What people think reason is VS how it often looks

This will just be a quick post about an idea, roughly depicted as follows:

So often people think they reason purely logically, deriving a conclusion from certain starting points. But what they are blind for, is that often multiple of such paths are actually possible: they could have started from different starting points, different conclusions could be drawn from a premise (maybe because of hidden assumptions),… What more often happens, is that we reach a certain conclusion (/have a certain idea) intuitively and subconsciously; and it is only afterwards that we construct a certain logical path to get there. This is often the fallacy with people who claim they are ‘objective’ and who put objectivity on a pedestal: they mainly just become blind for their subjective influences.

Something similar happens with a vicious cycle, which I see as a cycle that ‘sucks in’ all other processes. Because it is self-reinforcing, it becomes so strong that all the other processes become invisible. While before there is a coordination of different processes, now this one process (the ‘vicious cycle’) gets the upper-hand, and the other processes or merely there to contribute to this cycle. This also gives an idea of how vicious cycles can be broken: to put light on other processes and parameters, and strengthen those; to add what is not in the model. For example, for a vicious cycle of negative thoughts, not try to block those (that doesn’t work), but focus on other bodily sensations, things in your environment,…