just keeping it simple too. It depends on the type of rabbit but like you said, staying hidden and motionless is typically their strategy even until a predator gets right on top of them. Once they do actually need to run, zig zagging is usually best until they can dive into some heavy cover and hide and hide and remain motionless again.
One thing is certain though, a rabbit who could use good critical thinking and logic is going to make better decisions than one who is acting on fear, or impulse, or intuition or anything else. He is going to be right far more often about when to stay put and hide, or when to run and zig zag or head for heavy cover, etc, and his chances for survival would be far superior to those of a rabbit who was not capable of good critical thinking and use of logic.
Your statements here could easily be challenged when taken in the context of " fight or flight ". Yes I do understand that can not be definitively determined because of WAY TOO MANY variables but I think you understand what I'm getting at.
That is a great article. Very detailed. Thanks for posting it
PT, I don't know how many of Max's conversations about this and many other things on FB you have been privy to. You are right, I could have used a plethora of other descriptors but I settled on GOOF because it was the best " PG " word I could think of athe the time and to be honest after all this time I'd use it again. As I said earlier, I have no I'll will towards Max, and he is a brilliant artist and a great pool player. I was strictly talking about these off the hook, out of this world, really really strange beliefs that he has. As discussed earlier, Max is a fairly popular public figure and being so it does leave him open to scrutiny - good, bad, or indifferent. Taking it a step further, when you post up on a public forum ( whatever the media ) you are inviting discussions, opinions, and usually a bunch of flak as we see daily right here on AZ. Lastly, not only did he post up in very public places - he pushes his beliefs on an almost daily basis so not only must he be OK with the blowback but he is actually inciting and inviting it. He is a nice enough guy and truthfully I've never seen him get nasty not even one time when he is debating and preaching his agenda.
I think you have completely missed my point (or I may not be understanding what you are trying to say). PoolBum rephrased it in a different way a couple of posts above. My point is that at worst critical thinking and logic will accomplish the same thing as anything else, but in most cases it actually does it better. There is never a case where it has to be worse though--never. There are no drawbacks to *good* critical thinking and logic, ever, but there are often and even usually tremendous benefits.
Lets take another analogy, a lion and a gazelle. Instinct tells the gazelle to run when the lion starts to runs after it. Some people would argue, like the rabbit guy in the article, that this is one of the rare exceptions where dumb blind instinct is better than critical thinking and logic. I say bullsh!t. If the gazelle was capable of good critical thinking and logic he can recognize and reason that lions like to eat gazelles, and that when a lion runs at a gazelle it is because he wants to eat it, and therefore when the lion runs at him he better try to get the hell out of there because the lion is trying to eat him. And this decision will come as quickly as instinct. And those that have have mastered always using good logic have an instinct that has also been shaped by that logic. Good critical thinking and logic will never, ever, give you a worse decision than instinct, emotion, intuition, experience, bias, perception or anything else but will often/usually actually lead you to a better decision that is of greater benefit. It is those other things that often lead to bad decisions and beliefs.
pt109 in so many words tried to raise what on the surface would sound like a natural and reasonable argument against critical thinking and logic in some cases. The argument essentially is that sometimes there isn't time to think things out, or that the thinking process may interfere with what your subconscious already knows to do. But there really is no conflict there like he believes there is.
First, if you have trained yourself in the good use of logic, and to only be led by logic, the thought processes are usually as quick as instinct or anything else. They may be slower for someone that has not yet mastered being a logical being, but not usually for those that have. But besides that, your constant use of logic shapes your instinct or intuition or subconscious anyway. Yes, maybe you don't want to consciously over analyze at times during a match but there is no need to because as someone who only uses logic your intuition has been shaped by that logic and it will make far better decisions than the intuition of someone who is not very logical. A logical person can make the logical decision to let their pool intuition (which has also been shaped by their logic) do the thinking at the times where that would be best. Again, good logical critical thinking will never be worse than something else and will usually be better.
Instinct, emotion, intuition, experience, bias, perception and similar things can be a benefit to a dumb person (or a dumb rabbit or gazelle) who is not capable of good critical logical thinking. But for someone who is capable of good critical logical thinking, that will at worst be at least equally good to anything else and in most cases be much better. This being the case, we should obviously all be striving to master the use of good critical logical thinking, always.
Last edited: