Imo yours a post that deserves a lot more response than received to date!

Would you accept a translation of stance into belief, and influence to conditioning? Thus yours a discussion - in translated terms - of conditioned beliefs?

Then the question, if beliefs differ, then what the influences of the conditioning, and between differing beliefs based on categorically similar conditioning, how to reconcile them? And whether it's useful for reconciling to review, even deconstruct, the conditioning?

I "see" it like this: at the first everything is belief. Reason then cuts into and splits away the parts of the belief susceptible to reason, like a woodcarver first splitting his blanks away from the raw wood, later to carve - the metaphor not perfect. Eventually reason meets and is halted by unreason, maybe the wood has too many knots, unreason and irrationality the core of belief. That is, whatever can be rendered in reason is no longer mere belief. And belief owing absolutely nothing to reason.

Reason, then, the algebra that mediates and reconciles that which is reconcilable in beliefs, having made those parts into reason.

If there's a problem with this, and there is a problem with this, it is that many people are not reasonable. And, differing beliefs at their core, assuming that they are not finally identical, must be unreconcilable. At that point they either co-exist or war or go through an Hegelian-like master-slave evolution.

In this, personality is reduced to reasonable/unreasonable. But with respect to belief and reason, I think that's ultimately right. Now awaiting correction.

Would you accept a translation of stance into belief, and influence to conditioning? Thus yours a discussion - in translated terms - of conditioned beliefs? — tim wood

Stance into belief yes, influence to conditioning, I suppose very nurture-orientated thinkers could say that but I wouldn't.

If there's a problem with this, and there is a problem with this, it is that many people are not reasonable. — tim wood

I think you are correct in suggesting that a major means to reconciling the differences in our positions is through reason. Conclusions and understandings can be incorrect, invalid, illogical, unreasonable, lopsided and if there is a correct answer and both parties are agreeable to reason then theoretically it is just a matter of undertaking the process that leads to the correct answer. One problem might be if someone is unwilling or incapable of undertaking this process which leads to the correct answer for whatever reason. Unreasonableness, yes, but if it would be possible to expand on this and upon amassing enough obstacles to or reasons not to undertake this process, could we shift blame away from the "unreasonable individual" and towards the circumstances?

Here's what I can see, most people believe themselves to be logical and reasonable yet are far less likely to label others the same. I think this is what we must contend with and not just in examining others but also examining ourselves. The obvious solution to this just perpetuates the problem which is to say that "I am not part of the problem" and the problem is how others are not reasonable. If I say I am "reasonable" with absolute confidence, this being an important part of my self-image, this being a characterisation which makes me happy and proud, it is not something I am likely to try to tear apart. If you say that you've fairly analysed yourself and the reasonable conclusion is that you are reasonable then wouldn't that only put you in the same position as nearly everyone else? And if I characterised you as unreasonable and you wanted to debate this, how could it be done? Even on a philosophy forum, let alone, in a real-life interaction where such discussion is often difficult to begin and have sufficient time to complete. It is probably the one who classifies themselves as unreasonable who is the most obviously reasonable.

One of the major concepts I tried to introduce in OP is this idea of implications, however, most examples only show the individual is being unreasonable from a debating standpoint. I wonder whether this is the best way to frame the belief though? From a debating standpoint, if my belief in my reasonableness is fueled by ego, I would nonetheless not bring that to a discussion about my reasonableness. I would bias against others and in favour of myself, I would bring a valid argument based on premises which I only arrived at due to these biases. I think it would take you a long time to work through all of these premises, even for a single topic such as whether I am reasonable or not. In summary, we could all agree that a lack of reasonableness is most often the problem, all agree that we ourselves are mostly reasonable and all agree that others are usually the problem. Where would that leave us though? If we are to press on with this issue of "reasonableness" can we do so without merely being part of the problem?

I'm having trouble getting your point into close (enough) focus. Maybe I can get there by another route.

I cannot help thinking about religions in this context, perhaps as poster-children of the problems in question. Believers are unreasonable; what they believe both unreasoned and unreasonable. And the differing beliefs unreconciled.

But not perhaps unreconcilable both in principle and in substance. It takes, imo, a two-step. First, a translation of the unreasoned, usually supernatural/fantastic, elements into reasoned/reasonable elements, and then a reconciliation of your "foolish" errors with my manifest good sense - of course your feelings symmetric with mine. Matters of personality, ego, and pride aside, some components of the unreasoned won't translate and may have to be surrendered - and they likely hard to leave behind.

An example is at hand. It's well known that the biblical flood story in several forms long predates the bible itself. More interesting is that by the 1950s, and I think even before WW2, it was known that there actually were events that easily account for flood stories, and they having everything to do with the melting of ice-age ice. But as with any myth, the facts aren't all there is. And it's those residual elements that are even harder to make reasonable, unless they're rendered in try-pots of reason under high temperature. Or more literally, the unreasonableness is boiled - rendered - away. Or has to just die out.

Is this in the ballpark?

Religion is an example of people reaching different positions through different processes. This a simple problem since it's just a matter of whether you believe in the religious argument and its validity. I am talking about circumstances where we followed the same process but arrived at different positions due to things like our nature/nurture/personal circumstances.

So this could be split into two categories; with error and without error. If someone believes I have made an error (irrational/untrue/etc), they can correct it and if I agree then things are simple enough. Then if we don't disagree, things get complex and I was talking a bit about this in my last post.

As for without error, it is like the example I gave with personality.

I could go on, my point is not to list every way in which we can disagree but to show how we can disagree by just following the same processes. If I recognise my personality influenced me to see as I do and you recognise that your personality influenced you to see as you do and we both recognise that our personalities are partly constructed by factors over which we had no control, how does that change how we should see the subsequent differences in our positions if they were the result of these differences? And replacing personality with the aforementioned categories and more. — Judaka

So through our different personalities, we reach different conclusions but as you know others have different personalities to you and as you know personality can affect one's interpretations, characterisations and beliefs, it should be no surprise to you that this occurs although it can be very difficult to identify. Are there any noteworthy differences in a disagreement that is produced in this way?

If I recognise my personality influenced me to see as I do and you recognise that your personality influenced you to see as you do and we both recognise that our personalities are partly constructed by factors over which we had no control, how does that change how we should see the subsequent differences in our positions if they were the result of these differences? — Judaka

I don't think there's an easy answer to this one. Even people with a shared, common, lifelong experience can view the issue quite differently. I think it's more accurate to say how we process those experiences/personal circumstances comprises our worldview rather than just experiencing/going through them.

In practice it's difficult if not near impossible to break through to someone and penetrate their psychological starting points through argumentation, so I've come to prefer discussions over argumentative battles in these forums. Discussion is less confrontational and it allows us to express these personal circumstances in a non-confrontational way. With me at least over time I've shifted away from direct confrontation and more towards just listening and understanding when it comes to disagreement. These core views can be changed but it's going to a slow process most likely.

I think disagreement for the sake of disagreement, proving someone wrong, asserting your views as correct is nearly pointless as anything except as something found entertaining. I want to communicate the reasons for my belief in my idea and then examine these reasons with someone else or help someone else do the same. That allows my differences with others to be beneficial as opposed to just endless conflict. Also, I think that rather than calling people stupid, irrational, senseless or whatever, we should be more careful in how we disagree. When we label disagreement in ways that recognise our immutable or irreconcilable differences, I think acceptance comes easier than if we label disagreement as the deficiency or inadequacy of the other.

Secondly, I think seeing this problem helped me to recognise that I reached my positions as a result of more than just their truth or correctness, my worldview is not necessarily something to force others to accept. Thus, I can more actively focus on whether my positions are conducive to my success as I define it. I have almost totally lost interest in trying to change other peoples' beliefs in anything, I nearly never succeed or see success. I dislike to see this problem being characterised in solely negative terms, I think we can explain this phenomenon without simplistically labelling others with degrading terms, it's an interesting topic.