Is this argument logical or not?

[The Man]

Not sure what you are getting at here, for me probably let's drop this one for conversations sake (this doesn't seem to be going anywhere fun), but feel free to expand on what you are getting at.

I was getting at exactly what i said, that I was simply addressing your question.

Let's start with the definition we'd say we would use then.
common sense =good sense and sound judgement in practical matters

We started with that definition before, what do you intend to be different now?

If we say there is such a thing, there are some people who have this skill to some extend (good sense and sound judgement in practical matters). Why? because there are two words ("common sense") to describe this skill, so some people should have it, or people wouldn't use those two words, as they wouldn't see it as as skill over people have in the real world around them.
is it common sense among people that some have common sense and others don't, or is it something else?

That people tend to have the potential for good sense and sound judgment in practical matters is what is common. Whether people actually use that potential is another thing. Again it often takes practical knowledge from practical experience. This is why some people simply try to substitute their intuition for actual common sense, the former being easier.

Let's talk about the people who have good sense and sound judgement in practical matters.
Those people, by exercising their good sense and sound judgement in practical matters, can do something in practice consistently (consistently=acting or done in the same way over time, especially so as to be fair or accurate).
Do those who have common sense find this in practice in the real world, or is it something else?

Actually one of the things one can learn from practical experience is that since situations can tend not to be consistent, responses and/or corrective actions need to vary accordingly as well. That the outcomes may be consistent doesn't necessitate that the corresponding actions were consistent.

Because they can do something in practice, others who may not have good sense and sound judgment, can verify the results of those people in practice. Why? Because those people claim they can do something in practice, if others cannot verify the results of those people in practice, then they are not doing something in practice, they are just claiming they are doing something in practice.
Can you do what you are saying that you can do or is it something else?

Practical actions in practical matters have practical outcomes. The metric of success is often simply 'it worked'. Again, other people simply rendering their opinions can be irrelevant. Particularly if they lack knowledge of the goals, actions, or tradeoffs undertaken or the specific practical matters at hand.

Because others can verify the results of those people in practice, and these results point to good sense and sound judgement in practical matters, others want to talk to those people, to learn more, but also, they want to talk to other people also, so that good and sound judgement in practical matters is known in society, so that in the end good sense and sound judgement guides society.

One would like to hope so but again practical experience often shows that not to be the case. People lacking good sense and sound judgment in practical matters tend to make poor practical decisions. Heck, if they already had the good sense and sound judgment in practical matters to seek out other people with more good sense and sound judgment in practical matters to learn from, then tautologically they wouldn’t be lacking good sense and sound judgment in practical matters, at least in that regard .

Why? Because this way society is fun for as much people as possible practically, those people in society do what they do in practice, and all other people are guided, not by those people, but by their results in practice.Why? Because when this isn't then case, then society becomes less fun for people, as less good sense and sound judgement in practical matters guides people in general, and they end up getting hurt, because real life, has real consequences. So, eventually they correct their course, according to their current good sense and sound judgement, with whatever mess they have caused, or the fun ends for them in real life, for that time or for a longer time (but don't worry in the end the fun ends for all of us in the real world, and we all relax).
Do people express commonly what is their good sense and sound judgement in society as they have experienced it in their lives, or is it something else?Do people in the end commonly find, what common sense is in their lives as they live in the real world, or is it something else?
Is it common sense among people, that common sense requires time and effort spend in practical matters, or is it something else?

Unfortunately, sound judgment in practical matters ain't often fun. It can be daunting, disturbing and downright nasty. Even to the point of requiring action at the expense of some. While fun can be practical at times it often isn't, which tends to be why it is fun in the first place.

So what people thought about one doing a task, is not how they gauge(=estimate or determine the amount, level, or volume of) a persons experience by how often that person successfully completed the task?
Why do they take into account how often that person completed the task?
Because if they see something once and they don't see it ever again, then this isn't common sense, is it?

Again, common sense is good sense and sound judgment in practical matters. Not the number of times someone sees something. It would be helpful if you actually stated using the definition you said we'd start with.


While objective metrics (success rate, operational time, ect) aren't always available they are generally preferable. Even when subjective metrics (personal and psychological evaluations, critical responses, ect) are used they tend to be formatted in more objective ways themselves (standardization, weighted averages and such) . It helps cut down on intended and unintended bias.

For what the passenger thought about the experience, does it matter to them, that there is an experienced pilot on the plane, or should I think it some other way (if yes, how)?

See above.

This was covered above I think, but feel free to expand.

There is nothing to expand and there was nothing to cover. Based on the definition we are using that people commonly have the potential to develop the ability to have good sense and sound judgment in practical matters is the only thing common about common sense. It’s not about common language, common interests, common social norms or common anything else, it just refers to that potential to develop that ability being common.

Yes, dolphins have senses, or else they wouldn't be able to sense the world they live in when they were awake.
What senses? Dolphins senses, the senses that dolphins have, if you visit dolphins you will see them, they go here, they go there, they are doing what is fun for dolphins to do, what satisfies their senses.
Do dolphins talk commonly about their senses? I don't know, but let's ignore this and say that dolphins follow each other as their sense guide them. Why? Because otherwise if they don't follow each other as their senses guide them, what else are they doing in the real world following each other?

Again based on the definition we're using the only thing that would matter is if dolphins can have good sense and sound judgment in practical matters.

There are two definitions in google for what people commonly take as nonsensical.
1.having no meaning; making no sense
2.ridiculously impractical or ill-advised.

"Comedians like Jerry Lewis, Bud Abbott and the three stooges made careers out of it."
I am not a particular fan of any of the above, but for someone to make a career out of something, this something makes sense to someone else.
If this something is ridiculously impractical or ill-advised, and one makes a career out of this something in practice, is it ridiculously impractical or ill-advised just for this one, or also for all of the others who followed this one's career for years?
What was ridiculously impractical for those comedians, people liked their comedy in practice, and however ill-advised on the way, in the end, they just had fun and nothing more, is that ill-advised?

Sorry, it should have been Lou Costello not Bud Abbott. Again their whole shtick is deliberately being nonsensical. Not only can it take a lot of work, practice and focus, it can also be injurious.

No they can't what and why?

They can’t intuitively make a judgment about the practical aspects of the movie because they lack the requisite knowledge and experience to make such a practical assessment. Now they can, intuitively, give their opinion of the movie which is not without its own merits, as positive responses are often a goal. However, that is different than a judgment on the practical aspects employed to make the movie (set design, shot composition, lens/camera and recoding types, mechanical applications in shots and/ or practical and special effects).

People need to intuitively judge when they put effort into understanding anything, if they don't intuitive judge they don't put any effort towards ending up intuitively understanding, as they are doing something else.
They will intuitively judge, they will fail, they will correct their intuitions.
The ones in the end who do intuitively understand, intuitively understand that they don't understand more than what is fun for them.

Experience in such matter here demonstrates that they may not even acknowledge their failure let alone correct it. See the Dunning-Kruger effect.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect


It takes a particular level of understanding about the subject matter itself before they can accurately gauge their lack of understanding of the matter. Kind of a catch 22, you don’t know you don’t understand it, until you do understand it better.

Others believe that they intuitively understand what is fun for everyone, but they are unwilling to explain themselves.

Again practical knowledge comes from practical experience. You can’t know if your intuition is correct until you try to use it. Practical experience also demonstrates that what works for one or some may not work for others. So, only one without significant practical experience would even posit the assertion of understanding what is fun for everyone. Such a claim can simply be summarily dismissed; they can’t explain it because it simply is not true.

I can but I don't see why this should dictate what my judgement of that one is before I interact with that one.

You don’t have to judge them to judge their actions. Heck, probably best if you don’t even, ever, try to judge them but just judge their actions. Limiting the actions you do judge to those that occur only with you similarlly just limits your perspective of their actions.

Some people do, but then again you are judging this at the time this happens, and with time what seems to be happening appears to you, as for people whose intent you judge at any moment , either the intent displayed is what seems to be happening or it isn't. And in order to find this out, this takes time, because it is common sense that some people are full of it.

Again you can judge the actions without judging the person or their intents. That people can be “full of it” is also a good reason not judge only their interactions with you.

You did, now you need to be patient to explain why you are saying this again.

Because you were talking about trying to avoid such people, no patience needed for that explanation.

So comedians don't have to spend time and effort on their skill in comedy, over years for their skill to be developed. What is this skill in the end? The ability to make fun with words? That sounds a bit ill-advised, but people do it, they make careers out of it, but it's a long road man, and it requires patience for your skill to be slowly forged.

Sure, I expect if you look into it you’d find they run the gamut. From ones that spend a lot of time polishing their craft to others for whom it is just a part of their natural tendencies. Don Rickles was famous for saying that he never wrote a joke. His shows were all just off the top of his head. Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee (on Netflix I think) is a good show to see comedians talking about (among other things) comedy, the comedic process and mentality.


Myself, even not being a professional, I often find myself spending time working up a delivery, setup, action or such for a joke and that’s just to make my friends, family and/or coworkers laugh their arses off.

However, you weren’t even talking about patience in that context in what I replied to. You were talking about having patience in interacting with someone (presumably getting to know them) in order to have fun with them. Again, that is simply false; I often crack jokes, get people laughing and have fun with them the instant I meet them, never getting to know them at all. Now certainly my quarter to half of a century of depending upon my situational awareness combined with my interest in simply observing the human condition contribute to that ability but it was nothing I had to work at or was patiently trying to develop (which again wasn’t even the context you were using for your previous assertion of needing patience).

Feel free to expand, I have patience to listen to your thoughts

Feel free to identify anything you wish expanded, I'm more than happen to share my experience as well as my thoughts. In the meantime I’ll be doing other things. Heck, I’m even doing other things right now.

 

[AlexPontik]

There is nothing to expand and there was nothing to cover. Based on the definition we are using that people commonly have the potential to develop the ability to have good sense and sound judgment in practical matters is the only thing common about common sense. It’s not about common language, common interests, common social norms or common anything else, it just refers to that potential to develop that ability being common.

There is, people commonly have the potential to develop the ability to have good sense and sound judgement in practical matters, is the only thing common about common sense you write.
It seems to me that people develop this ability by exchange of information, meaning by talking to one another, as well as by practicing (on whatever space they are focusing their attention), with any information they choose for them.
This, it seems again to me takes time and patience. Because it takes time and patience, people try to keep their information honest, however being dishonest does happen as well, whether the individual who is dishonest is dishonest out of personal interest or because he/she is trying not to look stupid.
Had this not be the case, and information exchange among people was irrelevant, compared to practicing, then one individual has all the information one needs about a subject simply by practicing, or in short, that practical experience is all needed for one to develop common sense.
Did the best surgeons when surgery was starting to become a thing for humans, with all of their practical experience at that time (and it is easy to assume that since they were a rarity in need, they probably had quite some experience), have good sound and judgement in practical matters compared to a just acceptable surgeon today?
And to talk just about today, does the best surgeon today, with the best practical experience, be still the best, 20 years from now, if he/she keeps operating without updating their information? No, that wouldn't be good and sound judgement in practical matters, because there is more new information about surgery coming in the future.
If practical experience was all that it took, humans wouldn't need to live in society, because practical experience is all that it takes.
But it doesn't seem to happen this way.

Humans need to exchange information, practice, and decide on what seems to be happening around them with what they practice.

Or am I getting this wrong, if yes how do you consider this?

 

[The Man]

There is, people commonly have the potential to develop the ability to have good sense and sound judgement in practical matters, is the only thing common about common sense you write.
It seems to me that people develop this ability by exchange of information, meaning by talking to one another, as well as by practicing (on whatever space they are focusing their attention), with any information they choose for them.

Sure, as I noted before good practical decisions often require piratical knowledge and/or experience

This, it seems again to me takes time and patience. Because it takes time and patience, people try to keep their information honest, however being dishonest does happen as well, whether the individual who is dishonest is dishonest out of personal interest or because he/she is trying not to look stupid.

One need not be dishonest to simply be wrong.

Had this not be the case, and information exchange among people was irrelevant, compared to practicing, then one individual has all the information one needs about a subject simply by practicing, or in short, that practical experience is all needed for one to develop common sense.

True, even if information exchange can help pass on practical knowledge, if you trace it back far enough, at some point someone had to gain that particular knowledge through just practical experience.

Did the best surgeons when surgery was starting to become a thing for humans, with all of their practical experience at that time (and it is easy to assume that since they were a rarity in need, they probably had quite some experience), have good sound and judgement in practical matters compared to a just acceptable surgeon today?

If I'm getting what your asking, then sure, knowledge can be cumulative even if it was originally gained as a result of practical experience.

And to talk just about today, does the best surgeon today, with the best practical experience, be still the best, 20 years from now, if he/she keeps operating without updating their information? No, that wouldn't be good and sound judgement in practical matters, because there is more new information about surgery coming in the future.
If practical experience was all that it took, humans wouldn't need to live in society, because practical experience is all that it takes.
But it doesn't seem to happen this way.

Even if someone comes up with a new idea someone still has to be the first to try it and even then it might not work right without some practice first. Following that, the techniques for both doing as well as safely and effectively practicing can be passed on. Again that practical knowledge doesn't stand still in no way necessitates that it wasn't gained by practical experience. However, that a determination is made that such knowledge is of practical use can only, honestly and correctly, be a result of its successful practical use.

Around here we have a saying about training vs orientation. If you just show me that is just orientation not training. It is only training when I get to do it myself, if even perhaps under some guidance.

Humans need to exchange information, practice, and decide on what seems to be happening around them with what they practice.

Or am I getting this wrong, if yes how do you consider this?

Not so much wrong as just incomplete. First the honest and correct determination that some knowledge is of practical use requires that someone at sometime had to use it in practice and it worked. Second even some simple practical knowledge may not be very useful without a bit of practice using it first.