Critical thinking and pandemic II: credibility

While you are valuing the credibility of sources, it is always important, the next pandemic will have a matter of life and death. These epidemiologists or medical professionals should not be based on others for information. While some people will provide detailed information, it means well, unwanted people are not accepted or unclaimed claims. There will also be people who disinformation spreads. Your well-being as well as survival can also be the best sources that are credible and avoided.

There are two types of credibility: rational and rhetorical. While a little exaggerated, rational credibility means you logically think that you mean the rhetorical source and credibility feel You should believe the source. The difference between two rests between the logical force and the distinction between psychological strength.

Logical force is objective and is a measure of how it protects evidence of a claim. In the case of logical arguments, from the application of the standards of an inductive argument, it is assessed according to the creation of a true table to work through deductive evidence. A source is as long as it is rational credibility to accept significant claims from this source.

The psychological force is subjective and a person is a measure of what an emotional impact on the will to believe a claim. This is evaluated in practical terms: How effective was someone to convince you to accept the claim? Although the logical force of an argument is independent of the audience, the psychological force is subject to the viewer. One person can convince the acceptance of a claim may notify another with extreme prejudices. Political devotion provides an excellent example of the relativity of psychological strength. If you submit a claim to Democrats and Republicans and you attribute Trump, you will get different reactions.

The psychological force has no reason or evidence of no claim. But people are more efficient than logical force. To use analogy, the difference between the two is like the difference between junk food and the street. While junk food is tasty, he lacks food value. While the street is good for you, many people find it. Because of this distinction, when people ask me to “win” arguments, I always ask what they mean “win”. If they mean “give me my claim to prove that it is true,” then I say they should use logic. “People feel good, whether I’m okay,”, “they say they need to pay attention to psychological strength. Rhetoric and false (bad logic) have a more psychological force, which does not cause problems.

Psychological strength is dangerous weaknesses of people during a pandemic. Based on how people feel sources, it supports disinformation and misinformation. This involves behaving false beliefs that can kill people. Health and survival depends on being able to properly evaluate sources during a pandemic and neutralize (or reduces the impact of psychological force). It’s a hard thing, especially the fear of a pandemic and the expectations of despair are even weaker and less psychological strength and less confidence in logic. My hope is that this guide will give a little help in the next pandemic.

A step to weaken the psychological force is a logically irrelevant factors, but they are psychologically strong. A set of factors attracts people but they do not have a logical importance whether their claims are credible. An irrelevant factor is to show confidence. A person who makes eye contact does not sweat, it is not sweat and does not seem to laugh nervously, that’s why they learn to play fraud and liars like that. But reflection shows that they are not important to rational credibility. To use my usual Mathematics example, imagine “2 + 2 = 4 I said I said I was saying, but Billy looked at me in the eye and confidently said 2 + 2 = 12. So it must be true.” Of course, there are practical reasons for trusting claims, but the trust is not proven. And lack of confidence does not condemn anything. To use a fool example, “I thought 2 + 2 = 4, but Billy seemed nervous and not sure 2 + 2 = 4 said. So he must be wrong.”

The rhetorical credibility is also created from the quality you can search for a date or friend. These can contain, such as height, weight, attraction and dress style. These are also age, ethnicity and genre. But all of them do not logically irrelevant with rational credibility. To use the example of mathematical mathematical, “Billy is high, beautiful, correct, a suit and white, so 2 + 2 = 12, must be right!” Anyone should recognize the bad “logic”. However, when the source is attractive, people believe in despite the importance of appeal. A defense is still asking yourself, if you could still believe the claim, if someone was not for you.

Rhetorical credibility also arises from good quality of non-importance to rational credibility. These are kindness, kindness, kindness, honesty, compassion, generosity and other virtues. Someone who is pocket and compassionate usually will not lie, that does not have a compelling source. To use a fool example, “Billy is so nice and friendly and 2 + 2 = 12. At first I had my doubts, but how could someone be so wrong?” To use fewer examples, a genuine person can be misinformed and dangerous misinformation can be dangerous to misinformation. A defense is to ask yourself, he was still a proclamation if someone had bad quality. But honestly? Surely, we will think that we are, who says honest sources.

In fact, in fact, despite being tempting to see honesty like telling the truth, it is more precise that the honest person says think It’s true. They could honestly have a false claim. An honest person will try to be true think It’s a lie. And even honest people are not talking all the time. As that being this, honesty has a positive impact on rational credibility and dishonest affect is negative, they are not crucial. But the honest source is better to be dishonest. Sorting honest and honest sources can be a challenge.

Group affiliations, ideologies and other values ​​have a great impact on how people judge rhetorical credibility. If the claim is done by your side if someone does or join your values, he probably believes. For example, Trump helpers tend to believe that Trump says Trump says Trump. If the claim does “other side” or goes against your values, then you will tend to reject it. For example, people against Trumpen will usually definitely say that Trump says. The case of Stalin and Lysenko is a great example of how ideology can give rhetoric credibility, if Lysenkok attractive, the basis of Soviet science. This provides a story story to consider. While affiliations and values ​​lead people to motivate people “reasoning”, it is possible to deal with their lure and evaluate the rational credibility of a fountain.

A defense is to use as a guide to my stupid mathematics: “Trump says 2 + 2 = 12; Trump is my guy, so it must be right!” Or “Trump says 2 + 2 = 4, but I hate it, so it must be wrong.” Another defense is to try to figure out someone who is doing other sides or different values. For example, Trump supporters could represent Obama or Clinton by making claims about the hydroxikocal made by Trump. As the reverse example, Trump Haters can test the same thing. This is not the perfect defense, but it can help.

This short guide tries to help people not help falling victims of rhetorical credibility, probably when you should trust a source due to rational credibility standards. That is the subject of the next attempt.