www.areyoulogical.com

Then, where someone attempts to guide their thinking with logic, weighing all relevant and available facts and resources, and does so to an ideal level given the prioritizations, this person may then discover a generalization that is optimally ideal for the specific situation. I call this an "Optimally Ideal Generalization".

This generalization may be in the form of a logical conclusion, or it may be in the form of a logical ranking of plausible theories, or it may be in the form of a logical estimation, or it may be used to establish a fair compromise. In any of these cases, the generalization is logical if it came about from logical analysis, and it may be considered optimally ideal if the logical analysis was limited only by logical prioritizations used to limit the analysis (for example, if you have 2 seconds to decide how to steer around an accident, your prioritizations in logically analyzing the situation may be very limiting: "to the left I see people, to the right I see light debris, so I'll steer to the right", as there may not be time to process any more than that). And in these cases it has nothing to do with idealism, because logic was used to prioritize what to analyze, and the resulting generalization was logically optimal (i.e. "ideally optimal") given the circumstances and objectives.

It is nearly impossible for most people to see the difference between an idealism and the optimally ideal. They both take the form of a generalization. And in most cases both are fallable.

This is why people often go head-to-head on various issues. One person is debating the logic behind his optimally ideal generalization, another is debating (usually just stating) his idealism as though it were an immutable fact, and another person is debating their competing idealism, or the rationalizations behind it. Each of these people will think the others are completely "off", and no matter what they say, they cannot get on the same page, even though they are discussing the same issue.

In the case of an idealism, it is simply believed to be true.

Karma is one example for an idealism. This over-riding principle is believed to be true by many. Following such a notion means you are at least partially an idealist, while someone committed 100% to the optimally ideal would not. Granted, there are complex chain-reactions within human interaction that can be sorted out to approximate a logical reason behind some of the things attributed to Karma. And this may, once fully analyzed, produce a logical reason for "Karma" to be explained as a logical theory ranking generalization in specific scenarios. However, it is still an over generalization that is not necessarily true for everyone all the time, and therefore could not become a logical deduction generalization. There are numerous cases where Karma simply does not happen. So believing it will, then causes the person to have psychological walls. And these will become self-fulfilling as later on they subconsciously railroad people and circumstances, either to make the person have their karma, or to redirect fault to someone else who is getting karma. Either may be caused by subconscious railroading of people and circumstances to make it happen.

As to myself, though I may sometimes use guiding principles to make a hurried decision, I generally shy away from these. Though often useful, I consider all generalizations suspect until after I do my own analysis.

There are major practical drawbacks to this approach. One is that the optimally ideal often requires considerable thinking, whereas an over-riding principle is generally easy to remember and easy to follow. And then there's the way society operates, which tends to heavily cater to some of these.

I have also found that there are many language semantics issues in describing the things that I figure out. And though I view myself as motivated towards the most optimally ideal, my attempts at putting words to my ideas tends to make me come across as an idealist due to the many stereotypes society already linked to the words I use. I always ask people to take my words literally, to try not to read between the lines, because that information usually comes from unintended stereotypes.

And, I'm convinced that English has an even stronger tendency towards ambiguity when used to logically explain why and how. And that this often results in serious miscommunication.

And that moderate attempts at fixing ambiguity often make it worse.

It can come across as lying or as an excuse (due to all the extra words and new angles being explained), or as nonsense (when none of it makes sense to the reader or listener, or they think they're hearing contradictions), or as something with a near opposite meaning as that intended (because most people are trained to listen to keyword-triggered connotations and stereotypes that often greatly contrast the literal).

I'm convinced that these misinterpretations are a natural biproduct of how the untrained mind interprets words (generally forming context through keyword-triggered connotations and stereotypes rather than the logical progression of the explanation). And that this natural process tends to get people to follow a negative or counter interpretation to any partially corrected ambiguous explanation (despite all the efforts to provide good context using the literal meanings only).

And I've also found that fully correcting ambiguity results in tedious wording that seems to lose meaning and purpose to all but the most anal.

This dilemma is quite frustrating to deal with, and yet it must be dealt with to explain some things accurately. And I find that only a small percentage of the people I talk to are even aware of the problem. In their minds they have no problem communicating with others. And oftentimes the ones I watched closely, were quite clearly (to me) not seeing each other's points, just thinking they were.

What I've discovered about this process, is that common scenarios exist where both a writer and a reader may completely believe they are communicating, and yet with many of the ambiguities either partially or completely unnoticed at a conscious level. And this results in cloaked assumptions for both writer and reader (and not always the same assumptions).

I'm convinced that any language that promotes ambiguity, is at least partially responsible for delivering cloaked assumptions into the minds of the masses.

Most of the material that I have read had numerous assumptions that were likely cloaked to the writer, and to most readers. However, some writers are aware of this, and use various tactics to either mitigate the ambiguities in an attempt to improve the situation, or to exploit them (and though shocking, this is more common than you might think). And some get around the matter altogether...

The cheap way out is to not bother describing the matter logically, but rather to make some generalized observations about it. And this method can also have its advantages. I've noticed that a lot of successful people take this route, and I can see why. There are MANY scenarios where a person's attempt at explaining, strategically works against them. Whereas making generalized observations about it, is likely to work for them, strategically.

In a nutshell what I'm saying, is that even though English works great when describing popular generalizations (including the over-riding principles of various idealisms), that the same English works terribly when attempting to make accurate statements involving hows and whys. It is almost as though someone designed the language and the stereotypes to keep the minds of the masses trained inside a small box of understanding, while simultaneously confusing the communications from anyone venturing outside that box.

I'm convinced that any language that promotes ambiguity indirectly produces a "herding effect" that keeps people living/thinking/feeling from "inside-the-box", and punishes them many different ways when they venture outside. And that these same ambiguities positively impact the control freaks, usurpers, and manipulators, that keep the herd in line.

I think its time we consider the creation of a new language, one that is designed with no ambiguity potential, and can be used to efficiently and accurately describe anything. And one that does not twist the "optimally ideal" into just another "idealism".