Choices and Decisions through Logical and Dialectic Reasoning -

Generally, our decision making involves the mind (or the brain) sensory mechanism, perception, cognition and the expression of results. We often will feel, perceive, think, remember and reason in an adaptive conscious and unconscious manner. In our daily lives, when we are faced with problems or just a situation which require a decision, we are often reminded to apply logic and reasoning for the most desired results. Hence, this is a basic reason why logic and reason are so essential in our lives. But there are other reasons. Logic is generally based on deduction which is a method of exact inference. It is a study of correct reasoning that consist of language and reasoning. Reasoning practically in our daily lives involves deciding what to do and when successful, issuing in an intention. Importantly, we are to remember that a problem of reasoning about actions is given in terms of an initial situation, a terminal situation, a set of feasible actions, a set of constraints and such alike. Our task in a situation, such as, for example, whether to take an air flight or the train to visit families this Thanksgiving Day, is to find the best acceptable sequence of permissible events and actions that will enable us to move from just planning the journey to actually accomplishing by arriving for Thanksgiving.

Common sense determines what we do, regardless of what we think. Common sense is a key factor for acting in our real world. For if we use logic alone, we would probably be able to take only a few actions a day. Common sense helps us to deal with the complexity of the real world. Common sense provides a shortcut to making critical decisions very quickly. An applying common sense sometimes will produce the desired results when we need to make a decision quickly, but not always. Another important aspect of Logic and Reasoning is Philosophical Logic and Reasoning and the importance of this in our lives. This is essential in General Problem Solving: It helps us to analyze concepts, definitions, arguments and problems, and contributes to our capacity to organize ideas and issues to deal with questions of value. Communication Skills: Here our skills will be enhanced as we are able to present ideas through well-constructed systematic and reasoned arguments

In economics, a sunk cost is any cost that has already been paid and cannot be recovered. The sunk cost fallacy is a mistake in reasoning in which the sunk costs of an activity - instead of the future costs and benefits - are considered when deciding whether to continue the activity. The sunk cost fallacy makes it more likely that a person or an organization continues with an activity in which they have already invested money, time, or effort, even if they would not start the activity had they not already invested in it. The greater the size of the sunk investment, the more people tend to invest further, even when the return on added investment appears not to be worthwhile. This trap is sometimes described as "throwing good money after bad," because the resources and effort are already lost, no matter what you do now.

Research shows that sunk costs worm their way into decision making because the previous act of investing raises people's confidence that they have made a good bet that will pay off, whether or not this is truly the case. Other research shows that people who feel personally responsible for creating sunk costs are more likely to subsequently "up the ante" because of the previous costs. According to researchers Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, a reason people fall prey to the sunk cost fallacy is loss aversion: People tend to have a much stronger preference for avoiding losses than for acquiring gains. Continuing an activity based on sunk costs enables us to avoid (at least for the short run) what social psychologist Dan Ariely calls "the pain of paying." Psychologists cite "cognitive dissonance," "plausible deniability" and "regret avoidance" as reasons for the sunk cost fallacy: Continuing one's past behavior, in this case extending and enlarging a prior commitment that otherwise does not make economic sense, is seen as justifying our past behavior, maintaining the appearance that we did not make a mistake, and avoiding the regret that we would experience by stopping the activity in which the investment was made.

Sunk costs are "irrelevant data" from an economic viewpoint because they are independent of any possible future event: Continuing an activity only because of prior investment is thus seen as irrational behavior unlikely to result in the best outcome. Author David McRaney describes the sunk cost fallacy as continuing "a wasteful loop of behavior because of your fear of loss." Waste of resources matters in business, public affairs and economics. Thinking that greater investment in something you have already invested in will "make it work" not only can be the result of the sunk cost fallacy, but the further investment magnifies the commitment to the activity and can increase the possibility of yet more investment based on sunk costs. Perhaps even worse, escalation of commitment to a course of action only because of past investment can block needed change and limit innovation. 

Here are several more examples you can probably relate to: Breaking off long-term relationships is much harder than short-term ones, You won’t rush to throw away an expensive suit you’ve worn just once even if it no longer fits you well, It’s hard to abandon an online game where you already achieved high rankings and can lose it if you don’t log in regularly. All of the above are examples of sunk cost fallacy psychology that forces us to act irrational – maintain a relationship, keep the suit or continue playing an addictive game. Sunk cost fallacy can be further reinforced by emotional fallacy as we tend to over-rely on emotions rather than logic when forced to give up on something. To Overcome this, we can take a few Steps - Treat Any Investment as an Option, Not an Obligation, Minimize The Impact of Short-Term Emotions Sunk cost fallacy is largely emotion-driven because we feel regret for wasting time on something or don’t want to appear wasteful or admit failure. That’s why when faced with a big decision it’s important to get some distance first, instead of diving into action. Specifically, run a quick root cause analysis in your head to understand why you are feeling in one way or another and what underpins your emotion to act in a certain way. Base All Major Decisions on Data, Not Judgements. Good decision making in management is based on solid data and collaborative input, rather than “gut feeling” and individual judgments. And Always keep The Focus on the Big Picture.

Dialectical logic is the science of the most general laws of development of nature, society, and human thought. These laws are reflected in the form of special concepts called the categories of logic. Therefore it may also be defined as the science of dialectical categories. Comprising a system of dialectical categories, it investigates their mutual relationship, sequence, and the transitions from one category to another. When we Look into the Chinese Cultures In Particular, The Chinese have had an enduring reputation for being dialectical thinkers,the concepts and rules are highly flexible, with a multiplicity of meanings. Principle of change is This principle holds that reality is a process. It does not stand still but is in constant flux. According to Chinese folk belief, existence is not static but dynamic and changeable. At the deepest level of Chinese philosophical thinking, "to be or not to be" is not the question because life is a constant passing from one stage of being to another, so that to be is not to be, and not to be is to be and functions reasoning in ways that are distinct from the formal logic paradigm dominating the Western tradition. Because reality is dynamic and flexible, the concepts that reflect reality are also active, changeable, and subjective rather than being objective, fixed, and identifiable entities.

Principle of contradiction. This principle states that reality is not precise or cut-and-dried but is full of contradictions. Because change is constant, contradiction is constant. Old and new, good and bad, strong and weak, and so on, co-exist in everything. For example, its basic theme is that the world is simply a single entity, integrated over opposites. Principle of relationship or holism probably constitutes the essence of dialectical thinking. It is a consequence of the principles of change and contradiction. It holds that nothing is isolated and independent, but everything is connected. If we really want to know something fully, we must know all of its relations how it affects and is affected by everything else. The three principles of Chinese dialectical thinking are related. It is because of change that contradiction becomes inevitable; it is because change and contradiction are inevitable that it is meaningless to discuss the individual part without considering its relationships with other parts.

Western thought rests in substantial part on Aristotelian logic, which emphasizes three different principles: the law of identity, the law of noncontradiction, and the law of the excluded middle. The law of identity. This law holds that if anything is true, then it is true; thus A = A. In other words, everything must be identical with itself.  "Everything is what it is." The law of noncontradiction. This law declares that no statement can be both true and false; thus A ¹ ¬ A. For example, "A student is not a non-student" is an expression of the law of non-contradiction because "student" and "non-student" are contradictory, hence cannot both be true. The law of the excluded middle. This law expresses the rule that any statement is either true or false; thus (A v B) & ¬ (A & B). A common expression of this law of the excluded middle is "A is either B or not-B." For example, "A person must either be a student or non-student" because "student" and "non-student" are mutually contradictory and complementary so that anybody must belong to either one of these two categories. It is obvious now to readers that these laws of formal logic are not congruent with the principles of Eastern naïve dialecticism. For instance, the principle of change suggests that life is a constant passing from one stage of being to another, so that to be is not to be, and not to be is to be. The law of identity, on the other hand, assumes cross-situational consistency; A must be A regardless of the context.

Finally, if change and contradiction are constant, then real understanding of truth and reality must be relational. Hence, for a dialectical thinker, both A and B may be right, or both A and B may equal a third element C that may not be part of the initial contradiction. We believe such fundamental differences in ontology and epistemology lead to substantial cognitive differences. We expected that Western stances for dealing with contradiction should be consistent with Westerners’ intuitive understanding of the law of noncontradiction, whereas the Chinese stances for dealing with contradiction should be based on naïve dialecticism. Empirical studies showed that dialectical thinking is a form of folk wisdom in Chinese culture: Chinese preferred dialectical proverbs containing seeming contradictions more than did Americans. Chinese were also found to prefer dialectical resolutions to social conflicts, and to prefer dialectical arguments over classical Western logical arguments. Furthermore, when two apparently contradictory propositions were presented, Americans polarized their views and Chinese were moderately accepting of both propositions.

Therefore we can see a stark Difference In the ways People Reason and Perceive their situations in Their respective societies Due to these fundamental differences in The Way they access a situation Regardless the country and the setting.