In this post, I will assume a methodological flow beginning from the establishment of what should ideally constitute the dialectical process, and using our knowledge of the female cognitive process and decision-making correlates in developing a dialectical manipulation theory suited for females. With that said, it is obvious that this post is assuming key differences between the cognitive structures between men and women, at the neurological level. I will also hypothesize some cognitive routines men and women might use foundational to their decisions, regressing from some obvious economic and social behaviors. The analysis assumed will be post hoc, as I will try to theorize the underlying sociological, psychological and anthropological mechanisms from correlations that manifest superficially.
With the epistemology set straight, I want to shed light on the dialectic method of discourse. Dialectics differ from logic-oriented debate in two key domains – one, in the fact that it’s premises aren’t necessarily rational and two, in its ability to constrict the logical flow to one direction only i.e., deductively. This has prompted some people to dub dialectics as the “corruption of deductive reasoning” – I agree wholly to this notion. While the contemporary dialectic has been attributed largely to Hegel, the foundations for this sort of epistemological discourse was laid by Kant in his Critiques. The popular attribution to Hegel might stem from the fact that this method, of corrupting the reasoning of the subject, has been politically weaponized by later philosophers like Marx and its frequent use among conspiracy theorists. The Hegelian dialectic, or more abstractly, the Kantian dialectic, when weaponized, provides the illusion of freedom of choice while simultaneously convincing the subject of the apparent rationality of their conclusions. In other words, the subject whose reasoning is reduced to a dialectic one may be easily manipulated. But there still exists a vulnerability in this seemingly fool-proof technique.
Individuals who are in high possession of rational faculties will see through the irrational premises easily. The premises often used in the dialectical method, or more accurately, the thesis and anti-thesis, are rhetorical. They appeal to the emotional faculties of the subject. I, for instance, who considers myself to be a rational individual prefers to avoid employing rhetorical devices in my speech and writing. Why? Because rhetorics are innately fallacious in their appeals to emotions and they leave a lot of information open to interpretation. They do this by reconciling with the cultural system operating around the subject. A mastery of rhetorical dialectic might only be accomplished through a post hoc analysis of the target cultural system.
dialectical thinking is the corruption of deductive reasoning…
Education is believed to be the liberation of the mind, but is it anymore? Or was it ever? We are constantly fed with these age-old preconceived notions about education from society. And sometimes directly from the people who are meant to be educating us, almost creating a moral paradox! They tell us that school will enrich our creativity. They tell us how the intrinsic, natural creativity of the human mind is a speckles’ worth in contrast to the mind that has endured years of methodological indoctrination and testing. But are these notions valid? Or are we (they) confusing one thing for another? What are the drivers of education? How is it intertwined with the prevailing cultural and economical scene? These are some of the pressing questions that surfaces when one fundamentally re-examines the very concept of education that much of civilization has held on to dearly for decades, if not centuries. After years of school and college, it’s about time for us to step away from the tradition of receiving grades to being the ones to grade our education system.
Like every other endeavor of human civilization, education is one that has had its movements and reforms. From the early attempts at systematic indoctrination in religious and philosophical schools to the modern system consisting of graduated learning levels from elementary to graduate school, there are unmistakable commonalities to the keen eyes. From the times of the ancient Greek civilization, the Platonic academy and the two men, Socrates and Aristotle who surrounded his legacy to the Huehuetlatolli of the Aztecs to the madrasas of the Islamic world to the Vedic teachings of Indus Valley civilization – the earliest attempts of systematic indoctrination were based on the moral code essential to the functioning of early society. Their teachings were subjective to each civilization and time period, and very further subjective to the teacher or master leading the congregation. Education was simply restricted geographically and lost its relevance with the natural progression of civilization and the spread of ideas. Perhaps one of the most notable cultural exchange of the early days happened with the Silk Route, in a time when education was still in its infancy.
philosophy came to be the grand unifying force for many culturally-divested schools of education
We are supposed to be talking logic this time. More specifically, I’d like to talk logic and people – how they use and understand logic.
While most people aren’t necessarily logical, they seem to have a decent grasp of what is logic. You and I are capable of everyday reasoning. But we find ourselves making decisions seeing past conventional logic – and it really has more to do with human psychology. Sometimes, nasty people exploit this loophole to win an argument, make a point, or even manipulate us like some theatrical puppet.
In this post, I shall discuss the possibility of modelling (or rather predicting) the occurrence of anomalies in a system using Zifp’s law. Also, I will bring up empirical evidence from time to time to tip the argument in my favor.
Allow me bring up the evidence first. The case of the Malaysian Airlines tragedy, Air Asia and Egypt Air were all likely succumbed to this probability model. How so? The first crash involving a Malaysian Airlines plane occurred one fateful day of March, 2014 and it was the first time an MAS plane was involved in a major hull loss incident. Soon after in July that same year, another MAS plane was downed by Ukrainian forces.
We see that when something which is unlikely of happening happens, a similar something is exponentially more likely to happen again.
The incidents involving Egypt Air and Air Asia were no different. An MSR plane is first hijacked and soon after, one of its planes crashes. Again, an AXM plane crashes and soon after a plane operated by the same airline is involved in a runway excursion incident. Now you might wonder why I have chosen to constrain my argument to those of aviation-related incidents and accidents – and I have a perfectly good reason why because they are very rare making them the apt candidate for our discussion.
Let’s open up our minds a little now, I propose we might be able to predict the state of the human race’s understanding of the universe several years from now based on instantaneous trends in research and data collection. Say we make a breakthrough in chemotherapy and assuming this event might obey Zipf’s law, wouldn’t it be safe to say that we are more likely to make another similar breakthrough with the trend in chemotherapy breakthroughs moving upward exponentially. This way, we could model how we might end up in looking several years into the future, pretty much like how smartphones took the consumer electronics’ industry by storm. It would have been near impossible to linearly extrapolate from the 1980’s or so up until now and say what technology might have looked like.
I believe it is possible to explain the progress of intelligent civilizations in a similar way as demonstrated above.
Zipf’s law is more than just modelling events linearly. One could say that Zipf’s law allows us to make decisions and/or predict what the state of a system overall ahead of time by taking into consideration what is happening and what is likely to happen within the system. To answer my original question if accidents and incidents are completely Zipfian is plain stupid without any hard evidence, however I’d be comfortable with exploiting this trend to keep myself safe and make careful decisions.