Honestly I have read all I need to on the subject to discuss these issues. It is well known that brains deterioate over time and that certain areas are more prone to it than others. The effects of this are not well known since scientists are not able to correlate physical effects with real life differences in behavior and abilites. This is what I am talking about. Have you ever seen a brain scan of someone who is in their 90s? It looks like swiss cheese... with giant gaping holes and lesions everywhere.... Which the analyst will refer to as normal before pointing out whatever it is the brain scan was for.
And yet the person is still the person they always were. It brings one to question what difference do the physical changes really make if any?
And to be honest there isn't a way to easily tell the difference regarding what I am saying, because everyone is stubborn to some degree. What made me think about it though is various discussions I have had with certain people over time that made it seem as though the person was physically incapabale of considering my point of view. This makes me wonder if it is ever possible that someone you are arguing with is physically incapable of considering your point of view.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qfwfq
Are today's young people capable of rational thinking? I've had experience of great efforts in getting something across to young people who are on their job and can't understand a simple solution to a problem when I point it out, and keep saying it can't be done and trying to get off with somethong different and then, when my repeated words finally begin to sink in, sometimes it's more like they've suddenly had the brilliant idea and have to convince me, the dolt that was refusing to understand them, explaining me exactly what I had been saying all along.   |
I don't know about that one, I think you would need both perspectives to see what really happened.
See the way I came to this question is, I have this model of disagreement between human beings where basically one person says X is true, but the other person says "if x was true, then y would be false, then z would be true... and d would be false but I know d isn't false because of f..."
But the person trying to argue that x is true, who is a human being of limited scope, has not investigated the connection between x, y, z, d, and f and instead knows other things and is pretty sure through experience that x is true. Therefore their explanations as to why x is true are irrelevant because that could always be explained by something else if the listener disproves x through his chain. (As you know it is much easier to disprove somethign than prove something)
The person can try to show you their chain of reasoning so you can help them identify any errors in reasoning (the other thing the guy was pointing to that you thought didn't matter), or they can just sort it out themselves which seems to be what happened in your case. Of course they are not always going to resolve it such that they believe X is true, and sometimes even if they do their might be a difference in the attributes of X based on their reasoning... Yeah X is true but only as long as R holds... or whatever else.
But in some cases I will argue with someone in person and basically what happens is this:
Me: Some logical argument
Them: If the glove don't fit you must aquit. (Red Herring)
Me: Logical argument
Them: If the whole world marches a certain way and you march differently
then are you saying they are out of step and you are in step (Bandwagon)
Me: Logical argument
Them: A lot of smart people have thought about what I am saying and determined it to be true (Appeal to Authority, Ad hominem)
Me: Ok. So why do you believe X to be true? You said W Y and Z earlier but I disagreed and explained why, but you just restated them and wouldn't listen to my point of view. So lets try a different approach. Do you agree with A? Agree with B? Do you agree that if B then C? Do you agree with if C then D? And finally do you agree that if D then not X?
Them: I would love to continue this conversation, but my balls itch.
From what I know about human behavior, this causes me to wonder if what is happening isn't:
Person considers my argument > Person sees a connection that I am implying > Person loses train of thought or ability to percieve all new proposals at once> Perhaps repeat once or twice > Person becomes self consious about their inability to percieve what I am saying > Person resorts to diversionary tactics
And possibly > Person reasons that they figured it out before or trust whoever else told them X before and that I am probably wrong so they shouldn't acknowledge counter points on single issues only to have X proven to that person later on by someone or something else. Which is of course fallacious because if they don't know the defense of X now against this person's argument, it is possible that no defense of X exists.
It is a subtle difference between this and the average person, but with the average person you can get counter points to or difficulties with your arguments out of them every so often. With some people there just doesn't seem to be any counterpoints... In my experience this happens when the subject is beyond a young person who has been convinced of X through social pressure, but it also seems to happen when dealing with an older person who is knowledgable of the subject but not of this knew line of thinking you have presented.
Re: Are older people capable of rational thought?
But I know that some of us (old fogies) don't want change (never had a use for a PC and ain't going to start now) for what ever reason seem to be set in there ways, IMO you need to use them brain mussels or they will grow week, don't just sit on the porch and let life pass you by. 
Re: Are older people capable of rational thought?
