As an alternative, here's a much more effective version of this article, more suited to our current rhetorical climate:

1. Understand that you're not trying to change anyone's mind. People who don't already agree with you are the enemy. They're lost. The only possible goal is to "energize your base", and convert "people who already agree with you" to "people who will get out and vote, donate, or buy your merchandise"
2. The best defense is a good offense. Again, you need to focus on people who already agree with you, so your core audience is pre-disposed to believe anything about your shared enemies. Especially if it's entertaining and allows them to feel superior and justified in their current beliefs.
3. Be vague about yourself and your beliefs, and specific about the adversary. Your supporters might be de-energized if they find out they don't agree with you on every little thing. Much safer to focus on the enemy and the clear-cut ways they can be made to look disagreeable.
4. Nobody will pay attention to more than one sentence - and they'll only read one sentence if it's entertaining. Get in, cause an emotional reaction in your supporters, get out.
5. Always consider your brand before speaking, and only say things that support your brand identity. Do not speak or engage debate on any subject that is not part of your brand.

Reads like art of war marketing edition. Sun tzu if he worked remote and drank mocca lattes

[removed]

If you structure your arguments based on logic, and the logic is based on something clear, and fact based, and having such makes it easier to understand; then the other party will most likely agree. Unless only if the other party has a conviction so strange , and such conviction is so strong and biased, and such will causes one to shut out all things; then the other will most likely never change his mind.

If the other person does not follow the truth, and you can't do much about it, and you shouldn't care to much about things beyond your control; then it's not wrong to let it be after you tried.

[removed]

I've read Sun Tzu.... I do marketing...... You are spot on! 😎

Do ellipses count as separate sentences? I fell like I was tricked into reading more than 1 sentence

Like I said. . .

I do marketing. 😉

Just Gorgias things

I noticed even when logical arguments are presented, if the other party is highly emotional they won’t listen. How do you deal with highly emotional people when debating?

I think turning an interlocutor into an enemy by default (point 1) does yourself and the other an injustice. Much better to see them as someone who needs help finding their way. The empathy will help you go further than the demonizing.

Point 2 and point 5 sound more like sound marketing advice than sound philosophy. I think the ancient philosophers like Socrates and Aristotle say quite a bit about the pursuit of truth rather than honor in philosophizing. I’m not in an argument to win, I’m in it to find better understanding and if I’m lucky learn something new.

Point 5 might as well concede the pursuit of existential authenticity to cultivating someone else’s very limited perception of you rather than truly going after self expression. Whether you pursue truth, or existential authenticity or the demise of the subject in philosophy, couching one’s self in a “brand” seems to be about as opposite from that kind of pursuit as you can get.

Step 1: Watch Monty Python Step2: Repeat step 1

As the author said: "A good arguer has to speak to and be heard by those with whom they disagree. This requires that they know the alternative views in the ways that those who hold those alternative views know them."

The people you perceive as emotional think they're holding their own beliefs for logical reasons. Maybe they're angry or annoyed because you're violating some deeply held principle of theirs, or misunderstanding their position, or seemingly accusing them of something - but from their perspective, the emotions will be reasonable, too.

Bad faith is rarer than people think, but it does happen (e.g. knowing your opponent is right about something specific, but pretending otherwise so you can "win"; or suspecting you're wrong about something but flinching away from any thought or evidence that would confirm it). Those are genuine cases of "emotional rather than logical". Even then, understanding the true details of the position your opponents hold and how they arrived there can only help you, not hurt you. The urge to "retaliate" with bad faith of your own should be ignored, because your perception is almost certainly biased to see bad faith where there isn't any. Bulverism (investigating your opponent's motives instead of the argument itself, using that to explain why they're wrong) needs to be used carefully or not at all - it's easy to do, it's often actually correct, but it harms your arguments a lot if you're wrong but helps very little if you're right, so it's not worth it.

As a companion to this article I loved "An illustrated book of bad arguments" by Ali Almossawi - Straw men, Equivocation, appeal to fear. it's all there.

Additional suggestions…

With some people… there’s no moving them and they will not be a rationale actor. Don’t let this derail your intial attempts because what we should more so focus on is breaking people down by a small percent. Maybe I can’t destroy their world view in one fail swoop but I can maybe inch it along to get a better long term result. It doesn’t mean they are bad faith necessarily it just means they are stubborn and determined. Even reading my suggestions to help you now if you even think any of them are worthy; you won’t remember every word but you can try and take a little something and add it to your utility tool belt.

More than ever… people won’t listen to your facts until you find some common ground with their feelings. In this regard, the Ben Shapiro’s of the world eat a bag of dicks; confusing their presuppositions and feelings of god as areas to reverse engineer their whole world views around. It’s circular when you say well god must be because therefor god and therefor this one form of god I just so happened to be born to believe.

I live in anti intellectual land with MAGA conservatives. If I don’t validate their emotions first, they won’t even allow what I say to go into their heads.. that newly created derangement syndrome where even one wrong key hit word can shut down a convo. You can notice they’ll say their own back at you that are intentional triggers with poor semantic definitions and caricatures. I often make them wear others shoes or take their shoes and show them what it’s like to be worn on others. Finding a position that you know they hold and explaining something analogous to it, its the best medicine for this block wall people put up to hide behind. So always finding commonality, where you agree; it’s sets the stage for working out the differences. Compliments from the start are even better… then you can throw in the “but…” For instance, say the person your talking is a contractor. If I can find ways to explain almost any issue we’re discussing in a way that a construction worker understands building, legal codes, material, the process, dealing with other employees. Etc., Well then I can can almost always open their eyes in a new way that they can relate to.

Then tone moderation. If they get out of hand try not to match it. In a competitive debate that might be productive to win rhetorically but not when you really want to open someone’s mind. You can make someone see they are acting irrational by letting their emotions get a hold of them. Some people don’t response well if you timid so I’ve used the tone match and pejoratives to positive effect on rare occasions. These tend to be those people who don’t want NPR they want blood sport Hannity times ten and they are used ti communicating by calling each other names (as hom). Often these are the most emotional softy’s when you break them like a wild horse. So on occasion being able to shit sling back can be powerful and useful in that machismo male dynamic. But I’m serious when I say this it’s typically a redneck drunken bar mindset or someone who’s had a rough upbringing (which can be both). I’ve seen it in rural and urban raised people.

To me it’s like them seeing I can throw down with them. And often these people are the most receptive after you round house kick their emotions to the break point. Sometimes it’s impressive to see how they don’t take it personally too. Almost a hazing type thing. I know many that will say… “aww you know this mean we’re tight, right..” I’ve never been a fan of male bonding in this way myself, where they trash each other all day.

But in this regard I like to consider the Eisenhower White House war room where we all duke out our ideas so that everything’s on the table and nothings missed, everyone says their peace, but we’re cool afterwards like nothing happened and we can go have lunch together. Our politics used to be more like that in some ways now it’s seen as a sign of team weakness if members of the opposing party’s are friends. It’s a bad situation to be in because it closes off the productive discussion.

There’s no golden rules either. Learn to improv and adapt. Take some risk trying different methods. It’s like any skill, you have to practice it to get good.

I learned real fast with the people I live around that my method of telling them their point of view in my own before they ever speak to cut the BS and time doesn’t work at all. Instead, I have to listened to mostly the tired talking points I just tried to get us past to the main point and it’s dreadfully ineffective in certain groups becuase I’m not validating their experience letting them tell me Jimmy dads uncles friends brother anecdote or whatever. So often unless your in the same frame work and intellectual grounding, there are no short cuts either. You have to put in the work to make sure they feel listened to. Along this path of being a good listener you should find some reasonable angles they use (hopefully) that you can then learn from and exploit in a positive way in relating it to them.

Most people run off the simple patternized survival heuristics that humans evolved to become so powerful from. That comes at the determent of understanding data outside our experience. We tend to trust what WE know. So concrete examples are needed with compelling emotional tone. Appeal to their senses of justice to over comes the angles and slant that bury one in their own centered world. “What if this happened to you?” You might just find people who don’t care about anyone but themselves. That typically a facade, yet their are a small percent of sociopaths too. Most people have the ability to empathize if you can get them on that level of comfort. I know people that laugh off rape allegation as insignificant yet if you ask them if it happened to their wife or daughter they’d say they’d go murder whoever it was without thinking.

Hope that’s helpful. ✌🏼

First task is to ask them questions and let them answer them. People need to feel like you understand their position, whether it's emotional or reasoned or a mixture of the two before they will entertain the idea that your opinion is worth listening to.

Lol by the other party you just described exactly how that specific group argues (if i mention their name I’ll be banned as always 💁‍♂️)

Hehe, when two groups believe they are correct, it's really hard to argue.

I think the comment is a sarcastic take on modern politics.

I use a method for political conversations with people i know wouldn't agree with me first by asking the person to describe their worries with living in this country, what about the future makes them nervous? After allowing them to speak, sometimes for quite awhile, sometimes intersecting just to drive them back from going on too long a tangent if necessary. Then when I feel an appropriate opening, usually a trail off or longer pause, I start by breaking down how the system at play over our lives creates or makes those problems worse. Without mentioning specifically it's the system I'm talking about, use a little hot words as possible to avoid cognitive dissonance. Once I get them in agreement with the majority of what I've said, I follow it up with how the political system I've studied and aligned with could be introduced, sometimes with direct examples of it being done before, again never mentioning the name of this system, and most of the time this has been effective. Once I find an opening to do so with impact, I drop the ball of just what they were favorable for. Certain people this has planted a seed, others who i have more time to spend with, I have brought people fully around to the point they start asking me questions on their own.

Most of the time, changing people's perspective involves patience and understanding of why they might think the way they do. Being gentle with folks helps invite them to the table, rather than slam a door in their face.

I think studies have indicated that people tend not to change their mind about strongly held beliefs, even when presented with facts and logic proving they're wrong.

You're not wrong. If people truly have that conviction the only thing we can do is to present it still and then move on. Because who knows, even if the chances of them changing is slim, they could still eventually change their minds. But yes, it's very hard.

If someone made their decision based on emotion, they will never change it based on logic.

[deleted]

I have never seen any case where the other party would even partly agree. Could you provide some concrete examples?

The thing is, everybody believes their arguments are based on logic and facts, including those people with strong, biased convictions. Most people care about being right, and 'winning' the argument than they care about truth.

Also we're not 100% logical beings, and most of our arguments are about our subjective views of the world.

Calling people with different political views anti intellectual or "stupid" is a surefire way to change minds

There is this flat earth documentary that I don't recall anymore but at the end, the flat earthers did this experiment where they tried to see if the lights would be the same from a distance and they had to adjust it in the end because of the sphere shape of our planet.

It made them doubt :)

“Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience”

[removed]

You have to be honest with what your dealing with or your not going to even convince yourself. I’ve lived it my whole life and had to deprogrammed from the shallow side of it. I could have been a toothless tweeker but I chose another route.

And you don’t have to say it to their faces. Haha. When it’s your fiends, family and most everyone you’ve ever grown up with though… It’s hard admitting this in the first place.

But my point was to offer up the type of interaction I’ve dealt with as examples of really stubborn and hard headed people that prefer not to learn about something but to vent about topics they know nothing of

“An argument is a collective series of statements intended to establish a proposition. Contradiction is just the automatic naysaying of anything the other person says”

“No it isn’t.”

More sadly realistic than sarcastic really.

Be well read in the logical fallacies.

Know them so you can avoid them even(especially) when you're evaluating perspectives in your own head.

Know them so you catch yourself making them.

Know them so you recognize when others are making a bad argument.

Made them doubt their belief? Wow, honestly a bit unbelievable. I guess it could happen, though.

I believe you’re talking about “Behind the Curve”. There’s a part in it where Patricia Steele who is a flat earth YouTuber is talking about how there’s all these conspiracy theories about her that aren’t true and she’s like “They don’t even know me”. Then she openly ponders that maybe her belief in the flat earth is the same. Alluding that maybe her belief is the same as theirs in the sense that it exists because of lack of understanding in the subject. Then she just backtracks and says naw I’m right. I was so excited watching that for a minute. It was seeing someone on the verge of understanding they didn’t have before and you could see her making the connections on her face. So close yet so far.

I didn’t intend it that way (to be about politics), but it does fit the bill as problematic, and honestly saddens me greatly. I was also thinking about business culture in general and the way that we are treating each other in the age of social media.

There is no sarcasm at all, I legit feel this way and can provide references for the Aristotle and Socrates attributions. The reference to authenticity is a passing reference to Heidegger, and the reference to the demise of the subject is a reference to folks like Roland Barthes, Michel Foucault, and Jean Luc Nancy.

I was explaining the comment you replied to and not just giving a random commentary on your comment lol. It would be really weird phrasing if I was talking like that about your comment instead of the one before you, don't you think?

This seems like a rather minimalist take on what could possibly be done.

People enjoy observing others in this regard, but tend to be less interested in observing themselves. To be fair, it's much more difficult, and much less fun.

I'd ban you for tautological thinking without acknowledging it.

While this is certainly impressive and useful, people who lack the necessary skills to pull it off may be making things even worse than if they didn't try. I regularly run into people who try to "educate me" on the flawed beliefs their delusional model of me is lacking in. Worse: this phenomenon is often amplified by higher levels of education.

There’s even a whole political party that bases everything on emotion rather than facts, and nothing seems to convince their members otherwise.

Oh no I get that. This is why it’s important to show the through line similarity’s. Relate like your one in the same or it seems patronizing. The guy that’s trying to school you doesn’t relate to the working class chap that has no time to think about this. And the fact that I spend time learning about what I talk about is an insult to many people I interact with. They see me as an elite. That’s why I have to mention the anti-intellectual part of the problem.

I find if I don’t have a past with people and we’re just chatting I don’t have to deal with previously conceived notions. People see me out side working (construction type job) and want to come up to me and bitch about liberals where I live. They assume I’m on their side since I’m in the trades. So I can relate with them first as they see me as another working guy busting his ass but then Im granted an inroad to approach the failures from their side they think I’m on. The next thing, I have MAGA people talking bad about some of their policy’s and they don’t even know it.

It will always be hard to have a conversation with a person that doesn’t know have the requisite knowledge to address the topic. I try to tell people I’m an average person I just spent alot of time reading about the topic cus I didn’t understand. But many will still be intimidated by any amount of intelligence.

It’s not easy and like I said practice practice practice. I’ve definitely made many of those failures myself because I don’t operate on the same mental frame work. So I had to learn. I came from that mindset so it gives me the perfect experience to talk to it. Just as the best reformist for skin heads is the leader skin head that turns into the reformist because he knows what they think and feels, all the coded language and emotions that get you to that belief set. The previous conditions that preclude the belief. Often lonely or orphan lost souls that are looking for community.

Just to make it clear.. When I grew up neo Nazis, Hells angels and southern revival / general stoner bro racism was a problem in my area. Weather it was at punk rock shows or desert ATV crowds. Many of my friends dads were old country racist types that listen to Johnny Rebel. (Pure racist country). So I’ve had an interesting upbringing and experience to speak from.

Let me ask… What would you suggest tactically? How would you approach this if you want to have hard discussions with people and would like to make positive discourse?

Oh, it's not that I disagree with you in principle, it's that it's sooooo easy to think one is doing a good job at what you're describing here, and so difficult to know when one is screwing something up.

> It will always be hard to have a conversation with a person that doesn’t know have the requisite knowledge to address the topic. I try to tell people I’m an average person I just spent alot of time reading about the topic cus I didn’t understand. But many will still be intimidated by any amount of intelligence.

It's easy to (and difficult to not) imagine such scenarios with the usual suspects (the members of one's various outgroups), but all people suffer from this problem, if in different ways and to differing degrees. I've been involved in lots of conversations with people far smarter than me (in the aggregate) who are not able to realize that their substantial skill in some domains does not necessarily extend to all domains.

> It’s not easy and like I said practice practice practice. I’ve definitely made many of those failures myself because I don’t operate on the same mental frame work. So I had to learn. I came from that mindset so it gives me the perfect experience to talk to it. Just as the best reformist for skin heads is the leader skin head that turns into the reformist because he knows what they think and feels, all the coded language and emotions that get you to that belief set. The previous conditions that preclude the belief. Often lonely or orphan lost souls that are looking for community.

> Just to make it clear.. When I grew up neo Nazis, Hells angels and southern revival / general stoner bro racism was a problem in my area. Weather it was at punk rock shows or desert ATV crowds. Many of my friends dads were old country racist types that listen to Johnny Rebel. (Pure racist country). So I’ve had an interesting upbringing and experience to speak from.

I think you make a good point: I think there's a lot of truth to the saying that "it takes one to know one". Too often uni educated people seem to believe their education and legitimate greater intelligence necessarily qualifies them to engage with and educate their lessers on ~"the facts", but pulling off such a technique successfully is a lot harder than it looks. Pairing up people favoring ontological similarity across various dimensions seems like a much smarter strategy than picking based on resume and credentials. A textbook example is this: https://www.npr.org/2017/08/20/544861933/how-one-man-convinced-200-ku-klux-klan-members-to-give-up-their-robes

I would start by considering whether it is actually possible to accomplish anything substantial via disorganized/uncoordinated one on one conversations between poorly equipped individuals. If we're going to do something, might as well put some effort into determining a good idea before putting substantial effort into it. This simple rule of thumb (that tends to be followed fairly closely in most domains) may also have some utility in government of people in general, where the rule seems to not be followed.

Be open to the possibility that you are wrong, almost certainly about some things, likely about many things, this will allow you to learn something from the other person as well as help you not to joust lecture them. Find some sort of common ground. You probably don't disagree about everything and you are probably driven ultimately by the same basic motivations with disagreements about how to get there.

Have you considered that you may have been around some of the many people who aren't interested in being intellectual or logically consistent because they don't care, and that arguing with the lowest common denominator version of a particular ideology has biased you against it as a whole? I assure you that if you try you can find equally anti-intellectual people who disagree on everything with the ones you're talking about.

The loser of an argument is the person who was right and learned nothing. The winner was the person who was wrong and learned better.

I feel ya.

I don’t know if I’m good at this interaction issue. But I try and it’s important to me to make that effort. I want to live my values best I can. So I’m always trying to learn and get better. I think if anything I’m better in person as words can anodyne and I would think most lack the connection and ability to transcend past a more difficult arena. In person we humanize each other and often show magnitudes higher level of normal human decency and respect.

I bring up the intelligence thing for two reasons. We get the often over used Dunning Kruger type effect. Let’s just refere to it as it’s colloquial understanding. While I also get those people that I know are prob smarter than me often dealing with the imposter syndrome. If I know something they don’t they attack it and feel threatened by me just the same as the anti-intellectual bunch. They’ll try to out think something from an angle they don’t know enough about. And often they get by because of this superior knowledge. Both groups to me just need to put the effort in and more than anything become a bit more emotionally self aware. Maybe that’s truly where I excel with my skill bundle. Introspection coupled with a passion to learn and share my thoughts when the time arises.

In perspective approach… I like to go back to thinking if only on the marginal gains … just as most things are slightly pushed in one direction or another.

I interact with people from all over the world and tend to open up people that have never had an American talk to them about their culture in a way that shows respect, curiosity and a decent general understanding often of something important to their culture. I think if you find something to relate with any perosn on this earth then your either not trying hard enough or you don’t care from a place of ignorance. I see my self as an ambassador of that cosmopolitan principle and I thrive with variety of this sort. So I try to tread all sorts of lines. Wether I’m in deep convo with an Uber driver from Afghanistan for 45 minutes Non stop and we both wish the drive was longer or showing by example to a fishing boat captain that people from California aren’t all terrible evil no good people that are antithetical to the way they see life… Then I’ve done my small part. So I if I can just crack that shell a touch. Even put a slight consideration of doubt on a previously narrowly conceived doubt. Well then, I feel accomplished. Shoot for the 10% change on a view and be happy with anything.

Sometimes it does just coming down to having a real person in front of you and not allowing them to get stuck in the caricature in their head. I started seeing this problem become common in the last 6 - 8 year or so. Even people I knew would think “oh your one of those,” then we would talk and I’d take down all the straw men in the field and even if the steel man wasn’t visible to them, at least many of the cartoon representation in this metaphysical mind of theirs doesn’t have as much clutter, so it allowed the cowardly lion to come out with more confidence. It’s only threw having these tough discussions in which we get to test our own ideas against other on the safer battlefield of words. So when I can politely disagree and we can still shack hands at the end of the night even if the we don’t agree on anything… showing my conviction and morale has an effect on them. It’s this hyper siloed echo chambering off in ones specialized in-group that we lose faith in others as scapegoating and disgust arises quite similar to the grand history atrocities that we should never forget

Ehh… Maybe it’s been too long… I’m not so optimistic currently in general with the climate of our culture. Political violence is becoming a troll. Eventually the politicans will embody more of the trolls characteristic. It’s all reminds me of Black mirror episodes... Or maybe what the hebrews call… Gollum’s or generally known as homunculi.

But I digress before I open too big of a can of worms here.

And when I ask what would you do? I’m just honestly curious and open to take tips and suggestions.

This is avery good podcast on David McRaney's work how people hold opinions and change their mihttps://www.econtalk.org/david-mcraney-on-how-minds-change/#audio-highlights.

In short, we form strong beliefs and look for data to support them -- motivated reasoning.

New information alone rarely causes anyone to change their mind.

A different approach based on trust, respect and mutual exploration that McRaney calls "street epistemology" involves getting people to examine their own assumptions and develop hypothetical counter arguments. Because these arguments are self generated, they are the best shot at actual self-examination and real movement on strong beliefs.

> I think if anything I’m better in person as words can anodyne and I would think most lack the connection and ability to transcend past a more difficult arena. In person we humanize each other and often show magnitudes higher level of normal human decency and respect.

True....but then on the other hand in person verbal communication also comes with numerous drawbacks, many of them not visible.

> I bring up the intelligence thing for two reasons. We get the often over used Dunning Kruger type effect. Let’s just refere to it as it’s colloquial understanding. While I also get those people that I know are prob smarter than me often dealing with the imposter syndrome. If I know something they don’t they attack it and feel threatened by me just the same as the anti-intellectual bunch. They’ll try to out think something from an angle they don’t know enough about. And often they get by because of this superior knowledge. Both groups to me just need to put the effort in and more than anything become a bit more emotionally self aware. Maybe that’s truly where I excel with my skill bundle. Introspection coupled with a passion to learn and share my thoughts when the time arises.

Maybe it would be useful if participants had (at least some realtime awareness) awareness of the various phenomena you describe?

> In perspective approach… I like to go back to thinking if only on the marginal gains … just as most things are slightly pushed in one direction or another.

Considering humanity has essentially zero skills (or interest) in causality: I think you might be onto something.

> I interact with people from all over the world and tend to...

This seems like a good idea....I wonder: might it be possible to scale this up? If you think about it: triviality and delusion have existed since the beginning of mankind, but the geniuses in silicon valley (with a little help from their friends in government) were able to build numerous means to increase the prevalence of these psychological phenomena to planetary scale, such that they now exert a force on almost all human endeavours. Might something similar be possible for more positive human capabilities?

> Then I’ve done my small part. So I if I can just crack that shell a touch. Even put a slight consideration of doubt on a previously narrowly conceived doubt. Well then, I feel accomplished. Shoot for the 10% change on a view and be happy with anything.

I suppose, and well done. Why such modest goals tho?

> Sometimes it does just coming down to having a real person in front of you and not allowing them to get stuck in the caricature in their head. I started seeing this problem become common in the last 6 - 8 year or so. Even people I knew would think “oh your one of those,” then we would talk and I’d take down all the straw men in the field

How long does that typically take? Have you refined your techniques over time?

Do you find it annoying that you have to repeat the process (often with the very same strawmen) for each conversation?

> It’s only through having these tough discussions in which we get to test our own ideas against other on the safer battlefield of words.

This (specific implementation/methodology) is the only way....or were you speaking colloquially? (Again: I'm thinking scale).

> It’s this hyper siloed echo chambering off in ones specialized in-group that we lose faith in others as scapegoating and disgust arises quite similar to the grand history atrocities that we should never forget

Agreed. I sometimes wonder what people would do if they were pulled out of their safe spaces and forced to show their value in an arena where all of their powers have been stripped away. Experiments suggest: not well.

> And when I ask what would you do? I’m just honestly curious and open to take tips and suggestions.

What is happening here seems like a decent start. But once again: I don't think this scales. Something additional may be needed.

Now one of your last comments actual set me down the idea path that I do occasionally. I like to run the experiment on myself if I give in and believe the other side is right and my whole world view is wrong. Oh man… it’s taxing. Emotionally. Mentally. It comes full circle and feels physical in a short time. So it makes you realize the corner you can put others in. And they won’t often act nice, as cornered animal don’t. It important to ease off and console and find another path out for them. Acceptance is what humans communal condition is always looking for in way of validation. On the personal side we must also orient ourselves to take this softly.

The scale issue persists. Its not easy for even the most mentally aware to deal with for reasons I’ve state before. But the more we shed the ideas off on others the more we can build. The great disruption of tech is getting too far ahead of our ability to adapt to it socially and physiologically. They use basic human psychology to prod at you neurons to fire the result they want for engagement time. Until that part is alleviated then we won’t see much braid stroke overall gains. And just as well the political climate that is arousing violence is a new norm that’s somehow accepted. I believe we’re in for more hurt / harm coming soon. And this could very well be the reduction or complete destruction of the possible positive I’ve outlined hear. If simple facts are up for debate, we’ll then fuck… I’m not sure we can talk our way out of that. Education reform takes decades to see precedes. So we’re too far behind for an effective change today to make the difference. The tech world is a mirage in many ways. I heard some one say this week (haven’t looked into it) that at one point recently the top 19 of 20 Christian social media pages / maybe fax books (can’t remember - but it’s not pertinent just an example)

We haven’t ever got to the bottom of our metaphysics or pneumonialogical understand of what I consider the dimension of consciousness. While now we’ve created an dimensional overlay of a techno-physical world over the top of our others. Now we can’t agree on epistemic even more because the suspension of belief is meet with a new world where anything can be true if you want it to be. It’s no wonder, if we were paying attention that, the Larpers are mythologizing and by doing so manifesting their fantasy into the real world. The nurture of nature is a strange thing to consider. But I worry that too many toxic self fulfilling prophesy will follow suite as people programmed to find their own hero’s journey condemn the world to disaster upon shallow and hallow belief jus as religions were capable of once and still causing the most harm to humanity at the same time of connecting many on the interpersonal immunity scale.

But anyways… as you can tell the spirals of concerns are nebulously branching. And there are far too many variables for my little brain to include in any one way of viewing it. At least knowing these limitation can help. Tech may be able to save us yet, but it also have just as much draw backs we have to work out for it to be healthy. Who do we tech lose levels out of a problems created by tech? Maybe… But humans must guide the horse with more than invisible reins most often. You won’t let the horse drive the carriage by itself. So the animal spirit must have some higher level cognition guiding the machine, for the animal not to be overwhelmed by it’s own creation. And it’s wager allowing market forces to decide blindly like the horse chase a carrot or tuning scare isn’t likely the best approach either… though all must be considered.

More clearly… words can feel anodyne when written but they can play out to the opposite. Yet we don’t realize all the triggers or perception that trigger with the way they are laid out. Reddit is a great place to obverse this. It’s why I’m even on here. It practice my dictum and learn how people act in this space. So I’m not too far outside of it to not be able to understand people. Then to interact with others ideas against mine. Otherwise I don’t need to be here.

I totally get your point. Some are better at writing articulation other in conversation. Personally if your not trying do gotcha moments you can work though both either way. It always good to do the reestablishing what the other person says maneuver. “So let me review what you said to make sure I understand this right. Stop me and correct me if anywhere I do he code I go on…._______…” so few people are good at articulation it makes me think most haven’t thought threw the ideas anyway. The “yea what this guy in the video means” doesn’t fly with me. If you need someone else to define what you believe then you truly don’t believe anything other than the teams prefers perspective. Because you can’t challenge something you don’t understand. So I force people back into using their own words. This is where Reddit can prove to rank the convo. People sending links of others arguments. I could attack that stance but then they can’t even know why it’s wrong or right in their own view if the comprehension isn’t there in the first place.

It’s sort of depressing. Cus you realize most people haven’t been challenged in that way. They are almost afraid to challenge their world views. Reddit is the best of this but only in the most differential thinking groups / communities. The majority is still like most other social media where no one is looking anything but ingroup validation.

What do you mean by realtime awareness? I think it’s down to if I don’t know something I need to be humble and learn from the person next to me. If I care enough to fight it out… I’ll go research the topic next time so that I can hold my own. People get real surprised when you do that. Then your often back to knowing more than them. But often (most all of the time) don’t do it themselves. And it does all come down to the type of person and convo your having. I’m the guy that’s notorious for talking off to the side about something real and thought provoke at a gathering rather than the normal shit shooting. I like to get that out of the way the first 15 minutes then as the buzz fades in get deeper.

Typo on “they get by on this superior knowledge” - change to “superior intelligence” capacity. I know a lot of smart adults that never live up to their potential because of being gifted as a child. I’ve actually had a lot of these people tell me it was the worst thing that happened to them. They got by one smarts alone and didn’t have to do the work. So it would makes sense when you can push back that they aren’t used to a person not as smart as them like me

Scaling any of this is difficult. Scientist struggle with keeping the best frame work up and continuing to run it constantly. Because we do often revert like you caught right here. Those straw men do come back up and a lot of it doesn’t stick. So is the momentary propensity of the humans condition. We remember patterns quick and are often stubborn to break them. Maybe everyone needs the Tim Ferris yearly reset. A small duffel bag full of psilocybin mushrooms periodically performs this reset for us manually when there is no automatic version other than mindfulness and constant attention to the structures of our own epistemological considerations.

But it’s hard because we need to tune down the noise and keep attention on being casual monsters that can gossip (which is very important much needed social calibration) and relaxation from our busy work. I can tell you most won’t become stoic philosophers or existential mystics if they have extra free time but being captivated by work and other responsibilities makes most need a relax defrag conditional state when you do get to chill out. Then I understand why they get upset more in this sort of paradigm of pattern. They’ve learned not to be challenged, so any semblance of push back to their often revered persona, default position for them, and they’re whole self is under attack, which they lack the effort or energy ti address. Me just trying to have convo with people like that, had to learn to read this element. And like I said you have to ease your self in like the other end (anti-intellectual side) and respect there views and listen. If you can disarm all the nonsense that impedes positive discourse first, then people become more open. When people are more open they be able to empathize more and take your consideration more earnestly. Coming back around to having more self confident and trust them can allow us to duke it out in the future with the gloves on or even off, then reconcile, dust off and have diner or a drink afterwards (or during). The drinks or puffs can be important because it release inhibitions but not everyone has a healthy or cognitively aware experience of substance.

The hardest part for me is the song and dance. I’d like to jump ahead if we know the arguments and I can usually mitigate the time with a quick recap of taking points. But again that’s where validating each persons perosn Al experience and sentience is important. But yes it is tedious. This is where patience and listening is important as my mind wants to go to the next level rather than legislate the basics. It’s what I call the axiomatic grounding we must do to not talk over under and around each other. We need to define terms because more than ever where in the ingroup outgroup semantic blender. Even simple terms now are loaded by each groups affiliation. One things “liberal” is a bad word like Nazi to call someone, while the other thinks “racism” only applies within imbalanced power structures. Just ask someone what “freedom” means to them. You’ll likely not get a single result unless everyone just does the dictionary default because they aren’t even comfortable defining the term in a simple context.

Our understanding of stats, probability and as you’ve pointed to causality is terrible yes. Personally I wish I did more math when I was young because of it importance but even then if you don’t constantly use it you forget and lose the power to use it. More than anything I’ve grown to seen it as just another mind opener level that can give me different ideas on how to address or look at things. Advancing dynamic structures and complicated analogs that can teach you your own contradictions among many other potentials.

I don’t set my sight too high because in this regard because I want to be realistic. Realism is important in this lens. If you go into talking with people thinking you can change there mind and they do the same, neither will often ever happen. So approaching it yourself different with the intent to learn and listen, it give the whole process more likelihood of fulfilling your desired result. If at the end of the day no or changes at all but the modern respectable “tolerance” comes from it. Then we’re contributing to the position liberal rights view of the world. Then I’m at least glad I can be a part of tying the blend together into a much more beautiful tapestry of potential. If I get leagues more of gain then it’s all gravy on too, if not it doesn’t deter the process or joist at my resolve.

Whether this “is the only way.” … for the most part what good is idea if it can’t endure scrutiny. The ideas are one thing and the action another’s the idea of the action is another all together. (Thanks Zarathustra. Haha). So when it all comes to a head way.. many of the ideas will have actionable results (back to causality) that we can compare and analyze. The human mind may have much more terrain that is currently unfalsifiable in ways that would take much time to establish. While there are many systems at work in the world currently.. we also have to look and say there’s a peaks and valleys of this landscape (borrowing the perspective from Sam Harris’s moral landscape - haven’t hand the chance to read it yet though). Every system has good and bad parts. The world is so complex in these emergents human social and culture interactions that we can’t essentialize it. It quick form for reasons of time constraints and moving forward in discussion yes. Then there’s ideas that we can set to the side because they don’t deserve a seat at the table. Communism or Nazi would be a quick start if we’re talking politics but then if you get deep enough each had element beyond the terrible results we see that a reasonable person should pay attention to. If not just for the reasons that they governance methods prop up anyway.

Did you mean to say "too much"?
Explanation: No explanation available.
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot ^^that ^^corrects ^^grammar/spelling ^^mistakes. ^^PM ^^me ^^if ^^I'm ^^wrong ^^or ^^if ^^you ^^have ^^any ^^suggestions.
^^Github

Did you mean to say "a lot"?
Explanation: alot is not a word.
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot ^^that ^^corrects ^^grammar/spelling ^^mistakes. ^^PM ^^me ^^if ^^I'm ^^wrong ^^or ^^if ^^you ^^have ^^any ^^suggestions.
^^Github

Did you mean to say "a lot"?
Explanation: alot is not a word.
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot ^^that ^^corrects ^^grammar/spelling ^^mistakes. ^^PM ^^me ^^if ^^I'm ^^wrong ^^or ^^if ^^you ^^have ^^any ^^suggestions.
^^Github

Additional ideas I had Over the day…

So in social media here’s the problem. The business is a free speech enterprise that is autonomous to control itself how it sees fit. The mechanisms by which they seek to maximize profit is an inclusionary model. This skirts the whole paradox of tolerance ideas that Popper posited. So in this public sector platform we have to ban or reprimand those who make the area toxic and un inviting /unwelcoming. Much like in tribes we outcasted the disruptor as can be seen still throughout the animal kingdom. That extends further as some consider certain speech violence now, which in itself has validity when acted upon and politically legislated. So these company’s then unfairly ban people or unjustly leave on others who incite bannable offenses that would dislodge people from the platforms still there.

As well as the need to contend with the Mayhem bots, discord sowers; infecting reality with ill tempered machinations and transient contrivance. Cus fear and “anger gets shit done.” Or it scares one into a shell they Sheldon come out of; blocking the further off from community and basic needed human interaction.

So the only thing I see to do is mandate a fair enforcement strategy that’s transparent instead of secretive and unknown. Many people don’t even know for sure why they were got banned so how do you even modulate on the right direction? Bow your head and succumb or then become the guy that resort to 4chan instead where you’ll find much worse even criminal intentions spreading and metastasizing?

We can also remember that the traditional “debating” isn’t usually the best way to change minds. Blood sport seldom is greeted fondly. And most importantly, You’ve just gamified the process of discussion by doing so. If you do good and the audience see it maybe you can do exactly what I said and just ease someone’s perspective off a bad position. Then even if that 10% might start thinking hey, I don’t like your world view but you seem like an honest person and I’ll listen to your future material to see the best honest hearted version of these perspectives. Then those people moderate down often. Just as we see Obama to Bernie to Trump sort of voters. We see the Shapiro Jordan Peterson rabbit holes that then get you threw algorithm connection down to the worse version with more made up fear belief. So if you are good debater online you can get amplitudes more of return in scale even if it is 1%. Since our sample size increases drastically. And I really think there are more people than ever interest in these things but you can for straight to flat earth and fast if the right foundations aren’t set. Those people aren’t bad people they just don’t have basic understanding of these things and they are curious minds we could turn to more good than bad if we tried.

Changing the algorithmic connectors is another problem that I haven’t thought of how to solve enough to give any idea on yet.

The burden of proof is hard to establish in debate unless you have side researchers fact checked on both teams. And that’s just it actually, many have no clue what the burden of proof is in the first place. Ask a Christian why they believe in their god And it’s unfalsifiable feelings and circular unreasoning. This is where the tea up around mars example plays really well. You can’t force me to prove there is no tea cup orbiting mars, that’s a claim too hard to examine. You must establish the material fact of the matter. And of course god as an a example is the agnostic equalizer since there’s no proof to back the claim. Then the smarter guys line JP and Shapiro like to reverse engineer ways why their socialistic and biological (essentualizing typically) that their predispose or station to resting on laurels and fear of changes is valid to compete this faith belief cycle. Of course we could get into an number of argument there after since we’re now getting back to philosophical frame works all of which as I’ve said have plus and minuses, some far more than others.

As a caveat; you may have noticed I make biological claims as well as speak against them. Often many of them are unwaveringly followed or more so unexplaining uses by people. But they do have their place. Agian epistemologically we need to observe are character La and pre existing condition to better it. I could go down this route more but the main point is that it’s dangerous to go full Cioran on it in my view. The battle between the organic man and the abstract man is real. But we must seek a balance and a rational one that can coexists with social trial level abstractions that made it possible for us to be here in such advanced civilization in the first place. If we return to the animal state, we know how that goes. But if we fully abstract away from ourselves… then what the fuck are we? But displaced abstractions away from our condition and thought? So I use these description as what they are descriptive statements and I don’t urge people to derive an empirical claim of an ought from an is.

My frame work is sort of how Sam Harris or David’s Duestch’s (the begging of infinity) might see it a little (though I’d don’t agree on everything with any one perosn) … we apply all these models and ideas and use them to better the material conditions while using layers something like bicameral governments or 3 separate branches of government that responds and is informed by people, new conditions, science, history and wisdom (hopefully). While we also have massive specialization all around us that we must trust at times these industry’s and fields expertise. I want healthy versions of all these ideas under the sun not in the shadows so that we can moderate forward by being adaptive and evolving to a better updated version of ourselves individually, within groupings and up to the meta global levels. Currently a lot of the discourse is driving us to fight the shadows of our own worst thoughts of people. Back to the straw men in a field that I want to remove instead of see attacked with fiery rage, disgust and vengeance.

Here’s a big one… by dissolving yourselves of strong identity we can do a lot. Maybe being a person with no ethic identity being largely a mutt with 18 plus odd ethnic derivations just on my dads side that did a DNA ancestry test. It has given me the special footing to think of people as citizens of the world rather than person A from country Z who believes in T and backs M politically. Extinguishing our small tribal nature. These strong relationships groupings are the perch at which we throw rocks at. So if I don’t belong to any single group the target isn’t available. Through a rock at me and I hope to be like water where I absorb it. Sure there could he splash but that’s just the negative energy which i chose to diffuse rather than return with the full maelstrom and rage of a tidal wave. Knowing you have the potential and ability to do this, and constraining it is very powerful indeed. It’s something JP would would describe often. (Not to get too fixate on anyone character. He’s just a good example of a lot of this good and bad out in this social tribulation, that many know <most not so well from both his fan and haters side> of in this space between actual thinkers and pop culture).

I don’t want a mono culture. I want my democratic liberal free world to be the over arching structure that facilitates variety. So even though I’m a mutt I’m not telling others they need to be unconnected to there culture. It’s these cultures I love and would never seek to mute.

Diversity is an ideal worth appreciating. Not for its sake alone. And many are hyper ignorant to why it’s important. Though unfortunately, if you move too fast you’ll lose a lot of people that would other wise be on board. Part of it is peoples attitudes and orientation to greeting change is most the problem. We know young people are most apt… while older Creatures of habit are disturbed and cranky all too easily. But the long standing truth is the more of these ideas clash and combine, that fission and fission recombinant to better more vibrant potentials. Nothing is objectively in its perfect form or golden era as the world is constantly in flux. So regression is a recipe for disaster at its core to me. Stating the past had it figured out is the most dubious claims of all. We have to take off our fragmented memory’s rose tinted glasses and not allow for the retelling of history in the wrong ways where we control it (ex: 1984). While there can be elements of going back that we can reimagine and rebuild and reintegrate. Maybe we did leave out something that killing god did but nihilism doesn’t have to be the Last mans end state… calling all Uber mensch’s to come out and play

And let me be abundantly clear.. I’m not perfect nor am I claiming to be. Nor am I saying anyone else’s methods or lack of care is wrong or right. I’m not putting down value claims there. Part of the human experiment is that many will not be thought leaders or inspirational and we need to realize this and appeal to them on proactive grounds rather than making everything political or zero sum. There are always far more followers anyway than ground breaking innovators. So we can’t pose these question in a such a narrow way. Often you can share ideas on social media and people say “oh, so you think you’ve got it all figured out!” And I’m like no, just trying to be a positive interlocutor that establishes hopefully my opinions well and refined wisdom (if we can call it that) that’s part of this bigger project of moving forward and bettering ourselves. I’m my biologically model 1000.0 (or whatever). And if I don’t take it upon myself with all these opportunities to better my self then it’s my fault if Im stuck on my base level operating system (me 1.0 - software).

I do intend to get to your three comments, one of these days!!!!

remindme! 8 hours

https://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/yl9csx/how_to_have_better_arguments/iv8fu07/?context=3

https://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/yl9csx/how_to_have_better_arguments/iv7iva0/?context=3

https://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/yl9csx/how_to_have_better_arguments/iv7iuuk/?context=3

At your leisure my dude…

remindme! 8 hours

remindme! 8 hours