How do you think?

[Mole]

There is no point in having an opinion if you don't know how to come to your own critical opinion in the first place. Stefan's videos and podcasts are great, and Iv'e listened to at least a thousand of them. Though, I think they would be of much greater value if I could critically analyse them. When I debate with people, when I interact with people in general, I feel a great lack of empathy from myself and people around me. Arguments are usually misunderstood, and emotions can flare. Sometimes I will go into a debate but then find out Iv'e misunderstood a single word at the very start, and I will find they they have also misunderstood what I have said. I have always had this suspicion that the world just generally lacks empathy, and people don't even know it. A suspicion that if only I could learn some core empathy, my ability to reason would go into hyper drive. People think they are social and intellectual geniuses within their own culture, but as soon as they clash with a different culture, they feel anxious and lost. I want to get rid of these cultural barriers, I want to learn the one thing that makes us human. Empathy. Where can I learn it? Is it something you get from therapy? Self help books? Can it be learned from logic and philosophy courses? Perhaps FDR has some series on how to think?

[sweathog1]

I'll bite, my opinions come from personal experience. Empathy well it depends on the persons sanity, but I do probably know of a few insults you haven't yet heard. Yup I do have a few questions  about  Stefan once in awhile, but he is Jesus for his followers. (;

 

We're humans naw.

[labmath2]

There is no point in having an opinion if you don't know how to come to your own critical opinion in the first place. Stefan's videos and podcasts are great, and Iv'e listened to at least a thousand of them. Though, I think they would be of much greater value if I could critically analyse them. When I debate with people, when I interact with people in general, I feel a great lack of empathy from myself and people around me. Arguments are usually misunderstood, and emotions can flare. Sometimes I will go into a debate but then find out Iv'e misunderstood a single word at the very start, and I will find they they have also misunderstood what I have said. I have always had this suspicion that the world just generally lacks empathy, and people don't even know it. A suspicion that if only I could learn some core empathy, my ability to reason would go into hyper drive. People think they are social and intellectual geniuses within their own culture, but as soon as they clash with a different culture, they feel anxious and lost. I want to get rid of these cultural barriers, I want to learn the one thing that makes us human. Empathy. Where can I learn it? Is it something you get from therapy? Self help books? Can it be learned from logic and philosophy courses? Perhaps FDR has some series on how to think?

The best way is to have a lot of conversations with that person. You start to get a glimpse of their speech style, their argument format, and their rules of engagement. This allows you to know if you can persuade them and match your converrsation style to theirs for maximum efficiency. Empathy comes down to one thing, familiarity. The closer you feel to someone the easier it is to empathize. The more conversations you have with a wide variety of individuals the more likely you have encountered an archetype for anyone you meet which lets you feel like you know them more easily.

[spacebar]

I use my own mind to form opinions. I think it's a mistake to rely on others for guidance, especially in the formative early years.

 

When we are young we tend to use the words of the supposed "experts" as a short cut to knowledge and end up thinking their information or philosophy is incontrovertible. And so we lean on it as a replacement for real thinking simply because we are young and it's too difficult and messy to figure out the truth for ourselves.

 

Children should be taught to stick with what little they have learned and settled on as truth themselves and not seek the quick answers by just agreeing with someone else. That's how cults form. People are too lazy and unsure of themselves to rely on their own judgment.

 

Speaking of Stefan's videos, does anyone know if it's okay for me to use screen shots of some graphs from his videos? I can't find the graphs he uses any where.

 

Or maybe there is some way I can ask Stefan for permission directly?

 

Thanks.

[Tyler H]

There is no point in having an opinion if you don't know how to come to your own critical opinion in the first place. Stefan's videos and podcasts are great, and Iv'e listened to at least a thousand of them. Though, I think they would be of much greater value if I could critically analyse them. When I debate with people, when I interact with people in general, I feel a great lack of empathy from myself and people around me. Arguments are usually misunderstood, and emotions can flare. Sometimes I will go into a debate but then find out Iv'e misunderstood a single word at the very start, and I will find they they have also misunderstood what I have said. I have always had this suspicion that the world just generally lacks empathy, and people don't even know it. A suspicion that if only I could learn some core empathy, my ability to reason would go into hyper drive. People think they are social and intellectual geniuses within their own culture, but as soon as they clash with a different culture, they feel anxious and lost. I want to get rid of these cultural barriers, I want to learn the one thing that makes us human. Empathy. Where can I learn it? Is it something you get from therapy? Self help books? Can it be learned from logic and philosophy courses? Perhaps FDR has some series on how to think?

In order to empathize with others you first need to be able to empathize with yourself.  In other words, in order to understand how someone else feels, you need to be able to fully experience and accurately identify your own feelings.  This is an area where self knowledge and therapy can really help.

 

In regards to debating, after you've developed your empathic muscles, get people to define their terms. Clear up the misunderstandings at the very start.  If something sounds ambiguous get them to clarify and hold them to that definition, or offer up a different one if you disagree, but make things as clear as possible so they can't move the goalposts later.  If they do, then you can call them out on it much easier with the backup of their own prior agreement.

 

As far as how to think - reason and evidence.  Ask yourself how do I know this? Is it logically consistent? Does the empirical data match the sense data and does this data reinforce my logical analysis? This is where some books or classes on logic will help.  Here's a website that explains some logical fallacies that I found useful.  Wikipedia's list is a little more extensive.  This will help improve your logic.  If you haven't already, I would also recommend Stef's podcast series An Introduction to Philosophy.

 

Do you mind if I ask which thousand podcasts you listened to? Was it a certain block of them or did you jump around?

[Matthew Ed Moran]

Expecting to be able to critically analyze Stefan's arguments or create original arguments of your own that are just as good without thousands of hours of study and practice is just as unrealistic as expecting to critically analyze a piece of great classical music without the necessary study and practice. 

 

Also, you can practice on your own, and you can study the greats, but until you have an audience it will be difficult to judge how you want to communicate your points. If you have difficulty changing the mind of one person, it may not be your fault, but theirs. If you get a large enough sample and you have put the work in behind the scenes, I don't think anything can realistically hold you back from becoming a great communicator.

 

I find myself thinking that your focus on empathy is an act of despair. There isn't a scientific way to create empathy in people who don't have it, and most people who claims to be able to do so are manipulative mystics who believe in the magic of the soul. If you focus on crafting your arguments and practicing them in front of an audience, it won't anyway matter because the empathetic people will naturally be drawn to the truth. Trying to create empathetic people and then change their minds is infinitely less productive than focusing on people who already have empathy.

[Tyler H]

Expecting to be able to critically analyze Stefan's arguments or create original arguments of your own that are just as good without thousands of hours of study and practice is just as unrealistic as expecting to critically analyze a piece of great classical music without the necessary study and practice. 

 

Also, you can practice on your own, and you can study the greats, but until you have an audience it will be difficult to judge how you want to communicate your points. If you have difficulty changing the mind of one person, it may not be your fault, but theirs. If you get a large enough sample and you have put the work in behind the scenes, I don't think anything can realistically hold you back from becoming a great communicator.

 

I find myself thinking that your focus on empathy is an act of despair. There isn't a scientific way to create empathy in people who don't have it, and most people who claims to be able to do so are manipulative mystics who believe in the magic of the soul. If you focus on crafting your arguments and practicing them in front of an audience, it won't anyway matter because the empathetic people will naturally be drawn to the truth. Trying to create empathetic people and then change their minds is infinitely less productive than focusing on people who already have empathy.

I don't think he expressed a desire to create empathy in others, only himself. To recognize the lack of empathy in the world I think is a wise thing. Focusing on empathy for yourself first and foremost is paramount to avoiding an excess of empathy towards those who do not deserve it. You want to empathize with an attacker so you understand his motives and the danger you are in, but not as much as you empathize with yourself so you can act in your own interest as much as possible to the best of your ability. What you don't want is to empathize with others more than you or they empathize with yourself, that will lead to exploitation at best and death at worst.

 

So focusing on increasing empathy in others may be an act that will lead to despair and paralysis, but focusing on empathy within yourself for yourself and for others is the first step in being able to sustain the motivation needed to apply yourself in the other ways you mentioned; preparation and execution. You will never find the will to help the world if you don't have empathy for yourself or others.

[Matthew Ed Moran]

I don't think he expressed a desire to create empathy in others, only himself. To recognize the lack of empathy in the world I think is a wise thing. Focusing on empathy for yourself first and foremost is paramount to avoiding an excess of empathy towards those who do not deserve it. You want to empathize with an attacker so you understand his motives and the danger you are in, but not as much as you empathize with yourself so you can act in your own interest as much as possible to the best of your ability. What you don't want is to empathize with others more than you or they empathize with yourself, that will lead to exploitation at best and death at worst.

 

So focusing on increasing empathy in others may be an act that will lead to despair and paralysis, but focusing on empathy within yourself for yourself and for others is the first step in being able to sustain the motivation needed to apply yourself in the other ways you mentioned; preparation and execution. You will never find the will to help the world if you don't have empathy for yourself or others.

 

Either the person he's going to be communicating to have empathy, in which case they will be receptive to good arguments - or they won't have empathy, in which case he'll need to be capable of dismantling their emotional manipulation with good arguments. 

 

I think you're correct that empathy/self knowledge/courage is important to become a good debater and communicator in general, but I would guess (could be completely wrong) he has a capacity for these things already, and what he lacks most is preparation and experience. 

 

I think your focus on the usefulness of empathy is valuable and essential, but I think in terms of being able to reason fluidly against opposing arguments, you need to be familiar as possible beforehand what you are going up against and what angle you think is best to attack it. 

 

I think this is also essential because people who oppose reason tend to use the same arguments: moral relativity, class, economic determinism. I tend to experience that without a game plan and a few principles to rely on that have been mastered, it can become easily frustrating to try and argue against these ideas with data.

[Tyler H]

Either the person he's going to be communicating to have empathy, in which case they will be receptive to good arguments - or they won't have empathy, in which case he'll need to be capable of dismantling their emotional manipulation with good arguments. 

 

I think you're correct that empathy/self knowledge/courage is important to become a good debater and communicator in general, but I would guess (could be completely wrong) he has a capacity for these things already, and what he lacks most is preparation and experience. 

 

I think your focus on the usefulness of empathy is valuable and essential, but I think in terms of being able to reason fluidly against opposing arguments, you need to be familiar as possible beforehand what you are going up against and what angle you think is best to attack it. 

 

I think this is also essential because people who oppose reason tend to use the same arguments: moral relativity, class, economic determinism. I tend to experience that without a game plan and a few principles to rely on that have been mastered, it can become easily frustrating to try and argue against these ideas with data.

 

I agree.

[Magnetic Synthesizer]

I lean towards the belief that there's likely not much wrong with you and you're much better off testing yourself against the reality of quality people than the average bot.