Who else loves mindset ?

The Opportunity in Adversity

By Eckhart Tolle

Life unfolds between the polarities of order and chaos. It is important at this time to recognize these two fundamental opposites, without which the world could not even be. Another word for disorder is “adversity.” When it becomes more extreme, we might call it “chaos.”

We would prefer, of course, to have order in our lives, which means to have things going well. We would like relative harmony in our lives. Yet, that very often is marred by the eruption of some form of disorder. And, usually, we resent that—we get angry, or despondent, or sad.

Disorder comes in many, many forms, big and small. When disorder comes it usually creates a kind of havoc in our lives, accompanied by strong underlying beliefs. “There’s something very wrong, this should not be happening, maybe God is against me,” and so on. Again, we need to understand that disorder, or adversity, is inevitable and is an essential part of a higher order.

 From a higher perspective, a higher level, the existence of order and disorder, or order and chaos, is a necessary part of the evolution of life.

 Many people have found that they experience a deepening, or a deeper sense of self or beingness, immediately after and as a result of having endured a period of disorder or chaos. This is sometimes called “the dark night of the soul,” a term from medieval Christianity used to describe the mental breakdown that many mystics experienced prior to awakening spiritually. There was an eruption of disorder, of destruction. Then, out of that, a deeper realization arose.

 And although that can be very painful, the strange thing is, it’s precisely there that many humans experience a transcendence. A strange fact is that it almost never happens that people awaken spiritually while they’re in their comfort zone. Or that they become deeper as human beings, which would be a partial awakening. It almost never happens. The place where the evolutionary shift happens, or the evolutionary leap, is usually the experience of disorder in a person’s life.

And so your life then moves between order and disorder. You have both, and they’re both necessary. There’s no guarantee that when disorder erupts this will bring about an awakening or a deepening, but there’s always the possibility. It is an opportunity, but often, it is missed.

 So here we are at this time, and our mission is the same: to align with the present moment, with whatever is happening here and now. The upheaval that we’re experiencing at the present time probably will not be the last upheaval that’s going to come on a collective level. However, it is an opportunity—because although this is a time for upheavals, it is also a time for awakening. The two go together. Just as in an individual life, you need adversity to awaken. It’s an opportunity but not a guarantee. And so what looks tragic and unpleasant on a conventional level is actually perfectly fine and as it should be on a higher level; it would not be happening otherwise. It’s all part of the awakening of human beings and of planetary awakening.

To learn more about Eckhart’s teachings on Conscious Manifestation, click here.

Join for free and receive upcoming articles, teachings, special announcements, and more.

var fieldMaps = {};

 

The post The Opportunity in Adversity appeared first on Eckhart Tolle | Official Site – Spiritual Teachings and Tools For Personal Growth and Happiness.

Who else thinks method is cool ?

What are funny questions to ask a girl?  Even if you have a great sense of humor, you’re not alone if answering this question takes some research. After all, you’re going for more than just an encouraging smile. You’re looking for questions to make a girl laugh out loud. It’s a tall order, but we’ve …

Read More101 Laugh Out Loud Funny Questions To Ask A Girl

The post 101 Laugh Out Loud Funny Questions To Ask A Girl appeared first on Live Bold and Bloom.

I always adore anything about self-improvement

The Opportunity in Adversity

By Eckhart Tolle

Life unfolds between the polarities of order and chaos. It is important at this time to recognize these two fundamental opposites, without which the world could not even be. Another word for disorder is “adversity.” When it becomes more extreme, we might call it “chaos.”

We would prefer, of course, to have order in our lives, which means to have things going well. We would like relative harmony in our lives. Yet, that very often is marred by the eruption of some form of disorder. And, usually, we resent that—we get angry, or despondent, or sad.

Disorder comes in many, many forms, big and small. When disorder comes it usually creates a kind of havoc in our lives, accompanied by strong underlying beliefs. “There’s something very wrong, this should not be happening, maybe God is against me,” and so on. Again, we need to understand that disorder, or adversity, is inevitable and is an essential part of a higher order.

 From a higher perspective, a higher level, the existence of order and disorder, or order and chaos, is a necessary part of the evolution of life.

 Many people have found that they experience a deepening, or a deeper sense of self or beingness, immediately after and as a result of having endured a period of disorder or chaos. This is sometimes called “the dark night of the soul,” a term from medieval Christianity used to describe the mental breakdown that many mystics experienced prior to awakening spiritually. There was an eruption of disorder, of destruction. Then, out of that, a deeper realization arose.

 And although that can be very painful, the strange thing is, it’s precisely there that many humans experience a transcendence. A strange fact is that it almost never happens that people awaken spiritually while they’re in their comfort zone. Or that they become deeper as human beings, which would be a partial awakening. It almost never happens. The place where the evolutionary shift happens, or the evolutionary leap, is usually the experience of disorder in a person’s life.

And so your life then moves between order and disorder. You have both, and they’re both necessary. There’s no guarantee that when disorder erupts this will bring about an awakening or a deepening, but there’s always the possibility. It is an opportunity, but often, it is missed.

 So here we are at this time, and our mission is the same: to align with the present moment, with whatever is happening here and now. The upheaval that we’re experiencing at the present time probably will not be the last upheaval that’s going to come on a collective level. However, it is an opportunity—because although this is a time for upheavals, it is also a time for awakening. The two go together. Just as in an individual life, you need adversity to awaken. It’s an opportunity but not a guarantee. And so what looks tragic and unpleasant on a conventional level is actually perfectly fine and as it should be on a higher level; it would not be happening otherwise. It’s all part of the awakening of human beings and of planetary awakening.

To learn more about Eckhart’s teachings on Conscious Manifestation, click here.

Join for free and receive upcoming articles, teachings, special announcements, and more.

var fieldMaps = {};

 

The post The Opportunity in Adversity appeared first on Eckhart Tolle | Official Site – Spiritual Teachings and Tools For Personal Growth and Happiness.

who else gets this

I’m going to be honest: most courses you take in university aren’t worth a whole lot. That’s not because the professors are bad or the coursework is pointless (although sometimes that is definitely the case). I mean that most of the courses you take will never be all that relevant to the rest of your life.

But then, every once in a while, often by accident, you stumble into a course that is hugely impactful on your life. That happened to me in my sophomore year. I needed to take an elective from the humanities department, and not wanting to get sucked into a seminar on “Romantic literature of the 1840s” or whatever, I went for the least humanities-sounding thing I could find on the list: a philosophy course called “Logic and Reasoning.” It probably ended up being the most valuable course I ever took in my life.

From day one, I loved my logic course. Each morning, we’d all come into class to find a question like this on the board:

“Every time a train arrives at the station, there are many passengers on the platform. You arrive at the station and see many passengers waiting on the platform. Is it necessarily true that a train will arrive soon?” 

Pretty much everyone in the class would answer “yes” and then become infuriated when the professor told us the correct answer was no—just because trains always arrive when there are many passengers does not mean that many passengers will always result in a train arriving.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen so many pissed off twenty-year-olds as I did in that classroom each week. Many would accuse the professor of making shit up to humiliate them and give them poor grades. Others simply couldn’t follow what was going on, struggling to follow the steps in reasoning between “people,” “train,” and “time.” But I loved it.

Despite the outrage, the professor was demonstrating some of the most fundamental principles of thinking:

  • Just because two things often occur together does not mean that they will necessarily always occur together.
  • Just because a line of reasoning is intuitive does not mean it’s correct—logic can often be counterintuitive.

Logic is the bedrock of pretty much all human knowledge. As such, philosophers have killed many trees over the centuries, analyzing and determining the principles that define logic and reason. Their ambition has been to determine what we can know to be true and what we cannot know to be true.

What most people don’t realize is that logical fallacies—that is, errors in judgment and reasoning—are incredibly common in day-to-day life. Worse, we’re mostly unaware of how they disrupt and harm our lives, often in profound ways. These fallacies are right in front of our noses, yet we are so comfortable with our own thought processes that we fail to spot them.

This article will take you through some of the most common logical fallacies. It will teach you how to not only spot them in yourself but also how to spot them in others.

Correlation is Not Causation

Let’s start with probably the most important fallacy to understand—the one you and I and everyone we know fucks up with abandon: correlation is not causation. Just because two things regularly occur together does not mean one causes the other.

Let’s pretend for a second that today, I ate some ice cream and you lost your job. And what’s crazier is that the last time I ate ice cream, somebody else lost their job. Would you then say that me eating ice cream causes people to lose jobs? (If so, this would be one strange superpower.) Or would you simply say these are two common occurrences that happen to be occurring together for a short period of time?

You’d say the latter.

Yet, you’d be surprised how often this sort of thing gets passed off as “news” in the world.

You often see news articles announcing things such as, “Social Media causes anxiety and depression” or that “unemployment is caused by raising the minimum wage.”

Yet, when you dig into the data, the researchers found correlations—ice cream and job losses—and not causation.

Anxiety and depression increased and social media usage increased. That doesn’t mean one caused the other. It could be a coincidence. There could be some mysterious third force causing both to happen. The arrow of causation could point the other direction (e.g., people are becoming more depressed, so they retreat to social media more often to feel better).

Two things occurring together does not tell us much about whether one caused the other.

This is a huge problem in academic research. Scientists frequently present data in a way that suggests causation when all they found is a correlation. And even if they don’t present it that way, journalists will often take correlational data and write about it as if it’s causative.

The fact is, so much stuff happens at the same time and we have no idea why. You could argue that almost any correlation looks like causation if you wanted to. In fact, there’s a website called Spurious Correlations that does just that.

For example, here’s the correlation between Nicolas Cage movies and deaths caused by drowning in a pool:

Logical fallacy - spurious correlation - Nicholas Cage movies and drowning in a pool

Here’s cheese consumption and the number of people who were killed by their bedsheets:

Logical fallacies spurious correlation - cheese consumption and death by bedsheets

But my favorite one is probably the correlation between the divorce rate in Maine and the per capita consumption of margarine:

Logical fallacies - spurious correlaitons - divorce rate in Maine and consumption of margarine

Some day there’s going to be a politician in Maine shouting, “We can no longer let our families be destroyed by margarine!” Just you wait.

Slippery Slope Fallacy

Stop me if you’ve ever heard this line of reasoning before:

“We can’t let teenagers drink alcohol because if they drink alcohol, then they’ll start doing drugs, and if they do drugs then they’ll become criminals. And if they become criminals, then they’ll end up in prison and ruin their lives. Therefore, allowing teenagers to drink alcohol will ruin their lives.” 

The slippery slope fallacy is when you take one mild negative consequence and tie it with a similar but extreme negative consequence and then argue that one will lead to the other. You see this fallacy show up in all sorts of places, especially within business organizations, foreign policy, and yes, paranoid parenting.

The truth is that some but not all kids who drink alcohol do drugs. Some but not all kids who do drugs become addicts. Some but not all addicts become criminals. Some but not all criminals ruin their lives. Therefore, it is logically inaccurate to compare drinking alcohol with ruining a life.

(Not to mention, the data that shows that teenagers who drink alcohol are X times more likely to do drugs could be another case of “correlation is not causation.”)

The Slippery Slope Fallacy often fucks us up because it generates a lot of unnecessary fear and anxiety. We mess up an assignment at work. The boss gets mad. You start thinking, “Well if the boss is mad, then she’s going to hate me. And if the boss hates me, then I’m going to get fired. And if I get fired, then I’m going to be homeless. OMG I DON’T WANT TO BE HOMELESS!!!”

Calm your shit, buck-o. There are a lot of steps between a TPS Report and homelessness.

Homeless tent camp
Behold… all of the poorly filed TPS Reports

False Dichotomies

There are some classes of arguments where there are legitimately only two options. For instance, I could say, “There are two kinds of people in this world: people named Ron and people not named Ron.” This is a true dichotomy (or division of two): you’re either named Ron or you’re not.

But a false dichotomy is when a set of options is presented as if only two possibilities exist but in reality, many more exist.

For example, if I said, “There are only two kinds of people in the world: people named Ron and fucking idiots.” This is a false dichotomy. Why? Because these two options don’t encompass all potential options.

There are plenty of people not named Ron who are also not idiots. Also—and I can tell you this from experience—there are plenty of people named Ron who are total fucking idiots.

Ronald McDonald
Just look at this fucking idiot named Ron.

False dichotomies are used to manipulate people into allying with the speaker. You often hear politicians or other leaders say, “You’re either with us or against us,” as a way to whip people into line. But this is a false dichotomy. You could be indifferent. You could be partially with them and partially against them. You could be against everybody. Don’t buy into this bullshit.

But false dichotomies often hurt us when we judge ourselves. We often say things to ourselves like, “If I worked harder, I wouldn’t be such a loser.” You know you can be a loser who works hard, right? You can also not be a loser and not work hard, too. In fact, being a loser and working hard are completely arbitrary things that you just decided to force into a false dichotomy.

Why? To feel like shit about yourself. Now, why would you do that? I bet your name is Ron…

Begging the Question

Begging the question occurs when someone’s argument relies upon its own assumptions to make its case. For example:

  • Everything in the Bible is true. Why? Because in the Bible, it says that everything in it is true.
  • My husband always knows what’s right for me. Why? Because he told me that he always knows what’s right for me and he’s always right, so…
  • Carl is a dork. Why? Because he tries to pretend he’s not a dork, so that makes him a dork.

This is often called “circular reasoning” because if you follow the logic, it leads you in a circle.

Logical fallacies - circular reasoning

But similar to the fallacies above, begging the question can be subtle as well.

For example, I once got in an argument with an anarchist about politics (never recommended, by the way). He said that any organization that commits violence and wields influence over the population is inherently evil. Well, when you boil it down, part of the function of any government is to monopolize violence and wield influence over the population (ideally, for the benefit of all). I spent the better part of ten minutes trying to explain to this guy that he was simply restating the same belief over and over, yet, as you can imagine, it didn’t really go anywhere.

Red Herrings

Red Herrings are arguments that seem relevant to an issue but actually are not. For example, we could be arguing about whether being vegetarian is more ethical than eating meat. Then, in the middle of a perfectly fine argument, I blurt out, “Well, Hitler was vegetarian! And he surely wasn’t ethical!”

This is a distraction from the real point of debate: whether eating meat is inherently unethical. These kinds of distractions from the argument are known as “red herrings.” And if you—god forbid—spend lots of time watching and reading the news, you will notice a large proportion of what is said and written is some form of a red herring.

Red herring logical fallacy: Hitler was a vegetarian

Red herrings are also usually logical fallacies themselves. For example, the assumption that because Hitler was vegetarian, and Hitler was unethical, vegetarianism must be unethical is known as the Fallacy of Composition—when something that is true for a part is assumed to be true for the whole (i.e., Paul is American and he is short, therefore Americans must be short).

Red Herrings are often used by people to divert blame away from themselves.

You: “Jon, you stole my bike.”

Jon: “Property is just a social construct, you didn’t really lose anything. After all, you have money for a new one.”

You: “Money isn’t the point, you fucking stole from me!

Jon: “Millions of things get stolen every day, I don’t understand why you’re so upset it happened to you.”

You:BECAUSE IT’S WRONG! YOU FUCKING STOLE MY SHIT!!!

Jon: “Wow man, you’ve clearly got some anger problems going on here. You know, I don’t think I want to deal with someone who is so angry all the time. I’m going to bike home now.”

You: “RRRAAAAGHGHHH!#@#@!#!M@$IUBRFNKLAS”

(We all know a Jon… don’t be friends with a Jon.)

Appeals to the Bandwagon, Authority, and Pity

When in an argument, it’s tempting to skip the logic and go straight to appealing to some outside source to make your point feel more resonant.

Well, unfortunately, logic doesn’t give a shit about your feelings. A bad argument is a bad argument, regardless of who agrees with you.

There are three common appeals that people make when trying to win points for their side:

  • An appeal to authority: “Well, the president said it’s true, so it must be true!”
  • An appeal to pity: “I know the data says that social media isn’t the problem, but these poor kids have so much anxiety, we should still get rid of their phones.”
  • An appeal to the majority: “Everyone I know says that vaccines are dangerous, so it must be true.”

The hyper-social nature of our species causes us to appeal to outside influences. We all want to belong to a community. We all want to associate with high-status people. We all want others to know we’re kind and considerate.

The problem is that none of these things have anything to do with logic or truth. If something is true, it’s true whether anyone believes it or not.

How much science cares if you believe in it

At the end of the day, the truth doesn’t give a shit about you or me or anyone else. We care. And because we care we trick ourselves into thinking that these opinions affect the truth when they don’t.

Ad Hominem

Remember when you were a kid and you’d get in an argument with another kid, and they’d point out how you were wrong, and at a complete loss of how to defend yourself, you’d blurt out, “Well you’re just a smelly goat-face! And I don’t listen to smelly goat-faces,” and stomp off as if that solved something?

Yeah, that’s an ad hominem fallacy.

Sometimes, rather than attack someone’s argument, we just attack the person instead. You see this all the time in politics. Senator X wants to reform education. Senator Y doesn’t. But instead of arguing against Senator X’s proposals, Senator Y just calls Senator X a smelly goat-face. Voters cheer. Senator Y wins re-election. Democracy continues on as planned.

Art Spader Quote: "The great thing about democracy is that it gives every voter a chance to do something stupid."

Sadly, the Ad Hominem Fallacy seems to be the fallacy of choice in political discourse and much of journalism these days. Political opponents rarely seem to be able to debate issues without launching personal attacks on one another that have nothing to do with the argument at hand.

Straw Man

If the Ad Hominem Fallacy is the bread and butter of politicians, then the Straw Man Fallacy is the bread and butter of social media.

Rather than debating a claim based on its merits, we sometimes substitute a distorted, exaggerated, or otherwise ridiculously misrepresented version of the argument to more easily attack it.

This is called the “straw man” fallacy because, like replacing a real person with a person made of straw, you’re replacing a stronger argument with a weaker one in order to more easily discredit it.

Straw men arguments are quite common—and shockingly dumb:

  • “You’re pro-choice? So you enjoy killing babies, I see.”
  • “You want to reduce the defense budget? You must hate the military and don’t support our soldiers.”

Straw man logical fallacy - Condescending Wonka

More subtle examples of the straw man argument are quite common too. For instance, someone might argue that we should work to reduce the prison population by enforcing more lenient punishments for non-violent drug offenses. A subtle but common straw man counterargument is that such a view is “soft on crime.” This distorts the original argument by implying that all crimes should be punished more leniently when the real argument is that some drug crimes don’t warrant prison time.

The real damage of the straw man fallacy isn’t necessarily that it’s wrong—it’s that it distracts everyone horribly from the real issue at hand. People spend the entire time defending their beliefs from ridiculous characterizations and no one actually talks about the real issues.

The Importance of Sound Reasoning

If you haven’t noticed, we all kinda suck at this logic and reason thing. This list is just a tiny slice of the logical fallacies pie but probably accounts for a significant portion of what we think and are exposed to each day.

But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t make every effort to be better. After all, logic and reason are our life preservers in a vast sea of uncertainty and bullshit. To let go of the life preserver, to cling onto the latest, greatest fad or the dipshit who’s currently on your screen… well, that’s intellectual suicide.

Not to mention that a lot of these logical fallacies can turn you into an insufferable dick pretty quickly. Debating with someone over the merits of an idea or argument is already contentious enough. But falling into the trap of these logical fallacies, many of which hinge on making a mockery of the other person’s ideas (or the person themselves), will not make you the biggest hit at children’s parties. Not to mention people won’t exactly be thrilled to talk to you about anything important or meaningful.

At best, fallacious reasoning keeps bad ideas alive. At its worst, it pits us against each other in a hopeless downward spiral of tit-for-tat where nobody really wins and everyone definitely loses.

Logical reasoning isn’t about “winning” an argument. It’s about finding the truth. And inevitably, getting closer to truth requires one to recognize and admit when they’re wrong. And that’s something you, me, and all the Rons of the world could be a bit better at.

 

who else gets method

I’m going to be honest: most courses you take in university aren’t worth a whole lot. That’s not because the professors are bad or the coursework is pointless (although sometimes that is definitely the case). I mean that most of the courses you take will never be all that relevant to the rest of your life.

But then, every once in a while, often by accident, you stumble into a course that is hugely impactful on your life. That happened to me in my sophomore year. I needed to take an elective from the humanities department, and not wanting to get sucked into a seminar on “Romantic literature of the 1840s” or whatever, I went for the least humanities-sounding thing I could find on the list: a philosophy course called “Logic and Reasoning.” It probably ended up being the most valuable course I ever took in my life.

From day one, I loved my logic course. Each morning, we’d all come into class to find a question like this on the board:

“Every time a train arrives at the station, there are many passengers on the platform. You arrive at the station and see many passengers waiting on the platform. Is it necessarily true that a train will arrive soon?” 

Pretty much everyone in the class would answer “yes” and then become infuriated when the professor told us the correct answer was no—just because trains always arrive when there are many passengers does not mean that many passengers will always result in a train arriving.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen so many pissed off twenty-year-olds as I did in that classroom each week. Many would accuse the professor of making shit up to humiliate them and give them poor grades. Others simply couldn’t follow what was going on, struggling to follow the steps in reasoning between “people,” “train,” and “time.” But I loved it.

Despite the outrage, the professor was demonstrating some of the most fundamental principles of thinking:

  • Just because two things often occur together does not mean that they will necessarily always occur together.
  • Just because a line of reasoning is intuitive does not mean it’s correct—logic can often be counterintuitive.

Logic is the bedrock of pretty much all human knowledge. As such, philosophers have killed many trees over the centuries, analyzing and determining the principles that define logic and reason. Their ambition has been to determine what we can know to be true and what we cannot know to be true.

What most people don’t realize is that logical fallacies—that is, errors in judgment and reasoning—are incredibly common in day-to-day life. Worse, we’re mostly unaware of how they disrupt and harm our lives, often in profound ways. These fallacies are right in front of our noses, yet we are so comfortable with our own thought processes that we fail to spot them.

This article will take you through some of the most common logical fallacies. It will teach you how to not only spot them in yourself but also how to spot them in others.

Correlation is Not Causation

Let’s start with probably the most important fallacy to understand—the one you and I and everyone we know fucks up with abandon: correlation is not causation. Just because two things regularly occur together does not mean one causes the other.

Let’s pretend for a second that today, I ate some ice cream and you lost your job. And what’s crazier is that the last time I ate ice cream, somebody else lost their job. Would you then say that me eating ice cream causes people to lose jobs? (If so, this would be one strange superpower.) Or would you simply say these are two common occurrences that happen to be occurring together for a short period of time?

You’d say the latter.

Yet, you’d be surprised how often this sort of thing gets passed off as “news” in the world.

You often see news articles announcing things such as, “Social Media causes anxiety and depression” or that “unemployment is caused by raising the minimum wage.”

Yet, when you dig into the data, the researchers found correlations—ice cream and job losses—and not causation.

Anxiety and depression increased and social media usage increased. That doesn’t mean one caused the other. It could be a coincidence. There could be some mysterious third force causing both to happen. The arrow of causation could point the other direction (e.g., people are becoming more depressed, so they retreat to social media more often to feel better).

Two things occurring together does not tell us much about whether one caused the other.

This is a huge problem in academic research. Scientists frequently present data in a way that suggests causation when all they found is a correlation. And even if they don’t present it that way, journalists will often take correlational data and write about it as if it’s causative.

The fact is, so much stuff happens at the same time and we have no idea why. You could argue that almost any correlation looks like causation if you wanted to. In fact, there’s a website called Spurious Correlations that does just that.

For example, here’s the correlation between Nicolas Cage movies and deaths caused by drowning in a pool:

Logical fallacy - spurious correlation - Nicholas Cage movies and drowning in a pool

Here’s cheese consumption and the number of people who were killed by their bedsheets:

Logical fallacies spurious correlation - cheese consumption and death by bedsheets

But my favorite one is probably the correlation between the divorce rate in Maine and the per capita consumption of margarine:

Logical fallacies - spurious correlaitons - divorce rate in Maine and consumption of margarine

Some day there’s going to be a politician in Maine shouting, “We can no longer let our families be destroyed by margarine!” Just you wait.

Slippery Slope Fallacy

Stop me if you’ve ever heard this line of reasoning before:

“We can’t let teenagers drink alcohol because if they drink alcohol, then they’ll start doing drugs, and if they do drugs then they’ll become criminals. And if they become criminals, then they’ll end up in prison and ruin their lives. Therefore, allowing teenagers to drink alcohol will ruin their lives.” 

The slippery slope fallacy is when you take one mild negative consequence and tie it with a similar but extreme negative consequence and then argue that one will lead to the other. You see this fallacy show up in all sorts of places, especially within business organizations, foreign policy, and yes, paranoid parenting.

The truth is that some but not all kids who drink alcohol do drugs. Some but not all kids who do drugs become addicts. Some but not all addicts become criminals. Some but not all criminals ruin their lives. Therefore, it is logically inaccurate to compare drinking alcohol with ruining a life.

(Not to mention, the data that shows that teenagers who drink alcohol are X times more likely to do drugs could be another case of “correlation is not causation.”)

The Slippery Slope Fallacy often fucks us up because it generates a lot of unnecessary fear and anxiety. We mess up an assignment at work. The boss gets mad. You start thinking, “Well if the boss is mad, then she’s going to hate me. And if the boss hates me, then I’m going to get fired. And if I get fired, then I’m going to be homeless. OMG I DON’T WANT TO BE HOMELESS!!!”

Calm your shit, buck-o. There are a lot of steps between a TPS Report and homelessness.

Homeless tent camp
Behold… all of the poorly filed TPS Reports

False Dichotomies

There are some classes of arguments where there are legitimately only two options. For instance, I could say, “There are two kinds of people in this world: people named Ron and people not named Ron.” This is a true dichotomy (or division of two): you’re either named Ron or you’re not.

But a false dichotomy is when a set of options is presented as if only two possibilities exist but in reality, many more exist.

For example, if I said, “There are only two kinds of people in the world: people named Ron and fucking idiots.” This is a false dichotomy. Why? Because these two options don’t encompass all potential options.

There are plenty of people not named Ron who are also not idiots. Also—and I can tell you this from experience—there are plenty of people named Ron who are total fucking idiots.

Ronald McDonald
Just look at this fucking idiot named Ron.

False dichotomies are used to manipulate people into allying with the speaker. You often hear politicians or other leaders say, “You’re either with us or against us,” as a way to whip people into line. But this is a false dichotomy. You could be indifferent. You could be partially with them and partially against them. You could be against everybody. Don’t buy into this bullshit.

But false dichotomies often hurt us when we judge ourselves. We often say things to ourselves like, “If I worked harder, I wouldn’t be such a loser.” You know you can be a loser who works hard, right? You can also not be a loser and not work hard, too. In fact, being a loser and working hard are completely arbitrary things that you just decided to force into a false dichotomy.

Why? To feel like shit about yourself. Now, why would you do that? I bet your name is Ron…

Begging the Question

Begging the question occurs when someone’s argument relies upon its own assumptions to make its case. For example:

  • Everything in the Bible is true. Why? Because in the Bible, it says that everything in it is true.
  • My husband always knows what’s right for me. Why? Because he told me that he always knows what’s right for me and he’s always right, so…
  • Carl is a dork. Why? Because he tries to pretend he’s not a dork, so that makes him a dork.

This is often called “circular reasoning” because if you follow the logic, it leads you in a circle.

Logical fallacies - circular reasoning

But similar to the fallacies above, begging the question can be subtle as well.

For example, I once got in an argument with an anarchist about politics (never recommended, by the way). He said that any organization that commits violence and wields influence over the population is inherently evil. Well, when you boil it down, part of the function of any government is to monopolize violence and wield influence over the population (ideally, for the benefit of all). I spent the better part of ten minutes trying to explain to this guy that he was simply restating the same belief over and over, yet, as you can imagine, it didn’t really go anywhere.

Red Herrings

Red Herrings are arguments that seem relevant to an issue but actually are not. For example, we could be arguing about whether being vegetarian is more ethical than eating meat. Then, in the middle of a perfectly fine argument, I blurt out, “Well, Hitler was vegetarian! And he surely wasn’t ethical!”

This is a distraction from the real point of debate: whether eating meat is inherently unethical. These kinds of distractions from the argument are known as “red herrings.” And if you—god forbid—spend lots of time watching and reading the news, you will notice a large proportion of what is said and written is some form of a red herring.

Red herring logical fallacy: Hitler was a vegetarian

Red herrings are also usually logical fallacies themselves. For example, the assumption that because Hitler was vegetarian, and Hitler was unethical, vegetarianism must be unethical is known as the Fallacy of Composition—when something that is true for a part is assumed to be true for the whole (i.e., Paul is American and he is short, therefore Americans must be short).

Red Herrings are often used by people to divert blame away from themselves.

You: “Jon, you stole my bike.”

Jon: “Property is just a social construct, you didn’t really lose anything. After all, you have money for a new one.”

You: “Money isn’t the point, you fucking stole from me!

Jon: “Millions of things get stolen every day, I don’t understand why you’re so upset it happened to you.”

You:BECAUSE IT’S WRONG! YOU FUCKING STOLE MY SHIT!!!

Jon: “Wow man, you’ve clearly got some anger problems going on here. You know, I don’t think I want to deal with someone who is so angry all the time. I’m going to bike home now.”

You: “RRRAAAAGHGHHH!#@#@!#!M@$IUBRFNKLAS”

(We all know a Jon… don’t be friends with a Jon.)

Appeals to the Bandwagon, Authority, and Pity

When in an argument, it’s tempting to skip the logic and go straight to appealing to some outside source to make your point feel more resonant.

Well, unfortunately, logic doesn’t give a shit about your feelings. A bad argument is a bad argument, regardless of who agrees with you.

There are three common appeals that people make when trying to win points for their side:

  • An appeal to authority: “Well, the president said it’s true, so it must be true!”
  • An appeal to pity: “I know the data says that social media isn’t the problem, but these poor kids have so much anxiety, we should still get rid of their phones.”
  • An appeal to the majority: “Everyone I know says that vaccines are dangerous, so it must be true.”

The hyper-social nature of our species causes us to appeal to outside influences. We all want to belong to a community. We all want to associate with high-status people. We all want others to know we’re kind and considerate.

The problem is that none of these things have anything to do with logic or truth. If something is true, it’s true whether anyone believes it or not.

How much science cares if you believe in it

At the end of the day, the truth doesn’t give a shit about you or me or anyone else. We care. And because we care we trick ourselves into thinking that these opinions affect the truth when they don’t.

Ad Hominem

Remember when you were a kid and you’d get in an argument with another kid, and they’d point out how you were wrong, and at a complete loss of how to defend yourself, you’d blurt out, “Well you’re just a smelly goat-face! And I don’t listen to smelly goat-faces,” and stomp off as if that solved something?

Yeah, that’s an ad hominem fallacy.

Sometimes, rather than attack someone’s argument, we just attack the person instead. You see this all the time in politics. Senator X wants to reform education. Senator Y doesn’t. But instead of arguing against Senator X’s proposals, Senator Y just calls Senator X a smelly goat-face. Voters cheer. Senator Y wins re-election. Democracy continues on as planned.

Art Spader Quote: "The great thing about democracy is that it gives every voter a chance to do something stupid."

Sadly, the Ad Hominem Fallacy seems to be the fallacy of choice in political discourse and much of journalism these days. Political opponents rarely seem to be able to debate issues without launching personal attacks on one another that have nothing to do with the argument at hand.

Straw Man

If the Ad Hominem Fallacy is the bread and butter of politicians, then the Straw Man Fallacy is the bread and butter of social media.

Rather than debating a claim based on its merits, we sometimes substitute a distorted, exaggerated, or otherwise ridiculously misrepresented version of the argument to more easily attack it.

This is called the “straw man” fallacy because, like replacing a real person with a person made of straw, you’re replacing a stronger argument with a weaker one in order to more easily discredit it.

Straw men arguments are quite common—and shockingly dumb:

  • “You’re pro-choice? So you enjoy killing babies, I see.”
  • “You want to reduce the defense budget? You must hate the military and don’t support our soldiers.”

Straw man logical fallacy - Condescending Wonka

More subtle examples of the straw man argument are quite common too. For instance, someone might argue that we should work to reduce the prison population by enforcing more lenient punishments for non-violent drug offenses. A subtle but common straw man counterargument is that such a view is “soft on crime.” This distorts the original argument by implying that all crimes should be punished more leniently when the real argument is that some drug crimes don’t warrant prison time.

The real damage of the straw man fallacy isn’t necessarily that it’s wrong—it’s that it distracts everyone horribly from the real issue at hand. People spend the entire time defending their beliefs from ridiculous characterizations and no one actually talks about the real issues.

The Importance of Sound Reasoning

If you haven’t noticed, we all kinda suck at this logic and reason thing. This list is just a tiny slice of the logical fallacies pie but probably accounts for a significant portion of what we think and are exposed to each day.

But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t make every effort to be better. After all, logic and reason are our life preservers in a vast sea of uncertainty and bullshit. To let go of the life preserver, to cling onto the latest, greatest fad or the dipshit who’s currently on your screen… well, that’s intellectual suicide.

Not to mention that a lot of these logical fallacies can turn you into an insufferable dick pretty quickly. Debating with someone over the merits of an idea or argument is already contentious enough. But falling into the trap of these logical fallacies, many of which hinge on making a mockery of the other person’s ideas (or the person themselves), will not make you the biggest hit at children’s parties. Not to mention people won’t exactly be thrilled to talk to you about anything important or meaningful.

At best, fallacious reasoning keeps bad ideas alive. At its worst, it pits us against each other in a hopeless downward spiral of tit-for-tat where nobody really wins and everyone definitely loses.

Logical reasoning isn’t about “winning” an argument. It’s about finding the truth. And inevitably, getting closer to truth requires one to recognize and admit when they’re wrong. And that’s something you, me, and all the Rons of the world could be a bit better at.

 

Stuff like this are why everyone loves your page

With quarantine limitations still in order here in the US, spending so much time at home has brought up some interesting challenges.

Even though I’ve worked from home for two years, this period of time has taught me that working from home can easily blur the lines between work and self-care.

When your home is also your office, bringing work into your self-care space can create some hazy boundaries. This makes it hard to a) find the motivation to work and/or b) switch off from work.

Working from home can blur the lines between productivity and self-care. Here's how to balance work and self-care when you work from home.

When I was working in an office, I found it easy to mentally check out from work as soon as I left the office at 5pm. But now, I’ll catch myself making dinner at 5 then going back to my computer while I eat (so bad, I know).

Working from home means the same place where you eat, relax, and socialize becomes associated with work.

If you’re on regular Zoom calls, your work meetings are now in your sacred space. It’s almost like inviting your co-workers into your living room for a meeting.

To add to this, your typical forms of escape from work might not be available with quarantine limitations still in effect. For example, the yoga studio, the gym, your local pool, and the coffee shop where you would catch up with a friend.

The places and activities that you associate with self-care aren’t available right now. This can make it hard to disengage from work while simultaneously making you feel like you’re resting too much.

In this post, I’m sharing a few tips that have been helping me to set boundaries so I can better balance work and rest from home.

How To Balance Work & Self-Care When You Work From Home


Working from home can blur the lines between productivity and self-care. Here's how to balance work and self-care when you work from home.

1. Create a ritual to bookmark the start and end of the day

When working in an office, your commute might have been your signal that the workday was starting or ending. Working from home makes it a little harder to keep a similar structure.

A friend of mine said during the first few weeks of working from home, she would roll out of bed at 7:55am to check in on her computer at 8am. She was enjoying getting the extra sleep knowing she didn’t have to commute.  After doing this for a while, she started to crave some time to herself before work. She began getting up around 7 instead to make time for a cup of tea and journaling, which gives her a chance to get ready for the day ahead.

Be intentional with how you want to start and end your day. Think of the time before and after work like your wind-up and wind-down time.

At the end of the day, do whatever you can to get out of the work mentality. Turn off your computer screen, close your laptop, and get away from your desk. I also find that going for a walk around the block at the end of the workday helps to decompress, and it almost feels like a mini-commute (but much more enjoyable). 


2. Set a time to stop working and checking notifications

When you’re spending most of your time at home, it’s tempting to check your phone or computer after hours. Since they’re always in close proximity, you might find it hard to resist checking in if you find yourself with nothing to do. 

Create a boundary to help you maintain this separation between work and rest time. That might look like not checking emails before 8am or after 5pm, or setting app limits from 6pm until 8am the next day.

On the weekends, it can be tempting to work when you have the resources right in front of you. If you want a work-free weekend, try putting your laptop out of sight, keep your office door closed (if you have an office), and delete your email app from your phone until Monday.

The thing is that you have to set these boundaries for yourself because no one else is going to do it for you.


3. Separate your spaces for work and self-care

Try to create separate spaces, even if they’re small, to separate your work and self-care areas. For example, I have a corner in my living room that I’ve dedicated as my workout spot (which just means it’s where I put my workout mat). It’s not very big, but it’s enough space to do what I need to do.

Another example is sticking to doing work from a dedicated area. If you’ve been using your couch or bed for both work and relaxation, it might be sending confusing signals to your brain. I find that when I work on the couch, I’m less productive and it’s harder to concentrate (even if I’m not watching anything on TV). My back and legs also tend to hurt more because my coffee table isn’t tall enough to work from. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with working from these spots sometimes, but it’s better to have a desk and chair set-up that you use exclusively for work.

If you don’t have the space to separate your work and non-work life, try to create different moods in your home.

For example, you can use scents, sounds, and textures (from clothing) for different times of the day. You could use one essential oil during work and another one for after work. Or you can wear form-fitting (but still comfy) clothes during work and change into your comfiest, loose clothing afterward. Subtle changes like this can create the illusion of separation when you don’t have much space to work with.


More Tips to Balance Work and Rest

If you feel like you’re working too much and not getting enough rest, check out these posts:


If you feel like you’re resting too much and not being productive at home, check out these posts: 


Share your thoughts! How have you been maintaining boundaries while working from home?

The post How To Balance Productivity and Rest When You Work From Home appeared first on The Blissful Mind.

Important Post

Mentors, peers, and teachers all told her, “You’ll never make it as a dancer.”

After a decade of setbacks –– a spinal stroke, multiple assaults, and repeatedly being passed over because she “didn’t look the part” –– not only did today’s guest make it as a professional dancer, but she also paved the way for dancers of all abilities and disabilities to do the same.

Marisa Hamamoto is a performing artist, speaker, and founder of Infinite Flow, a nonprofit and professional dance company composed of dancers with and without disabilities. She’s on this MarieTV sharing how she’s using the universal language of dance to change how people think about disability.

She says, “Dance doesn’t discriminate. When you’re dancing with someone, you see beyond race, color, size, gender, ability, and disability.”

Marisa’s path to becoming a champion of diversity, equity, and inclusion was not straightforward or easy. How’d she defy the odds? She listened to her heart, even when it wasn’t crystal clear, and JUST. KEPT. GOING.


Our brains process images 60 times faster than words and when you see the beauty of inclusion you see its potential. @marisahamamoto
Click To Tweet


Don’t miss these episode highlights:

2:50 — How to get back up after being bullied, assaulted, or told “you’ll never make it.”
7:22 — Marisa’s accident in dance class that changed everything.
10:48 — What Japanese toilets can teach you about hope.
18:50 — How Marisa became a professional ballroom dancer even when she was “too old” and terrified of human contact.
22:41 — A five-word mantra to help you bounce back from rock bottom.
32:30 — Two things you *need* to remember about inclusion.
38:53 — Lost your way? The perfect question to ask yourself.
44:12 — Behind-the-scenes of making Scoops of Inclusion, a film for kids, during a pandemic.
47:07 — The #1 piece of advice to live by so you can keep serving without burning out.

Have you ever experienced a major setback while going for your goals?

Has anyone, maybe even someone you admire, discouraged you from pursuing your passion?

Do you have an inkling there’s something more for you, but you’re not sure what it is?

If you answered “yes” to any of these questions, you’ll love this MarieTV. Let Marisa be your inspiration, your guide, and a shining example of how going for your dreams and sharing your gifts does change the world for the better.

Hit play to watch now or listen on The Marie Forleo Podcast.

View Transcript

Check out this episode on The Marie Forleo Podcast

Listen Now

DIVE DEEPER: Get inspired by this teenage hip hop dancer who’s fighting for body positivity and discover your special gift (even if you don’t think you have one.)

Even though she had no idea where it would take her, Marisa Hamamoto was determined to pursue her passion for dance — the one place she felt free and like she truly belonged. Whenever she felt lost or faced a crushing obstacle, she told herself, “When in doubt, focus out.”

Now I’d love to hear from you. In the comments below, let me know what insight from today’s MarieTV you will put into action.

In your journal or in the comments below this post, I highly encourage you to answer these two questions from this episode:

  1. What most excites you and lights you up?
  2. How can you best be of service today?

As Marisa Hamamoto says (and I couldn’t agree more): “When you connect your passion to a purpose, magic happens.”

Time to create your magic.

With SO much love and appreciation,

XO 

The post Anyone Can Dance — Celebrating Diversity Through Movement with Marisa Hamamoto appeared first on .