How to easily abandon their false beliefs in favor of more rational ones?

What do you think?

Leave a Reply

GIPHY App Key not set. Please check settings

10 Comments

  1. It is easy to abandon your false beliefs. For this, it is necessary to understand what beliefs and what are false in. And this is very difficult. It is difficult – because you have to strain, defending their beliefs to those who do not agree with them and are trying to refute them. If in the dispute you do not have arguments and facts to prove your view, and you go to a person, then your position in the dispute is incorrect. If the opponent has no arguments and facts to prove his view, and you still have a dofig for your own, then your belief is true. It is even easier to abandon false belief, checking it again (or several times) in practice. The result is negative – the belief is false. But theoretical dispute is also a practice. The practice of dispute. Therefore, practice arguing. No opponent nearby? Argue with yourself. On your thesis (belief), try to put forward antithesis. Try to sit in one chair, then on the other, then on both at once. Maybe the third chair will appear, which will be the synthesis (association) of the first two. And it will already be more rational than the previous ones.

  2. Loking 🙂 This is the lightest. I can try to at least hardly abandon these two. The false belief is that it is necessary to refuse false beliefs. And that more rational is certainly not false or “less false”. Of course, if you have them, and not I invented it myself … … Although yes, about the lightness I exaggerate it. It is easy to go crazy in itself, but as a way – not very. The process is difficult to control. Not everyone will be able to direct it in the desired direction. I hope it is at least noticeable that this is a joke … They tried critical thinking? Modern trends are relatively easy.
    Simple skill. Rather, it consists of simple, they still need to be able to use in time. In the past, this was not considered particularly difficult, it did not even have a special name, but in “our time” they taught in special courses for money.
    I do not advertise, this is just an example. I also exaggerate a little. Not every Soviet schoolboy knew how to think critically. And in ancient Greece, in general, only some of the philosophers. And their students, who, by default, can also be considered philosophers. It is not so important who they remained in history. Also almost a joke. Like all light … Ancient sophistry differs from modern critical thinking “scale of position.” Since it essentially affirms the obvious falsity of any conviction; It remains only to prove. On the other hand, the sophists taught to prove. To analyze, reasonably criticize, justify anything. And at the same time – oddly enough – act correctly. Although it would seem, as possible, if any belief can be refuted? Critical thinking is easier, because it does not imply the ability to refute everything at all, but thereby and less reliably. You are already a more difficult way – science and education.
    There is, let’s say a little easier – research and study. The minus is that “in our time” you are unlikely to become an encyclopedist, as a result of which not all your beliefs will be tested and rationalized. The more difficult, but more universal is more universal The method is philosophy. Also without a guarantee, how easy it is to guess. Philosophy is too voluminous-you can break through the analysis of any one belief all your life. Moreover, the less rational it is, the longer it will not insist on this assessment; Depends on you. Psychology? Psychotherapy? Psychiatry? Oddly enough, the latter is sometimes relatively easy to help. Because of which I once had a dream to beg to fucking me with shock. So, in order not to kill, but to clear your head. It turned out that now it is not their method. Alas. Psychotherapy is the best remedy, in my opinion. When working with beliefs, it is close to philosophy, but does not require special philosophical knowledge from the client. And the psychotherapist does not always require – there are different beliefs. The minus is that psychotherapy allows you to part only with the beliefs with which you yourself do not want to continue relations. At the same time, it is not so important whether they are false. What, you have to pay something … They say … although yes, this is also false and limiting conviction. There are radical methods that allow you to quickly (but not “easy”) to refuse any, Even dear to the heart of false and limiting beliefs. The problem is that their use requires some supervision.
    You’ll go crazy again, and I answer 🙂 Mmm … I wonder if this is a false belief? ..

  3. Loking 🙂 This is the lightest. I can try to at least hardly abandon these two. The false belief is that it is necessary to refuse false beliefs. And that more rational is certainly not false or “less false”. Of course, if you have them, and not I invented it myself … … Although yes, about the lightness I exaggerate it. It is easy to go crazy in itself, but as a way – not very. The process is difficult to control. Not everyone will be able to direct it in the desired direction. I hope it is at least noticeable that this is a joke … They tried critical thinking? Modern trends are relatively easy.
    Simple skill. Rather, it consists of simple, they still need to be able to use in time. In the past, this was not considered particularly difficult, it did not even have a special name, but in “our time” they taught in special courses for money.
    I do not advertise, this is just an example. I also exaggerate a little. Not every Soviet schoolboy knew how to think critically. And in ancient Greece, in general, only some of the philosophers. And their students, who, by default, can also be considered philosophers. It is not so important who they remained in history. Also almost a joke. Like all light … Ancient sophistry differs from modern critical thinking “scale of position.” Since it essentially affirms the obvious falsity of any conviction; It remains only to prove. On the other hand, the sophists taught to prove. To analyze, reasonably criticize, justify anything. And at the same time – oddly enough – act correctly. Although it would seem, as possible, if any belief can be refuted? Critical thinking is easier, because it does not imply the ability to refute everything at all, but thereby and less reliably. You are already a more difficult way – science and education.
    There is, let’s say a little easier – research and study. The minus is that “in our time” you are unlikely to become an encyclopedist, as a result of which not all your beliefs will be tested and rationalized. The more difficult, but more universal is more universal The method is philosophy. Also without a guarantee, how easy it is to guess. Philosophy is too voluminous-you can break through the analysis of any one belief all your life. Moreover, the less rational it is, the longer it will not insist on this assessment; Depends on you. Psychology? Psychotherapy? Psychiatry? Oddly enough, the latter is sometimes relatively easy to help. Because of which I once had a dream to beg to fucking me with shock. So, in order not to kill, but to clear your head. It turned out that now it is not their method. Alas. Psychotherapy is the best remedy, in my opinion. When working with beliefs, it is close to philosophy, but does not require special philosophical knowledge from the client. And the psychotherapist does not always require – there are different beliefs. The minus is that psychotherapy allows you to part only with the beliefs with which you yourself do not want to continue relations. At the same time, it is not so important whether they are false. What, you have to pay something … They say … although yes, this is also false and limiting conviction. There are radical methods that allow you to quickly (but not “easy”) to refuse any, Even dear to the heart of false and limiting beliefs. The problem is that their use requires some supervision.
    You’ll go crazy again, and I answer 🙂 Mmm … I wonder if this is a false belief? ..

  4. Ellis’s emotional-rational therapy gives the answer to this question well. Employ some black and white thoughts to dilute with shades. For example, if you notice what you think: “Nobody loves me,” try to see it from the side of “Not everyone loves me, but there are still people who experience this feeling for me.” Instead of “I am a fool” – “there are things that I understand badly, but I have enough knowledge about …” And the like. Try not to think dichotomically, one -sided.

  5. Do I know that my conviction is false? What is it like? The game of reason or the introduction into my game of some people, fools, as you want to hope and how in most cases it happens ,. In general, everything happens. Someone understands their role as a sheep, someone is trying to portray independence. Bley and freedom of choice when the knife is brought to the throat. I wish everyone, in the new and all subsequent years, to never experience it.

  6. In certain circumstances, you can consider any conviction unfortunately in certain circumstances. The brain, and even logic is mistaken simply because people are far from always available to people about the subject of beliefs. One person cannot possess the fullness of knowledge and therefore may be mistaken in conclusions. Focus better on how the belief works in your life, whether it makes it better, and you are more confident and happy. Ask myself- what am I, is it good for me to live with this conviction? And with the opposite? Do these beliefs help me or interfere?

  7. No. His belief cannot be false. If you admit that your conviction is false, thereby you already refuse this conviction. And it already ceases to be your conviction. In the latter, all beliefs can be explained rationally, and more or less they are rational, depends only on the talent of a person explaining the rationality of these beliefs.

  8. Rationality is not an antonym of falsity. Outsome thinking can also be called false. Staff is good where it is puffing. For example: a loved one died, and you have a ticket at sea. Rational – go to the sea, sunbathe and swim. The dead already died. They will bury it. You can even after the sea, bring the bouquet to the grave. Let’s remember and at sea. Let’s drink for the rest, we can at sunset and cry. It is quite rational. Yab did so, if not the closest relative (parents, spouses, children) died, that is, the degree of proximity to the deceased, can suppress rationality (not too rational). Otherwise, the question is not clear to me: if the falsity of your beliefs is obvious to you – how do they remain beliefs for you? Rational – often convenient. Why is it difficult for you to exchange the identified lodge, for convenience? If this is a conflict of conscience, then I’m not strong in unscrupulous answers .. It may seem that my words about sea mention are valuable. But no. They are honest for me. I just won’t get pleasure from the sea if a person very close to me died. It makes no sense to go. The world has changed. It is precisely the rationality and will say: hand over tickets. Rest is canceled. My rationality is not in conflict with beliefs. But I will never put “condemnation by society” (acquaintances, relatives), above my attitude. Therefore, if the death of a person is emotionally neutral for me, and tickets are already bought, I will go and get pleasure from rest. This will not prevent me from remembering the deceased. Although crying is unlikely.

What will freelancer make happier (and more efficiently) in his “freelance” working life?

Why don’t they value and understand that elderly people are a treasure and they connect us with the past?