It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The answers lie within - Free your mind...

page: 4
17
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 24 2019 @ 06:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: XXXN3O

originally posted by: EvilAxis

originally posted by: XXXN3O
Despite statistics and facts being that air travel is one of the safest forms and on top of that, being involved in an incident means you are even more unlikely to be involved ever again within a lifetime is almost completely invisible to the conscious mind due to the trauma being reinforeced and fed to you by the sub-conscious/unconscious.


Interesting thread, but your above statement contains a common factual misconception: being involved in an air incident does not in any way affect your future likelihood of being involved in another such incident. Read up on the Gambler's/ Monte Carlo fallacy if you cannot understand why this is.


You see the issue here is that you are attacking a programming/message which is intended to provide an extreme opposite to help a person.


No, I wasn't attacking a programming message - but pointing out that your statement, "being involved in an incident means you are even more unlikely to be involved ever again" is factually incorrect.

As you say, if an unlikely but frightening event occurs, we may behave as if it's bound to happen again. We become hyper-vigilant even though we would prefer to follow the rational dictates of our mind, which knows the event is as unlikely as it always was. The fear triggered is so intense that a survival-adapted aversion has kicked in which is unhelpful in this context.

But to try to counter this tendency with an irrational precept - namely, that the event is now less probable because it has already occurred - could be equally unhelpful, as it engenders irrational behaviour in the other direction.

The object is to perceive reality as it is. Just as ill-founded fears and neurosis can be crippling, mistaken models of causality (such as the Gambler's Fallacy) can, and do, lead to disastrous errors of judgement.




posted on Apr, 24 2019 @ 06:53 PM
link   
a reply to: XXXN3O

And your response had nothing to do with whatcI said.
Why can you not take criticism?



posted on Apr, 25 2019 @ 07:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: EvilAxis

originally posted by: XXXN3O

originally posted by: EvilAxis

originally posted by: XXXN3O
Despite statistics and facts being that air travel is one of the safest forms and on top of that, being involved in an incident means you are even more unlikely to be involved ever again within a lifetime is almost completely invisible to the conscious mind due to the trauma being reinforeced and fed to you by the sub-conscious/unconscious.


Interesting thread, but your above statement contains a common factual misconception: being involved in an air incident does not in any way affect your future likelihood of being involved in another such incident. Read up on the Gambler's/ Monte Carlo fallacy if you cannot understand why this is.


You see the issue here is that you are attacking a programming/message which is intended to provide an extreme opposite to help a person.


No, I wasn't attacking a programming message - but pointing out that your statement, "being involved in an incident means you are even more unlikely to be involved ever again" is factually incorrect.

As you say, if an unlikely but frightening event occurs, we may behave as if it's bound to happen again. We become hyper-vigilant even though we would prefer to follow the rational dictates of our mind, which knows the event is as unlikely as it always was. The fear triggered is so intense that a survival-adapted aversion has kicked in which is unhelpful in this context.

But to try to counter this tendency with an irrational precept - namely, that the event is now less probable because it has already occurred - could be equally unhelpful, as it engenders irrational behaviour in the other direction.

The object is to perceive reality as it is. Just as ill-founded fears and neurosis can be crippling, mistaken models of causality (such as the Gambler's Fallacy) can, and do, lead to disastrous errors of judgement.



I completely understand where you are coming from here.

This is the problem with the mind that I am getting at (it is illogical - arguing logic with it does not work if the mind in question is operating from a point of non-logic)...

Failure/Trauma (can) = Irrational fears

Success/Overcoming (can) = Do same again until failure or trauma

The problem is that if we cannot have programs running from the sub-conscious mind to aid our conscious mind (driving,eating, breathing and so, so many others) we cannot function day to day.

The problems occur when it (we) make mistakes that more often than not lead to self sabotage

edit on 25-4-2019 by XXXN3O because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2019 @ 07:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: HarbingerOfShadows
a reply to: XXXN3O

And your response had nothing to do with whatcI said.
Why can you not take criticism?


My response had nothing to do with what you said because you failed to respond to anything I said.

I can take criticism without issue.

I am yet to see something from you that indicates a fallacy.

My motive here is to try and possibly identify why the mind makes mistakes or how to prevent it from doing so, alongside other possibilties.

You are discussing terminology and branching off in another direction. Not even on the same page here at the moment, which is perfectly fine, create a new thread for it and can discuss it there.


edit on 25-4-2019 by XXXN3O because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2019 @ 04:11 PM
link   
a reply to: XXXN3O

o.O
And you want to tell everyone else how their mind works.....
Right.
Maybe learn to control yourself then it'd be more believable.


My response had nothing to do with what you said because you failed to respond to anything I said.


"I know you are but what am I!?!?"
Gotcha.....


I am yet to see something from you that indicates a fallacy.


And now you bring in parameters I certainly did not mention.
I wonder why.


My motive here is to try and possibly identify why the mind makes mistakes or how to prevent it from doing so, alongside other possibilties.


Your motive is immaterial.
Though one notes you may wish to work on your communication skills then.


You are discussing terminology and branching off in another direction. Not even on the same page here at the moment, which is perfectly fine, create a new thread for it and can discuss it there.


In what universe?
I have not done any of those things.
Is following context without going wildly into some quite frankly strange directions really that hard for you?




top topics
 
17
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join