Psychology: Why are unreasonable people more confident?

Unreasonable people are not justified, but argue irrationally or bluff.

This situation is like a person going to get dog food. In fact, dogs are scared to death, but they still grin to protect their food, because this is a means for them to protect themselves.

Unreasonable people are generally extremely self-centered. As long as they touch some interests they think, they will not handle things according to normal social views and values. Any means that can safeguard his interests, as long as he thinks it can be used, will be used.

As the saying goes: "There are two kinds of people in the world who are the most terrible, one is desperate and the other is shameless."

People who don't want to die don't need to explain too much, and one life can be spared. That must be terrible. Another shameless person, according to my understanding, is a shameless person. Such people only think about themselves and seek their own personal interests. Their personal morality and social morality are distorted in a sense. When they encounter something, in order to seek their own interests, they often give up the right or wrong of this behavior or the influence on others.

When they are accused by others, they clearly know that their actions are inappropriate, but in order to emphasize the legitimacy of their own interests, they will argue irrationally and argue irrationally.

But if you say that they don't understand these truths, they do, because if something similar to their behavior happens to others, they will come out and make a clear accusation, and they seem to be the embodiment of justice.

So, I can come to the conclusion that:

The reason why unreasonable people argue irrationally is to use this "rogue" means to safeguard or seek some beneficial interests for themselves. Driven by this interest, they will temporarily give up their consistent moral values and emphasize the legitimacy of their interests with a seemingly tough attitude.

Hello, I'm a 5-minute psychiatrist. My answer is: in society, you can't tell who is lying, and what everyone agrees with is not necessarily the absolute truth. The so-called unreasonable people will argue with you with confidence. What he said is the truth he agrees with, and of course it is not necessarily unreasonable.

What is the so-called truth? He is just a practice that everyone agrees with, not absolute. All truths, whether most people agree or few people agree, are relative. Nothing in the world is absolute, because everything is developing. Although its change is expected by people, it is also unpredictable, which causes the corresponding change of truth. When a habit of most of us forms a truth, the truth is out, out of date, so it is unreasonable. Of course, most of the truth about the formation of social contract still exists, but not everyone agrees. It is for this reason that some people have their own reasons. When it happened, everyone had different ideas and opinions.

For example, there was an accident on the highway. You stand on one side of the road and see a scene. If you stand on the other side of the road, you will see another scene. The whole incident was a car accident, but you have different views on the scene from different angles. So which view is correct? There is no conclusion. Only when professionals go to the scene to investigate can the conclusions given be relative and not absolutely correct.

It's just that some people, you see, are unreasonable and argue with you with confidence. In fact, he has his own views and opinions. You may say that his reason goes against the wishes of most people, which is unreasonable. This view is incorrect. It is reasonable that he is only making a fuss about his reasons. Only when he thinks that his reasons don't exist or are untenable will he return to the vast majority of people. You are arguing with him, and there may be some ideological unity. There is a saying that "it is better to quarrel with a smart person than with an asshole". In fact, this is also the truth. You think your own truth is the truth, while others' truth is not. In other people's minds, you think he is telling the truth, but you are not. So who is the truth? What most people agree with can only be said to be universal truth, not absolute truth. Although you are biased towards most truth, you can only say that you are a habit. You follow these truths and the social contract, but you can't say that this truth is absolute and all other truths are wrong.

Of course, we have to admit and abide by what we know in society. This is a respect for the social contract. Give another small example. Is it normal for beautiful women to walk by the sea in bikinis? You will never say that this beautiful woman is ill because the sea sets her off. What if people go swimming in the sea without wearing swimsuits?

Still this beautiful woman. If she walks down the street in a bikini, you will definitely say that this beautiful woman is sick, even very ill. Why? Because this is a busy street, at least she has to dress neatly, so she is not suitable for wearing a bathing suit at all, and because there is no water to set him off. This is the so-called "unreasonable river course, reasonable China road". What kind of clothes you should wear in any scene. Otherwise, you will violate the truth.

Therefore, whenever we argue with others, you clearly know that the other party is demanding, and you should also take his so-called truth as truth. Everyone has anyone's reason, which is really understandable. You say that other people's truth is incorrect, and your own truth is not necessarily correct. All truths have people who support him. Otherwise, this importune will not exist. So we also have to tolerate this so-called importune, because everyone is talking about their own reasons.

Generally speaking, we usually find some people unreasonable, but quarreling with others is like opening your throat and bombarding with a gun. Is it because they are just?

Actually, it's not. It's just that they feel in their hearts that what they said must be right. They have long regarded every word of their own as the correct answer.

So asking this question feels inappropriate and contradictory.

After all, how can an unreasonable person make sense?

Then the fact is that you think he is wrong, so you think he is "unreasonable", but he makes you angry and unreasonable. Then why are you "justified"? So at present, there are too many subjective colors in this issue to talk about. We are talking about something, and we should not judge the nature of this matter directly according to our subjective consciousness.

On the other hand, is it true that only people who know that they are wrong will feel guilty?

People who are confident when they know they are wrong are liars. In fact, there are many such people in history who know it is impossible, but he still swears to you that it is possible.

So this truth is actually several aspects. Everyone thinks that he is right. In fact, there must be something wrong with his cognitive range.

The so-called reason is that one person thinks he is right and the other thinks he is wrong. Then, he will think that people who think they are wrong are unreasonable, and those who think they are wrong think they are unreasonable.

So, the problem is that you also think you are really right, and unreasonable people are wrong.

Right?

So where are you wrong?

Is he right?

Who is unreasonable?

The point of this problem lies in "unreasonable people".