shades of grey or fuzzy thinking?
Re: You call it irritating; I call it useful -- Neville B	Top of thread		Forum

Posted by: lesley ® 02/22/2005, 14:17:45 Author Profile Edit Alert Moderators

Hi Neville, Have you ever played Go? It was invented by the chinese and is played with counters that are black on one side and white on the other. During the course of play, when a counter gets flipped a whole line of them go at the same time, changing from black to white or the other way. The way I visualise it, that's what happens to us. Change your conclusion about one thing and it will flip a whole line of conclusions. I agree about the complexity of any given situation compared to a presentation which does not cover every aspect, but as you say slow and careful wins the day and you can reach a conclusion. Of course you get there by thinking in black and white. Personally I think this is an important point. Liars love all those shades of grey. There is a fine line between discouraging a blinkered rambunctious style of thinking that brooks no hindrance, which is the bit I think people don't like because it can get wearingly argumentative and scarily fanatic, and discouraging people from daring to use their ability to think things through to a conclusion. And I think that when people diss thinking clearly and carefully in favour of 'anything goes' style platitudes they think they are being tolerant and promoting peace and love, but miss the mark.

Previous

Recommend Current page

Next

Replies to this message

Black and white or just too lazy for complexity? --- Neville B ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 14:32:23 ) ( 266 bytes ) +2 Again, what is the "B&W thinking" we should be avoiding?! --- Jim ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 14:50:57 ) ( 435 bytes ) +1 What a difference two inverted commas make --- Neville B ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 15:38:22 ) ( 820 bytes ) +3 why not? --- dant ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 15:47:25 ) ( 73 bytes ) Re: What a difference two inverted commas make --- Cynthia ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 15:54:07 ) ( 1430 bytes ) +1 Hang on a minute, Cynthia --- Neville B ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 18:29:31 ) ( 933 bytes ) +1 Re: Hang on a minute, Cynthia (edited with correction) --- Cynthia ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 20:02:26 ) ( 4967 bytes ) +3 Thank You Cynthia! --- Hilltop ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 23:12:37 ) ( 1103 bytes ) +1 Re: The reason is that I am in the middle of a propaganda war --- Andries ( Wed, Feb 23, 2005, 05:07:42 ) ( 1202 bytes ) +1 Re: The reason is that I am in the middle of a propaganda war (OT) (Edited) --- Cynthia ( Wed, Feb 23, 2005, 06:38:42 ) ( 6258 bytes ) A couple of points, Cynthia --- Neville B ( Wed, Feb 23, 2005, 04:05:52 ) ( 780 bytes ) +2 Re: Andries' agenda, see my post to Hilltop (NT) --- Andries ( Wed, Feb 23, 2005, 05:28:10 ) ( 0 bytes ) link Re: A couple of points, Cynthia --- Cynthia ( Wed, Feb 23, 2005, 06:56:38 ) ( 75 bytes ) Excellent Reply, Cynthia! ANDRIES, PLEASE READ IT! (nt) --- Jonathan ( Wed, Feb 23, 2005, 05:59:35 ) ( 13 bytes ) +2 Re: (OT) I NEVER wrote or suggested that I have a PhD + forum guidelines --- Andries ( Wed, Feb 23, 2005, 06:30:24 ) ( 456 bytes ) Jonathan...(OT) --- Cynthia ( Wed, Feb 23, 2005, 07:31:57 ) ( 304 bytes ) +1 Cynthia...(OT) --- Jonathan ( Wed, Feb 23, 2005, 09:05:54 ) ( 82 bytes ) Here's what happened re Geaves --- Jim ( Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 15:55:04 ) ( 2281 bytes ) are you equating black and white with simplistic thinking? --- lesley ( Wed, Feb 23, 2005, 14:28:27 ) ( 590 bytes ) +1 Re: are you equating black and white with simplistic thinking? --- Andries ( Wed, Feb 23, 2005, 15:07:43 ) ( 360 bytes ) +2 Come on, Andries is full of s**t! This post here proves it! --- Jim ( Wed, Feb 23, 2005, 15:25:40 ) ( 1313 bytes ) +2 Re: Come on, Andries is full of s**t! This post here proves it! --- Andries ( Wed, Feb 23, 2005, 15:32:42 ) ( 743 bytes ) +4 No, you're wrong, clueless and evasive to boot --- Jim ( Wed, Feb 23, 2005, 15:38:50 ) ( 996 bytes ) +1 Re: No, you're wrong, clueless and evasive to boot --- Cynthia ( Wed, Feb 23, 2005, 16:26:46 ) ( 384 bytes ) Responding to your additonal text now --- Jim ( Wed, Feb 23, 2005, 16:30:27 ) ( 1529 bytes ) +1 "So enough with the insults already". --- cq ( Sat, Feb 26, 2005, 11:38:52 ) ( 22 bytes ) I agree with you about half --- Joe ( Wed, Feb 23, 2005, 16:47:22 ) ( 2100 bytes ) Your Tautologies are Incorrect --- Jonathan ( Wed, Feb 23, 2005, 17:05:43 ) ( 1381 bytes ) You might disagree with Andries, but why insult him? --- cq ( Sat, Feb 26, 2005, 11:36:31 ) ( 111 bytes ) +1 Good question. I've been wondering the same (no text) --- Neville B ( Sun, Feb 27, 2005, 03:59:10 ) ( 0 bytes ) "right to exercise freedom of religion" --- Bunny ( Wed, Feb 23, 2005, 17:19:30 ) ( 1036 bytes ) you mean one judgement fits all circumstances? --- cq ( Thu, Feb 24, 2005, 03:14:37 ) ( 487 bytes ) +1 You're not getting it, Chris --- Jim ( Thu, Feb 24, 2005, 10:48:35 ) ( 151 bytes ) +2 Thank you Jim --- lesley ( Thu, Feb 24, 2005, 14:15:48 ) ( 450 bytes ) +1 you didn't answer the question. --- cq ( Fri, Feb 25, 2005, 13:14:40 ) ( 680 bytes ) +1 I did not answer because --- lesley ( Fri, Feb 25, 2005, 15:43:47 ) ( 2683 bytes ) +1 Thanks for trying to explain, Lesley --- cq ( Sat, Feb 26, 2005, 11:33:17 ) ( 544 bytes ) Getting what, Jim? Your attempt to obfuscate speaks volumes --- cq ( Fri, Feb 25, 2005, 13:32:03 ) ( 619 bytes ) +1 Oh yeah, Chris, you got me good! Great eye there, fella! LOL! --- Jim ( Fri, Feb 25, 2005, 14:21:49 ) ( 403 bytes ) +1 I'm confused? So give us that practical example then! (no text) --- cq ( Sat, Feb 26, 2005, 07:51:11 ) ( 0 bytes )