|
|
|
|
|
by yitosda
2541 days ago
|
|
I think we agree, but I appreciate that my wording wasn't perfectly clear. "pare down to its essence" was a bad way of saying "disregard intersecting issues and focus on one logically resolvable issue." Your soundproofed room analogy is apt. I also agree with applying pure logic to a scoped problem being not only possible but desirable... but I'd argue that properly scoped problems are rarely as useful to solve as the scoper might think. In many cases "merely" scoping the problem in a novel way leads directly to a truly useful course of action, and is most of the hard work. I agree completely with emotions being something we should not deny, but rather be something to /include/ when trying to solve problems. (My complaints are around emotions being placed outside or opposed to the realm of logic, where accounting for them is "illogical") |
|
(Not attacking, genuinely curious because I'd love to find new and more useful courses of action when it comes to problems...)