How to deal with illogical people?

I've been a fan of the Judge Mathis show for years now. It's basically a standard "small-claims court television show" where two litigants try to convince Judge Mathis that they were a victim of some sort of crime, and the other side should pay.


In today's episode, the defendant was accused of stealing $100 out of the plaintiff's pay check envelope. The plaintiff even showed a security video of the defendant shifting around, grabbing the envelope, stuffing the money into her pocket, and even TRASHING the remains of the envelope under the desk. The plaintiff also claimed that her ID was in that paycheck envelope, so the defendant definitely knew who that money belonged to. The defendant then inadvertently admitted that she saw the ID but took the money anyway. All throughout the trial, the defendant consistently showed complete disrespect for the court: shouting at the defendent and denying that she stole anything, even though the video evidence and her OWN testimony proved she was guilty.

At the end of the trial, it was a no-brainer that the defendant needed to pay up, and Judge Mathis, holding back a mouthful of laughter, gave judgement for the plaintiff in the amount of $100.



While watching this, I was CRACKING UP! How could that defendant be sooo stuupid? The defendant's entire presentation and testimony was so blatantly wrong, belligerent, and illogical that all I could do was laugh. (So did Judge Mathis and his audience in the courtoom.)

However, after thinking about this for a while, I was puzzled. If I met an illogical person, like that stupid defendant, how should I deal with that type of person?

I considered laughing at that person, ignoring the person, trying to explain my logic to that person (although I doubt he or she would understand), etc. However, I wasn't sure which action would be the best way to handle that type of situation.


Thoughts?

That's pretty funny. Is Judge Mathis the one who calls people crack heads to get them to stop doing drugs? :laugh: I wonder who writes that show?

Anywho, the thing about illogical people is there is no winning. Whether you're correct or not is unimportant to them. So, the best bet would be to just walk away and save your breath...unless you enjoy a nonsensical argument. Those can be fun too. Be as crazy as you can and whoever can yell the loudest wins! Kidding of course.

It's sad though. I think many people who come off as illogical are just too proud or scared to be wrong. So instead of listening to reality they put up a protective wall and only they can talk themselves down. You can bring a horse to water...

Many people grapple with different notions of logic. Who is to say that yours is anymore logical than anyone elses? Objectively, we are able to analyze the flaws in other people's logic (big or small), but find it more difficult to do so with our own. I don't think it's fair to write someone off as stupid simply because they aren't as pragmatic as you think you are. This woman certainly has to deal with huge holes in her reasoning, but that's her own struggle. It's like arguing with an alcoholic; you can't win. But not because you're wrong, rather, because they can't reason. Logic is a difficult thing for many people to grasp. But that's not a failure, it's simply the way they think, and the way their mind functions. Respect the flaws that you perceive in other people; we are all far from perfect.

What I do when I debate people and their stance is untenable is I *try* to calmly show them my side, and explain it in a way I think they may "get" (the subject matter I debate in another forum is often very emotionally-charged, so common arguments generally are ignored because they've heard them before.) So my common go-to tool is using analogies, particularly with a component they can relate to. Basic example: Person wants to take away group of people's rights, you create an analogy where the person is in the same situation for a personal trait of theirs. Would they be okay with their rights being taken away? How is you taking rights away from _____ any different than group/country taking those same rights away from you? What makes you justified, and them not? Then debate from there.

Also I try to stay focused on what I am discussing, because often people will end up trying to change the subject away from the point of discussion. For instance, a common thing I've seen people do in some political/religious arguments is try to change the subject by saying something like "Well, what about the problems in other country or religion?" My response: yeah, there are problems in _____, but we're not talking about _______ right now, we're talking about subject. It's surprising how often that will get people off track.

Some don'ts:
1. Generalize (Republicans are selfish and only care about themselves)- your opponent will think you have had limited exposure to the subject you're talking about, and thus, not reputable.
2. Make an ignorant/uneducated statement (Muslims worship a moon god!)- any statement you make afterwards will not be seen as credible
3. Get emotional (NO, YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND!!)- your opponent will brush you off as immature

In conclusion,my personal advice:
1.Stay calm
2.Try to get the person to get out of their default way of thinking
3.Stay focused on the subject at hand
4. Be open to the other person's point of view, even if it seems silly. They may have a point, so give them a chance to explain why their stance is logical. Plus talking down to people tends to close off them off to what you say.
5.Realize you're not going to get through to everyone- some people are too dense or emotionally-attached to their stance that they aren't going to be swayed by logic.

Also, sometimes it's best to ignore the person, if you can tell they are saying stuff just to get a reaction out of people/ trolling, or it's obvious they are closed off to any other ways of thinking.

I agree with Hypatia.
And if you hear something along the lines of "God DID IT!", "It's wrong in the eyes of GOD!", or "It's in the BIBLE!" it's a sign of imminent failure of explaining anything and everything and you should just leave them be, unless they start to be harmfull.

If the illogical person is making ridiculous statements because they are uneducated on a subject, I'll do my best to put them on the correct path and explain where their mistake lies. That's if that person is willing to listen though.
If it came to someone who was so set in their ways that whatever you say or even prove, that they wont budge on their logic, then I'll leave them be. I'd only end up winding myself up by trying to explain further.

Pakislav wrote: I agree with Hypatia.
And if you hear something along the lines of "God DID IT!", "It's wrong in the eyes of GOD!", or "It's in the BIBLE!" it's a sign of imminent failure of explaining anything and everything and you should just leave them be, unless they start to be harmfull.

The rational philosopher accepts the fact that they are no more correct about anything than anyone else. While I don't believe in god, I don't have any proof that he DOESN'T exist, so when I argue that he doesn't, i'm no more correct than those who argue that he does. We are not the intellectual standard on metaphysics. My OPINION of the nature of life, existence, and god is just that, my opinion. It is not a failure to have faith in god, simply a different, albeit irrational, point of view.

I'm an agnostic atheist, I don't claim that there is no god, I state that I don't belive in one.
We can not asses that either god exists or not, but we can asses that a given religion is full of contradictions and far fetched claims that have a basis only in themselves.

The thing about it is that I don't know if there is a god or not, and neither anyone else. So acting on such notion is no different then acting on what a flying spaghetti monster or the people on bikes that my grandmother hears, have to say. (My grandmother is scicophrenic.)

I am not challenging your beliefs (I am also an agnostic atheist, and a bit of an apatheist to boot!). I merely wanted to remind you that many people are inculcated with these really ancient beliefs, and regardless of how irrational they seem to those of us steeped in logic, they do represent far more than the absence of reason. I know many faiths are full of contradictions, but that's what happens when an ancient and massive religion grows and continues to expand. Different people with radically different interpretations of one faith bring many gargantuan changes, thus creating contradictions.

Please don't think that i'm calling you out! Simply offering an alternate view.

First of all, I'd like to thank all of you for the variety of thoughtful responses. I read all of your responses, and I agree with all of you to some extent. However...

Angelus wrote: Many people grapple with different notions of logic. Who is to say that yours is anymore logical than anyone elses? Objectively, we are able to analyze the flaws in other people's logic (big or small), but find it more difficult to do so with our own. I don't think it's fair to write someone off as stupid simply because they aren't as pragmatic as you think you are. This woman certainly has to deal with huge holes in her reasoning, but that's her own struggle. It's like arguing with an alcoholic; you can't win. But not because you're wrong, rather, because they can't reason. Logic is a difficult thing for many people to grasp. But that's not a failure, it's simply the way they think, and the way their mind functions. Respect the flaws that you perceive in other people; we are all far from perfect.

I have to disagree with you, Angelus, because I do believe that in certain cases, one person's logic is more logical than another person's. ("Who is to say that yours is anymore logical than anyone elses?") Why do I believe this? Because I believe in universal morality - that there are certain behaviors that are universally thought of as amoral among all civilized human societies. For example, stealing from people and killing people are universally amoral behaviors. Why are they universally considered amoral?

Because there is also a universal logic. Stealing is amoral. Reason: The golden rule - how would you like it if someone stole something from you? Killing people is amoral. Reason: The golden rule - how would you like it if someone killed your loved one? That is why human societies have decided on certain behaviors and thinking (logic) to be universally good or bad.



("Logic is a difficult thing for many people to grasp. But that's not a failure, it's simply the way they think, and the way their mind functions.")

I also disagree with this statement because when people can't "grasp" certain logical ways of thinking, it is a failure. As mentioned, civilized human societies have agreed upon certain universally logical ways of thinking. Why? Basically, because certain logical ways of thinking prevent injuries and harm from occurring and help society function.

When a person, such as that defendant, fails to grasp certain, universal logics, they have failed to help their society function without harm and injury - even if they just stole $100. It's still a failure on the guilty person's fault.