Poll of the Day > have you ever swallowed your pride and just said that youre wrong at work?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Kyuubi4269 posted...

I brought up pride because it is how people often express colloquially understood irrationality. People are incapable of acting without logic or reason, there's an underlying motivation guided by some form of logic in every action we make.

People can act without logic or reason. Why would you think they couldn't? Just because there's some sort of motivation, it doesn't mean they logically thought about it. Or had significant reason to do it.
---

LinkPizza posted...

People can act without logic or reason. Why would you think they couldn't? Just because there's some sort of motivation, it doesn't mean they logically thought about it. Or had significant reason to do it.

Having a motivation and acting to achieve that is logical thought, you egg. Note significant reason. There's still reason, it's just poor. Like pride.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Having a motivation and acting to achieve that is logical thought, you egg. Note significant reason. There's still reason, it's just poor. Like pride.

It's not, though. It could be instinct instead of logical thought.
---

LinkPizza posted...

It's not, though. It could be instinct instead of logical thought.

Babies don't have a lot of instincts because it hasn't been learnt yet. Instinct is logical.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Babies don't have a lot of instincts because it hasn't been learnt yet. Instinct is logical.

Babies do have instinct. They just can't do anything on their own...
---

LinkPizza posted...

Babies do have instinct. They just can't do anything on their own...

They don't have some instincts. They don't know how to stand by instinct, it's learnt first. The ones they do have are automatic responses to stimuli, like a light connected to a battery.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

They don't have some instincts. They don't know how to stand by instinct, it's learnt first. The ones they do have are automatic responses to stimuli, like a light connected to a battery.

I never said everything they did was instinct. I said "Babies do have instinct. They just can't do anything on their own..." So I don't know what you're getting at. The point is, babies have instinct...
---

LinkPizza posted...

The point is, babies have instinct...

The point is instinct is logical. Babies have some hard-coded logic, everything beyond that is learnt, i.e. based on reason.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

The point is instinct is logical. Babies have some hard-coded logic, everything beyond that is learnt, i.e. based on reason.

Not all instinct is logical. There are not mutually exclusive or inclusive.
---

LinkPizza posted...

Not all instinct is logical. There are not mutually exclusive or inclusive.

Provide an example of logic-less instinct.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Provide an example of logic-less instinct.

Crying and the first feeding off momma...
---

LinkPizza posted...

Crying and the first feeding off momma...

It's reasonable to cry when overwhelmed and in need of assistance, and babies have a hard-wired need to suck which is based on the logic that food is stored behind suck.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

It's reasonable to cry when overwhelmed and in need of assistance, and babies have a hard-wired need to suck which is based on the logic that food is stored behind suck.

Yeah. But crying is still an logic-less instinct. They don't know what it does the first time. They just know to do it. As for sucking, that's instinct. Before coming out, they got their nutrients to live from the blood vessels in the umbilical cord. So, sucking for food the first time makes no logical sense as they wouldn't have learned that. Nor is it what they're use to...
---

LinkPizza posted...

Yeah. But crying is still an logic-less instinct. They don't know what it does the first time. They just know to do it.

It was still made on logic, just not by the baby. There's a reason they cry instead of scratch their eyes out.

LinkPizza posted...

sucking for food the first time makes no logical sense as they wouldn't have learned that. Nor is it what they're use to...

They suck their thumb in the womb, the association is hard-coded at conception. This is not a lack of logic, it's just over-simplified.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

It was still made on logic, just not by the baby. There's a reason they cry instead of scratch their eyes out.

Where's your proof that's it's based on logic? Some literally cry right after birth (or actually their first breath, I believe). How do you know logic makes them cry?

Kyuubi4269 posted...

They suck their thumb in the womb, the association is hard-coded at conception. This is not a lack of logic, it's just over-simplified.

Yeah. I know. But you said, "babies have a hard-wired need to suck which is based on the logic that food is stored behind suck." But food was never the reason they sucked their thumb. The food suck is different. Plus, they could still technically suck their thumb in that position. So, it's instinct that gets them to suck the boob for food (or bottle, for non-breast feeding).
---

LinkPizza posted...

Where's your proof that's it's based on logic? Some literally cry right after birth (or actually their first breath, I believe). How do you know logic makes them cry?

Because we have an instinctive reaction to that cry, which women are even more sensitive to. It is a working signal we receive and understand accurately. They all do it, it's not accidental.

LinkPizza posted...

But food was never the reason they sucked their thumb.

Yes it is.

LinkPizza posted...

The food suck is different.

It's different because they learn in the womb that thumb no food. The baby exploits its hard-coded food-finding instinct to get reward responses.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Because we have an instinctive reaction to that cry, which women are even more sensitive to. It is a working signal we receive and understand accurately. They all do it, it's not accidental.

But none of them learned how to do it. Especially the first time. They just used their instinct to do it, and then they learned afterwards. But the first time was instinct without any logic to base it off of.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Yes it is.

Not in the womb it wasn't... Why do you think that?

Kyuubi4269 posted...

It's different because they learn in the womb that thumb no food. The baby exploits its hard-coded food-finding instinct to get reward responses.

Yet they still continued to suck. And they still do after birth. Because the thmub suck and food suck are different. They instinctively still sucked on their mom's boob the first time to get milk. Not because they learned, but because of instinct. For the first time, at least.

Also, another one I thought of was the insticnct to stick your finger in your mouth when it gets hurt. It's a quick one, too...

Also, I'll still have this conversation with you. But I will let you know that NOTHING you say will ever convince me that all instinct in logical. Just to let you know. But I'll still waste time talking to you when I have free time. But I usually don't have much during the day. Also, I like to enjoy my time. So, I may respond to your post slowly as I like to talk in threads that are much more enjoyable than talking to you. I'm just letting you know so that I don't seem rude if I take hours or a day to respond.
---

LinkPizza posted...

But none of them learned how to do it. Especially the first time. They just used their instinct to do it, and then they learned afterwards. But the first time was instinct without any logic to base it off of.

The instinct is the parent's logic, not the baby's. It's still logical instinct.

LinkPizza posted...

Yet they still continued to suck. And they still do after birth. Because the thmub suck and food suck are different. They instinctively still sucked on their mom's boob the first time to get milk. Not because they learned, but because of instinct. For the first time, at least.

They know sucking in general is for hunger as it is logic imprinted from the parent, but they learn the comfort instinct from the food one and they exploit that independently.

LinkPizza posted...

Also, I'll still have this conversation with you. But I will let you know that NOTHING you say will ever convince me that all instinct in logical. Just to let you know. But I'll still waste time talking to you when I have free time. But I usually don't have much during the day. Also, I like to enjoy my time. So, I may respond to your post slowly as I like to talk in threads that are much more enjoyable than talking to you. I'm just letting you know so that I don't seem rude if I take hours or a day to respond.

It's amusing that you'll openly admit you're not open to learning. I still enjoy trying to convince you anyway, hopefully common sense will prevail.
---

Happens fairly frequently.

---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

The instinct is the parent's logic, not the baby's. It's still logical instinct.

The instinct is the baby actually crying...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

They know sucking in general is for hunger as it is logic imprinted from the parent, but they learn the comfort instinct from the food one and they exploit that independently.

If it's imprinted, then it's instinct the first time. They only learn about getting food that way after getting it once...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

It's amusing that you'll openly admit you're not open to learning. I still enjoy trying to convince you anyway, hopefully common sense will prevail.

You can try, but it'll be in vain. And I'll learn. but not from you. I'll learn from someone that actual does know what they're talking about, rather than someone who argues with everyone on the internet because they literally have nothing to do. But even looking online, people who deal with stuff like this consider logic and instinct different.

And it's hard to trust you when you were talking about being a diving instructor, yet said to do certain things you weren't suppose to do. So, it's hard to trust what you says when you've been wrong about something you were suppose to be an expert on, and when you based all you arguments on just being argumentative...
---

LinkPizza posted...

The instinct is the baby actually crying...

Which exists for a logical purpose.

LinkPizza posted...

If it's imprinted, then it's instinct the first time.

Yup, and it's logical.

LinkPizza posted...

But even looking online, people who deal with stuff like this consider logic and instinct different.

No shit. Ice cream and milk are different but ice cream is still made with milk.

LinkPizza posted...

it's hard to trust you when you were talking about being a diving instructor, yet said to do certain things you weren't suppose to do. So, it's hard to trust what you says when you've been wrong about something you were suppose to be an expert on

You think I'm wrong, and yet I'm the qualified one, not you.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Which exists for a logical purpose.

Why does that matter? Why not matter doesnt exist. The fact that they do it instinctively the first time is what matters...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

No shit. Ice cream and milk are different but ice cream is still made with milk.

Again, what does that have to do with anything? Like I said earlier, theyre not mutually inclusive or exclusive. But people who study this and write papers consider then different things because theyre different. The only reason you consider it logic seems to be because it comes from the rain. But thats not the same logic that Im talking about. Making a logically thought out decision vs an instinct based one is what Im talking about.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

You think I'm wrong, and yet I'm the qualified one, not you.

Yet, reading the information online by other qualified experts said something different. To me, they are as qualified as you. I dont know you in real life. Or have any proof of your qualifications other than you saying youre an expert. At least those people have a picture, and even post proof sometimes. And while seeing someones face doesnt make them better, it sure makes them easier to trust that a faceless person Ive never seen and know nothing about other than there username on gaming website. And the fact that they like to argue with everybody for no other reason than for fun.
---

LinkPizza posted...

Why does that matter? Why not matter doesnt exist. The fact that they do it instinctively the first time is what matters...

We are discussing how logic is inherent to instinct and so instinctively lying when lying is not punished is not irrational.

LinkPizza posted...

Again, what does that have to do with anything? Like I said earlier, theyre not mutually inclusive or exclusive.

And you are wrong. Instinct is based on some kind of reasoning.

LinkPizza posted...

people who study this and write papers consider then different things because theyre different.

A nervous person is different to the concept of nervousness and yet how a nervous person acts is defined under how the concept of nervousness works. Your eye is separate from the concept of sight, and yet when you use your eye, you inherently are using the concept of sight.

LinkPizza posted...

The only reason you consider it logic seems to be because it comes from the rain.

No, because it is using valid reasoning.

LinkPizza posted...

But thats not the same logic that Im talking about. Making a logically thought out decision vs an instinct based one is what Im talking about.

logic
/ldk/

noun

reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.

Idk what definition of logic you're using, but this is what I am using and both conscious and unconscious thought whether imprinted or learned use this.
---

everyone makes mistakes. one time everyone was sitting back and laughed(because thats all some employees do every place has a handful) and arv called them out and said if you guys lifted a finger you are able to make mistakes too! arv doesnt care if he gets (laughed at or picked on by something he does if its someone respectable puts in a good work ethic) but if you sit around and do nothing all day and wanna poke fun at people working that pisses arv off lol

---

I've never claimed to be wrong in instances I knew was right. I've held my tongue trying to convince them, though.

---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

We are discussing how logic is inherent to instinct and so instinctively lying when lying is not punished is not irrational.

The original topic was about pride. The irrational bit was from people not saying theyre wrong when they are because they are worried about being in trouble even though they wouldnt get in trouble. Which is irrational. You think its not irrational because the decision came from their brain or whatever. I disagree.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

And you are wrong. Instinct is based on some kind of reasoning.

No. Its just instinct. It doesnt have to be based on any reasoning. Again, I disagree and wont change my stance on that.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

A nervous person is different to the concept of nervousness and yet how a nervous person acts is defined under how the concept of nervousness works. Your eye is separate from the concept of sight, and yet when you use your eye, you inherently are using the concept of sight.

And? I dont care. In the end, people who study this (which doesnt seem to be you) say they are different. And I would trust then way more than a random person on the internet who only likes to argue, whether theyre right or wrong just to argue.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

No, because it is using valid reasoning.

Sure. Whatever...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Idk what definition of logic you're using, but this is what I am using and both conscious and unconscious thought whether imprinted or learned use this.

I using the definition of instinct.

a natural or inherent aptitude, impulse, or capacity

To me, Im using the definition of instinct where you do something without thinking. Or without learning it. A natural instinct. One that doesnt rely on whats logical. The normal way people think of the word instinct instead of trying to break it down to continue a pointless argument. You know, like you do...
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

You don't, and that's the crux of what subjectivity is.

In other news water is wet.

---

no. If I'm right, I'm assertive about it. I only admit I'm wrong if I was wrong or if I'm not exactly sure. Not taking responsibility for others

---

LinkPizza posted...

You think its not irrational because the decision came from their brain or whatever. I disagree.

I think it's rational to be motivated by pride as it is logical, reasoned with strict principle. It may be misplaced, but it's a rational response.

LinkPizza posted...

No. Its just instinct. It doesnt have to be based on any reasoning. Again, I disagree and wont change my stance on that.

You failed to deliver an example of illogical instinct so I'm not surprised.

LinkPizza posted...

And? I dont care. In the end, people who study this (which doesnt seem to be you) say they are different. And I would trust then way more than a random person on the internet who only likes to argue, whether theyre right or wrong just to argue.

It sounds like you neither read what I said or understood what they said. I don't think you should cite expertise you don't have a firm grip on.

LinkPizza posted...

The normal way people think of the word instinct instead of trying to break it down to continue a pointless argument.

I'm trying to explain the inherent values of its definition. Your refusal to gain deeper understanding is what's tripping you up.

Oh and winter, go to bed.
---

I got an idea. Because I hate talking to you, well agree to disagree. And Ill be right. And you can be wrong except in your own little world. That works for me. So, great.

Because I dont even feel like reading your responses, if Im being honest. Why should I help you get your rocks off when I get nothing out of it?
---

LinkPizza posted...

I got an idea. Because I hate talking to you, well agree to disagree. And Ill be right. And you can be wrong except in your own little world. That works for me. So, great.

It's generally how any interaction with Kyuubi should end. You're also right. Nobody but he gets anything out of it.

---

lol I thought you were happy to argue about it all day?

It'd be a lot more respectable if you just admitted you don't understand words and don't actually have anything of substance to refute my claims.

I suppose your salty tears drenching your phone will have to do.
---

No. I never said Id be happy. And I understand words. But I also understand how logical discussion should be. The problem is that you never want to have one of those. You only want to twist words by using literally definition to make things sound different than their actual use. Just to make you sound right. When everybody on the board (with the exception of probably a few people) know you full of it. And just have conversation to argue. Anyway, you can stay wrong (or right in your own little world in your head) and Ill stay in the real world where Im correct. And well agree to disagree. Unless you actually want to have a real conversation. But we all know thats not what you want. For all I know, you probably dont even believe in what you said. I think you even admitted that once, but whatever...
---

So hot.

---

LinkPizza posted...

I also understand how logical discussion should be.

You don't know what the word logic even means, you have no basis to argue that.

LinkPizza posted...

You only want to twist words by using literally definition to make things sound different than their actual use.

I want to point out the correct use of the word and how your butchering of it makes you express a false sentiment. It also doesn't help that you argue for "shoulds" in an issue of objectivity. You can't express an opinion as fact and expect to be unquestioned.

LinkPizza posted...

Unless you actually want to have a real conversation. But we all know thats not what you want. For all I know, you probably dont even believe in what you said. I think you even admitted that once, but whatever...

What a disingenuous argument.

"I would debate this with you, but you don't agree with me so you must be acting in bad faith. I'm right so dissent must be wrong and expressing it must be malicious.

I also hear you've willingly played devil's advocate to call out BS, obviously that means you're a dirty liar playing tricks! I don't need to present a sound argument if I don't like your character!"
---

Dikitain posted...

One thing they teach you in good workplaces is that one person is never wrong, the whole team is. Everything is a team effort and if something was overlooked then the whole team missed something because they all worked on it at some point. Plus, pointing blame is never going to solve anything, you should instead work on finding root causes, then implementing safeguards against them to make sure that the same problem never happens again.

I don't buy into that, in my experience its on 1 person but you don't point fingers. Also you fix the mistake as a team.

---