Selective attention and irrelevant stimuli essay

Please be patient while it loads! The zip-file will automatically uncompress and you can view it offline on your browser. A selected bibliography from mainstream journals with sample quotations This page will provide you with source references that you can cut and paste.

Selective attention and irrelevant stimuli essay

These are basically unresolvable with anything less than a lifetime of philosophical work, but they usually allow mutual understanding and respect. More detail on what I mean by each level: Meta-debate is discussion of the debate itself rather than the ideas being debated.

Is one side being hypocritical? Are some of the arguments involved offensive?

Evolution of the bacterial flagellum

Is someone being silenced? What biases motivate either side? Is someone defying a consensus? Who is the underdog? I even think it can sometimes be helpful to argue about which side is the underdog. If it works, supporting one side of an argument imposes so much reputational cost that only a few weirdos dare to do it, it sinks outside the Overton Window, and the other side wins by default.

This is part of the process that creates polarization and echo chambers. The best result is that you never went into that space at all. They may sometimes suggest what might, with a lot more work, be a good point.

And it might greatly decrease the number of guns available to law-abiding people hoping to defend themselves. So the cost of people not being able to defend themselves might be greater than the benefit of fewer criminals being able to commit crimes.

But this would be a reasonable argument and not just a gotcha.

Selective attention and irrelevant stimuli essay

Single facts are when someone presents one fact, which admittedly does support their argument, as if it solves the debate in and of itself.

Second, even things with some bad features are overall net good. Trump could be a dishonest businessman, but still have other good qualities. Hillary Clinton may be crap at email security, but skilled at other things.

Even if these facts are true and causal, they only prove that a plan has at least one bad quality. At best they would be followed up by an argument for why this is really important. I think the move from shaming to good argument is kind of a continuum.

This level is around the middle.

The memory process

Single studies are better than scattered facts since they at least prove some competent person looked into the issue formally. Scientific studies are much less reliable guides to truth than most people think.

On any controversial issue, there are usually many peer-reviewed studies supporting each side. Sometimes these studies are just wrong.

Other times they investigate a much weaker subproblem but get billed as solving the larger problem. Probably it depends a lot on the particular job, the size of the minimum wage, how the economy is doing otherwise, etc, etc, etc. Gary Kleck does have a lot of studies showing that more guns decrease crime, but a lot of other criminologists disagree with him.

Overall I think that would be worth it. Sometimes these can be more complicated and ambiguous. Then you can agree to use normal standards of rigor for the argument and move on to your real disagreements.

Disputing definitions is when an argument hinges on the meaning of words, or whether something counts as a member of a category or not.The table below presents an abbreviated geologic time scale, with times and events germane to this essay.

Please refer to a complete geologic time scale when this one seems inadequate. Selective exposure is a theory within the practice of psychology, often used in media and communication research, that historically refers to individuals' tendency to favor information which reinforces their pre-existing views while avoiding contradictory information.

Selective exposure has also been known and defined as "congeniality bias" or "confirmation bias" in various texts throughout. In , Paul Graham wrote How To Disagree Better, ranking arguments on a scale from name-calling to explicitly refuting the other person’s central point..

And that’s why, ever since , Internet arguments have generally been civil and productive. Graham’s hierarchy is useful for its intended purpose, but it isn’t really a hierarchy of disagreements.

You can easily predict the ideology of someone on the liberal-conservative spectrum by how they look. This is universal not just in Western countries but also in more traditional parts of the world.

Sometimes the best way to understand current affairs is to examine them from a historical perspective. When police canine tracking began on a large scale during the late s and early s, it was widely believed trained police tracking dogs would scent match an item handled by a perpetrator to his track and/or that individual, respond to.

A compendium of DNB, WM, IQ information up to

Making It Stick: Memorable Strategies to Enhance Learning | LD Topics | LD OnLine