You people

Post Reply New Topic

People react strongly in a discussion usually because their deep personal values are questioned. There is little if any logic in many of the deeply held religious beliefs but undermining those beliefs is an emotional earthquake to religious people. Likewise, in people driven by logic and their rational perception, the absolutely baselessness of many religious beliefs undermines the foundations of an understanding of the world on purely logical foundations. You cannot expect people to be calm when their worlds are roughly shaken by beliefs that cannot be compromised.

whatever.

it amused multiple people in this thread. Actually the irony is that the people who missed the joke and the point (or didn't think it was funny) are usually the people who lack the ability to laugh at themselves and tend to get the angriest in discussions. And the people who got the joke and thought it was funny (or at least got the point), are usually the people who have a sense of humor about themselves and are less likely to be upset or angry during a discussion.

Really? It seems to me, as an outside observer, that you have some peculiar habits for one who claims not to take sides in an argument: you have a very slick way of separating a group from yourself and casting judgement on them based on some "negative" trait like getting emotional, and then you enforce the validity of your judgement by stating that anyone who disagrees with your opinion is most likely part of that negative group anyway. Dismissing an argument because you perceive the person offering it to be too emotional by your standards is, in fact, an emotionally based decision in a way.

I find that amusingly ironic...and people who disagree with me are probably the sort of people without a sense of humor anyway.

^At least she doesn't like turtle porn.

Fight fight. Flame war with ford_prefecs_kid.

I like ford_prefects_kid's statement, I also enjoyed MR_BOGAN's response!

In any case, I think that ford_prefects_kid has a right to enjoy turtle porn if that's what she likes. I mean, people have different preferences, some people like having pickles on their hamburger, ford_prefects_kid likes having turtle porn, so it's the exact same thing! .... except one involves animal rights issues in the case of turtle sado-masochism porn.... and it will destroy childhood memories if linked to the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.(is now curious if a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle based porn exists)

It must exist. Rule 34 of the Internet.

You love xkcd too much, and now my childhood memories are ruined.... not that I care.

Impossible. And if your childhood memories weren't already ruined by virtue of their content, you're luckier than most Aspies.

it would be your opinion. I can't always change whether or not people like me. The purpose of the inflammatory statements in the original post were to be so out there that it would amuse people (why else would I use 4 adjectives for a single insult or talk about mallets and badgers) while still providing a logical point, that it is not very useful to attack people in the course of a debate. It was a little tongue-in-cheek, a little ironic... some people got it. The people I expected to get upset and angry about it are people who already do not like me and just want another reason to not like me. Which is why I generally dismiss them. They are here because they want a fight and I don't really care to fight. Otherwise if I find someone who has completely opposite viewpoints from me and can still argue them logically... I email them and continue a private conversation. Those are relationships to be developed.

But getting worked up over being called Hitler online? not so much. Is a person's viewpoint going to be very valid if they need to refer to the other person as Hitler (or in other cases, delusional terrorist, f-ing b**tch) probably not. If you need to attack people then your viewpoint wasn't very compelling to begin with.

Last edited by Shiggily on 07 Jan 2009, 8:08 am, edited 1 time in total.

turtle porn?

that makes me think of this girl I used to work with who instead of stopping her frog from having sex with her other frog she brought out a camcorder and recorded it.

Who the frog looks at frogging frogs frogging?

So you are curious.

Please suggest an alternative.

I chose those two because they capture the essence of what I see as the adversarial approach. In its most extreme expression, it is not about being right, but about appearing to be right. Appearance is everything, truth is irrelevant.


Say we have 10 people discussing a problem with 1 solution. Each of the 10 proposes a different solution. At least 9 of them are wrong. Hardening attitudes mean that all of them are more likely to defend their original position, no matter what the evidence against it is. Why is that not a problem when the majority are wrong?


Sure. But that's not what I mean by an adversarial approach. I think we are talking about different things. I advocate a way to use disagreement and dissent in a more constructive and efficient way than defending a position at all cost.


If the better average ability you expect is your reason for preferring the adversarial group, you haven't answered my question. If this is a separate issue, why do you expect this difference? I have a guess, which I'll get to later.

Your preference is conditional on a good adversarial culture. That implies the existence of a not so good adversarial culture. It is important what you see as the difference between the two.

I have presented the adversarial approach and the more cooperative approach as two categorical alternatives. That is no longer good enough. I have to mention that I see the two as the ends of a continuum. At one and is the nuclear badgers scenario, the lawyers, the people who want to win, who want to appear to be right, whether they are right or not. At the other end you have the people who are passionately interested in finding the true answer, but couldn't care less who first proposed the true answer. Call them the intellectual Buddhas. Would a good adversarial culture be on that continuum, but not at the nuclear badgers end? Or does an independent dimension come in?


How would that happen when everyone is more concerned about appearing to be right than being right? Think lawyers and nuclear badgers. Would lawyers representing several parties in conflict say "You have the best argument, you get your way"?


Then you define good adversarialism as including a concern about what is true. I see that as coming from the intellectual Buddhas end of the continuum.


But a lawyer would. (pm me if you want two specific examples.)


To get a good adversarial culture, you again introduce a concern with truth that is not part of a pure adversarial culture. You, sir, are not a nuclear badger.


That sounds to me like you bring in a dimension I see as independent from the nuclear badger/intellectual Buddha axis, but I think you see it as parallel. You seem to think that passion can only come from an adversarial approach. I say if you get your mind right, you can be, in practice, equally passionate about truth as about your status. I am not saying it's easy, or that everyone can become an intellectual Buddha. Perhaps not anyone. The goal may be unattainable. I am saying that aiming for the intellectual Buddha end of the continuum cuts out a lot of the crap, the deliberate obfuscation, the deliberate ignorance of any information that could show one is wrong. The closer you get to intellectual Buddhahood, the more of the crap goes.

I am sure that it is not part of human nature to be indifferent to status. That's why I say it helps to redefine status not as always being seen to have the right solution from the start, but as being open to find the right solution. There are people who appreciate that attitude.


Because (if I understand you) you assume that the passion needed for competition between ideas can't come from an interest in truth alone, but depends on the holders of ideas wanting their own ideas to be true. You assume you can only have competition between ideas if the ideas hitch a ride on competition for status. Human nature being what ti is, you have a point there. I still say that if you get your mind right, you can, at least in your own mind, redefine status not as depending on appearing to be right, but as depending on being open to argument and interested in truth. I say that leads to a purer market place for ideas than an adversarial approach. And I say there are people who appreciate a market place where it really is ideas that compete more than egos. You can have status not only in your own mind, but also in theirs. The nuclear badgers, of course, will think you're a sissy.

Last edited by Gromit on 07 Jan 2009, 3:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Yeah, I know, I was making stuff up. No impact, perhaps an improvement in childhood memories.

The alternative? Truth. The capability of a person to undermine the claims of the other person in a fact-based manner.

The essence of the adversarial approach that I see, is a debate between 2 intellects. In this, I see efforts to address the other's comments, and if false comments are made, then efforts to attack the flaws. I also think that in the long-run, appearances will have to start matching reality, as you cannot fool everyone forever, and part of the reason that Kent Hovind has any success is because he is a one-shot debater, whereas a forum has very little in terms of one-shot debates. If Kent Hovind kept on debating the same people, his "evidence" would continually be exposed as false.


Because, this kind of problem is rare, usually there is a difficulty in expressing the real answer, and usually there aren't one-shot problems, but rather issues over a long-run. And in the latter, differences in opinions will lead to a more diverse research program, with each side pushing their model, so as to increase their viability, and then usually people will start joining in without a side. And even then, it is rare that any of the 10 people will come to a correct answer.

In a situation that demands an immediate answer, usually there is a desire to compromise and collaborate that pops up reducing this problem. In a situation where a correct answer is preferred, financial incentives can be used to some success. And in a situation where personal values come into the question, there is no avoiding this problem, values are hard to debate against, so the solutions will be problematic. In any case, the notion of a "correct" answer is rare in most parts of life, only perhaps in the business world, where profit-maximizing is the only aim, and in such a case, financial incentives are prominent.


I don't think most people "defend a position at all cost", and the people who do are people who you cannot stop from doing so. Most people are stubborn to their positions though, and most people take sides, and try to prove the other side to be clearly wrong, and that is what I am talking about. To me, our own discussion is a mild variant of adversarialism, as you are trying to prove me wrong, and I am trying to prove you wrong as opposed to a more collaborative approach, where the efforts are *just* to share information. To me, this approach we are using, is the approach that tends to hold more sway on these forums, although perhaps less tame and civilized.


Umm... I made a mistaken statement. I meant by "average ability" as "average outcome", sorry for the mistake on my part. So, I answered it, but made an error in my phrasing.


The important element is a critical eye. If attacks made can be unsuccessful due to the ability of opponents to block them, then eventually some of the sides will be forced to surrender. The only other alternative is if they are crazy zealots, and those are rare anywhere.


I see the nuclear badgers as a situation that cannot last in the long-run with knowledgeable debaters, and a good culture for adversaries to remain. Now, I don't see the matter as really being "passionate about finding the truth" as I am too cynical to believe that people actually care about finding the truth so much as not being shown to be wrong about it. The issue is that whether or not you fool the jury, you are not going to fool a lawyer, and a lawyer will try to bring you down, and the longer you are around, the better these tactics become known, and can be countered. I would also see a court of law as a special case of a debating culture, as it is a one-shot debate with people who are not relatively interested in legal issues, and instead would be concerned more with debates over a period of time, with highly concerned individuals, as would occur in a more academic realm.

Thus, to answer your question, I would see a good adversarial culture to have the following trait:
fact-focused: dishonesty, emotion, and such will result in being revealed as failing, at least in the long-run. This does not mean a concern about "facts" per se, only a familiarity amongst participants with basic conventions of debate or epistemology, and a willingness to research or work to shred an opponents argument. If we have this condition, I think that a lot of things such as ad hominems and other major fallacies start having a much weaker impact.



It would happen when a certain argument keeps on dominating all of the criticisms. Showing an argument to be victorious is not that hard if one is focused upon the facts. Lawyers are usually interested in making money, and that is why external parties are usually called in to arbitrate this. I would not consider lawyers to be 100% perfect examples, they aren't terrible of course, but their job is to argue a particular side, and only care if they are judged as winning in a one-shot game. The average forum debate won't be purely one shot, it can last over an extended time, and will usually re-emerge over time, with refined criticisms brought to the front.


I don't see morality to be a factor in this, so I won't call this buddhism. I would just say that in certain structures, failures can be revealed as such.


A lawyer is not concerned with winning the argument then, he is concerned with confusing the jury. And his attempts could be revealed as fallacious to a group of people who are also intelligent and interested in the argument. The language might have to shift somewhat to deal with this problem, but it still could be done.


Probably not, but I don't think that pure adversarial cultures as you define them exist outside of situations that will inevitably lead to violence. The concern with truth, to me, is an essential part of any argument, and usually for a selfish concern as well, as nobody wants to believe a wrong thing, it is uncomfortable, and most adversarialism will lead to people proven to be wrong by their own standards to either improve or give up.


I disagree that a person could become honest by will alone. In fact, most people's minds twist them to some stupid, wrong position. It is just that a fear of being wrong will usually get most people to start adjusting. Perhaps I am cynical, but I see the only way to get a good churning in discussion to have aggressive, fact-oriented debating.


I don't think there is a means at all. I think that most people will define their status as being right in the end, rather than the start. In any case, I don't think that such an attitude can really be measured, all that can be measured is the ability of a debater in the long-run. Lying to someone will often result in the loss of respect in the long-run.


But the issue is that few people can be proven wrong easily. Everyone has to submit at times, if only to stop others from saying "Look, moron, I've already disproven that argument too, you have nothing more to say". And to be honest, few people will continue on despite being infallibly proven false.

I don't see submitting to the truth as really happening, nobody knows the truth, and even if I fail at my argument once, that does not mean that the other person has the truth.


Sissy!!

In any case, I really don't think that human nature actually *can* be truth oriented. The existence of common cognitive biases such as confirmation bias, and the psychological need to act on a basis of truth(as seen by cognitive dissonance) seems to cause problems in truth-finding. The confirmation bias is difficult to ever overcome, and the cognitive dissonance and therefore pain of being found as wrong will always prevent people from ever pursuing truth for truth's sake, the pursuit will usually be for the sake of ego.