What am I reading?

September 14, 2025

1. we wrote about archimedes lab

1. basically gpt and i talked about how to develop the new model, how to replace raisec, be more attentive to the kids’ needs and parents’ too and it criticized me like hell

2. i have so much work pending

2. i read something on cr

1. you know an interesting part:

2. i feel like i never really learnt hwo to critically reason things - criticize sure, but like my brain is dead to the full argument, i just make random sense of stuff and come to conclusions. that’s so wrong. that i have learnt through my gmat cr prep.

3. i am yet to catch up

4. today, i am coming back on track with archimedes lab

5. i went out with hubby for a nice brekkie, and have to go again for some pending shopping

7. a nice read of the day:

1. https://theebookclubx.substack.com/p/how-to-become-an-academic-weapon

2. interesting

3. The "satisficing" vs "maximizing" decision frameworks describe two contrasting approaches to making choices. **Satisficing** means selecting an option that meets basic criteria or is "good enough," whereas **maximizing** involves exhaustively searching for the absolute best possible outcome before making a decision

| **Framework** | **How Decisions Are Made** | **Typical Outcome** | **Psychological Impact** |

| --- | --- | --- | --- |

| Satisficing | Stop at "good enough" | Often satisfactory | More happiness, less regret |

| Maximizing | Seek the very best through exhaustive search | Possibly optimal | Less happiness, more regret |

| | | | |

Above and beyond their study of general methods of argument analysis, argumentation theorists investigate arguments in a variety of ways: by exploring particular aspects of arguing (e.g., onus, burden of proof, or the norms that govern arguments in specific contexts); by analyzing arguments from historical, social, political or feminist points of view; by studying particular kinds of argument (e.g., those expressed in works of art, or those that arise in specific legal contexts); and by investigating the assumptions, conditions (philosophical, epistemological, social, political, institutional, psychological, educational, etc.) which give rise to disagreement, arguing and argument in the first place. In many ways, such endeavors intersect with informal logic.

Different systems of informal logic vary in a number of ways — often, by incorporating formal, rhetorical, dialectical and other methods of analysis to a greater or lesser extent. Many systems propose unique approaches or mix methods that they borrow from other systems. Groarke 2020 has outlined a “BLAST” approach to the identification and definition of systems of informal logic. It defines a specific informal logic system **I**, as **I** = {**B**,**L**,**A**,**S**,**T**}, where:

- **B** = the theoretical background that informs **I**,

- **L** = the language used to express the arguments **I** analyzes,

- **A** = a concept of argument,

- **S** = a way to “standardize” arguments, and

- **T** = tools and methods for testing the strength of arguments evaluated using **I**.

- Complex arguments → have **many premises** (sometimes 10s or 100s)

- These → form **layers of inference**

- Start with → **initial premises**

→ lead to → **intermediate conclusions**

→ which become → **new premises**

→ leading up to → **main (final) conclusion**

- An **argument** = a **premise–conclusion complex**

→ **Directed at an audience (how would i know??)**

→ **Backed by a warrant** (i.e. justification)

→ OR **Responding to an opponent’s view**

- Informal logic expands this:

→ Makes **audience**, **warrant**, and **dialectical context**

→ **Essential elements** of what counts as an argument

September 15, 2025

1. I started my day with answering and participating in a couple of reddit threads: esp. on Indian careers

2. i read a paper

## https://bmcpsychiatry.biomedcentral.com/counter/pdf/10.1186/s12888-025-06815-2.pdf

Introduction

This 2025 BMC Psychiatry paper examines the relationship between **repetitive negative thinking (RNT)** and cognitive decline in older adults. RNT refers to persistent, recurrent focus on distressing thoughts, which is common in disorders like depression and anxiety. The study aims to determine whether higher levels of RNT are independently associated with poorer cognitive performance among community-dwelling seniors, addressing a gap in understanding of psychological mechanisms driving cognitive aging.

## Premise and Arguments

The authors posit that RNT, as a modifiable psychological process, may be a significant and underappreciated risk factor for cognitive decline in the elderly. They argue that RNT:

- Is prevalent and measurable using standardized questionnaires (like the Perseverative Thinking Questionnaire)

- May exert effects on cognition beyond traditional demographic and health factors

- Potentially operates via stress-related biological pathways (e.g., HPA axis dysregulation, elevated cortisol, neuroinflammation) that can affect key brain regions involved in memory and executive function

In the cross-sectional study, 424 adults aged 60 and above completed standardized assessments for both RNT and cognitive ability (using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment). Participants with higher levels of RNT, particularly those in the upper quartiles, showed significantly lower cognitive test scores, even after adjusting for age, education, and other confounders. Subgroup analysis revealed that this relationship was especially pronounced in individuals aged 60-79 and those with higher education.

## Conclusion

The findings suggest that **persistent negative thought patterns are strongly and independently linked to poorer cognitive performance** in later life. Given that RNT can be targeted with interventions like CBT or mindfulness, the study proposes that early detection and treatment of high RNT could become a novel approach to preventing or delaying cognitive decline in the elderly. The authors advocate for integrating RNT assessments into routine geriatric care and call for longitudinal research to clarify causality and explore therapeutic interventions.

## Critique

- **Strengths:**

- Large and well-characterized sample, robust assessment tools, and careful adjustment for confounders provide strong support for the association between RNT and cognitive performance.

- Results highlight a potentially modifiable risk factor for cognitive decline, advancing both theory and clinical practice.

- **Limitations:**

- The cross-sectional design means causality cannot be established; it's unclear whether RNT leads to cognitive decline, or vice versa.

- The study does not incorporate neuroimaging or biomarker data to directly link RNT to neurobiological processes.

- Hospital-based recruitment may limit generalizability to broader populations.

- Authors themselves note the need for longitudinal and multi-center research to confirm if reducing RNT can sustainably improve cognitive outcomes.

**In summary:** The study identifies RNT as a promising, modifiable target to help prevent cognitive decline in older adults, but definitive conclusions about causality and intervention effectiveness await future prospective studies

3. another article: https://zariaparvez.substack.com/p/the-doodle-report-vol-1?triedRedirect=true

4. summary from the stanford plato paper:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/#Arg

The seven basic types of dialogue he distinguishes can be summarized as follows.

| **Type** | **Situation** | **Arguers’ Goal** | **Dialogue Goal** |

| --- | --- | --- | --- |

| Persuasion | Conflict of Opinion | Persuade Other Party | Resolve Issue |

| Inquiry | Need to Have Proof | Verify Evidence | Prove Hypothesis |

| Discovery | Need for Explanation | Find a Hypothesis | Support Hypothesis |

| Negotiation | Conflict of Interests | Secure Interests | Settle Issue |

| Information | Need Information | Acquire Information | Exchange Information |

| Deliberation | Practical Choice | Fit Goals and Actions | Decide What to Do |

| Eristic | Personal Conflict | Attack an Opponent | Reveal Deep Conflict |

Tip: *Always ask what type of reasoning is at play.* Deductive? Then check if premises are valid. Inductive? Then check if the sample is broad and representative.

### Deduction

- Deductive arguments claim **certainty**.

- If premises are true, the conclusion **must** be true.

- Example:

- Premise: All metals expand when heated.

- Premise: Iron is a metal.

- Conclusion: Iron expands when heated.

Here, denying the conclusion would mean denying logic itself.

### Induction

- Inductive arguments claim **probability**.

- They generalize from experience, but conclusions are **never guaranteed**.

- Example:

- Premise: The sun has risen every day in recorded history.

- Conclusion: The sun will rise tomorrow.

This feels reliable, but technically it’s not certain—maybe the laws of physics will hiccup. Hume called this the “problem of induction.”

**Key takeaway:** Deduction is about *necessity*, induction is about *likelihood*. Both are vital—science runs on induction, math runs on deduction.

September 16, 2025

how to drive away biases: tired, etc. in psychological dimension

rational argument

everyone is entitled to their beliefs:

1. the first amendment

1. legal, constitutional right to have beliefs and opinions

2. but what does it imply for others?

i right to disagree with your opinion, but respect their opinion - don’t try to brainwash this —- it’s grey

all things being equal, true beliefs are better than false beliefs

qualification #1

a and b cannot be true at the same time.

things can change

we are just saying, as time changes, the truth can change, but still both can’t be true at the same time

beliefs are coherent are better than beliefs are non-coherent.

the whole idea of facts vs opinion - is kinda obslete

opinion - can’t be true or false ❌

fact - is true ❌

hence, we wanna unlearn this

if you don’t know what’s true or false, then all things being equal, an opinion supported by good reason is better than one which isn’t.

- **Validity**: An argument is valid if the conclusion *follows logically* from the premises—even if the premises are false.

- Example:

- Premise: All cats are reptiles.

- Premise: Garfield is a cat.

- Conclusion: Garfield is a reptile.

- This is **valid** (the conclusion follows from the premises) but **unsound** (premises are false).

- **Soundness**: An argument is sound if it is valid *and* all premises are true.

- Example:

- Premise: All humans are mortal.

- Premise: Socrates is a human.

- Conclusion: Socrates is mortal.

- This is both valid and sound.

**Shortcut rule:**

- Validity = structure.

- Soundness = structure + truth.