97. Potato Logic
Practically once a day, I’m scrolling, and I see some type of video that relates to the same overarching concept. It’s related to not only miscommunication (particularly between men and women), but also some form of gaslighting and manipulation. Oftentimes, two parties are completely confused as to why the other party isn’t “understanding” their point of view. There’s a lot of “logic” thrown in, but the logic is off or skewed in some sort of way. The argument typically doesn’t get resolved, and one or more people feel completely confused, and worse, unheard.
I just want to say that I love potatoes, and I really do feel bad that I’m bringing them into the negative side of this argument; it’s simply just the first thing I thought of, so again… I’m so sorry, potatoes.
So I sort of discovered what I call “potato logic”, which I’m sure is an already existing, probably much better-named concept. Here’s how it works:
Two people are in an argument about happiness. Person “A” claims that they aren’t happy. But person “B” claims that that’s impossible, because they have potatoes. For person “B”, their happiness is more simply constructed and related to potatoes. The more potatoes they have, the happier they are. They are in a more simplistic, minimalistic, energetic cycle in this lifetime. Person “A” likes potatoes, but needs more abundance, impressions, energy, etc., in order to retain their happiness. Person “B” can’t possibly understand this, as they logically state and point out that there’s an abundance of potatoes, and therefore, person “A” should be happy. There’s sound logic for this person in particular. So person “B” ends up using this logic and stating that it IS logic, because it is for them. In their own constructed world, this is entirely sound logic, and they use it in their argument. Person “A” may acknowledge and accept that this is logic, but the logic is a moot point for them, because their happiness, again, is not entirely comprised of potatoes. So here’s what happens. Person “B” states that it’s only logical that they have potatoes, and it should make them happy, and therefore their reasoning is “right” because it’s based on logic. The problem is that person “A” doesn’t have a definitive argument, because perhaps their construction of happiness is not well understood, or not related to by many. Perhaps their happiness is also based on person “B” acting or behaving in a certain way, and they are unable or unwilling to address this side of them. But that’s a hypothetical, let’s say person “B” has nothing to do with it. So person “A” has a more abstract construction of their happiness. Perhaps they’re slightly unclear about what the boundaries of their happiness are. Maybe they are currently or simultaneously co-creating it with the universe. Therefore, their argument theoretically has no written logic. But it doesn’t mean that there is no logic. It’s just that the logic is either still being fully formed, or it’s in a separate perception value of the other person. So at the end of the day, "person B” uses an argument of logic, which is logical, but irrelevant. It’s potato logic. The point is that you can use logic in an argument, but the logic can be irrelevant to the argument. Therefore, no parties are really getting anywhere. The solution to this issue is to understand that others have different wants, needs, and desires, as well as perception values. Overcoming potato logic will help to bridge boundaries and dissonances within communication and connections. I’m not saying that this is easy, as this is likely a foundational element of communication, but it could potentially be helpful.
To sum up, just because you use logic doesn’t mean that it’s relevant logic. We need to stop weaponizing logic, as if it’s the only thing that will make us happy. Happiness not only exceeds logic, but it’s inherently illogical. It lives outside of logic. So it’s important that we don’t try to “contain” our emotions in logic. It’s unfair to all those involved.
