NotDarkYet Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 http://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-win-an-argument-2015-10?ref=yfp It seems that appealing to a neurological explanation for some behavior is a check-mate in most arguments. Interesting. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
regevdl Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 Stefan name drops these all of the time in his podcasts.... are we being brainwashed? lol 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Mister Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 I still go with slander and shaming Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romulox Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 http://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-win-an-argument-2015-10?ref=yfp It seems that appealing to a neurological explanation for some behavior is a check-mate in most arguments. Interesting. I disagree. When you present an argument from neuroscience, your neo-cortex produces a rush of oxytocin that only creates the illusion of you winning the argument. Check-mate 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotDarkYet Posted October 28, 2015 Author Share Posted October 28, 2015 If somebody agrees with you, haven't you won the argument? The ACTUAL truth an an argument, I suppose you're right, isn't up to either one of you. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gee Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 Psychologists have rediscovered sophistry? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 The ACTUAL truth an an argument, I suppose you're right, isn't up to either one of you. Quoted for emphasis. Somebody who possesses self-knowledge shares information in a shared pursuit of the truth. For somebody who didn't have the information to accept the truth isn't a "win" for the person providing the information because there wasn't an emotional investment. If somebody rejects that 2+2=4, what do I care? If I'm able to show them how 2+2!=5, I might feel good that I possess the ability to articulate ideas in a convincing manner. But I certainly didn't win anything. Ironically, I think people that look at debate as win/lose have already lost. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frackin Around Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 Quoted for emphasis. Somebody who possesses self-knowledge shares information in a shared pursuit of the truth. For somebody who didn't have the information to accept the truth isn't a "win" for the person providing the information because there wasn't an emotional investment. If somebody rejects that 2+2=4, what do I care? If I'm able to show them how 2+2!=5, I might feel good that I possess the ability to articulate ideas in a convincing manner. But I certainly didn't win anything. Ironically, I think people that look at debate as win/lose have already lost. I agree. In my experience, an honest debate is always win-win. Either I strengthen my ability to articulate valid, factual arguments convincingly, or I am exposed to better information and have the opportunity to change my positions accordingly. People who look at arguments as purely win/lose are doing so because they do have something to lose if the truth is known. They are fundamentally only ever arguing about themselves, working backwards from the conclusion that "I'm not guilty and that which shows me as guilty I'm going to smear and heckle and abuse." They are afraid to be exposed as cowards who hide in relativist morality and nihilism, or as supporters and perpetrators of grave evil, often times with their very own hands. These people do not want to change, and it is almost always a waste of time to argue with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AccuTron Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 2+2!=5 Is that a typo? Or 2 factorial, which is equal to 2 anyway. Either way, I got a math nostalgia hit seeing a number as factorial. " It wouldn't make sense to "talk neuro" about climate change" The above is from the article. I beg to differ. HONEST research shows it's 100% fraud, falsified data, totally bogus techniques, huge money... but trying to tell someone that I read every word of (sic) ~1,500 websites on the topic, over 60+ hours, gets me a dirty look quite often, "Oh you bad person, you researched honestly!!" Oops, somebody might not be the silver clad social warrior they thought they were, can't have that. In passing, is anyone here capable of noting that many websites might amount to something? Amazes me how that is just ignored when I try to explain to someone. God forbid I could get them to look at even one bit of evidence. EGO REFUSAL!!! And that is totally neuro. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotDarkYet Posted October 29, 2015 Author Share Posted October 29, 2015 To the rational, this knowledge is just another tool of persuasion - - like being nice, or not looking like a bum. It's not a logical argument in and of itself - only a tool for those wishing to push for freedom and truth. And certainly if our enemies know this, we should too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agalloch Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 2+2!=5 Is that a typo? "!=" means "not equal to" it comes from Software Development, specifically C-like languages. The factorial confusion is reasonable though, that why I prefer "<>" as in many BASIC-like languages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shirgall Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 "!=" means "not equal to" it comes from Software Development, specifically C-like languages. The factorial confusion is reasonable though, that why I prefer "<>" as in many BASIC-like languages. Not everyone knows how to enter "≠" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 Sorry for the confusion. I read 2+2!=5 as two plus two does not equal five. I was not aware it was a potential source of ambiguity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AccuTron Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 Sorry for the confusion. I read 2+2!=5 as two plus two does not equal five. I was not aware it was a potential source of ambiguity. This may be one of the signature posts on all of FDR. We have what should seem the simplest thing possible, two plus two equals four, unless it isn't, and we have what, three interpretations so far? What hope is there for all other issues?!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 lol Nah, it just shows that ideas are more important and that words serve ideas. I know a guy who's not big into real conversations, so he plays devil's advocate just for the sake of contributing without actually investing HIMSELF. If I say 2+2=4, he objects that this isn't absolutely true because in base 3, it would be a false statement. But the words aren't what matters, it's the idea. The concept of four is the same whether you express it as 11 in base 3 or 4 in base 10. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AccuTron Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 lol... The concept of four is the same whether you express it as 11 in base 3 or 4 in base 10. Ah, stability. I feel better now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts