Discussing Santa Claus with Fiancee

[piz]

[piz]: You said "One's cognitive capacity is not harmed by calling them vegetables in everyday situations and fruit in "technical" situations because there is no contradiction between the different contexts." I completely disagree. Words mean things. Different words have different definitions. To include the word "tomato" in the definition of "fruit" would be to destroy the word "fruit". HOWEVER, all things consider, that destruction is tiny, and for the most part, "doesn't exist".

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/tomato

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/berry

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/fruit

Sorry, but the tomato is a fruit, as such are defined by science. We call it a vegetable because we use it like one. My point about context stands.

[piz]

On what issues would you rationally want a child to blindly trust his parents? And why would being punk'd on some irrelevant prank like Santa rationally lead a person to think that his parents would lie about, say, hazardous things?

I didn't say "blindly," nor imply it. And the psychological reaction of a child to a betrayal of this kind (however mild one might think it is) is far more subtle than "oh, then Mommy and Daddy must have lied about everything."

[KevinD]

So how rational (in percentage) is a religious woman, who wants to tell her child that Santa exists?

Suppose your answer is X%.

Could you explain the mathematical relation, of how:

100&70 ---> 0 but

100&X ---> 100 ?

Whatever you're talking about, Ifat, it's totally alien to my way of thinking.

I don't ascribe percentages to people's rationality.

Also, could you please explain what you mean by "accept someone"?

In street language: to accept the fact of exactly who a person is, and never to make any efforts (nor harbor any secret desires) to change them.

As for the rationality of someone who marries a woman who is 70% rational, and thinks she is 100%.

There can be several reasons for that:

1) The woman simply never talked about her attraction to religion, the supernatural etc', and the man never asked.

2) The woman's irrationality developed with time, until finally it burst out, much like a virus that lays inactive in the body for years.

3) The man did not, at the time, realize the significance of an "inner world" (probably he was not aware of his own as well).

Like I said, not exactly the shiningest examples of reason and objectivity.

[Ifat Glassman]

Whatever you're talking about, Ifat, it's totally alien to my way of thinking.

I don't ascribe percentages to people's rationality.

You said that the man is 0% rational if he marries someone who is 70% rational. That sounds like use of percentage to me.

Like I said, not exactly the shiningest examples of reason and objectivity.

The man in my example is just like Hank Reardan. A rational man who married a highly irrational woman, because he did not have enough knowledge to realize who she is, when he married her.

In street language: to accept the fact of exactly who a person is, and never to make any efforts (nor harbor any secret desires) to change them.

Your advice is evil and destructive. It is basically, to accept evil and sanction it, at the expense of one's own integrity.

Basically you're telling chops here, to never attempt to change or want to change his wife's irrationality, but to be 100% affectionate, despite the fact that it contradicts his values.

[KevinD]

You said that the man is 0% rational if he marries someone who is 70% rational. That sounds like use of percentage to me.

I said it's "0% rational" — i.e., totally not rational — to get married without knowing your partner extremely, exceedingly well.

I don't know what it would mean to say that a person (least of all an entirely hypothetical one) is "70% rational."

In street language: to accept the fact of exactly who a person is, and never to make any efforts (nor harbor any secret desires) to change them.

Your advice is evil and destructive. It is basically, to accept evil and sanction it, at the expense of one's own integrity.

If you elect to be in a romantic relationship with a person whom you consider to be "evil" — well, the very best of luck to you.

Basically you're telling chops here, to never attempt to change or want to change his wife's irrationality, but to be 100% affectionate, despite the fact that it contradicts his values.

I'm saying that Chops needs to be 100% supportive and caring toward his girlfriend at all times, so long as he intends for her to be his girlfriend. What would be the alternative? Withholding love because she believes in God?

I think some people here need to grasp the "all-or-nothing" nature of a romantic relationship. As my grandpappy used to say: "You're either in, or you're out. There's no half-assed way to go about it."

Edited November 16, 2006 by Kevin Delaney

[CmdrBretz]

I have selected my partner for absolute, selfish reasons with the primary being she shares my standard of value. This standard (life) allows for a fundamental grounding of both the logical and rational choices.

Chops, you should make a decision as to whether she is worth the work needed to teach the entire cocept of a standard of value. This leads to her developing a core understanding of "a philosophy for living on Earth." (Ayn Rand - I smile everytime I think of her) This will allow the foundation on which she would be able to evaluate choices and consequences.

If on the other hand, you decide this to be not of any value then I urge you to move on. Find your values in another. Be selfish.

I'm saying that Chops needs to be 100% supportive and caring toward his girlfriend at all times, so long as he intends for her to be his girlfriend. What would be the alternative? Withholding love because she believes in God?

I think some people here need to grasp the "all-or-nothing" nature of a romantic relationship. As my grandpappy used to say: "You're either in, or you're out. There's no half-assed way to go about it."

I am amazed by this nonsense. It is hard for me still today to see how one comes to this irrationality in their thinking. Love is an exhange of values. Value for value. It is not altuism. One can not withhold love. Love is the exchange of one's highest values for another's highest values. Love is selfish.

Edited November 16, 2006 by CmdrBretz

[KevinD]

I am amazed by this nonsense. It is hard for me still today to see how one comes to this irrationality in their thinking.

It took me many years, and a great deal of very active listening before I was able to reach my present level of irrationality. It wasn't easy, and I'm still not all of the way there. But I'm doing my best, and I do appreciate the complement.

Edited November 16, 2006 by Kevin Delaney

[Inspector]

It took me many years, and a great deal of very active listening before I was able to reach my present level of irrationality. It wasn't easy, and I'm still not all of the way there. But I'm doing my best, and I do appreciate the complement.

Kevin, all kidding aside, I don't think it is at all clear, to many of the people here, what it is that you are saying.

[KevinD]

Kevin, all kidding aside, I don't think it is at all clear, to many of the people here, what it is that you are saying.

Yes it is. My critics wouldn't be responding in so nasty and hysterical a manner if it weren't.

[BrassDragon]

Your advice is evil and destructive. It is basically, to accept evil and sanction it, at the expense of one's own integrity. Basically you're telling chops here, to never attempt to change or want to change his wife's irrationality, but to be 100% affectionate, despite the fact that it contradicts his values.

I'm saying that Chops needs to be 100% supportive and caring toward his girlfriend at all times, so long as he intends for her to be his girlfriend. What would be the alternative? Withholding love because she believes in God?

I think some people here need to grasp the "all-or-nothing" nature of a romantic relationship. As my grandpappy used to say: "You're either in, or you're out. There's no half-assed way to go about it."

Can you support your partner 100% and still guide her towards a more rational way of evaluating things? The answer is, yes. So there's not really a conflict in the above quotations.

Will you have to put up with some irrationality if you want to guide her towards increased rationality without being moralizing and pedagogigal, and thus less than 100% supportive? Yes.

Is putting up with some irrationality, like having to pretend Santa Clause exists, worth being with a partner? Depends on how much she's worth and how much irrationality there is.

But I have found out from personal experience that Kevin Delaney is right - you can't be less than 100% supportive in a successful relationship. You have to put up with however irrational your partner is and hope that will improve through abstract intellectual discussions and yourself setting a good example. A less than 100% rational relationship, say where one person believes in god, is entirely possible, but a less than 100% supportive relationship is not.

And by the way, none of us are 100% rational. We all hold some mistaken concepts and have some flaws. The question in looking for a parner is how much of a difference in "rationality" between yourself and the parter you're willing to accept. (I think I'm willing to accept very little, but if I didn't accept some, I'd be unlikely to find a partner, at least for a very long time.)

[IAmMetaphysical]

And by the way, none of us are 100% rational. We all hold some mistaken concepts and have some flaws.

Can you prove that disgusting and irresponsible comment?

[hunterrose]

I didn't say "blindly," nor imply it. And the psychological reaction of a child to a betrayal of this kind (however mild one might think it is) is far more subtle than "oh, then Mommy and Daddy must have lied about everything."

Let me clarify then. On what non-emergency issues would you want a child to do what you say out of trust? You're implying that this kind (Santa) betrayal is more "psychologically harmful" than a classmate convincing a child about the Great Pumpkin - why?

I'm saying that Chops needs to be 100% supportive and caring toward his girlfriend at all times, so long as he intends for her to be his girlfriend. What would be the alternative? Withholding love because she believes in God?

Emphasis mine; I strongly agree with what you say there.

"Rational" spouse: "You complain about your weight, but don't do anything about it. You know that A is A. Start acting like it, or I am divorcing you."

Irrational spouse: Sighs. "If this issue is more important than all of the other reasons you've married me, if these idiotic threats are what I have to look forward til death do us part, then I want a divorce. Go explain to the kids why you're leaving."

"Rational" spouse: "...wait! Okay, okay, I love you and the kids too much to actually divorce you over this, but I just can't live in the presence of your irrationality."

Irrational spouse: Leaves room in utter annoyance

[BrassDragon]

Can you prove that disgusting and irresponsible comment?

Well, I can prove you aren't without flaws, considering your complete lack of tact in expressing disagreement with me!

My two other claims that you seem to take issue with - that we all hold mistaken concepts and that, as a result, none of us is 100% rational - might be good topics for a seperate thread. If you're interested let me know and I'll make one, or you make one. I think they're practically self-evident (which is why I question whether or not you were being serious), but perhaps not, or perhaps we just disagree on definitions, or something like that - better not to clutter up this thread.

[Inspector]

like having to pretend Santa Clause exists,

Again, it's Santa Claus. That's C-L-A-U-S.

[piz]

Let me clarify then. On what non-emergency issues would you want a child to do what you say out of trust? You're implying that this kind (Santa) betrayal is more "psychologically harmful" than a classmate convincing a child about the Great Pumpkin - why?

How do you get "you want a child to do what you say out of trust"? Or that what I wrote contains the implication you state? I just don't see where either of those comes from in what I wrote.

[IAmMetaphysical]

"Well, I can prove you aren't without flaws, considering your complete lack of tact in expressing disagreement with me!"

Well I guess we disagree on whether or not it is a flaw to call things that are disgusting what they are.

[BrassDragon]

Well I guess we disagree on whether or not it is a flaw to call things that are disgusting what they are.

I've said it once, politely, and I'll say it again, politely: if you want to discuss this with me, another thread is the appropriate place. No more cowardly flaming, please.

[IAmMetaphysical]

This thread boils down to this point. One side's contention is: that one should put up with people's little irrationalities, because we all have them to some extent, and that it would be impractical not to because then one would never find a partner worthy enough.

And also: I do not wish to discuss anything with you at all, but I think you owe it to rationality to defend your assertion that man is incapable of being 100% rational. That at least was the implication of your statement, because we aren't talking about us as in this particular group of people currently discussing this issue, but of man.

[~Sophia~]

People come in all shapes and sizes (so to speak). If someone is not what you are looking for then why are you pursuing a romantic relationship with them?

If someone is honest, forthcoming about who they are, and their beliefs, then your decision to pursue a relationship with this person, if you want that romantic relationship to flourish, should be based on your full knowledge of who they are and in light of that knowledge full acceptance of them - the way they are today. If you see a potential for better - that is a bonus. However, your decision should not be based on that potential alone, in the absence of your acceptance of them the way they are today.

One of my father's hunting friends is a bachelor. He is an honest man. Early into any romantic relationship he has always disclosed the importance of his hobby in his life. It is apparent, one can not miss how passionate he is about it and the amount of time it requires. Women, whom he has dated, initially seem to understand and accept the conditions of their relationship - they seem not to be bothered by it - but after a while, often when their relationship becomes more serious, more committed - they try to change him and that is a romance killer for this man. In this case it is the women who are dishonest. They fake acceptance of his lifestyle in the early stages of their relationship. They pretend that they are not bothered. Ether that or they evading the issue. In ether case, it is a waste of everybody's time.

It is the same thing with forming a relationship with someone who is religious. If you can't stand it - why are you in a relationship with them?

Whatever you don't like about your lover, must be a minor issue for you. You should discuss controversial ideas with your lover (Duh!) but it has to be done in a respectful, non-confrontational, supporting, caring way, just like Kevin said. You convincing your lover of something, their conversion to your point of view, must be a minor issue, in comparison to their importance to you. If you adopt that kind of approach, nobody is going to be put on the defensive, there will be no resentment. You will be amazed how easy it is to resolve disagreements under those conditions.

If something is NOT a minor issue then I would not recommend you pursuing a romantic relationship with this person. One can pretend not to be bothered for a while but usually it does not work in the long run. Trying to change your lover, when they do not wish to be 'educated', and especially doing so aggressively, builds resentment which is a romance killer, again, just like Kevin said. In case where the differences are of major importance, having a relationship with this person, means that you will need to tolerate whatever you don't like about them. This is obviously not ideal but it is up to the particular person to judge if that is the right thing for them to do not.

Edited November 18, 2006 by ~Sophia~

[BrassDragon]

And also: I do not wish to discuss anything with you at all, but I think you owe it to rationality to defend your assertion that man is incapable of being 100% rational. That at least was the implication of your statement, because we aren't talking about us as in this particular group of people currently discussing this issue, but of man.

Man is theoretically capable of being 100% rational, but I think it's fair to say everybody makes mistakes - none of us is John Galt. So in practice it's not possible to be 100% rational. I think we're far more prone to false premises than actual logical fallacies, and whether "rationality" encompasses both of those or merely the latter is an interesting question.

Either way, I'd be surprised if people exist who don't hold any logical inconsistencies, but I can't prove that. I think maybe people exist who are right 99% of the time on things that one can be right or wrong about.

But my original point was that once you realize that you are imperfect, you have to take that into account in deciding how much imperfection you will tolerate in a partner. There are lots of forms of imperfection, including rationality.

That said, I think I should push for a very high level of rationality in a partner, as that particular trait matters a LOT to me, and probably to almost everone else up here as well. I wouldn't be happy, or able to be fully supportive, otherwise. This thread had helped me realize how important that is.

I quite like Sophia's post, by the way.

If you disagree with any of this post and want to point it out (which constitutes a discussion), let's do it on a new thread. Not to be a dick, and I realize the mods can move things around anyway after the fact but I feel like we'd be intruding to start getting into the nature of rationality too much.

[Ifat Glassman]

Can you support your partner 100% and still guide her towards a more rational way of evaluating things? The answer is, yes. So there's not really a conflict in the above quotations.

...

You have to put up with however irrational your partner is and hope that will improve through abstract intellectual discussions and yourself setting a good example.

BrassDragon: I don't see how you can practically IGNORE what Kevin says when attempting to interpret him.

Abstract intellectual discussions, guiding your partner toward rational way of evaluating things, all of those are impossible if you never make any effort or harbor any desire to change them, which is precisely, word by word, what Kevin said:

In street language: to accept the fact of exactly who a person is, and never to make any efforts (nor harbor any secret desires) to change them.

And by the way, none of us are 100% rational. We all hold some mistaken concepts and have some flaws.

Rationality is not the amount of correct knowledge someone has, but the process they use in gaining new knowledge and integrating their knowledge. It's about the method, not about the result (though the result is a measurement, or an indicator).

[IAmMetaphysical]

Rationality is not the amount of correct knowledge someone has, but the process they use in gaining new knowledge and integrating their knowledge. It's about the method, not about the result (though the result is a measurement, or an indicator).

This is exactly the point, and the point of this whole thread as well, it need not be moved to another thread. All discussions usually boil down to a metaphysical or epistemological discussion and need not be discussed merely on the concrete level, but in principle. The OP had stated that his gf knew that there was no reason to believe in God, but went through the motions of belief anyway, this is the essence of irrationality. She is not simply mistaken, but willfully evading and acting in contradiction to reality. In the issue of Santa Claus, she wants to impose a contradiction to reality on someone else; her children. In this case whether or not she is willfully wanting to do so out of evasion is debatable but beside the point, and this next point coincides with Kevin's post. She may have been mistaken about her children benefitting from the belief in Santa Claus, but her attitude when the OP wanted to discuss it with her was willful, and irrational.

One's partner may actually be mistaken about some things from time to time, because yes, most people are mistaken, but if you try to have a rational discussion with them, or even a debate, their attitude toward that attempt will reveal their attitude toward reason, and if they get defensive, or obtuse, the right thing to do would not be to appease this behavior but let it be known that under any circumstances, irrationality will not be tolerated and that one is willing to work through this problem if, and only if, they show some respect for reason and for rational discussion about issues. That is why there are no conflicts of interest among rational men. Not becasue we all agree on everything, and there are never any arguments, debates, or mistakenly held views, but because we all accept that one of us is right, and one of us is wrong, and the process by which we find out is reason. When one of us rejects reason, then there are no other recourses than physical force, emotional intimidation, and appeals to gender specific "needs".

Man is the rational animal, because he is volitional. A man is 100% rational when he accepts as an absolute that reason is his only means of survival, his only means of successfully dealing with the world and other people.

EDIT: When someone tries to propagate the idea that no man is 100% percent rational, it is a rationalization of his own unwillingness to be 100% rational himself.

Edited November 18, 2006 by IAmMetaphysical

[intellectualammo]

Now that's what I'm talking about! When I'm in a relationship where we don't argue, I get worried. It gets me thinking that the woman doesn't stand up for herself--has no conviction. I don't even care if I'm wrong or if she's wrong. I want at least one good fight every year, and a regular diet of minor fights in-between. We're talking bare minimum. I can't be with a woman that doesn't know how to disagree.

Have you reached that quota of having "at least one good fight a year"? A person who has convictions need not have disagreements to express that they have them in the first place, right? They can show that by word and deed with shared convictions, if they haven't already done so...

...it's important enough to have a slam-your-fist-on-the-table, wake-up-the-neighbors-shouting fight. ...I wring my hands in anticipation of the day when we really explode at each other. I can see it already. She's a tough one. She might make me bleed. I love it.

We may live in the same city, but I'm certainly glad you aren't my neighbor, for a number of reasons. I'd never want to meet anyone who is capable of saying that such things are "important", or a person who anticipates the day when he and his girlfriend "really explode at each other".

I seriously hope I have totally misunderstood what you have said somehow. I really do. I would gladly apologize if I have. I hope I have to.

[BrassDragon]

BrassDragon: I don't see how you can practically IGNORE what Kevin says when attempting to interpret him.

Ifatart: I don't see how you can practically IGNORE what I'm saying, as if I can only interpret Kevin and not speak for myself.

Abstract intellectual discussions, guiding your partner toward rational way of evaluating things, all of those are impossible if you never make any effort or harbor any desire to change them, which is precisely, word by word, what Kevin said

What I said is that you can do those things and still be 100% supportive, if you can put up with whatever flaws your partner has at the time. You can try to change their way of thinking without being moralizing and pedagogical.

IAmMetaphysical - I think you have a good summation of rationality. But I resent that you called me unwilling to be 100% rational, which is just plain stupid and a blatant and pointless attack.

As a sidenote, I think of Santa Claus basically as a game of pretend. My parents pretended he existed, and I did too, and this made my childhood brighter, and to be abstract, I think it improved my sense of life. I don't know if I ever really believed he existed; my parents never presented Santa as existing the way God existed, so probably not. I haven't decided if I'd engage in this game of pretend about Santa Claus with my children or not. But the point is, it's a leap to say a person is unwilling to be rational and doesn't hold rationality as an absolute just because they pretend with their children about Santa Claus. Santa Claus is a symbol of human kindness, just as Rand's characters were symbolic. (And ends in themselves )

[aleph_0]

Have you reached that quota of having "at least one good fight a year"? A person who has convictions need not have disagreements to express that they have them in the first place, right? They can show that by word and deed with shared convictions, if they haven't already done so...

Nope. The relationship is still new.

We may live in the same city, but I'm certainly glad you aren't my neighbor, for a number of reasons. I'd never want to meet anyone who is capable of saying that such things are "important", or a person who anticipates the day when he and his girlfriend "really explode at each other".

Okay. So long as you don't live in Mt. Oliver, then we're good.

I seriously hope I have totally misunderstood what you have said somehow. I really do. I would gladly apologize if I have. I hope I have to.

Depends on what you understand I have said. I have said that I love to fight. It shows me that spark in a girl that brings to full life her passions and convictions. I want to know that she is strong enough to stand up, not just to the rabble, but to me.