Either-or thinking is keeping us from making good choices, both in socio-political issues and in our personal lives. In the former, false alternatives are often erected to establish partisan lines which substitutes rationalization for rational thought, keeping us further from solutions. In the latter, a similar method of rationalization (advocating for choices based on emotional considerations) keeps us from making optimal choices by never defining a rational goal.

Instead, Matthew argues that we ought to define our desired goals more precisely to enable us to be more objective in evaluating proposed solutions to problems. He refers to a recent Ben Bayer article and ideas from his two most recent guests to help us unpack what's going on, and uses Covid-19, hitting and fighting in hockey, guns, and other examples to help illustrate and contrast helpful and unhelpful approaches.

Ben Bayer article: https://newideal.aynrand.org/the-dangerous-thinking-behind-pandemic-partisanship/

Interview w/ Elizabeth Benton: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydr8CzVunDU&t=970s

Interview w/ Dane Maxwell: https://www.youtube.com
/watch?v=osb5kAzXDvo&t=2254s


Learn more at https://matthewboulton.ca/ or https://www.facebook.com/matthewboulton.ca/

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit matthewboulton.substack.com

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit matthewboulton.substack.com