People offended in the Netherlands

[QwertyDavid]

Hello everybody,

 

I'm currently in high school in the Netherlands, I'm at the highest level at one of the best schools there is, but when I start to talk about politics and propose some rational idea's (no minimum wage, male privilege is bullshit, we should reduce size of government, you can't change your biological sex) everyone (literally everyone) gets super offended and angry at me. I try to bring things as objective and rational as possible but still, everyone gets offended by the facts and I'm worried because these are the smartest people in this country. Have you experienced similar things in other (European) countries?

 

I can't even give facts without people getting offended

[RichardY]

“The man that wandereth out of the way of understanding shall remain in the congregation of the dead.” Proverbs 21:16 & A Pilgrims Progress.

Heard it mentioned at the end of a PC Game Deus Ex Invisible War.

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

Act like they're the ones being the assholes. People who cannot reason will generally side with whoever is alpha. Identify your main opponents in the room and assume the moral high ground when you speak. If you spend your time backpedaling and answer every little question people throw at you, they just assume you don't know what you're talking about, otherwise your behavior would be different.

 

[barn]

Hi @QwertyDavid

 

8 hours ago, QwertyDavid said:

Hello everybody,

 

I'm currently in high school in the Netherlands, I'm at the highest level at one of the best schools there is, but when I start to talk about politics and propose some rational idea's (no minimum wage, male privilege is bullshit, we should reduce size of government, you can't change your biological sex) everyone (literally everyone) gets super offended and angry at me. I try to bring things as objective and rational as possible but still, everyone gets offended by the facts and I'm worried because these are the smartest people in this country. Have you experienced similar things in other (European) countries?

 

I can't even give facts without people getting offended

Just to verify.

Are you making concise arguments to them?

When they ask or comment, do you clarify things?

Barnsley

[QwertyDavid]

22 minutes ago, barn said:

Hi @QwertyDavid

 

Just to verify.

Are you making concise arguments to them?

When they ask or comment, do you clarify things?

Barnsley

 

Yes, Example:

About wage gap

They: There is a wage gap

Me: Why? If there was why would anyone hire a man?
They: Stop denying that there is one, men earn more than women

Me: Why not start a company and only hire women then?

They: That would be discrimination

Me: Isn't the wage gap discrimination then?

They: Stop mansplaining the wage gap

 

Every time it goes the same, they agree on some facts but when you link the facts together they get so angry. For example, They will agree that IQ is lower in Africa, they will agree that IQ is important, but when you say that one of the reasons Africa is unsuccessful is because of IQ they will get angry. It's the same for every socialistic policy. If you say that the minimum wage law is not helping poor people because it takes away opportunities to work for some people they won't listen. Idk maybe it's my way of saying things (a part probably) but I'm concerned about the socialistic view of almost everyone at the high level (few exceptions, most of them just don't care about politics) 

[QwertyDavid]

2 hours ago, Dylan Lawrence Moore said:

Act like they're the ones being the assholes. People who cannot reason will generally side with whoever is alpha. Identify your main opponents in the room and assume the moral high ground when you speak. If you spend your time backpedaling and answer every little question people throw at you, they just assume you don't know what you're talking about, otherwise your behavior would be different.

 

Yeah, I try sometimes. Shapiro had a video of how to argue with far leftists lol. But I love rationality and a good debate, not this kind of bullshit, but yea if it's the only thing that works :(. Sad that we have to live in a society like this

[barn]

1 minute ago, QwertyDavid said:

Yes, Example:

About wage gap

They: There is a wage gap

Me: Why? If there was why would anyone hire a man?
They: Stop denying that there is one, men earn more than women

Me: Why not start a company and only hire women then?

They: That would be discrimination

Me: Isn't the wage gap discrimination then?

They: Stop mansplaining the wage gap

 

Every time it goes the same, they agree on some facts but when you link the facts together they get so angry. For example, They will agree that IQ is lower in Africa, they will agree that IQ is important, but when you say that one of the reasons Africa is unsuccessful is because of IQ they will get angry. It's the same for every socialistic policy. If you say that the minimum wage law is not helping poor people because it takes away opportunities to work for some people they won't listen. Idk maybe it's my way of saying things (a part probably) but I'm concerned about the socialistic view of almost everyone at the high level (few exceptions, most of them just don't care about politics) 

Thank you.

Would you say that that's true the same in the thread you created about 'r/K stuff' ?

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

53 minutes ago, QwertyDavid said:

Yeah, I try sometimes. Shapiro had a video of how to argue with far leftists lol. But I love rationality and a good debate, not this kind of bullshit, but yea if it's the only thing that works :(. Sad that we have to live in a society like this

Fight with people and let them know that the interaction can be reasonable any time that they allow it, and the only reason you're fighting is because of self-defense. They keep starting it. Stop starting it and we can have a discussion.

[QwertyDavid]

3 hours ago, barn said:

Thank you.

Would you say that that's true the same in the thread you created about 'r/K stuff' ?

I haven't argued about r/K stuff, Want to learn more first. Can't argue about something I know little about without making mistakes

[barn]

13 minutes ago, QwertyDavid said:

I haven't argued about r/K stuff, Want to learn more first. Can't argue about something I know little about without making mistakes

I see.

It seemed to me (there) that you weren't giving clear descriptions or a background for what you wrote when asked. I thought that was something that might, could, may benefit you if I brought it up. Also, I could be wrong but that's what my idea was for asking.

I also want to mention, that I'm not in any fashion extrapolating it to everything you've said or probably are saying elsewhere... I simply don't know enough. Furthermore, I have met people deep-rooted and 'calcified' in their ideologies, it's possible that at your university they are exactly how you described them. It's possible.

No probs.

[QwertyDavid]

1 minute ago, barn said:

I see.

It seemed to me (there) that you weren't giving clear descriptions or a background for what you wrote when asked. I thought that was something that might, could, may benefit you if I brought it up. Also, I could be wrong but that's what my idea was for asking.

I also want to mention, that I'm not in any fashion extrapolating it to everything you've said or probably are saying elsewhere... I simply don't know enough. Furthermore, I have met people deep-rooted and 'calcified' in their ideologies, it's possible that at your university they are exactly how you described them. It's possible.

No probs.

 

Thank you for your answer!

I think you are correct in that, but if I want to use it I have to know it super well I think. There are still some things I don't understand (for example: male vs female, can you compare them in more r/K oriented, females look more r IMO but their sex drive is lower). 
 

My problem is: I don't care about feelings in opinions, I just want the facts/truth. If I say A and someone points me to good evidence for B I'll change my opinion, sadly most people don't think like this, took me a long time to figure it out myself, not trying to "win" an argument, but to get closer to the truth is a different approach.

 

 

[barn]

27 minutes ago, QwertyDavid said:

Thank you for your answer!

I think you are correct in that, but if I want to use it I have to know it super well I think. There are still some things I don't understand (for example: male vs female, can you compare them in more r/K oriented, females look more r IMO but their sex drive is lower). 
 

Now, that surprised me.

Very good on you (I think for acknowledging that. ) That looks like a form of courage to me.

What's wrong with being wrong?

or

What's the upshot in updating your stance/ideas as you move closer to truth?

I suppose you have higher ideals in your mind, than what you consider your capabilities currently ripe for. Am I far off? (i.e. - something akin to, in your mind: 'I should have known this')

If so, good. Keep going, reformulating.

New information, challenges. Incorporate it, work with it.

You can always ignore un-constructive (is that a word?) people, contributions as they don't serve understanding or your goal of getting better at it. Me thinks.

[QwertyDavid]

On 4/20/2018 at 9:39 PM, barn said:

Now, that surprised me.

Very good on you (I think for acknowledging that. ) That looks like a form of courage to me.

What's wrong with being wrong?

or

What's the upshot in updating your stance/ideas as you move closer to truth?

I suppose you have higher ideals in your mind, than what you consider your capabilities currently ripe for. Am I far off? (i.e. - something akin to, in your mind: 'I should have known this')

If so, good. Keep going, reformulating.

New information, challenges. Incorporate it, work with it.

You can always ignore un-constructive (is that a word?) people, contributions as they don't serve understanding or your goal of getting better at it. Me thinks.

How I see it is like this:

Imagine a circle with a small dot in the middle, that dot is "truth" 

Of complex things almost no one is really at that truth, but some people are closer than others, that doesn't mean that when you are closer you can ignore the rest of the people, if you are almost at the truth, but there is someone at the "other side", maybe he can give you some insights that make you come even closer to the middle. The point of a debate is to get closer to the truth, not to tell everyone that your point on the circle is the truth.

[barn]

43 minutes ago, QwertyDavid said:

How I see it is like this:

Imagine a circle with a small dot in the middle, that dot is "truth" 

Of complex things almost no one is really at that truth, but some people are closer than others, that doesn't mean that when you are closer you can ignore the rest of the people, if you are almost at the truth, but there is someone at the "other side", maybe he can give you some insights that make you come even closer to the middle. The point of a debate is to get closer to the truth, not to tell everyone that your point on the circle is the truth.

Sure, people who are open to updating, re-examining shouldn't be ignored.

I'm not sure if I understand wholly your metaphor. Isn't a line drawn from the centre of a circle the same length, regardless what direction is it? As in, someone who is the same 'far' from the truth but uses different words to describe the same level of understanding?

[QwertyDavid]

Like this, but someone may be at the other side and can help you get closer to the red dot

[RichardY]

Sounds like the "Circle of Trust" from the movie "Meet the Parents".

[barn]

1 hour ago, QwertyDavid said:

Like this, but someone may be at the other side and can help you get closer to the red dot

Is it true, that in a circle there are no 'other sides' in general?

Another orange circle with green within, located the same 'r' from the centre would be analogous to: yet another synonym for a word which meaning we already knew. (i.e. 1 word but in many different languages, same meaning)

If I followed your logic, there are only ESTHETIC differences between the differing subgroups of opinions if they are the same 'far' from the truth.

(I normally like to think about it in terms of Venn diagrams some not inclusive or slices some reaching over their parent circle but whatever).

In order to get a closer understanding, we need bases of comparisons farther or closer to the centre point. Otherwise, we are only reproducing the same value but in different forms/ways. (4= 1+1+1+1 = 16/4 = 001100100010101100110010) That's only going to solidify what we know, not expand it.

MOST IMPORTANTLY, could you please provide a practical example where you demonstrated what you mean? (same I had provided for mine)

[QwertyDavid]

21 minutes ago, barn said:

Is it true, that in a circle there are no 'other sides' in general?

Another orange circle with green within, located the same 'r' from the centre would be analogous to: yet another synonym for a word which meaning we already knew. (i.e. 1 word but in many different languages, same meaning)

If I followed your logic, there are only ESTHETIC differences between the differing subgroups of opinions if they are the same 'far' from the truth.

(I normally like to think about it in terms of Venn diagrams some not inclusive or slices some reaching over their parent circle but whatever).

In order to get a closer understanding, we need bases of comparisons farther or closer to the centre point. Otherwise, we are only reproducing the same value but in different forms/ways. (4= 1+1+1+1 = 16/4 = 001100100010101100110010) That's only going to solidify what we know, not expand it.

Yea that's true but what I mean is this:
Imagine a truck going 100 km/h

You and your friend are watching it, you say it goes 90 km/h, and your friend says it goes 150 km/h

You are closer to the truth, but maybe after talking for a while, he can convince you that the truck may go faster than you think and you change your opinion. 

Now you say the truck goes 100 km/h, the truth

 

So yea, if he would have said the truck goes 25 m/s it's the same as your 90 km/h but different, but I meant that other one

[barn]

Cool, thanks for the example.

11 minutes ago, QwertyDavid said:

Imagine a truck going 100 km/h

You and your friend are watching it, you say it goes 90 km/h, and your friend says it goes 150 km/h

A European or an American truck?

...

Ok, joking aside...

r1, 90kmh and r2, 150kmh - They're both wrong, one is still closer to the truth, it's r1 because (r2 > r1).

Fantastic, one of them benefits from the interaction.

Now, does the other person who greatly over exaggerated the speed of the truck, also changes its mind, or gets even more confident in its false assumption? (as in, the thinking process: 'if he was wrong and had to change, finally resembling an opinion closer to mine, it must be because I was right the whole time and for him it's just difficult to see the 'truth'... of course the truck goes 150kmh, sooner or later he'll see')

I'm asking this (the other side of the coin), because without objective truth, there can't be certainty.

[RichardY]

 

[QwertyDavid]

10 hours ago, barn said:

Cool, thanks for the example.

A European or an American truck?

...

Ok, joking aside...

r1, 90kmh and r2, 150kmh - They're both wrong, one is still closer to the truth, it's r1 because (r2 > r1).

Fantastic, one of them benefits from the interaction.

Now, does the other person who greatly over exaggerated the speed of the truck, also changes its mind, or gets even more confident in its false assumption? (as in, the thinking process: 'if he was wrong and had to change, finally resembling an opinion closer to mine, it must be because I was right the whole time and for him it's just difficult to see the 'truth'... of course the truck goes 150kmh, sooner or later he'll see')

I'm asking this (the other side of the coin), because without objective truth, there can't be certainty.

I think that if you want to have a productive conversation (which isn't possible with a lot of people), you should make the focus trying to get to the objective truth. If you talk to people who aren't going to do that, I think you just have to work for yourself, if you are getting closer you are the one benefitting, if he is getting more confident of being wrong he isn't benefitting at all of that discussion

[barn]

2 hours ago, QwertyDavid said:

I think that if you want to have a productive conversation (which isn't possible with a lot of people), you should make the focus trying to get to the objective truth. If you talk to people who aren't going to do that, I think you just have to work for yourself, if you are getting closer you are the one benefitting, if he is getting more confident of being wrong he isn't benefitting at all of that discussion

Indeed, I think too that aiming for objective truth is preferable, except when it's about esthetics. (same 'r' (radius) but different positions in the circle is esthetics, greater/smaller 'r' with the will to update thinking is the only group of people who worth engaging/might benefit positively from the interaction)

I disagree, having debates with people who are both inferior in their argumentation and not trying to get better is a waste of time in general. Except when defending one's own self or when choosing to exposing the fallacies for the benefit of others.

How do you see your earlier example of a debate you'd have ...

On 04/20/2018 at 5:31 PM, QwertyDavid said:

Yes, Example:

About wage gap

They: There is a wage gap

Me: Why? If there was why would anyone hire a man?
They: Stop denying that there is one, men earn more than women

Me: Why not start a company and only hire women then?

They: That would be discrimination

Me: Isn't the wage gap discrimination then?

They: Stop mansplaining the wage gap

What group of people are represented here?

Furthermore, what is your gain from engaging in debates with them? (I wouldn't but maybe you can help me understand why you would.)

Alternatively,

Isn't there a risk of you becoming even more rooted in your own beliefs as a result of having entered / allowed them to interact with you, knowing they aren't interested in objective truths, they won't demonstrate intellectual honesty?

as in (adapted, changed a bit) :

12 hours ago, barn said:

the thinking process: 'if they are wrong and should change, finally resembling an opinion closer to mine, it must be because I was right the whole time and for them it's just difficult to see the 'truth'... of course the truck goes 150kmh, sooner or later they'll see'

 

p.s.

(Paraphrasing) The truth is a sword that shouldn't be drawn at any cost.

[QwertyDavid]

7 hours ago, barn said:

Indeed, I think too that aiming for objective truth is preferable, except when it's about esthetics. (same 'r' (radius) but different positions in the circle is esthetics, greater/smaller 'r' with the will to update thinking is the only group of people who worth engaging/might benefit positively from the interaction)

I disagree, having debates with people who are both inferior in their argumentation and not trying to get better is a waste of time in general. Except when defending one's own self or when choosing to exposing the fallacies for the benefit of others.

How do you see your earlier example of a debate you'd have ...

What group of people are represented here?

Furthermore, what is your gain from engaging in debates with them? (I wouldn't but maybe you can help me understand why you would.)

Alternatively,

Isn't there a risk of you becoming even more rooted in your own beliefs as a result of having entered / allowed them to interact with you, knowing they aren't interested in objective truths, they won't demonstrate intellectual honesty?

as in (adapted, changed a bit) :

 

p.s.

(Paraphrasing) The truth is a sword that shouldn't be drawn at any cost.

Wow long reply! Yeah I get what your are saying, it's true that if you want to get the most out of debates, you only debate people smarter than you. If you debate people who don't know anything about a subject, THEY will maybe benefit (most of the times not), but you won't learn anything new. Maybe just don't debate them at all... (Although that would be difficult for Me, I want to debate everything and everyone lol)

[barn]

1 hour ago, QwertyDavid said:

Wow long reply!

(chuckles) Compared to what?

1 hour ago, QwertyDavid said:

it's true that if you want to get the most out of debates, you only debate people smarter than you. If you debate people who don't know anything about a subject, THEY will maybe benefit (most of the times not), but you won't learn anything new.

see, here with this

9 hours ago, barn said:

greater/smaller 'r' with the will to update thinking is the only group of people who worth engaging/might benefit positively from the interaction)

plus this

9 hours ago, barn said:

having debates with people who are both inferior in their argumentation and not trying to get better is a waste of time in general.

I was saying that those (imo) who do not consider going into debates with an open mind should be (generally) not engaged, in fact this means you can learn and have productive debates with people who aren't as advanced (yet) in said topic, nevertheless. (i.e. - healthy debate with the opportunity to make your argumentation more effective to people 'starting out', practising. The ever present possibility with such open minded people that they, in their thinking in other aspects might offer you something new, learning from or even formulating a new alliance with them... etc. Goodies.)

9 hours ago, barn said:

How do you see your earlier example of a debate you'd have ...

I don't think you've answered my question. You don’t have to, you are free to decide I just wanted to let you know I noticed.