Sociopath Community

by Turncoat

"I've yet to meet someone really good at what he/she does, and not have passion for it."
Would you call perfectionism or a sense of right and wrong passion? It is still an obsession I guess, but what about those that operate more like a machine?

You have to put some emotion behind perfectionism too. Be it satisfaction after doing a good job, or distress when standards aren't met, it's still emotion that intertwines with perfectionism.

by Hayasa

Again with the "If I don't see it, it doesn't exist" mentality, eh? Maybe you need to get away from your bubble and you will find them.

It would do you good to differentiate passion from motivation from talent from skill from obligation for once in your life.

 I differentiate between those very well. Still think you need passion to excel in what you do, and that it's a necesary condition, even if not always sufficient.

You blatantly misunderstand the very meaning of logic. You might as well assume that you don't have all the necessary data to make the decision. Then by choosing the action contradictory to the existing assumptions is perfectly logical. Logic is not your enemy here, only your observations and assumptions fail you. I mentioned Kurt Godel because he famously showed that no logical system can prove its own axioms.

Not following good logic is very stupid in his case, because no matter how many times that idiot buys the wrong house he won't learn he's supposed to pick the other house. The whole point is building your system by trial and error. If the person had also assumed that it is smart to test their assumptions (this is done in physics frequently), he would have been perfectly logical.

You see a lot of good looking men with nice looking women. If you know nothing else about this world you can infer that good looking men are (seemingly) always with nice looking women. When you see a bad looking man with a nice looking woman you should infer that your assumption was wrong and change it. Obviously, the proper way to formulate the assumption would have been "I mostly see nice looking men with nice looking women"

If you are logical, it basically means you don't contradict yourself.

Following logic is, at best, making an educated guess. It's definitely a step up, but said "logic" is not the same between every logical person. There can be two opposing points that carry an equal amount of forethought and data behind it. By the end of it "logic" is still an impression at best, but it still shows that there is at least some effort behind it instead of just gut instinct being driven for a ride.

Statistics typically reflect skew and bias, so it's already questionable how much that it can be followed.

What would you label in your Casino scenario someone who "Counts Cards"?

No idea how to respond to the house example since it's lacking too many details.

"If you are logical, it basically means you don't contradict yourself."

What if you are aware of the contradictions and why they happen? What if said contradiction posed an equal basis of logic behind it? Is "Whim" on the opposite side of the spectrum as "Logic"?

You misunderstand the very meaning of logic. You might as well assume that you don't have all the necessary data to make the decision. Then by choosing the action contradictory to the existing assumptions is perfectly logical. Logic is not your enemy here, only your observations and assumptions fail you. I mentioned Kurt Godel because he famously showed that no logical system can prove its own axioms.

Not following good logic is very stupid in his case, because no matter how many times that idiot buys the wrong house he won't learn he's supposed to pick the other house. The whole point is building your system by trial and error. If the person had also assumed that it is smart to test their assumptions (this is done in physics frequently), he would have been perfectly logical.

You see a lot of good looking men with nice looking women. If you know nothing else about this world you can infer that good looking men are (seemingly) always with nice looking women. When you see a bad looking man with a nice looking woman you should infer that your assumption was wrong and change it. Obviously, the more proper way to formulate the assumption in the first place would have been something like "I mostly see nice looking men with nice looking women"

If you are logical, it basically means you don't contradict yourself.

Finally, OP misunderstands logic as well.

If you are aware of  the contradictions and why they happen, you change your assumptions so they will no longer be contradictory,

by Legga

Maybe you should stop using logic to try and justify your arguments when obviously you don't support using it.

There is definitely real logic that can be followed in vast majority of decisions. Some decisions are based on logic derived from statistics and some are based on unwilful ignorance (making assumptions that contradict simpler, more general assumptions). Then there are the idiots who make decisions based on wilful ignorance.

 

For example:

If I go to the casino I would normally assume my wins and losses are based on the rules of the given game. When I get a situation where I am faced with a 1% win and 99% lose chance with a win-loss of 1chip-10000chips, I conclude that I should not bet. This is assuming money is important to me.

An idiot who refuses to follow logic (I hope this is not you) and understands all of above might just shout FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK! I CAN DO THIS!!!! and throw the dice in. Maybe he'll win that one chip if he's lucky but he's still an idiot.

Now the person who is suffering from unwilful ignorance; he's the person that goes to the casino and disregards the rules. Instead, he believes that he will win money by smiling very widely to the casino staff when he hands in his chips. At the end of the day he's lost all his money. The reason he lost his money is because his assumption was incorrect. A smarter person would have derived his logic from simpler, more general assumptions. Yet the second idiot's logical error is not as dire as the first idiot's. In fact the second idiot followed logic.

 

Another very down-to-earth example:

You assume blue houses are better than red houses

You really want to buy a good house

You have two houses, blue and red, and you want to buy the better one

You buy the red house

Your decision does not make sense, given the assumption

 I never said I don't support logic, that's an illogical assumption on your part. I responded to those who claim logic is the answer to all problems, when it's just a limited tool. And we are not to believe ourselves, or even aspire to be, these walking talking logic-machines.

Your casino example is very clear cut, but just as I was saying, life isn't. What odds would you consider alright to place a bet? And how do you choose that number if not by adding some extra "feelling lucky/hopeful" to it? Because I'll ask you for a cold logic reasoning behind your answer and you won't be able to give me one.

The second example is typical of someone dumb, yeah. Still, maybe he was dumb enough to assume wrongly, so in the end, he ended up with the better house. And not following good logic was an advantage in his case. Get what I mean?

The most important decisions in life are at the same time too complicated to be solved as a simple equation.

What do you do if both sides seem to carry equal weight? Something else must break the tie or you'll end up doing neither logical thing.

Edit: Not even asking to be a dick or for the sake of lots of questions, it's the sort of thing that makes me stall and risk inaction.