why is reasoning so complex that people don't agree. i wish it was like math where everyone agrees about operators, precedence, and rules, so everyone has same answer

 That is an insightful observation. The complexity you are describing highlights the fundamental differences between formal systems like mathematics and human reasoning about the real world. The primary reason people don't agree on reasoning is that real-world situations lack the precise, universally agreed-upon foundations that mathematics possesses. 

Here’s why reasoning is different from math:

1. Ambiguity vs. Precision

Mathematics works because its components are defined with absolute precision: 

• Math: An operator like + always means addition, and every culture uses the same rules of precedence (PEMDAS/BODMAS). A triangle has a non-negotiable definition (a polygon with three edges and three vertices). These definitions leave no room for interpretation.
• Reasoning: Concepts used in everyday arguments are inherently ambiguous. What is "fair," "just," "good policy," or "ethical"? The definitions of these words are subjective and context-dependent, making universal agreement nearly impossible. 

2. Axioms vs. Assumptions

Mathematical proofs start from shared, foundational axioms (basic truths assumed without proof). If two people accept the axioms, they must accept the logical conclusions derived from them. 

In human reasoning, people start from different sets of deeply held assumptions, beliefs, cultural values, and life experiences, which function as their "personal axioms." 

• Example: When discussing a policy issue, one person might prioritize individual liberty as their highest "axiom," while another might prioritize collective well-being. Both individuals might use sound logic based on their starting assumptions, but their conclusions will differ because their foundations are different.

3. Data Completeness vs. Incomplete Information

Math problems typically provide all necessary information to reach a single correct answer. 

Real-world reasoning almost always involves incomplete information, uncertainty, and probability. People fill these gaps differently, leading to varied conclusions. The "correct" action often depends on predicting an uncertain future, which is something people will inevitably disagree on. 

4. Logic vs. Emotion and Bias

While pure logic (deductive and inductive reasoning) is a component of human thought, it is heavily influenced by non-mathematical factors: 

• Cognitive Biases: People are influenced by cognitive biases (e.g., confirmation bias, where we seek information that confirms what we already believe).
• Emotions: Fear, hope, empathy, and anger heavily influence our reasoning processes, often overriding pure logic.
• Trust: Disagreement often stems not just from different logic chains, but from differing levels of trust in sources of information (scientists, politicians, media outlets). 

In short, human reasoning isn't a single, shared calculator; it’s a messy process of navigating ambiguity with different starting points, incomplete data, and emotional filters. If everyone started with identical data, the same emotional framework, and the same fundamental values, we would likely agree much more often.