Koroviev
-
Posts
387 -
Joined
-
Days Won
2
Posts posted by Koroviev
-
-
It seems to me that this article falls right in line with the goal...race baiting
what actually fuels the achievements of some Asian American groups: U.S. immigration law, which favors highly educated, highly skilled immigrant applicants from Asian countries.lol
-
Short answer - it depends
long answer - It doesn't seem like there are "ideas a person can hold" that would tell you whether or no they are worth the effort, simply because everyone is so different. I know a girl who is planning on having a natural birth, use cloth diapers, eats only the healthiest foods, yet is planning on using formula and immediately sending her kid off to daycare. Or, I'm sure we all know that relatively intelligent person who's good with their money and has put a lot of effort into making their lives better, but then goes off and marries someone who seems completely the opposite.
Unfortunately, there does not seem to be an easy answer, and in reality given time people will surprise you. Some people you think are going to be great and really smart friends will probably end up hurting and/or disappointing you, while others you didn't think much of early on may end up becoming your closest friends. All you can do is to be honest, open, kind, and see how they react.
The approach that seems to work the best, for me at least, is to be honest and open right up front, that is going to cut out a lot of people right from the get-go, from there you kind of compartmentalize based on the other person. Some people are going to just be people you hang out with every once in a while, whereas others may be better conversationalists or thinkers. Not everyone you associate with need to fit the cookie cutter, I think the ones you associate most with should, but some people can be "character builders." Likely, even most of your closest friends won't be able to handle the "gun in the room" conversation. The truth, and it seems to be something not very many people realize, is that there won't ever be many people you consider "good friends," but I look at it the way Stef does, "if you have a lot of friends, that probably means you have low standards."
-
3
-
-
I know it's last minute but is anyone else attending Defcon this year?
-
I am having a little difficulty understanding part of your question, would you mind clarifying it before I go on to answer your other questions? I'd really appreciate it
When you said "If not, is it worth it?" What do you mean by that? Are you asking if the kids could not understand my reasoning, or might never, was it worth bringing it up with the mother? Just want to clarify because I don't want to answer questions based on assumptions.
Also, just to clarify, I'm not trying to say you made the wrong decision, in fact an 100% agree with the choice you made for lots of reasons, I just think it's an interesting question and wanted to get your thoughts.
-
I am having a little difficulty understanding part of your question, would you mind clarifying it before I go on to answer your other questions? I'd really appreciate it
When you said "If not, is it worth it?" What do you mean by that? Are you asking if the kids could not understand my reasoning, or might never, was it worth bringing it up with the mother? Just want to clarify because I don't want to answer questions based on assumptions.
Yes, no problem. So the argument that you put forward was that you could not be a positive influence on the children if you let their mom manipulate you. Stef has made this argument as well, and if I understand it correctly it's basically, why would the children want to be "good people" if the only "good people" they have in their lives are pushed around and manipulated by not so good people. Therefore, good people need to get out of that situation in order to show that "good people" don't always, or have to, be manipulated by not so good people. But, if the kids are to young to understand why you are leaving them, or never are able to come to that conclusion, is it still worth it to leave them, or would you be able to do more good by continuing to be a direct positive influence on them?
-
Thanks Kurtis I really do appreciate the kind words
-
It seems to me this came about because it is encouraged by the people who write the contracts. Google and Microsoft don't necessarily want you to read the terms and conditions because if you did you would find out how little "privacy" you actually have. This is a pretty big point of contention I have with smart TVs or anything that takes voice commands. Because they are built to constantly listen they are constantly sending data back to home base to be analyzed to better serve you. Now I don't see this as an issue if it's just the company getting your data because they can only use it to better serve you, but when you find out that the FBI has offices in the companies' headquarters then things begin to get worrisome (think 1984 telescreens). So if everyone started reading, and more importantly understanding, the contracts the companies would have a much harder time selling their products. Facebook is another perfect example. Zuckerberg himself is credited with saying he couldn't believe how stupid people were for sharing so much private data with him. I've also seen this personally, last year when we went to resign out lease the guy running the office got really upset that we were reading through everything, asking questions, and requesting changes.
-
First off thanks to everyone who has shared,this has been a massive help and has reaffirmed our desire to raise our children differently.
Second, an update for anyone who might be interested. The couple has found out they are pregnant. With this, from what I hear, has come a massive change in the husband (as is generally the case) and he is apparently much more motivated to do what's best, reading books, etc. Our plan is to continue to chip away by sending them research and different articles whenever we come across them, knowing full well we'll probably never change their mind but hopefully we can have some impact on how he or she is raised. Any blogs/articles/podcasts/etc. you guys come across are greatly appreciated!!
I haven't talked to my neighbor about her daughter and family, but she knows that I am not an ally. She has likely heard Stefan's voice wafting through the bedroom window on occasion.
She tried being flirty and friendly with me when we first met after I moved in, but I was not receptive to her charms. Single moms don't turn me on. I'm more likely to reach one of the males that come in and our of her life like a revolving door. I'm not exactly sure if they are friends, lovers, or extended family members, but they tend to hang out and drink from time to time. It's a three-generation family, and they still put the daughter in daycare every day. Her parents will not say word one to me besides an acknowledging grunt. I don't think it's a language barrier, but it could be.
I've talked to my friend about possibly changing his family around. Something I said last year connected with him, and he stopped giving his son ADD meds, so there was hope. His two children are rapidly approaching puberty, and he will soon have to pay for years of public school and the extensive boarding of his children in daycare programs. When he tried to blame his family's $20,000 debt on his children, I said, "You can't lay your debt on your children. That's exactly how the government works!" He responded, "You have no idea how expensive kids are because you don't have any."
Yes, because playing with RC drones and going to Disneyworld is so necessary as a responsible parent!
My friend, who has been talking to me less and less often, is the last one remaining from my alcoholic past. The last time we talked on the phone on Monday, he made sure that the first thing he told me was how drunk he got over the holiday weekend. I made an excuse and hung up the call immediately. I'm done with speaking to him.
I'm convinced that you can't change people, only yourself, your actions, and with whom you choose to associate or shame.
I've always found it interesting how most parents don't see the irony in most of the things they say. I wonder how much your friend's buying habits stem from him feeling bad about having to work all the time (to afford the buying habits...), and/or if it's more he doesn't know of any other way to connect with his children? I also find it interesting how much people who drink, especially parents, complain about not ever having money....as they are spending it all on booze.
I definitely agree @J.D. Stembal that you cannot change other people it has to come from themselves, but I keep coming back to what I feel more and more to be the underlying question which is how much is it our responsibility to help our friends change? Talking to my wife the other day I think a good strategy might be to sit them down and get all of your honest thoughts, opinions, and facts out there, like the gun in the room talk. Then kind of group them based on their reactions. Some people you'll find out can be your deep thinking friends who realize and admit their faults (for lack of a better word) and those people will be much closer than the people who are just fun to go bowling with,or others who you might realize are just "friends" because of proximity. Sticking to your principles will then weed them out further.
Koroviev - I did actually talk with the children's mother, I knew it would not change anything but I could not leave with a clean conscience if I did not call her on her crazy. Unfortunately your hands are tied in a situation like this, and because you can not get anyone to change there is little to no hope with someone who does not value reason, virtue and integrity. To echo a bit of what J.D. Stembal said you can't make anyone do anything so creating an ultimatum is pointless and illogical. The best someone can do in situations like this is go to the person. Be honest with them about your thoughts and feelings and then provide suggestions accordingly. If you have rapport with that person they should welcome this informational criticism and consider or implement your suggestions should they prove to be rational and valid. If, however, they do not value your thoughts, feelings and suggestions it will become all to clear very quickly. Put forward your standards and see how someone responds then respond accordingly.
I put emphasis on that last bit because it's, in my opinion the most important part to remember and something I struggled with personally for a long time. I used to think it would be best for me to stay with the kids so they would have someone in their lives that was a positive influence. There was even times I felt she could change. These thoughts however are an illusion and hypocrisy. How could I be a positive influence on the children I love so much if I let an evil and manipulative person (their mother) push me around, use me, and degrade me? How could I claim to be logical if I illogically held on to a hope that was not supported by an evidence?
Anything more than that can not be done. Again, I want to say how much I sympathize and feel, down to the core how hard this situation is. I commend you for wanting to try and broach these topics with your friends and I hope you found this of some value to you.
Good on you for coming to that realization, it must have been a really hard choice to come to, hopefully it didn't have to much impact on you getting future work. I'm curious, not knowing anything about the kids you were nannying, do you think they'll realize that you left because you were enabling the parents? We're going through kind of a similar situation with my mother in law. She is a terribly manipulative person and a horrible parent (and yes she and her new husband work all the time), so my wife sat down and explained this to her along with everything she went through growing up, and how she does not want that for her sisters. Because of my mother in law's reaction we've decided it's not even worth speaking to her any longer. Our concern is still her sisters, however. We know, based on things she's done in the past, my mother in law is going to try to turn this around to make my wife look like the bad guy so her sisters feel sorry for their mom seemingly negating any positive effect we may have had. So my question is do you think the kids were old enough to understand your reasoning, or will might they understand later on in life? If not, is it worth it? I think for us it definitely was because my mother in law was such a negative force in our lives. Not trying to undermine your decision or say you were wrong at all just curious
Chances of convincing the wife to stay home: close to zero. I say this because I am the wife of a diplomat, and none of us trailing spouses financially need to work yet the vast majority work BS administrative embassy jobs and put their kids in daycare, because feeling a sense of agency and having respect as an adult with a job is more important. They think there will be no negative effect on the kids because everyone does it.
Anyway, better to recommend a high quality nanny such as a graduate of this school:
Http://WWW.nanny-governess.comThanks ebznflows, I'll check it out. I suppose if you're going to have a nanny anyway it should be the absolute best you can get. Although, do you think that's kind of enabling, putting you into a similar situation as to what bluberriesinabundance was in? Also, I think I know what you mean but just to clarify are you saying that the sense of agency and respect as an adult are more important, or that is just how it is viewed?
I don't know the specific episodes, but there are many that Stef brings up the same research which shows that children who are left by their parents for something like 22 hours a week demonstrate the same trauma as complete orphans. Perhaps pointing them to this research might be enough to shock them into thought.
As a child of a single mother who went back to full time work when I was 6 months old, I can attest to the harm caused by absent parents. Those early experiences of feeling re-abandoned 5 days a week are still something I'm working on.
From the description of this couple I doubt you'll have much luck in intervening. If you could get them into the peaceful parenting podcasts under the guise of "general preparing to be parents", the message that is unavoidable in them is the importance of being with your young children. However, as has been said above, you cannot help change somebody who is not open and willing to change themselves.
Has your wife thought about what will become of this friendship if they do not change? In my experience, the self erasure required to maintain relationships with people who live lives opposed to the core virtues you hold dearly is not worth it.Thanks Kurtis. We've been trying to get as much research to them as possible, this was the main reason behind starting this thread. Unfortunately they, or at least the husband, seems to have a fear of anything that counters NPR or mainstream media, so although I'm still throwing as much Stef into the mix as possible it seems like we have a better chance with other sources (as I think is the point of everything Stef and the guys put out there). To answer your question though, yes my wife has thought about what might become of their friendship, and it kind of goes back to what I was saying above about grouping or categorizing your friends. We have been at least able to get our thoughts out to them without them completely shutting down, so there's a chance (albeit small) that something they find or something we show them may change their minds. The way I'm looking at it is we're surrounded by people who have been brainwashed their entire lives. Some of them will immediately shut you down and treat you like you have the plague, while others will listen. Although they might not agree immediately, which in many cases may be a bad sign as well, you can slowly chip away and hopefully will have some effect eventually. If nothing else lead by example.
Hi Koroviev,
First, I would like to commend you for trying to reach out to these people. I think it takes courage and goodness of character to try to help someone who you profess to be friends with.
I have certainly read through the entire posts that precede mine and I hope they help you.
What I would suggest is to sit them down and have an honest conversation with them. If you were to sit them down for maybe an hour or two and ask them about their situation, maybe that can help you get some more information to act from there. My thoughts are that your curiosity might open up their hearts to their own situations. Maybe you can ask them questions like : "Why do you want kids?", "Do you want your kids to like you?", "What are the advantages of having a big house for your child?", "Why would you rather work than we with your child?", "How many options do you see in your life?", "What is the end goal you are trying to achieve with having kids and a bigger house?". Some questions like this might help them understand themselves better. And also, I think will it help with your relationships with them too
I hope this suggestion helps! I'm curious to see how everything turns out. Maybe it will be good ending!
Thanks, I really do appreciate your kind words. As I'm sure you know it's sometimes hard to know if you really are doing the right thing. I think I've hit on everything above, but let me know if I've missed anything.
-
Well this is obviously getting nowhere and it seems like you are way more emotionally vested in this than I am. Again I'm sorry if you felt this was a personal attack as that was not my intent, and I still think that if you had focused more on the actual argument rather than projecting your own ideas into the conversation it would have been much more productive. I do hope you got something out of it, as I know I did, and hopefully everyone else did too!
cheers!
-
1
-
-
(No, dude. I'm saying that as soon as there is an audience, the audience responds to things other than "reason", "evidence", and "logic". They also eventually give their opinions about who has the better argument, and the winning side enjoys more social influence.)
So the goal of a discussion/argument in front of an audience is social influence? Also, if this is true wouldn't using "I'm smarter/older/taken more classes than you" sway the public opinion whether the person using it is correct or not? Therefor, the person who uses it would be gaining public opinion even if their arguments were incorrect.
(It's not a binary issue. You can reflect wrongly OR reflect correctly OR not reflect at all OR not reflect sometimes, but other times reflect.)
Wait I'm confused you were just making it sound like it was a bad thing to reflect? If everyone reflects on what their arguments say about them then what was the point of your argument?
"Are you saying people who refuse to concede a point don't know their self worth, and therefore are more concerned about, or ignoring, what their argument is saying about them?) (No, I was explicitly fucking clear: "People who constantly need to remind others, "Just because you happen to be correct doesn't make you A BETTER PERSON.", are, ironically, constantly asking themselves, "What kind of person does this make me?" Hence, when you defeat such a person in an argument, they feel like their entire worth as a person has been attacked. So they lash out, or make threads, or accuse people of trolling.) (The capitalized part is most important, because, you know, it's capitalized.)
you also said "Someone who already knows his worth as a person doesn't wonder how winning or losing an argument reflects upon him as a person. " (https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/44592-im-smarter-than-you/?p=408157)I'm just applying this to both parties involved in the discussion. So, I'll ask again if the above is true then what does this say about someone who refuses to concede a point? Do they not know their self worth? Are they worried that "losing" an argument will reflect poorly on them as a person?
(I don't know. Why don't you find someone who explicitly made that argument and give your opinion?)
What does my opinion have to do with this? You made a generalization I assumed you had some facts to back it up and I was asking you to expand.
-
If 2 people are having a private conversation, then that's probably true. But if 2 people are having a public conversation, that's definitely not true at all.
Private = cooperation. Public = competition.
How so? Are you saying as soon as there is an audience the goal is no longer the truth? How does an idea being incorrect mean a person loses?
People who constantly need to remind others, "Just because you happen to be correct doesn't make you A BETTER PERSON.", are, ironically, constantly asking themselves, "What kind of person does this make me?" Hence, when you defeat such a person in an argument, they feel like their entire worth as a person has been attacked. So they lash out, or make threads, or accuse people of trolling.
Someone who already knows his worth as a person doesn't wonder how winning or losing an argument reflects upon him as a person.
This is an interesting generalization, not sure what you're trying to say though. Should people not reflect on what kind of person their arguments make them? Are you saying people who refuse to concede a point don't know their self worth, and therefore are more concerned about, or ignoring, what their argument is saying about them? What does this say about people who argue that being correct makes you a better person, and that people who are incorrect "lose?"
-
I think there needs to be a clarification about competition. If 2 people are discussing opposing ideas, if truth is the goal, in a sense they are working together to find the truth. Neither person wins. The truth is what wins. Simply because you happen to be arguing the side that is correct does not make you better than the other person. Simply because you happen to be arguing for the side that is incorrect does not mean you lose. Either way both people grow and, hopefully, everyone gets something out of it.
Fine.
I'll reply to what you said, then.
--------------
"I'm smarter than you" is not adding anything to the conversation."
My response, (1) "So what? It's true that, in some cases, "I'm Smarter Than You!" is a response to an argument that doesn't add to the conversation. Why single out "I'm Smarter Than You!"? (2) In the aesthetic opinion of the person who says, "I'm Smarter Than You", his response does add something to the conversation. Aesthetically speaking, you don't agree. So why do you need rules to make the entire community agree with your aesthetic reaction?)
--------------
There. I responded to the most important thing you said, and I concluded it was the most important thing you said, because you bold-printed it.
Would you like to refute my counter-argument? Would you like to add more to your argument?
Incorrect, although this is a supporting point, this was not my main argument.
-
1
-
-
I think another argument for not responding is the realization that the people observing the argument are intelligent as well. If you've made clear and rational arguments supported by evidence they know that. When you get to the point where you're repeating the same points over and over again the audience realizes this even if the "troll" does not.
In a nutshell you don't have to have the last word in an argument for your argument to be correct, or for others to realize your arguments are correct.
-
Read book first for sure. The movies are ok but they may turn you off to the book. Especially if you're watching them without someone who's read the book.
-
1
-
-
Very well put!
I'm curious as to what your thoughts are about giving people the benefit of the doubt, up to a certain point of course. It seems to me like there is a fine line between misunderstanding/incorrect thinking and trolling (maybe that line is humility?). My fear is that if there is a "rule" (for lack of a better term I know we aren't creating rules here) that says don't feed the trolls many more counter arguments may start to look troll-ish.
-
2
-
-
I'm interpreting what you're saying, so don't pull the, "But I didn't say that!" objection.
If you DO NOT have an argument, you're saying, "I was very upset when two people pulled the, "I'm Smarter Than You!" remark. That's not an argument, because it's just you relaying your emotional frustration with two events.
If you DO have an argument, you're saying, "No one should ever be allowed to say anything like 'I'm Smarter Than You!". I don't agree with your argument because: (1) It's not true that 100% of the time, it is morally wrong to say that AND (2) It's factually true that it's much easier to change your own emotional reactions than to change other peoples' communication styles.
So if you have an argument, I'm not convinced. And if you don't have an argument, I enjoyed this discussion, and I hope you did, too.
As I suspected you have no idea what my argument even was even though I spelled it out multiple times. No one said any of that but you.
-
Do you notice that you're focusing solely on the emotional part of my argument? Do you even know what the argument that I presented was?
-
@ MMX2010
I'm really not sure how to respond to this last post, as it seems so far against everything I thought this community stood for. The story you shared I think proved my point more than anything I could come up with. As your "argument" did nothing but alienate you from someone who may have had a good counter argument. You will never know if they did or not. Thus it completely killed the discussion. You were so much more concerned with "winning" the argument that you never took into consideration anything the other person may have had to say. Getting half way through a chess match and shooting your opponent in the face does not mean you won the chess match, it does not make you better at chess, it simply makes you an ass.
Again saying "I'm smarter than you" does not resolve the debate more efficiently or faster it simply leaves the debate unresolved.
So it's not surprising that someone who doesn't care about the efficiency of truth-discovery would form a highly-inefficient thread that distracts from the truth you were debating about.
I have no idea what this has to do with anything or what it even means again my post has nothing to do with any other specific topic nor is it aimed at anyone who has made this argument. Stop making it personal. Stop taking it personal.
You're lying about what happened.
As above I have no idea what this is referring to or what it has to do with anything, other than you being rude it is not supporting your point it is not helping you "win," it is simply making you look like an ass.
Instead, the "I'm smarter than you!" occurs after at least one argument is made. That argument is either correct or incorrect, but an argument was made. The "I'm smarter than you!" happens after someone reacts with at least one counter-argument. That counter-argument is either correct or incorrect.
"I'm smarter than you" is not adding anything to the conversation. it is not supporting evidence, and it has no meaning. Saying so does not mean you win it does not mean you lose it does not make your point stronger it does not counter their point. This is the only point I am trying to make.
So you need to go back into the threads that annoyed you and directly confront the person who annoyed you.
This has nothing to do with anything we are talking about, but for the record I have I simply did it privately as to not derail the conversation since it would have had nothing to do with the discussion.
-
That depends on the subject matter. If we're discussing strictly logical and objective things, such as the best way to place a bullet into a target, then that's just mostly just a matter of physics, weather, and target observation.
But if we're discussing things like the importance of physical exercise, the importance of going to therapy, the positive and negative aspects of pick-up artistry, or the definition of a virtuous woman (as well as the best way to attract her), this is always a competition between people and personalities.
If you know, for example, that a 30-year old man cannot do twenty-five push-ups, was bullied as a child, has slept with less than five women, and loathes Pick-Up Artistry as manipulation - then his dismissal of Pick-Up Artistry as manipulation is rooted in his childhood trauma and his current life-long inability to build himself up by working out. You can, absolutely, dismiss his argument about Pick-Up Artistry because of who he is - regardless of his argument.
The later situation still comes down to reason and evidence the "because of who he is" is the evidence it does not matter what he says. In that situation a counter argument would be "what you are doing is not achieving the goal, doing the opposite of that seems like it would achieve the goal because of ..." which is very different from "you're fat so you're wrong" which is offensive and not productive.
A conversation between Person A and Person B that attempts to discover the truth will also be about Persons C, D, and E - (people who read the discussion but do not post). I appreciate your pointing out that Person B will be offended whenever Person A says, "I'm smarter than you!" - however, (1) Person B doesn't have to be offended; he chooses to be offended and (2) Person B's annoyance is just one hyper-small consideration in any discussion that attempts to discover the truth. The speed and efficiency with which truth is discovered is, (and ought to be), by far, the most important consideration.
This is a misquote I never said "Person B would be offended whenever Person A says 'I'm smarter than you.'" I said that trying to use "I'm smarter than you" as an argument is offensive. Those are two very different things. I also have to disagree with the last statement you make. It seems to me like discovering the truth is the most important consideration, it doesn't matter the speed or efficiency that it is discovered. Person B, C, D, E, or anyone else should not be agreeing with anything Person A says simply because Person A is, or says they are, smarter. What should be agreed with or disagreed with is reason backed up by evidence. Unless the discussion is about who is smarter (larger, faster, older) being smarter than someone is not reason or evidence in support of any argument but instead "agree with me because I'm smarter than you."
I think it's a way to surrender and is another way to say "I'm confident I'm right, but I don't know how to make you understand the flaws I see in your statements"
People make deductions all the time and can be highly confident with what to them seems like simple or obvious flow or logic, but which many times is an incorrect deduction. Making people understand when they have done this can be extremely difficult and frustrating when you can see what seems flawed to you, but you aren't smart enough to explain it to the person. On the one hand you feel superior and on the other hand you may also feel inadequate. This causes you to wave the flag and end the conversation with "I'm smarter than you", but they rarely say the second part "but I don't know how to explain it", because it's a form of "I just am!" when it comes to an actual argument for your "superior" position. People are sometimes confidently at odds because they haven't realized they are working on different base assumptions about causation and the world. They may both be using sound and logical methods to reach their conclusions, but since they disagree on the underlying assumptions of reality, which they don't speak of, they can't resolve their disagreement. Recognizing something as a contradiction is far from being able to rationally explain why it's contradictory. This requires additional intelligence and language abilities that may be absent. You can taste the distinct flavors, you're confident of the taste, but you haven't the words to describe them. Even well versed and intelligent philosophers can make deductive errors, because their logic is incomplete and they have no way to see that.
This is a fantastically interesting point and I think the base of what I was trying to point out. Informing someone you are smarter, bigger, faster, older, or whatever else, than them does not add anything useful to the conversation. It may be true, it may not be true, you may, be right, you may not be right, but saying I'm smarter (aside from the fact of how do you know) does not get the conversation any closer to answering any of those questions.
-
Truth is always a competition. To say that it isn't is r-selected egalitarianism. And to participate in the pursuit of truth as if it's NOT a competition is to inject many r-selected expectations into the discussion, such as, "Everyone has to be polite to everyone else at all times." and "If one person gets emotionally upset because of something someone else said, then the entire discussion shifts away from the pursuit of Truth as we deeply explore the Genuine Emotional Experiences of the offended party."
I agree that truth absolutely is a competition, but not between people. It is a competition of ideas and the argument with the strongest reason and evidence to back it up wins. It doesn't matter which participant is smarter, or bigger, or older, or a faster typist. Those things do not bring any evidence, or any reasoning to the discussion. All that matters is what is true and the only way to find truth is with reason and evidence.
No one is saying everyone has to be polite at all times, in fact no one is saying you can or cannot do anything. The argument that was made was simply that saying "I'm smarter than you," "I'm older than you," "I've taken more college classes than you," or any other form thereof is not an argument, and it does not add anything to the conversation. This is especially true in this community.
I also point out that it is indeed offensive to the other person because basically what is being said is "your arguments are invalid simply because you aren't as smart."
-
I need to make another clarifying note.
This topic was absolutely not meant to be a personal attack against anyone, simply an observation that I'd made of many different posts which I felt should be discussed. I am terribly sorry if anyone has been offended, or if my wording of the topic came off otherwise.
This does not change my stance on the argument and counter points are still very welcome I just wanted to apologize to anyone I may have offended.
-
You're misinterpreting me. I didn't argue that "It's impossible for anyone who says, 'I'm Smarter Than You!' to get the recipient to self-reflect." - but I did argue that the primary motivation for saying, "I'm Smarter Than You!" is not to get the recipient to self-reflect.
you're right my apologies I should not have misquoted referring to above I should have said "Also, @MMX2010 argued above that "I'm smarter than you" is not used in order to get people to self-reflect." This has been fixed.
There are quite a few arguments that are so stupid that they cannot be rebutted. And smarter people have neither the moral obligation, aesthetic obligation, nor personal talent required to rebut these terrible arguments.
I 100% agree but that doesnt change the argument that saying "I'm smarter than you" does not add anything to the conversation, and is not a valid argument
-
If you said you had a Masters in Psychology, were head of the Harvard Debate team, published a number of papers on a subject and then said that an assertion I had made was incorrect because it overlooks important relevant details that affect subsequent arguments, I would feel pretty compelled to listen what you said.
Yes, absolutely, but first off that last part is not usually included, and was purposefully left out of my example above. Second, it seems like "I'm smarter than you" is usually used when the "smarter" person does not have a strong rebuttal to a previous counterpoint. Third, yes you may be compelled to listen (as I agree the other person should be and I would be as well) and then go back over everything they said and find that you still have a strong case to make because the "smarter" person was wrong, or missed something. So what good has bringing their credentials into the conversation done. My main point is that "I'm smarter than you" not itself an argument, but a tactic used to show authority, whereas here we are concerned about reason and evidence not what authority figures tell us. It would be hugely more useful if the "smarter" person instead pointed to where the other person was wrong and showed evidence as to how the "smarter" person knew the other person was wrong. Saying "I'm smarter than you," or "I'm older than you," or "I'm bigger than you," does nothing but stop the conversation flat or change the topic to who's smarter leaving the original discussion to rot. Also, @MMX2010 argued above that "I'm smarter than you" is not used in order to get people to self-reflect.
-
@MMX2010 you seem to be missing the point. The point is NOT that some people are not, could not, or should not, be smarter than others, this claim would be ludicrous. The point is also NOT that people cannot or should not SHOW that they are smarter than others. The point is, simply, that saying "I am smarter than you" is not an argument and does not accomplish anything outside of completely killing the conversation, and leaving no room for further discussion. Almost every time when that statement is used the conversation degrades into a pissing match that is no better than someone saying "my dad is bigger than yours." As soon as someone says "I'm smarter than you" what is meant is it no longer matters what other arguments you may have they are automatically invalidated simply because you are less intelligent than I am. Not to mention a lot of people (hopefully none here) may see the "I'm smarter than you" and automatically side with that person, no matter how wrong that person may be.
For instance if I said I'm right because I have a masters in psychology, was the head of the Harvard Debate team, and have published numerous peer reviewed papers on this subject, also, I'm older than you so I obviously have more experience than you do, how would you respond?
Working Parents
in Peaceful Parenting
Posted
Sorry for the delayed reply, apparently I just stopped getting notifications for replys
But I completely agree, it's an extremely tough situation to be put into. For us we just knew as soon as we cut ties, my mother-in-law would find some new, terrible, influence to bring into their lives but the emotional roller-coaster she was putting my wife through was not fair. Also, I think a large part if it is that although her sisters may never really understand the why behind it, if we had stuck around and gone along with my mother-in-law, it would absolutely have been a reinforcement of her behavior.