I'm smarter than you!!!

[MMX2010]

I try to point out that truth isn't a competition. 

 

But it is. 

 

Do you want people to embrace the truth of philosophy quickly or slowly? 

 

Do you want people to embrace the truth about male/female relationships efficiently or inefficiently? 

 

Do you want the women you date to embrace the truth about who you are happily or grudgingly? 

 

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." 

[Koroviev]

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."

[MMX2010]

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.

 

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. 

 

 

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."

 

 

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. 

[thebeardslastcall]

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.

[MMX2010]

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.

 

 

Agree with you here. 

 

In my case, my knowledge is a combination of evolutionary psychology, normal psychology, pick-up artistry, Stefan's approach to peaceful parenting, Vox Day's socio-sexual hierarchies, r/K selection (large scale that Stefan has been discussing), r/K selection's influence on personality types (small scale that Stefan is ignorant about), and the psychology and merits of trolling - (along with the specific types of trolling that are most effective, and why to use them). 

 

All of these sub-sets of knowledge took me a minimum of three months of consisting reading to acquire.  Can I explain any single one of them in less than 200 words and explain how it applies to this topic?  (Sometimes.)  Can I explain how the union of all those sub-sets produces my arguments in less than 200 words?  (Absolutely not.) 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

Definitely.  The people who disagree with me strongest tend to expect every argument to be simply explained, and to dismiss my requests that they study specific sub-fields of knowledge.  Such people don't realize that their choices cause the disagreement, not any lack of intelligence or empathy on my part. 

[David Ottinger]

 

But it is. 

 

Do you want people to embrace the truth of philosophy quickly or slowly? 

 

Do you want people to embrace the truth about male/female relationships efficiently or inefficiently? 

 

Do you want the women you date to embrace the truth about who you are happily or grudgingly? 

 

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 fail to see how any of that follows.   Pursuit of truth is universally preferable behavior.  Your attempt to correct me now doesn't put us into competition for the truth.  We have the same goal.  Thus, for us to engage in discussion about the truth of a particular matter is an act of collaboration, not competition.  This stands true even if we have differing view points.  (This last point does not imply all view points are accurate or that truth is relative.)

[Koroviev]

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.

[MMX2010]

I fail to see how any of that follows.   Pursuit of truth is universally preferable behavior.  Your attempt to correct me now doesn't put us into competition for the truth.  We have the same goal.  Thus, for us to engage in discussion about the truth of a particular matter is an act of collaboration, not competition.  This stands true even if we have differing view points.  (This last point does not imply all view points are accurate or that truth is relative.)

 

Which issue do you want to debate about?  Is it best to pursue the truth about this issue through personal experience, scientific research, or a combination of the above?  Are we assuming that the crowd of FDR readers gets to vote on whose argument is best - or are we assuming that he crowd of FDR listeners is ignorant of the subject and, therefore, should not be allowed to vote? 

 

These questions are necessarily competitive in nature, because they always ask, "Which of these is best?" 

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.

 

"You're fat, therefore you're wrong!" is the fastest way to achieve the point, the fastest way to get the fat person to explode in rage / anger (alienating him from the discussion), OR to get the fat person to meekly leave the conversation, OR get the fat person to self-reflect, swallow his pride, and start working out. 

 

I can give an excellent example from real-life.  There's this guy I know with a very large, very round figure, who also cannot hold eye contact whenever I calmly stare at him.  He believes that government and the welfare state are necessary to ensure that poor people are provided for.  If/when he makes that argument in my presence, I'm going to look him dead in the eye and coldly say, "A man with your body has no right to comment on the welfare state." 

 

That should be enough, but if he persists, I'll escalate with, "Charity works because it identifies people who are truly struggling with every fiber of their being to better themselves and then gives these people money.  The welfare state fails because it gives money to everyone who wants it.  Your body tells me that you've never truly struggled for anything in your life, so of course you support the welfare state." 

 

My friends are used to me making such arguments, so they'll smirk or smile silently - and the fat person will feel deep shame.  And he'll either explode in anger, silently leave, or work out and seek vengeance later.  (But if he does the latter, he'll have become a better person due to my argument.) 

 

----------------------------

 

 

 

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.

 

Well, that's jaw-dropping, but not surprising. 

 

It is predictable that because you don't care about the speed with which truth is discovered, you would start a thread outside of the thread in which you were frustrated that focuses upon your frustration.

 

To my knowledge, you didn't directly confront the two individuals who used the "I'm smarter than you!" argument.  Rather, you tried to get the entire community to support your emotional frustration with this individual.  Worse, you tried to get the community to make a universal rule so that you wouldn't have to experience this frustration again. 

 

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. 

 

------------------------

 

 

 

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."

 

You're lying about what happened. 

 

Let me repeat what I said earlier:  There are no FDR topics which read like this.

 

Post #1 - Does anyone have any insight into this particular issue I'm having.

 

Post #2 - I'm smarter than you!

 

Post #3 - What a jerk!

 

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. 

 

So you need to go back into the threads that annoyed you and directly confront the person who annoyed you. 

[Kevin Beal]

When you feed trolls, you make it worse for the next person who interacts with them. It's not harmless. Please, cut that out.

[Koroviev]

@ 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.

[David Ottinger]

Which issue do you want to debate about?

 

I don't know how you read that and got that I was propositioning you for a debate.  Let me put it this way: "Thus, if we (people) were to engage in discussion about the truth of a particular matter, this would be an act of collaboration, not competition."

 

 

  Is it best to pursue the truth about this issue through personal experience, scientific research, or a combination of the above?

 

The methodology by which one chooses to pursue the discovery of universal principles has no relation to whether or not that pursuit is a competition.

 

How best something is achieved has nothing to do with the nature of something.

 

 

Are we assuming that the crowd of FDR readers gets to vote on whose argument is best - or are we assuming that he crowd of FDR listeners is ignorant of the subject and, therefore, should not be allowed to vote? 

 

These questions are necessarily competitive in nature, because they always ask, "Which of these is best?"

 

I have no idea what this has to do with this discussion. 

 

So far none of your questions for me have dealt with the nature of the pursuit for truth as far as competition is concerned. 

 

 

 

On a side note, I think it goes without saying that the discovery of universal principles is advantagous.  Those who wish to dominate others can turn such pursuits into competition, thus leading to things like an arms race. 

[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.

 

This community is split into two groups, but doesn't realize it. 

 

One group is comprised of mostly K-selected personalities with highly competitive natures and few (if any) emotional needs.  These people want the truth of any discussion to be discovered quickly and efficiently, and they're well-versed in science, psychology, and other fields.  They understand their own childhood wounds, but don't focus on them; instead they focus on getting over them so that they can relate to a diverse field of people by helping them with their childhoods. 

 

The other group is comprised of mostly r-selected personalities with non-competitive natures and many, many emotional needs.  These people DO NOT want the truth of any discussion to be discovered quickly and efficiently, because a speedy, efficient discussion requires an emotional detachment that these r-selected individuals DO NOT possess.  They understand their childhood wounds as well as (or, perhaps, even better than) their K-selected counterparts - but they DO NOT have the skill to relate to diverse fields of people, preferring instead to relate to people exactly-like-them. 

 

The K-selected individuals prefer objective rules, (such as, "You must be physically fit to post on FDR." and "You must provide links to scientific articles if you make an argument.") - but the r-selected individuals prefer subjective rules, (such as, "Don't be an asshole." or "Empathy is required to post here.") 

 

-------------------------

 

 

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.

 

 

Here's a crucial point about r-selected individuals.  They never comment on the argument itself; they always focus on the potentially negative emotional impact of the argument.

 

Koroviev, do you even know what my argument is?  You should know it, because I explained it directly to you.  But you didn't comment on it at all. 

 

Here's my argument, "Charity works because it identifies people who are truly struggling with every fiber of their being to better themselves and then gives these people money.  The welfare state fails because it gives money to everyone who wants it." 

 

Notice that: (1) You never quoted my argument; you quoted around my argument.  (2) You probably agree with the argument, because Stefan has made that argument multiple times!  (3) But you focus on NOT whether the argument is true or false, and NOT on whether you agree with it, BUT on how the argument makes you feel and how that feeling (potentially) affects the community-as-a-whole. 

 

 

 

Again saying "I'm smarter than you" does not resolve the debate more efficiently or faster it simply leaves the debate unresolved.

 

 

In your opinion, focused on your own emotional needs, it does not.  But in the opinion of the person saying it, focused on his own emotional needs, it absolutely does. 

 

What should you do?  Well, I know you have more than these two choices, but these two choices stand out to me: (1) Complain to the entire community so that the entire community will create a rule that you can use to change the posting style and emotional make up of certain individuals you disagree with OR (2) Decrease the amount of emotional need you possess.  

 

Now, I'm NOT saying you're morally obligated to pursue Option 2.  But I *AM* saying that Option 2 is something you have 100% direct control over, whereas Option 1 is a Rube Goldberg machine that is much less likely to produce what you want.  So, you're more likely to succeed by choosing Option 2. 

 

Work on your emotional needs by reducing the number of emotional needs you have. 

The methodology by which one chooses to pursue the discovery of universal principles has no relation to whether or not that pursuit is a competition.

 

If that were true, then you'd equally prefer to listen to Stefan Molyneux discuss philosophy as you would prefer listening to a seven year old Down's syndrome individual discuss philosophy. 

 

Now, I'm not saying that seven year old Down's Syndrome individuals are worthless - but I am saying that they're much less equipped to discuss philosophy than is Stefan Molyneux. 

 

Stefan Molyneux is preferred because his skill-set competes with everyone else's skill-set - and Stefan wins that competition (almost) every time.  When Stefan loses that competition, the listener chooses to pursue someone else's podcasts (or articles) in pursuit of the truth. 

 

Case in point, I don't follow Stefan's relationship advice.  I much prefer Rollo Tomassi's and Roosh's. 

 

However, Rollo only has a shallow understanding of childhood wounds, and Roosh doesn't discuss that at all - so when I was to explore my childhood, I prefer Stefan Molyneux. 

[Koroviev]

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?

[labmath2]

I am smarter than you therefore i am right. Well i can beat you in a fight therefore i am right.

 

Its a non sequitur.

[MMX2010]

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?

 

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.  

[Koroviev]

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.

[MMX2010]

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.

 

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? 

[David Ottinger]

If that were true, then you'd equally prefer to listen to Stefan Molyneux discuss philosophy as you would prefer listening to a seven year old Down's syndrome individual discuss philosophy. 

 

Now, I'm not saying that seven year old Down's Syndrome individuals are worthless - but I am saying that they're much less equipped to discuss philosophy than is Stefan Molyneux. 

 

Stefan Molyneux is preferred because his skill-set competes with everyone else's skill-set - and Stefan wins that competition (almost) every time.  When Stefan loses that competition, the listener chooses to pursue someone else's podcasts (or articles) in pursuit of the truth. 

 

Case in point, I don't follow Stefan's relationship advice.  I much prefer Rollo Tomassi's and Roosh's. 

 

However, Rollo only has a shallow understanding of childhood wounds, and Roosh doesn't discuss that at all - so when I was to explore my childhood, I prefer Stefan Molyneux. 

 

 

Yes, some people are more equipped at reaching sound conclusions than others.  This fact does not make the pursuit of truth a competition.  You and I, for example, are currently not in competition with one another while we hash this out.

 

Although, maybe you think otherwise?  Are you and I in competition with each other at this time?

 

Also, as I pointed out earlier, other elements can be introduced to create a competitive environment.  Your example is such an example.  You introduced the pursuit for market share (if you will) to the framework, and then conflated that with the pursuit of truth because the product in a word was: Philosophy.   

 

So, again, your example is of two people competing for market share, not truth.    

 

 

Thus, I have no reason to accept that my statement, "The methodology by which one chooses to pursue the discovery of universal principles has no relation to whether or not that pursuit is a competition," leads to treating Stefan and a mentally handicapped person as though they're on equal footing. 

[MMX2010]

Yes, some people are more equipped at reaching sound conclusions than others.  This fact does not make the pursuit of truth a competition.  You and I, for example, are currently not in competition with one another while we hash this out.

 

If we disagree, and we're both trying to influence the crowd OR the crowd is influenced by our discussion even though we're not trying to influence the crowd, then we're in competition.

 

 

 

Also, as I pointed out earlier, other elements can be introduced to create a competitive environment.  Your example is such an example.  You introduced the pursuit for market share (if you will) to the framework, and then conflated that with the pursuit of truth because the product in a word was: Philosophy.   

 

So, again, your example is of two people competing for market share, not truth.    

 

 

Your goal may NOT be to spread philosophy to the entire world, hoping that the maximum number of people embrace philosophy so that a better world is created.  But it is Stefan's goal.  And because it is his goal, he worries (or ought to worry) about market share. 

 

So, overall, I get that you don't feel that the pursuit of truth is a competition.  But other people feel the opposite, which means you should add the disclaimer, "In my opinion, and not speaking for anyone else, the pursuit of truth is not a competition." 

[David Ottinger]

If we disagree, and we're both trying to influence the crowd OR the crowd is influenced by our discussion even though we're not trying to influence the crowd, then we're in competition.

 

 

How so?   Or, let's make it more specific:  How are you and I in competition right now?

 

 

And, let me be clear:  I recognize that on one hand the capacity for epistemological conquest is present as a choice -- which I find is what you're pointing out.  But, on the other hand, we also have the exchange of ideas -- which is the alternative.  The "don't shoot the messenger" adage applies here, but in reverse so to speak.  Just as it is illogical to shoot the messenger for presenting an unfavorable message, the same holds true for praising the messenger for presenting a favorable message.

 

Essentially, what you're promoting here is politics, not philosophy.  What matters is the message, not the messenger.  

 

And turning the pursuit of truth into a competition has the adverse effect, or at least the risk, to undermine integrity for prestige.      

 

My desire isn't to influence the crowd.  My desire is truth.  Those who share my interests will inadvertently be on the same course as I.  We are simply in the same boat.  And should I climb up the proverbial mast and conclude that I see land, that does not make me the leader.  Everyone will reach the same conclusion in due time and on their own accord, unless they are not free thinkers.

 

 

Your goal may NOT be to spread philosophy to the entire world, hoping that the maximum number of people embrace philosophy so that a better world is created.  But it is Stefan's goal.  And because it is his goal, he worries (or ought to worry) about market share. 

 

Ok, but how does this substantiate that the pursuit of truth is inherently competitive.  You hold that it is.  The onus is on you to substantiate your claim.

 

You're avoiding the question: How does this desire for market share cause the nature of the pursuit of truth to be inherently competitive?

 

As I have thus far pointed out, this sensation is illusory as it is a conflation of two different goals, i.e. the pursuit of truth and the pursuit of market share.

 

 

 

So, overall, I get that you don't feel that the pursuit of truth is a competition.  But other people feel the opposite, which means you should add the disclaimer, "In my opinion, and not speaking for anyone else, the pursuit of truth is not a competition."

 

 

No, you do not get that I "feel" because I haven't made this an emotional matter.  You're projecting.  

 

 

So, let me be very clear, this is not a matter of feeling or opinion.  It's a logical conundrum.  Either the nature of the pursuit of truth is inherently competitive, or it's not.   And the only alternative is that it's neither.  Which is it?   

 

 

"I am smarter than you, therefore...." is essentially someone claiming authority over truth.  It's a non-sequitur that simply says, "X is true because I say so."   i.e. "My house, my rules."   

 

Furthermore, to engage such a claim with genuine contemplation is to edify this individuals self proclamation of superiority over truth.  However, no man is the truth or the way.   Such mentality is that of religiosity, not philosophy.

[MMX2010]

How so?   Or, let's make it more specific:  How are you and I in competition right now?

 

 

And, let me be clear:  I recognize that on one hand the capacity for epistemological conquest is present as a choice -- which I find is what you're pointing out.  But, on the other hand, we also have the exchange of ideas -- which is the alternative.  The "don't shoot the messenger" adage applies here, but in reverse so to speak.  Just as it is illogical to shoot the messenger for presenting an unfavorable message, the same holds true for praising the messenger for presenting a favorable message.

 

You're experiencing this conversation as happening between you and me.  But the fact is that this conversation is happening between you and me and anyone who reads this exchange.  So their presence makes this a competition.  And their desire for the most efficient pathway to the truth makes this a competition.

 

You can say all you want that they're behaving illogically.  And maybe you're right; maybe you're wrong.  But even if you're right, their emotional decisions won't alter themselves just because you said they're being illogical.   

 

 

 

 

Essentially, what you're promoting here is politics, not philosophy.  What matters is the message, not the messenger.

 

No.  I'm promoting politics and philosophy.    Market forces exist the moment a crowd exists.  

 

  

 

 

My desire isn't to influence the crowd.  My desire is truth.  Those who share my interests will inadvertently be on the same course as I.  We are simply in the same boat.  And should I climb up the proverbial mast and conclude that I see land, that does not make me the leader.  Everyone will reach the same conclusion in due time and on their own accord, unless they are not free thinkers.

 

No way.  Since when have 200 diversely-thinking people ever agreed on anything related to the truth, especially regarding something like human sexuality or economics? 

[David Ottinger]

So their presence makes this a competition.

 

No, it doesn't.  But YOU clearly think it does.  At this point, it is an imperative for you to explain why you find that to be the case.  But, so far you have failed to reason out this conclusion you hold despite my requests.    

 

And, actually, calling it a conclusion would be inaccurate.  You have provided no proof of concept.  You've simply asserted and reasserted your perception of human discourse.  And, you treat this assertion axiomatically.

 

On a side note, this perception is tantamount to those who claim anarchism can't exist because of human nature, and that nature being one of violence.  i.e. You've created a false dilemma.

 

In short, you deny cooperation of intellectual pursuits.  

 

The unfortunate result of your falsehood is that it leads one to say anything in order to win, including but not limited to, putting words in people's mouth as you have just now with me.  

 

For example, show me where I said the audience is illogical?   Given your song and dance, I would sooner call you irrational before I held the audience is illogical.  

 

If you were being honest here, you'd acknowledge that what you seek is popularity, not truth.   

 

 

In closing, one's perception of reality is not reality, hence the importance of self-awareness which is discovered via philosophy.  Just because we experience reality in a relative way does not make truth relative.  No, truth is objective.  However, we are not omniscient, therefore it is in our best interests to cooperate with one another in order to optimize rigorous behavior.   

 

 

You yourself can make this a competition.  And given the amount of negs you have received, I think it's safe to say that isn't working out so well for you.   

 

 

I highly suggest reading the Fountain Head by Ayn Rand.

[MMX2010]

No, it doesn't.  But YOU clearly think it does.  At this point, it is an imperative for you to explain why you find that to be the case.  But, so far you have failed to reason out this conclusion you hold despite my requests.    

 

I cannot logically explain to you why people emotionally react in certain ways.  And the fact that you expect a logical explanation for other peoples' emotional reactions is revealing in itself. 

 

 

 

 

If you were being honest here, you'd acknowledge that what you seek is popularity, not truth.   

 

Popularity AND Truth. 

 

 

 

 

And given the amount of negs you have received, I think it's safe to say that isn't working out so well for you.   

 

It's working out quite well, actually. 

 

Some people, like you, have negative emotional reactions and then give bad arguments. 

 

But other people have become Skype friends or people who routinely attend FDR meet-ups with meetups with me, and they both highly appreciate my contributions. 

[David Ottinger]

I gotta ask:  Is english a 2nd language for you?

[MMX2010]

I gotta ask:  Is english a 2nd language for you?

 

 

Ottinger said: "You yourself can make this a competition.  And given the amount of negs you have received, I think it's safe to say that isn't working out so well for you.   

 

I replied: "It's working out quite well, actually.  Some people, like you, have negative emotional reactions and then give bad arguments. But other people have become Skype friends or people who routinely attend FDR meet-ups with meetups with me, and they both highly appreciate my contributions."

 

During the 2.5 hours between when I made post #58, and you asked me about my English skills, I had a 45 minute Skype conversation with a long-time FDR member.  We spoke about her family situation, a recent trip she took, and a couple of paragraphs from The Last Psychiatrist - (a topic I might call Stefan about). 

 

At some point in the conversation, it clicked for me why she appreciates talking to me.  So I said, "And now I know why you like me." 

 

And she quickly replied, "If I could photocopy you, I would.  If I could make you teach in universities I would.  You're such a breath of fresh air compared to what goes on here and on the board." 

 

So while you were anticipating victory in the competition by pointing out the downvotes I've received, I was winning the competition by helping that woman IN REAL LIFE.    Only a fool thinks that negative or positive attention on the message board is comparable to negative or positive attention in real life.  (And you're not the only person who thinks that way.) 

[David Ottinger]

I'll take that as a no.  And I had to confirm that for myself since I grew up around many emmigrants, so it is not uncommon for me that such a woeful disconnect is the result of English being a 2nd language.  

 

Given that it's not.  The show is all yours. 

[Koroviev]

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.

[MMX2010]

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.

 

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.

 

 

 

 

Simply because you happen to be arguing the side that is correct does not make you better than the other person.

 

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. 

[Koroviev]

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?" 

[MMX2010]

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?

 

"Are you saying as soon as there is an audience the goal is no longer the truth?"  (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.) 

 

 

 

 

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?" 

 

"Should people not reflect on what kind of person their arguments make them?"  (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.) 

 

"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.)

 

"What does this say about people who argue that being correct makes you a better person, and that people who are incorrect "lose?" (I don't know.  Why don't you find someone who explicitly made that argument and give your opinion?)

[Koroviev]

 (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.

[MMX2010]

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.

 

Have you ever wanted to watch a movie to kill time AND have fun?  I ask, because every time you make a counter-argument, you reduce the focus to ONE GOAL.  (As if I can't Game a chick to make her laugh AND to pass the time AND to hopefully get laid.)  That ONE GOAL focus is really annoying, and doesn't exist in the real world.

 

As for the last part, YES.  So deal with it. 

 

 

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?

 

 

AGAIN.  All-or-nothing thinking with zero nuance.  Is it a bad thing to reflect or not?  ONLY two choices, ONLY yes/no answer. 

 

Meanwhile, a nuanced answer like, "It is bad for koroviev to reflect, but not bad at all for MMX2010 to reflect." would drive you nuts, because you can't see how that could be possible, let alone plausible, let alone true. 

 

 

 

 "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.freedo...-you/?p=408157)I'm just applying this to both parties involved in the discussion.

 

 

You should only be applying it to yourself, because you're the one who keeps re-visiting it.  And you're the one who started this thread to discuss it. 

 

I only mention it in response to you mentioning it.  I get downvoted twenty times a day, and do you hear me telling people, "Just because you downvote me, doesn't mean you're better than me as a person?"  No.  Because it never occurs to me to say such a thing. 

[Koroviev]

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!

[thebeardslastcall]

I get downvoted twenty times a day, and do you hear me telling people, "Just because you downvote me, doesn't mean you're better than me as a person?"  No.  Because it never occurs to me to say such a thing. 

 

 

I only mention it in response

 

 

That ONE GOAL focus is really annoying, and doesn't exist in the real world.

AGAIN.  All-or-nothing thinking with zero nuance.  Is it a bad thing to reflect or not?  ONLY two choices, ONLY yes/no answer. 

 

 

You should only be applying it to yourself

 

 So deal with it. 

[MMX2010]

Well this is obviously getting nowhere and it seems like you are way more emotionally vested in this than I am.

 

Makes enormous presumption about my emotional state, and then says.

 

 

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.

 

 

Meanwhile, a person who really cares about personal attacks treads extremely lightly around making personal presumptions. 

 

A phony person who routinely personal attacks, FIRST personally attacks and THEN says "It wasn't my intent to personally attack you."  (As if your intention decides whether you were personally attacking, rather than my emotional sense that you are or aren't attacking me.)