People Who Know They Are Right When They Are Wrong.

Post Reply New Topic

It bugs me when in conversation I mention something I know as fact, and people inform me that I am mistaken,
or
someone makes some claim that is either an old wives tale or just factually incorrect, and when I correct them they tell me I am wrong. And then when I counter them, they hold their ground, not matter how wrong it is, and then some other people will come to their defense, and then I look like the uneducated one.

Recent example: someone told me dogs have natural antibiotics in their saliva, and I told them, no, the reason dogs lick their wounds is it keeps the wound clean, not because the saliva has healing properties. This guy said, no, you are wrong, I know for a fact they have antibiotics in their saliva (utter nonsense, he probably doesn't even know what antibiotics means). I told him I know for a fact that he is wrong, (respectfully) and several people jumped in to inform me that I was wrong. I wanted to inform them about how smart I am so I would know, but I didn't want to sound arrogant, so they ended up "winning" the argument.

It is not that people say incorrect things, as everyone, including me, is incorrect on a great many things. Its when they say incorrect things and then COMPLETELY turn it around to where I am the uneducated one. And despite basing their knowledge on no authority, refuse to be open enough to realize they don't know and that I do.

every time I say the words "scope of the document" in reference to the constitution I know it's over and I've lost, I could reference a thousand sources, I could get a law professor to back me up, and I will still lose

people don't care about what is right, they care about winning, especially on the internet, real life it happens too, but eventually people shut up because there is a time limit and they don't have near infinit wells of wrong to back them up

The other day, watching the Super Bowl at a friend's house, someone told me about a statistical study that some college students had done of a lottery, and that they had managed to win within two years.

I tried to explain to him that a study of a random draw with replacement was pointless because the probability of a given outcome on any particular day would be exactly the same. I said that they won because they were lucky.

Despite my effort to give him simple examples (like coin tosses), he wouldn't budge to consider my point. Others around me got annoyed by my effort to have him understand and, disastisfied, I gave up.

I hate stuff like that.

"I was pretty sure that ________ but nevermind"

I think I admit defeat too often.

"No you don't, liar!"

Ok!! ! Ok FALKS MR LOGICAL IS IN THE HOUSE

When we are referring to Anti-Bioethics are we referring to penicillin

Antibiotics mean a substance that repels or kills bacteria. Penicillin is only one of these. Garlic can be used as a natural anti biotic so technically it is one.

Dogs only way of healing themselves is to lick themselves. Based on the natural laws of evolution dogs that have natural antibiotics in their saliva would have a better survival rate then those who did not; taking into account that they would acquire extra energy to produce those healing chemicals.

It is very feasible that some animals whether it be dogs or other animal would have healing chemicals in it saliva.

Looking on the internet many sites have said that dogs saliva is harmful as it contain load of bacteria. So guess that you could be right. However!

It could be that in a wolves social hierarchy, some dogs have the role as the nurse thus have better healing capabilities then the other dogs. And who gets healed depends much on the complicated wolves social hierarchy that is beyond my understanding.

It could be also more efficient on food resources if there was healing dogs because if all the dogs had the ability to heal themselves with saliva they would need a much stonger immune system and that would come at a cost of them needing to eat more food in order to support it.

When I end up in arguments like this, I ask myself: "What's more important to me? Winning the argument or just going on with my life?" I used to fight to the bitter end, when an argument involved an intellectual topic I knew well. Now it doesn't seem that important anymore. After all, how am I really going to benefit from winning? So I usually end the argument with a "whatever, stick with what you believe in" or something similar.

There are ways to better get your ideas across to other people. My Uncle is extremely effective at this. If he is right, he will make you understand why and get you to think about it. The reason no one wants to admit they are wrong is a) because being wrong sucks (though, accept it as one of the best ways to learn) and b) people don't listen, anyways.

I've had numerous debates over the years and it turns into "They aren't listening" (I tend to stick to things I know, some others I argue do not).

For instance, I got into a debate over politics with a good friend. This friend knows about as much about politics, rights, etc. as "Much Music" (Canadian version of MTV) informed him.

He got his beliefs from a music station that was, more or less, simply encouraging people to vote (but not doing a good idea of explaining how politics work IN REALITY). I got mine from actually observing politics/reading numerous views/being involved in numerous debates with a number of sides.

Two words, will let you win every time.

Prove it.
or, if you're a missourian like me, "Show Me".

If they say the same to you, go to look up your own info and proof on a respected website, and show them. Offer them the challenge. Make sure they aren't looking at someone's personal webpage or blog, tell them that they need to find the proof on a respected website.
If you look up proof on Web MD, then they need to find their proof on Medlineplus.gov or other respected medical webpage. Not "Sarahs page LOL blog"

Aurgh, I dislike those situations as well, especially when I'm one up a against a large crowd. I like to be listened to and understood, and a situation like those really doesn't do much good.

I've learned over the years that casual NT conversation is rarely about the subject matter itself. It's more about their need for social interaction and bonding. Agreeing with their assertions is a form of bonding. They find it reassuring - a way to keep their relationships intact.

They often see attempts to correct misinformation as a challenge to their status within the group. They take it quite personally and will defend their position, however irrational, because their status is all they really care about, not the facts of the matter.

In other words, there is a lot going on beneath the surface that the participants may not even be aware of.

Very interesting Aspie_Chav. I am aware that it possible for animals to have anitbiotics in their saliva, but simply based on the fact that dogs do have a lot of harmful bacteria in their mouths I presume it not to be the case. And the idea that dogs mouths are cleaner than our own is an old wives tale as their bacteria is different not less, and I have read this. The places I have read facts like this certainly would have included as a fact the antibiotics if this were true.

But the reason it bugged me wasn't so much the claim as it was that he practically pulled it from nowhere and declared it gospel truth and common knowledge. If he had been a VETERINARIAN on the other hand, I would have believed him even if I had previously thought differently.So to me a large issue is what you are basing your knowledge on and the intellectual authority you hold in an area.

And I do admit there have been cases where I was adamant about something and turned out to be wrong. But it still bugs me when people do it. Primarily it is not when someone is sure of something that I am sure of being the opposite, I can handle this. Its when I know they honestly don't know what they are talking about. I mean, I can handle opposites opinions in politics and such as long as the person espousing the opinion is educated in the subject matter or most importantly, have a REASON to believe what they believe.

As you know about my agruements here I tend to fight until I wear my self out. It happens in real life too only to my parents.