Still More Logic Flaws

Another flaw in logic that seems to run rampant is the tendency to believe what one wants to believe to the point of ignoring all evidence to the contrary--or even refusing to examine the evidence for fear of being proved wrong. I think this is related to 'Ugly Baby Syndrome' that I mentioned the first time I blogged about logic flaws, but it isn't quite the same. I do think that is basic human nature--nobody wants to be wrong (myself included). One thing I have noticed, though, the sooner one will at least open up to the possibility that one might be wrong, the easier it is to put the mistake (if it is one) behind oneself and move past it.

Over a year ago, I heard a sermon that mentioned a point that I had never considered: After Abraham took Isaac up the mountain to offer him up as a sacrifice unto God, their relationship was never the same. After service, I had a man want to argue the point with me, saying that in Hebrews chapter 11, verses 18 and 19, it indicates that Abraham had faith that if he did kill Isaac, that God would raise Isaac up from the dead, so, the intended sacrifice shouldn't have affected their relationship at all. I responded that Isaac didn't know that. His position was that it didn't matter if Isaac knew, Abraham did, so it shouldn't have any affect. I tried for some time to get across to him that just because one person knows why they did something potentially harmful to the relationship, it does not by any means show cause for the other person in the relationship to be understanding. He would not (or could not) accept that. This past weekend, the same minister preached a sermon about relationships and mentioned this point again, but went into a lot more detail about how this would have affected Isaac (Unfortunately, my friend that wanted to argue about it wasn't in church Sunday).

This, of course, brings up another logic flaw: at times we will do things, expecting that other people will understand why we do what we do. Other people can't see motivation, they can only see results. If the end result is to push people away, they aren't going to see that the intent was to be helpful. Even in a father-son relationship (or mother-daughter), what is intended as a protective act is often interpreted as a vindictive one.

We have a tendency to develop 'filters' for dealing with other people. If one has been treated badly for a long time, one eventually learns to expect to be treated badly, even by strangers. I know a couple of attractive, twenty-something women that have grown accustomed to the fact that when a young man compliments them on their appearance, that he usually has more on his mind than just being glad to see something that looks nice. As a result, sometimes when people comment on their appearance, they either don't respond at all, or they respond with considerably less enthusiasm than might otherwise be expected. Essentially, they have developed a filter, so that when a man says, 'You look nice today,' even if he means it in the most innocent manner possible, they hear, 'Let's go to bed.' I believe that psychologists would call that filter a defensive mechanism. That happens to be a pretty good one; most guys don't persist long after a reaction like that. There are, of course many other filters, and even types of filters. These all come about from experiences, and the human brain doesn't always notice the subtle differences between the current situation, and the situation that established the filter. There used to be a T-shirt that said, "I know you understand what you think I said, but what you may not realize is that what you heard is not what I meant." I thought that shirt was hilarious at the time, but now that I understand more about filters, it's not nearly as funny--in fact, it makes a lot of sense.