Empowered Reasoning: How Perception, Bias, and Prediction Shape Our Realities

Predictions: in many regards, they drive life, shape our outlook—and spur us towards action.

As humans, we constantly make predictions, relying on judgment and discernment to navigate daily life.

Whether forecasting the weather, analyzing stock markets, interpreting others' actions, or assessing sincerity, prediction shapes our understanding and decisions.

Humans like to make meaning—reasoning supported by predictions.

Affective forecasting—the process of predicting our future emotional states—plays a crucial role in shaping our perspectives, influencing our communication styles, and guiding our reasoning patterns. It determines how we anticipate and interpret emotional experiences, affecting decision-making, social interactions, and cognitive biases.

Often, our forecasts are distorted by selective attention, emotional reasoning, and cognitive heuristics, leading to misjudgments about ourselves and others. However, recognizing these distortions can foster adaptive logic and reasoning, enabling a clearer, more nuanced understanding of our diverse realities. By refining our affective forecasting abilities, we cultivate emotional resilience, embrace complexity, and enhance our capacity for informed, balanced communication.

So, let’s get to the point—Can we be frank?

Let’s be honest: the vast majority of our reasoning is inherently flawed. Biased ladened affairs filled with short-sightedness and defensiveness—including this statement.

After the initial shock or urge to resist, you may find yourself asking, "Why?"

In this case, the approach was intentional—serving to make a point. The above statement employs a mix of rhetorical flourishes and broad generalizations that invite, or perhaps persuading you—the audience—to agree with a certain view of human reasoning without offering substantial evidence. Humans tend to use rhetoric and metaphor when asserting a point or forming reasoning. Perhaps because we like to feel certain, yet we struggle to articulate ourselves fully.

Back to the statement at hand. It subtly establishes:

A false dichotomy by implying that reasoning is either entirely honest or entirely flawed, commits a hasty generalization by dismissing the variability in reasoning quality, and uses self-referential doxastic reasoning that undermines its own credibility.

As such, while the statement may serve to provoke thought or highlight common biases, its logic is riddled with potential fallacies and oversimplifications that detract from its argumentative strength. Owning our fallacious or faulty reasoning empowers us to more thoughtfully consider perspectives—both our own and others. They free us to new ideas, inspiring us to new domains. They liberate our inherent limitations.

This lets us explore logical reasoning by examining how the statement, while not explicitly a false dichotomy, may unintentionally favor concise reasoning over comprehensive analysis—after all, humans like short-cuts, and hacks. 😉

Assessing self-reference

We filter our logic, perspective and reasoning through the lens of our own experiences—a lot. The statement is self-referential, suggesting all reasoning is flawed, which is a form of doxastic reasoning. It risks self-refutation, but we don’t clearly see a false dichotomy yet.

Analyze the statement below, paying close attention to potential false dichotomies, logical fallacies, doxastic reasoning, and other misleading or inaccurate elements—all ways we commonly reduce our capacity to form perspectives:

Self-Referential and Self-Defeating Claims

• The statement declares, “the vast majority of our reasoning is inherently flawed … including this statement.” This self-referential admission sets up a paradox. If the claim itself is a product of inherently flawed reasoning, its own truth value is undermined. This is sometimes referred to as a self-defeating argument—a form of doxastic reasoning that undermines its own credibility by preemptively dismissing its rational basis.

Overgeneralization and Hasty Generalization

• Claiming that “the vast majority of our reasoning is inherently flawed” is a sweeping generalization. Without contextual support or evidence, this assertion may commit a hasty generalization fallacy. It implies that nearly all reasoning processes are biased or fallible without accounting for the diversity and varying quality of reasoning across contexts.

Implicit False Dichotomy

• Although not a classic either/or structure, the statement sets up an implicit dichotomy between “frank, honest discussion” and “biased, flawed reasoning.” By demanding frankness (“Can we be frank?”) and then qualifying honesty with a blanket negative view on reasoning, it suggests that any attempt at rational discourse is either completely honest and straightforward or entirely compromised by bias and short-sightedness. This dichotomy oversimplifies the spectrum of reasoning quality, leaving little room for nuanced or partially sound arguments.

Doxastic Reasoning

• The phrase “Let’s be honest: …” signals an appeal to a shared belief or value about truthfulness, and then asserts a broad, belief-based claim about the nature of reasoning. This form of reasoning, where one’s belief about the inherent flaws in reasoning is taken as evidence in itself, can be categorized as doxastic. It is reasoning based primarily on a worldview or presupposed stance rather than on demonstrable, structured argumentation.

Rhetorical Device vs. Logical Substance

• The opening “So, let’s get to the point” and “Can we be frank?” function rhetorically as calls for clarity and candor. However, they do not substantively support the claim that follows. Instead, they serve as a framing device that might lead the audience to accept the ensuing generalization without critical examination. This could be seen as a form of appeal to emotion (or ethos), where the speaker builds rapport by appealing to a common desire for honesty, even as the ensuing logic may lack robust support.

Potential Circular Reasoning

• By asserting that our reasoning is flawed, and then using that very assertion as evidence for the inherent bias and short-sightedness of our reasoning, the argument skirts close to circular reasoning. It assumes as a premise what it is trying to prove—if all reasoning (including this statement) is flawed, then the statement’s own conclusion is part of that flaw, creating a loop.

But, It’s totally beside the point—a phrase you may have heard during an argument, or debate when conflicting points of interest arise.

The phrase "it's totally beside the point" originates from the idea of an argument, discussion, or reasoning process having a central focus or point. To be beside the point means that something is irrelevant, off-topic, or does not directly address the core issue at hand.

Etymology and Development

The phrase likely stems from rhetorical traditions in logic and debate, where a well-structured argument has a clear point—a central claim or thesis.

If a statement or argument is beside the point, it deviates from the main argument, much like how something physically beside a target is not hitting the mark.

This concept aligns with logical fallacies such as red herrings—distractions meant to divert attention from the main issue. The phrase has been in use since at least the 19th century and remains a common idiomatic expression in English.

Unraveling idioms

Idioms enrich language by adding figurative meaning and cultural depth, transforming simple words into evocative shorthand for complex ideas.

This makes communication more vivid and thought-provoking.

• "Break the ice" is a common idiom meaning to initiate conversation in a social setting to ease tension or awkwardness.
• "Spill the beans" is an everyday idiom that means to reveal a secret or disclose information inadvertently.

Think…‘mindset is everything’.

An idiom is a phrase or expression whose meaning cannot be deduced solely from the literal definitions of its individual words but instead carries a culturally understood significance.

In reasoning or debate, idioms often serve as concise metaphors or shorthand that encapsulate complex ideas or critiques, streamlining communication while sometimes oversimplifying nuanced arguments.

Idioms are deeply embedded in our neural programming as mental shortcuts that allow us to quickly process and communicate complex ideas without rethinking their underlying meanings each time.

This efficiency leads us to lean on them in decision-making and actions, as they simplify information processing and enable rapid responses in everyday situations.

However, while they facilitate swift judgments, their reliance can sometimes oversimplify nuanced arguments and subtly bias our reasoning processes.

Psychological and Cognitive Perspective

From a psychological standpoint, people often go beside the point due to cognitive biases, emotional responses, or subconscious defenses. For example:

• Emotional Reasoning: A person may shift the topic to avoid discomfort or confrontation.
• Selective Attention: They might focus on tangential details due to personal biases.
• Deflection: It can be a defense mechanism used to avoid deeper, unresolved psychological material.

Humans naturally seek certainty and security in judgment and reasoning, a tendency rooted in the neural functions of the central nervous system. This drive for stability can sometimes lead to cognitive biases, including willful blindness, which affects perception and decision-making in social interactions.

In this regard, various cognitive and perceptual factors influence belief structures, cognitive dissonance, and plausible deniability, specifically through the lens of selective attention, inference, reinforcement, and willful blindness.

Additionally, the '7 Ds' of willful blindness—denial, distortion, dissociation, dissonance, dilution, delusion, and dissolution—can be considered for their roles in shaping and informing beliefs.

Here’s how:

Selective Attention, Inference, Reinforcement, and Willful Blindness:

Selective Attention:

Role: Focuses on specific information while ignoring contradictory data.

• Influence: Reinforces existing beliefs and limits broader perspective, contributing to cognitive dissonance by ignoring conflicting information.

Selective Inference:

Role: Draws biased conclusions that support preexisting beliefs.

• Influence: Strengthens limiting beliefs and restricts objective evaluation, distorting perception and hindering adaptability.

Selective Reinforcement:

Role: Rewards thoughts or behaviors that align with existing beliefs while ignoring contradictory ones.

• Influence: Creates a feedback loop that solidifies beliefs, making it difficult to adopt new perspectives and adapt.

Willful Blindness:

Role: Intentionally ignores or avoids contradictory information.

• Influence: Prevents recognition of diverse viewpoints, maintaining limiting beliefs and restricting awareness and understanding.

'7 Ds' of Willful Blindness:

Denial:

Role: Refusal to accept objective reality or facts.

• Influence: Avoids uncomfortable truths, reinforcing flawed beliefs and hindering cognitive flexibility and adaptation.

Distortion:

Role: Twists objective reality to fit pre-existing beliefs.

• Influence: Skews perception and interpretation of information, maintaining belief perseverance and reducing psychological flexibility.

Dissociation:

Role: Disconnects from thoughts, feelings, or memories.

• Influence: Prevents full processing of experiences, limiting emotional resilience and adaptation.
• A factor that becomes particularly salient when experiencing emotional dysregulation.

Dissonance:

Role: Mental discomfort from holding conflicting beliefs.

• Influence: Can either prompt belief change or increase rigidity, affecting psychological flexibility and resilience.

Dilution:

Role: Weakens the impact of significant information with irrelevant details.

• Influence: Obscures important facts, hindering clear understanding and adaptation.

Delusion:

Role: Firmly held false beliefs despite contrary evidence.

• Influence: Creates strong barriers to accepting reality, severely limiting cognitive flexibility and adaptability.

Dissolution:

Role: Breakdown of structured beliefs.

• Influence: Can lead to confusion and instability, but may also offer opportunities for reconstructing more adaptive belief systems.

Overall Influence:

1. These factors contribute to and reinforce cognitive dissonance, distorted perceptual filters, and plausible deniability by maintaining maladaptive belief structures.
2. They shape our responses to new information and experiences, often limiting our cognitive, emotional, and psychological flexibility.
3. By either reinforcing existing beliefs or providing disruption necessary for growth, they influence our resiliency and confidence, determining how well we adapt to change and overcome challenges.

Effective adaptation, cognitive and emotional flexibility, and psychological resilience depend on the ability to recognize and address these factors, leading to healthier belief structures and more robust personal development.

By maintaining or challenging belief structures, they shape how we respond to adversity, cope with uncertainty, and adapt to new situations.

Practical Implications

In communication, recognizing when something is beside the point helps maintain clarity and focus. However, seemingly irrelevant details may sometimes reveal hidden underlying concerns, making it crucial to assess whether a deviation is truly irrelevant or a signal of deeper unresolved issues.

Would you like to explore how this phrase relates to emotional projection and subconscious storytelling patterns?

Crafting logical deduction

We can begin by mapping out various logical deduction forms, including deductive, inductive, and abductive reasoning.

Recognizing logical fallacies and distinguishing expansive from inhibitive reasoning enhances clarity.

The goal is to ensure comprehensive analysis and synthesis of these reasoning types.

As an idiom—we often label these shortcuts toward expansive reasoning as ‘overthinking’—itself leveraged as a form of reasoning-shorthand. We often use these devices to explain circular thinking, rumination, anticipatory anxiety, or fault affective forecasting.

When we say something is "beside the point," we acknowledge that the argument or assertion has strayed from the central issue. In analyzing how this can happen, it’s useful to examine the forms of logical deduction and reasoning—and the logical fallacies—that can lead a discussion off course.

Logical Deduction and Reasoning Forms

Deductive Reasoning

Deductive reasoning starts with a general principle and deduces specific conclusions that are logically certain if the premises are true.

For example: in a debate, if someone argues from an accepted general rule but then introduces a premise that is tangential or flawed, the conclusion, while logically following from that premise, may miss the core issue. A misapplied deduction might lead to a sound structure that is, however, built on irrelevant or misplaced assumptions.

Inductive Reasoning

Inductive reasoning involves drawing general conclusions from specific observations. In conflict or debate, one might observe particular instances and generalize them to assert a broader claim.

However, if the observations are cherry-picked or not representative, the conclusion can deviate from the central topic, effectively being "beside the point." Here, expansive reasoning might lead to overgeneralizations that obscure the main argument.

Abductive Reasoning

Abductive reasoning, or inference to the best explanation, is common in everyday thinking. In discussions, people often use abductive reasoning to fill gaps in their understanding by positing a plausible explanation.

But when this reasoning relies on incomplete or tangential evidence, it may lead to conclusions that do not directly address the core question. In this way, the process can lead to an inadvertent distraction from the main issue.

Logical Fallacies That Divert the Focus

In debates or conflicts, several common logical fallacies can cause participants to miss the point:

• Red Herring

This fallacy involves introducing an irrelevant topic to divert attention away from the original issue. It is perhaps the most literal representation of something being "beside the point."

• Straw Man

By misrepresenting an opponent's argument, one can more easily attack a distorted version rather than the actual point. This sidesteps the real issue and leads the conversation astray.

• False Dilemma (or False Dichotomy)

Presenting only two options when more exist forces a choice that might not actually capture the full range of possibilities, thus missing the nuanced center of the debate.

• Ad Hominem

Attacking the character or motives of the person making the argument, rather than the argument itself, shifts focus from the issue at hand to personal traits.

(We see this as a common occurrence in political debates or in social media fracas-a noisy disturbance or quarrel.)

They are quite literally intended—intentionally, or otherwise—to introduce ‘noise’ into the conversation ti distract us from ‘the point at hand’.

• Circular Reasoning

When an argument’s conclusion is used as one of its premises, it can obscure the actual line of reasoning and distract from a genuine resolution of the debate.

• Non Sequitur

This occurs when conclusions do not logically follow from the premises. It often introduces ideas that are disconnected from the central argument.

• Hasty Generalization

Drawing a broad conclusion from a small or unrepresentative sample of evidence can lead to an oversimplified argument that bypasses the complexity of the central issue.

• Slippery Slope

Suggesting that one action will inevitably lead to a series of undesirable events without adequate evidence diverts the discussion from more measured, direct analysis of the issue.

Expansive vs. Inhibitive Reasoning

• Expansive Reasoning

This form of reasoning encourages exploring a wide range of ideas and possibilities. While it can foster creative solutions, it also risks expanding the debate into tangential areas, thereby missing the central point.

• Inhibitive Reasoning

In contrast, inhibitive reasoning aims to limit the discussion to the most relevant points, filtering out extraneous details. However, if applied too rigidly, it might overlook subtle but significant nuances that are essential to fully understanding the issue.

Assessment

When someone’s assertion or debate goes "beside the point," it is often due to a combination of flawed logical deductions and the influence of cognitive biases that favor either an overly expansive or overly inhibitive approach. A robust argument generally requires:

• Clarity of Premises: Ensuring that the initial premises are directly relevant to the central issue.
• Focused Deductive and Inductive Processes: Avoiding leaps in logic that introduce irrelevant details.
• Awareness of Fallacies: Recognizing and mitigating common logical fallacies to keep the discussion centered.

So, what is my point? By understanding these forms of reasoning and identifying the fallacies at play, participants in a conversation or debate can better steer their discussions back to the central point. Yes—kind conflict can be productive.

This approach not only improves logical clarity but also ensures that the underlying unresolved issues are addressed rather than sidestepped by distracting arguments.

To summarize:

In sum, our inherent drive for certainty and security—rooted in our central nervous system—helps us emotionally regulate by establishing familiar cognitive patterns that filter out overwhelming or contradictory information.

This process can lead us to avoid confronting emotionally challenging cues, such as facial expressions that might signal uncertainty or conflict, thereby reducing the emotional 'noise' in our environment.

In doing so, we create a more stable internal framework that simplifies decision-making, allowing us to maintain a clearer and more expansive perspective on our experiences and the world around us.

Want to cultivate emotional regulation and clarity while embracing complexity instead of clinging to certainty?

This can happen when we engage with differing perspectives, question automatic assumptions, and allow discomfort to refine your understanding rather than restrict it.

Remember, seeking clarity doesn’t mean ignoring uncertainty; it means embracing it with curiosity and self-compassion, knowing that growth comes from exploring, not avoiding, the full depth of our experiences.

You can do it—I believe in you!