Here is a rich study of mutual reciprocity in interpersonal relationships.
(The identies of the writers is lightly masked.)
Each person seems certain of the correctness of their own view.
We believe the auras of (ir)rationality are sharp and clear.
But can we sharply and clearly identify the various reasoning components involved?
(Click on the house.)

Note the different kinds of information processing ("rationality") depicted under the house.
B wrote:
In a message dated 8/7/03 8:04:56 AM, [A] writes:
Holding witnesses for extended periods without charges
or a hearing is wrong regardless of the later
resolution of the case.  Convictions and testimony
obtained under a system of imprisonment first, charges
later,  don't give me any confidence that things are
working as they should. 

In my earlier missive I spoke of egg on face.  Now we seem to be adding a foot in mouth.  Dang me this is fun.  I wrote my post after reading the morning Oregonian.  All of the respondents should have read the news story, the paper's editorial and David Reinhard's column, then made their response.  I love our web chats and it is very rare when a person, such as myself, gets a chance to poke a needle of true facts into a bubble of bafoonery, nonsense, and government conspiracy theory.  Thanks fellow rationalist for this opportunity to line you all up.... and shoot you all down.  To wit:

A ... comment above..the holding for long periods without hearing...The Oregonian:  "  [B]....his much-trumpeted 'isolation' was voluntary, done by the judge at Hawash's own request."

G.."I had thought that you were pretty much a libertarian, but your reasoning
above is more statist/authoritarian, which is where AG Ashcroft seems to
be coming from. (He is also anti-democratic: witness his attempt to
invalidate or at least interfere with the Oregon Death with Dignity Act,
which was passed twice by the people." [B]  Let's stick to the Hawash case... but for my personal catharsis...  I think Ashcroft is a pompous ass who is overly religious and could do great harm to our country.

j...  "I am surprised that [B] believes  'Convictions and testimony obtained under a system of imprisonment first, charges later' is consonant with the Constitution."  [ j], [B]were those quotation marks for real?  Tell me now, were they just for drama?

BT:  "I don't mean these as rhetorical questions. My lack of legal knowledge knows no bounds. This "conspiracy" thing scares me. I'm even thinking that I shouldn't send this."  .... [B] Now [BT] calm down .. dare I use the word paranoia?

M: "If they solicited testimony from him regarding higher ups, that testimony has been bought and paid for, which makes it extremely suspect."  [B] What?????

I hope this is a rational response... Love this group.... B

Lack of spatial visualization of the cube cutting
Absence of mental imaging of the first derivative of velocity
The extremely common inverting of implication relationships

Those are the four "irrationality" auras under the house.

Even if there are correlations among them, they constitute a space of many dimensions.  We all differ in our auras, in our abilities to perceive abstract relationships of various kinds.  We all come up against our personal "edges of human comprehension," also an entity of a space of many dimensions.  How can we recognize when a disagreement is a difference in pattern recognition in these multidimensioned spaces?  And when personal taste and preference is free from such differences?

We recently witnessed a truly horrific set of inverted implications with:

The attack of 9/11 was evil.
Saddam Hussein is evil.
Therefore, Saddam was at least partially, and probably mostly, responsible for the attack.

Many who easily recognize the logical absurdity of this "reasoning" nevertheless believe its conclusion.  (Or do they?  If they do, what evidence and reasoning are they following?)  However, a majority of the American public apparently did accept that reasoning--and the opinion shapers (Carl Rove leading?) presented it with confidence of its effectiveness.

It was effective.

We have a problem.
The world has a problem.
Humanity has a problem.

The problem is rooted in reasoning.

One of the salient dimensions of the problem is mutual reciprocity.
That's a logical relationship which suffers from frequent failure to be recognized.

We need a "bridge to understanding."

How do I win?
Bridge to Understanding
How do we win?
Click on the pic