Arguing with irrationality

[plato85]

6 hours ago, _LiveFree_ said:

What's tough is recognizing that when we try to convince people in our lives who are unconvincible we are betraying ourselves through self-erasure.

 

Deep stuff Livefree. Calling Dr F!

 

I was brought up with political discussions at the dinner table where I learnt that political discussion was the most interesting discussion and battle of wits. I thought this was interesting and normal, while other families were talking about their days and the monotonous things they do. I've continued that love of discussing ideas, but my ideas have come a long way from the PC ideas of my Mum and Brother and now I have a very strange relationship with them. I don't know how else to relate to them other than the discussion of politics and ideas, that's how we grew up.

I guess if I could figure out how to switch on someones rationality I could have a normal relationship with my Mum.

[plato85]

17 hours ago, Xcalyba said:

Vox Day talks about this, and he gives some great advice for dealing with SJWs

Thanks Xcalyba. This guy is switched on.

[_LiveFree_]

14 hours ago, Tyler H said:

You don't think how to influence people who don't listen to reason is a tough question?

And I explained why.

Why would you not respond to the rest of the post if you have a question like that?

[_LiveFree_]

12 hours ago, plato85 said:

 

Deep stuff Livefree. Calling Dr F!

 

I was brought up with political discussions at the dinner table where I learnt that political discussion was the most interesting discussion and battle of wits. I thought this was interesting and normal, while other families were talking about their days and the monotonous things they do. I've continued that love of discussing ideas, but my ideas have come a long way from the PC ideas of my Mum and Brother and now I have a very strange relationship with them. I don't know how else to relate to them other than the discussion of politics and ideas, that's how we grew up.

I guess if I could figure out how to switch on someones rationality I could have a normal relationship with my Mum.

While political discussions are better then mundane day-to-day junk, they are not a substitute for honest discussions about what you feel and what your experience is in the world. I think you're ready for those discussions and your family is not, hence the disconnect. 

[_LiveFree_]

15 hours ago, DaVinci said:

We don't need to go over anything. You made a claim that you can judge who is irrational in five minutes with a few questions. You haven't said what those questions are. At this point I'm just trying to figure out why not. Trying to deflect to "Watch Stef's show" isn't cutting it. There doesn't seem to be any good reason why you haven't provided me with a list. It's like me saying "I know five foods that will boost your metabolism" and someone responds "What are they?" and I respond back. "Go to the grocery store. That's where the foods are." Why respond back to a question asking for clarification of info with something that doesn't clarify anything? Are we just playing a chess game now? If so, I'm not interested in that. All I'm interested in is for you to directly answer my original question.

"Isn't cutting it" isn't an argument. None of what you said makes any sense if you're a long time listener. Yes, I hold long time listeners to a higher standard. I'm not going to approach you like some normie. If you have a problem with that, I can't help you. Move on.

[Meister]

21 hours ago, Tyler H said:

It's not that they are totally lost, it's about the opportunity cost. You can poor x hours into this guy to change his mind, of which there is no guarantee that it will stick, or you can spend that time trying to convince people who will listen to reason and therefore be more likely to hold the position without your reinforcement. Ideally they will go out and try to convince others as well. We're not defeatists, we're economists. 

From what you've said it sounds like you're friend needs a dose of self knowledge before any dose of reason will help him. 

 

Debating.  I should mention that was part in jest with reference to the earlier posts about when to stop trying to reason with people. It would be one of multiple factors I think, but if someone starts debating what reality is then you're not headed in the right direction. 

This is a philosophy forum. 

I'm asking you what reality is.

Seems like an existential question to me ...

[shirgall]

The cynical person in me says that you influence and ultimately control low intelligence and low information people (both populations overlap with the set of irrational people) by inventing a big lie and investing heavily in ephemeral good consequences for believing it and imply immeasurably bad consequences for not believing it, reinforcing it with well-paid authorities and celebrities that endlessly repeat the lie, and by instilling social benefits and costs (community and ostracism). 

Invent a disease. Sell the cure.

Just because it works doesn't make it right, though.

[Tyler H]

1 hour ago, Meister said:

This is a philosophy forum. 

I'm asking you what reality is.

Seems like an existential question to me ...

My apologies. That which exists. What is existence? That which is able to be detected or measured, regardless of our knowledge of the means with which to do so. That's the definition I work with, I'm always open to improvements upon it.

 

1 hour ago, _LiveFree_ said:

And I explained why.

Why would you not respond to the rest of the post if you have a question like that?

Because it seemed to me we were talking about two different things so I was trying to clarify. There's the question of how to change people's minds who don't listen to reason, and the question of when to accept that you can't and move on. While I agree that the answers you gave are maybe the best we have for persuading people without reason, there must be more or the problem would be solved. If we had the answer then we could be out there changing the minds of the unreasonable right now.

It seemed to me that your remarks to which I did not respond (and I agree with most everything you said in regards to this) were more applicable to enhancing the relationships in your life (including the one with yourself), hence the question, which I admit should have been framed more obviously as a request for clarification. I apologize if I've misunderstood your posts. Perhaps through mine you can see where maybe I've gotten confused and clarify.  

[Meister]

1 hour ago, Tyler H said:

My apologies. That which exists. What is existence? That which is able to be detected or measured, regardless of our knowledge of the means with which to do so. That's the definition I work with, I'm always open to improvements upon it. 

Detection and measurement is based on your brain interpreting the impulses received from your nervous system. What you preceive as reality is a mere interpretation of these various inputs.

Because of that I would argue that on the rational plain of consciousness you cannot prove that there is an objective reality.

And since all rationalisations are based on these interpretations it appears to me as if ratio (or the mind) is an incapable tool to decerne actual "truth".

[_LiveFree_]

1 hour ago, Tyler H said:

My apologies. That which exists. What is existence? That which is able to be detected or measured, regardless of our knowledge of the means with which to do so. That's the definition I work with, I'm always open to improvements upon it.

 

Because it seemed to me we were talking about two different things so I was trying to clarify. There's the question of how to change people's minds who don't listen to reason, and the question of when to accept that you can't and move on. While I agree that the answers you gave are maybe the best we have for persuading people without reason, there must be more or the problem would be solved. If we had the answer then we could be out there changing the minds of the unreasonable right now.

It seemed to me that your remarks to which I did not respond (and I agree with most everything you said in regards to this) were more applicable to enhancing the relationships in your life (including the one with yourself), hence the question, which I admit should have been framed more obviously as a request for clarification. I apologize if I've misunderstood your posts. Perhaps through mine you can see where maybe I've gotten confused and clarify.  

Thank you, yes I understand the confusion now.

If someone's mind is not open to reason and evidence, it is because of some emotional attachment to a thing that would be affected by a change of mind on the subject. The natural state of the human mind is curiosity. It wants to know new things. When the mind shuts down through some trauma, reason and evidence for whatever the issue you'd like to change their mind on cease being effective tools. You have to come at the problem sideways, backwards, and upside down. You can change someone's mind who's mind is not open, but it requires an enormous investment in time, patience, the skills to know what to ask and when, and the reputation with that person so they will give you the time needed. It's looking for food 5 miles under the surface of the sea, pitch black, and no bearings. Basically, you have to open their mind by applying reason, evidence, empathy, and emotional space over a long period of time to the memory of the original point of trauma that is shutting off their mind on whatever issue you want to change their mind on. Here's where it starts to suck. Even if you invest of yourself 100% into opening someone's mind, they may never do so. They can keep you spinning your wheels forever. 

So why did I give my original answer? Because it is not worth your time to do this. Why sacrifice yourself for one person? What about the other people in your life who would lose out on experiencing you? Why go deep sea diving with very low chances of success when there is low hanging fruit all around you? Some fruit has even fallen from the tree and lays at your feet. Time is of the essence and we need numbers. 

 

So make a choice. Are you going to live your own life and allow those who love you for who you really are to experience life with you? Or are you going to crucify yourself at the alter of someone else's cowardice, because you are too much of a coward to accept that they have their own choices to make, which may not include you? 

 

We are not talking about two different things.

 

 

edit: It also could be that they are only slightly hung up on something, but apply reason and evidence for the most part. If this is the case, start on common ground. Always start on common ground. 

[_LiveFree_]

8 minutes ago, Meister said:

Detection and measurement is based on your brain interpreting the impulses received from your nervous system. What you preceive as reality is a mere interpretation of these various inputs.

Because of that I would argue that on the rational plain of consciousness you cannot prove that there is an objective reality.

And since all rationalisations are based on these interpretations it appears to me as if ratio (or the mind) is an incapable tool to decerne actual "truth".

And yet, here you are using a language you understand with the assumption those you're talking to understand it, too. Is it true that you understand what I just wrote to you?

[Meister]

1 minute ago, _LiveFree_ said:

And yet, here you are using a language you understand with the assumption those you're talking to understand it, too. Is it true that you understand what I just wrote to you?

I don't know that for sure and neither do you.

I'm not arguing that rational isn't a useful tool in day to day life. It certainly is!

But if you are looking for some actual truth then your mind is obviously not the right instrument to deliver that.

[_LiveFree_]

5 hours ago, Meister said:

I don't know that for sure and neither do you.

I'm not arguing that rational isn't a useful tool in day to day life. It certainly is!

But if you are looking for some actual truth then your mind is obviously not the right instrument to deliver that.

If you cannot concede this very very basic point, please stop with the philosophy. You're hurting yourself and others. 

This is completely dishonest and vile. 

[Tyler H]

6 hours ago, _LiveFree_ said:

So why did I give my original answer? Because it is not worth your time to do this. Why sacrifice yourself for one person? What about the other people in your life who would lose out on experiencing you? Why go deep sea diving with very low chances of success when there is low hanging fruit all around you? Some fruit has even fallen from the tree and lays at your feet. Time is of the essence and we need numbers. 

I thought you were generalizing with these statements, but now I think you might have been directing advice towards another poster and confused them with me. Could that be the case? Because I totally agree with what you're saying so I don't know what I said to imply otherwise. I've been working on make it good or make it gone since I started listening. 

But to the discussion on whether the question is difficult or not I think I understand. Is it your contention that answering the question is simple, but implementation is difficult? And I'm inclined to agree except for the fact that, as you said, you could spend all that time, do everything right, and still not get through to someone. This signals to me that the question of how to change the minds of people who don't listen to reason is not entirely solved. I suppose I'm searching for a deterministic solution in a world of free will, but I would hate to assume I have the answer and stop looking for another. Am I making sense? Of course I don't mean not to work with the best ideas we have on changing minds but I don't want to assume there are no other undiscovered solutions.  That was the reason for my objection against the remark that the question wasn't a tough question. 

[Tyler H]

6 hours ago, Meister said:

I don't know that for sure and neither do you.

I'm not arguing that rational isn't a useful tool in day to day life. It certainly is!

But if you are looking for some actual truth then your mind is obviously not the right instrument to deliver that.

 

56 minutes ago, _LiveFree_ said:

If you cannot concede this very very basic point, please stop with the philosophy. You're hurting yourself and others. 

This is completely dishonest and vile. 

So this is why when you asked "what is reality", Meister, I said I would stop debating. If you can't accept reality and the evidence of your senses, and your mind's ability to process them, then there is no reason to debate at all. 

[DaVinci]

11 hours ago, _LiveFree_ said:

"Isn't cutting it" isn't an argument. None of what you said makes any sense if you're a long time listener. Yes, I hold long time listeners to a higher standard. I'm not going to approach you like some normie. If you have a problem with that, I can't help you. Move on.

I'm not the one who made a claim that I can't back up. It would be easy for you to just list the questions, but you didn't. Instead you engaged in a chess game. Hence trying to pull the "not an argument" move. You either can or can't list these questions, and at this point I'm convinced you can't. Therefore I'll take your advice and move on. 

[_LiveFree_]

1 hour ago, Tyler H said:

I thought you were generalizing with these statements, but now I think you might have been directing advice towards another poster and confused them with me. Could that be the case? Because I totally agree with what you're saying so I don't know what I said to imply otherwise. I've been working on make it good or make it gone since I started listening. 

But to the discussion on whether the question is difficult or not I think I understand. Is it your contention that answering the question is simple, but implementation is difficult? And I'm inclined to agree except for the fact that, as you said, you could spend all that time, do everything right, and still not get through to someone. This signals to me that the question of how to change the minds of people who don't listen to reason is not entirely solved. I suppose I'm searching for a deterministic solution in a world of free will, but I would hate to assume I have the answer and stop looking for another. Am I making sense? Of course I don't mean not to work with the best ideas we have on changing minds but I don't want to assume there are no other undiscovered solutions.  That was the reason for my objection against the remark that the question wasn't a tough question. 

Yes it was all general. Not specific to you. However, now I'll make specific comments to you. 

How do you square a circle? What does blue look like when it's green? How can you know everything and be able to change anything? 

These are illogical questions.  Here's another one. 

How do you change a mind that isn't open to change? 

You can't. It's not that we haven't figured it out. It's that it is completely impossible because the question is illogical. 

Edited April 26, 2017 by _LiveFree_
Grammar

[_LiveFree_]

On 4/20/2017 at 3:40 PM, DaVinci said:

But how do you know they aren't rational until you argue with them? How do you conclude after one conversation that someone is irrational? 

Honesty. 

 

Now call into the show with this question. 

[Meister]

5 hours ago, Tyler H said:

 

So this is why when you asked "what is reality", Meister, I said I would stop debating. If you can't accept reality and the evidence of your senses, and your mind's ability to process them, then there is no reason to debate at all. 

Sounds like the equivalent to "if you can't accept Jesus" I'll stop talking to you.

We know for a fact that all perceptions are mere interpretations of sensory impulses. That means that there is no way to prove that there is an objective reality.

My reality is very likely not your reality and my rationality is very likely not yours.

That's why other people often appear irrational to us.

[Meister]

6 hours ago, _LiveFree_ said:

If you cannot concede this very very basic point, please stop with the philosophy. You're hurting yourself and others. 

This is completely dishonest and vile. 

What's dishonest and vile about it? 

Sounds like you just want me to ignore the fact that you have no way of proving to me any form of reality or rational.

[plato85]

I just got access to THE BRONZE FILES! and by chance the first FILE I picked addresses this discussion. It's called 'Libertopia Speech Rehersal: Take 1'

The general premise is that the best way to influence people who are closed to reason is to live the good life, lead by example, and everyone will want to come to our side. His arguments are Freudian, he argues that most peoples outlook are built up of words like-tales and that can't be penetrated by words. The subconsciousness that needs to be penetrated with reality.

He describes living the good life similar to Rand. He lives his life by his own standard and doesn't let people with standards he deeply disagrees with into his life, and he doesn't let them get him down.

[_LiveFree_]

5 hours ago, Meister said:

What's dishonest and vile about it? 

Sounds like you just want me to ignore the fact that you have no way of proving to me any form of reality or rational.

You claim there is no way to know reality, but you keep making claims about reality.

Logic, reason and evidence are all derived from reality. Yet you try to use them to convince others they can't use them to know reality. This is what tyrants do. This is what truly evil people do. They get you to deny your own perception so that they can supplant it with their own.

"There is no such thing as truth!" Really? So is it true there is no such thing as truth?

sorry, won't work on me. I don't care how scary your parents were to you as a child.

Now, if you are curious at all about what I've just said we can continue. However, if you persist in trying to get me to turn against myself, I'll simply block you for being a complete piece of crap. 

Here's where we get to see what's really in your heart.

 

[Meister]

4 hours ago, _LiveFree_ said:

You claim there is no way to know reality, but you keep making claims about reality.

Logic, reason and evidence are all derived from reality. Yet you try to use them to convince others they can't use them to know reality. This is what tyrants do. This is what truly evil people do. They get you to deny your own perception so that they can supplant it with their own.

"There is no such thing as truth!" Really? So is it true there is no such thing as truth?

sorry, won't work on me. I don't care how scary your parents were to you as a child.

Now, if you are curious at all about what I've just said we can continue. However, if you persist in trying to get me to turn against myself, I'll simply block you for being a complete piece of crap. 

Here's where we get to see what's really in your heart.

 

 Don't like the argument I made? Resort to name calling and "blocking" aka cultivating your digital safe space. 

 

[Tyler H]

16 hours ago, _LiveFree_ said:

How do you change a mind that isn't open to change? 

You can't. It's not that we haven't figured it out. It's that it is completely impossible because the question is illogical. 

But that wasn't the question. It's not that they can't be changed, it's that they resist change by way of reason and evidence. 

 

11 hours ago, Meister said:

Sounds like the equivalent to "if you can't accept Jesus" I'll stop talking to you.

We know for a fact that all perceptions are mere interpretations of sensory impulses. That means that there is no way to prove that there is an objective reality.

My reality is very likely not your reality and my rationality is very likely not yours.

That's why other people often appear irrational to us.

Why would a Christian try to convert someone who said, "there's nothing you could ever possibly do or say to get me to believe in God"?  The wise choice, if they're interested in getting as many people through the pearly gates as they can and their isn't a sentimental tie, would be to move on to people they could persuade. That's all it is. If you reject reality we have nothing to talk about. 

[Meister]

13 minutes ago, Tyler H said:

But that wasn't the question. It's not that they can't be changed, it's that they resist change by way of reason and evidence. 

 

Why would a Christian try to convert someone who said, "there's nothing you could ever possibly do or say to get me to believe in God"?  The wise choice, if they're interested in getting as many people through the pearly gates as they can and their isn't a sentimental tie, would be to move on to people they could persuade. That's all it is. If you reject reality we have nothing to talk about. 

The title of this thread is "arguing with irrationality". I think my contribution is spot on.

I brought forward an argument why there is no objective reality.

This argument also uses rationality to disprove itself.

So far nobody has bothered refuting or even adressing any of this.

If you are interested you might want to google "radical constructivism" and "objectivism vs subjectivism".

[Tyler H]

2 minutes ago, Meister said:

This argument also uses rationality to disprove itself.

It uses rationality to disprove rationality? If it disproves rationality then rationality is no longer a viable method of disproof. You can't see the contradiction in this statement?

[_LiveFree_]

2 hours ago, Tyler H said:

But that wasn't the question. It's not that they can't be changed, it's that they resist change by way of reason and evidence. 

 

I'm sorry. Please restate the question. Maybe I've missed something.

[_LiveFree_]

On 4/24/2017 at 6:28 PM, Tyler H said:

You don't think how to influence people who don't listen to reason is a tough question?

This is what I was responding to. What this not the question you wanted answered?

[RichardY]

2 hours ago, Meister said:

The title of this thread is "arguing with irrationality". I think my contribution is spot on.

I brought forward an argument why there is no objective reality.

This argument also uses rationality to disprove itself.

So far nobody has bothered refuting or even adressing any of this.

If you are interested you might want to google "radical constructivism" and "objectivism vs subjectivism".

I didn't notice an argument for no objective reality, only questions and comments. If you quote it, I'll have a look.

Reality involves measurement, limits and therefore mirroring and division of an entity(biological significance(replication)) subjectively chosen. "Man is the measure of all things."

Existence is subjective; dependent on sensory experience. The mind has the capacity for objective reality and existence; through the mirroring of behaviour, development of Ethics, language and cultural objects(eg.. Cult of Pythagoras, Sacred geometry). Ayn Rand was known to confer with the Austrian School of Economics about the "Subjective theory of value"(a subjective reality/Praxeology).  Reason is biological.

[HasMat]

9 hours ago, Meister said:

The title of this thread is "arguing with irrationality". I think my contribution is spot on.

I brought forward an argument why there is no objective reality.

This argument also uses rationality to disprove itself.

So far nobody has bothered refuting or even adressing any of this.

If you are interested you might want to google "radical constructivism" and "objectivism vs subjectivism".

Are you saying you have been playing Devil's Advocate, and trying to embody "arguing with irrationality"?

 

It sounds like you claim to bring forward an argument that disproves itself. Like serving up softball questions so others can tee off.

 

If subject could be fully disconnected from object then objective data could exist. Instead we have the observer effect.

 

Objectivity is a misnomer, what is really meant is "normalized" objectivity by comparing 2 peer observers object (after they try to reduce their own subject). You cannot observe an object without a subject. This is what Schrodingers cat is all about. Subjectivity and objectivity cannot fully divide/isolate.

 

I think the moral relativism problem is when people claim there is no "normalized" objectivity and relativity is infinitely boundless (this is the opposite error wherein you falsely believe you can truly isolated subjectivity--sciencism is when you truly believe you can isolate objects). We have a shared reality, but verification of its viewpoint invariance requires others not gas-light us. Epistemologically, verification of truth is gated behind social behavior. This is necessarily true (a priori) because of absolute objectivity being impossible and socially-aggregated "normalized" objectivity being the next-best-thing.

 

Reducing our own subjectivity and reporting our normalized object is how an Invisible Hand can aggregate normalized data towards an approximate truth. A real moral truth does exist for subjects, just like a real object exists. But we can't actually perceive either alone directly, because they are intertwined and have no coherence outside the other's context.

 

There is an objective reality we just can't experience it outside our own subject, and we can't test it outside other's feedback. Social feedback is an important tool to know if you are crazy or not. The Reason->Evidence cycle is only as valid as your sanity. Crazy people are Reason-Evidence cycling themselves to "know" they are Napoleon. Each of our perception of our own ability to judge our rationality is socially-derived. As a child this awareness commonly plagued me when I was told I was smart. Ultimately I had no irreducible access to whether this was true, its just something externals told me. I can't say my existential experience is any different than a mentally-retarded kid being told the same thing. Maybe that is me, as it were. My best evidence to the contrary is socially-derived, because if my thought-process sucked I wouldn't necessarily know/understand it. A reasonable proof doesn't conclusively map to the evidence I have access to.

 

My understanding of this thread is that its intent is more about rhetoric and less about epistemology, although you did bring it up.

 

In general I think we are very timid to name irrationality. When people say they should ostracize and boycott irrationality, they really mean the stronger fortified versions. We are all doing irrational things all the time, and need correction. Just like our spouses, children, others we love. "Arguing" is probably not a good activity re: irrationality, but if we love irrational people we care about helping them. Killing irrational people would start with suicide. We ought to be measured in our punishment of it, because we are aren't perfect.

 

[plato85]

There's been some good arguments here.

It's time to up the ante. 

Given the arguments put forward in this thread I've rephrased the thread titled 'combatting newspeak'.

[Meister]

On 4/26/2017 at 9:33 PM, Tyler H said:

It uses rationality to disprove rationality? If it disproves rationality then rationality is no longer a viable method of disproof. You can't see the contradiction in this statement?

Indeed. Like a dog chasing it's own tail isn't it.

[Tyler H]

 

On 4/26/2017 at 5:48 PM, _LiveFree_ said:

On 4/24/2017 at 7:28 PM, Tyler H said:

You don't think how to influence people who don't listen to reason is a tough question?

This is what I was responding to. What this not the question you wanted answered?

 

On 4/26/2017 at 4:49 PM, _LiveFree_ said:

 

I'm sorry. Please restate the question. Maybe I've missed something.

I thought, perhaps incorrectly, that you were equivocating how to influence people who don't listen to reason and how to change a mind that can't be changed. The former being the question which I believe our best answer at this point in time is the original answer you provided (living your principles, being genuinely happy) yet still unsolved as we can't successfully reproduce the result we desire with this method,  and the latter being an obvious contradiction. 

I think we agree on enough here that it might not be all that productive to hammer out the edges just yet, would you agree?

[_LiveFree_]

7 minutes ago, Tyler H said:

 

 

I thought, perhaps incorrectly, that you were equivocating how to influence people who don't listen to reason and how to change a mind that can't be changed. The former being the question which I believe our best answer at this point in time is the original answer you provided (living your principles, being genuinely happy) yet still unsolved as we can't successfully reproduce the result we desire with this method,  and the latter being an obvious contradiction. 

I think we agree on enough here that it might not be all that productive to hammer out the edges just yet, would you agree?

Fair enough, we agree. I still don't see the difference between "people who don't listen" and "...mind that can't be changed". If there is a distinction, I can understand that creating a issue.  

I am very interested, though, in understanding why you thought I was equivocating. 

[Tyler H]

3 minutes ago, _LiveFree_ said:

Fair enough, we agree. I still don't see the difference between "people who don't listen" and "...mind that can't be changed". If there is a distinction, I can understand that creating a issue.  

I am very interested, though, in understanding why you thought I was equivocating. 

Sorry, I recognize equivocation has a negative, deceptive connotation to it and that's not what I meant. I just meant that you were treating the questions as synonymous. Perhaps I should have used the term conflating. I guess how I interpret the questions is that people who don't listen to reason, can be influenced- just not by reason. And people who's minds can't be changed, well if nothing can change their mind, neither reason, evidence, deception, appeal to self interest, nothing, then trying to influence their thoughts or behavior would be worse than a waste of time.