38 ms·

Admirable, but misguided. Fact-based argument has never been effective. The Greeks knew this. We keep forgetting it at our own peril. We know how to think criti

Admirable, but misguided. Fact-based argument has never been effective. The Greeks knew this. We keep forgetting it at our own peril. We know how to think critically; most of us simply choose not to. The audience who would see this kind of course/site are likely people who pretty much already have their head screwed on the right way. It would be much better to train them in effective rhetoric so they can counter the bullshit in real arguments. We keep forgetting that people tend to support policies and politicians for largely social and psychological reasons, not because of facts and ideology. The former are where the real battle is fought. I spend a lot of time debating with people who disagree with me politically. It's nearly impossible to have a factual debate. So stop trying. Instead, make your point based on common morals, do it with compassion and generosity of spirit, and don't allow the goalposts of the debate to be moved. Throw in like two of couple of your choicest facts and sources, but don't expect them to help. Move on and repeat.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
dennis_jeeves 10y ago
acjohnson55, your observation is spot on. There is one suggestion that I have for 'rational' people: Band together, discriminate against the 'irrational' people in your lives and help out each other. That is one way to preserve your sanity. Often I have found that 'Rational' people also tend be be non-discriminatory and very accommodating on the non-rational people to a point where it hurts their interests. Contact me if interested.
smsm42 10y ago
It is entirely possible to have a factual debate about facts and logical conclusions. It is, of course, impossible to make factual debate about opinions, moral principles and preferences, and politics is a mix of both kinds, heavily skewed to non-factual side, unfortunately. Still, I think there's demand for factual discussion even in politics. That's why "fact checking" became a thing and why "fake news" became a popular pejorative. Unfortunately - and probably inevitably, given the stakes - "fact checking" was taken over by opportunists and turned into partisan mudsligning, and "fake news" has been turned into a club for bashing political opponents. But the demand is still there. It's just that MSM media structures may be by now so corrupt that they are institutionally unable to satisfy it.
Chris2048 10y ago
> people who disagree with me politically Problem is, the truth is pretty hard to determine based on the usual suspects (studies, facts etc): "I worry that most smart people have not learned that a list of dozens of studies, several meta-analyses, hundreds of experts, and expert surveys showing almost all academics support your thesis – can still be bullshit." -- http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/12/beware-the-man-of-one-study/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/12/beware-the-man-of-one-s... Yikes. what we really need is to discuss the practicality of citing studies performed by third-parties, and of trying to "prove" truth individually rather than collect evidence over time, as a community. > do it with compassion and generosity of spirit This is just good-faith, and it needn't be "compassion and generosity" which can easily be abused.
driverdan 10y ago
> We know how to think critically Most people don't know how to think critically. You're right about the target audience, people who are already interested will take it.
- mistermann 10y ago
  I'll go even further: not only do most people not know how to think critically, but they are explicitly hostile (often extremely) to the idea of thinking or conversing about a controversial topic. Rarely do I ever see someone say "I don't know", and rarely have I observed anyone changing their mind, or conceding that their "opponent" may have some valid information they hadn't considered.
scandox 10y ago
People know how to think critically in a particular context. What I find is that when they're in an unfamiliar context their level of critical thinking is lower. Also tiredness, stress and so on contribute to less critical thinking. Also most people have certain irrational trigger topics, things that are so emotive to them or so wrapped up in their sense of identity that they can't break them down critically. (All of this also applies to myself of course.) Newton is, I guess, an example of someone very critical in one context and less critical in another (scientific historians rush to correct me). Still, though, I don't think we can all do enough work on training young people to at least have the tools to think critically. Studying medieval history at 17 changed my entire way of thinking about credibility. I think I'd be a much less critical thinker if I had not had that experience.
- brachi 10y ago
  > People know how to think critically in a particular context I observe that we tend to make an implicit assumption that most statements contain an opinion, perception, and anectotes. It gets harder to think everything in terms of data, e.g. I could ask "What people? Did you perform a study yourself?" for your statement, however, if it aligns with my perception or makes sense even without hard data, I'm not going to do it. > Studying medieval history at 17 changed my entire way of thinking about credibility Any books you would recommend?
  - scandox 10y ago
    God's War By Dr Christopher Tyerman. He was my teacher so I think that it was his influence that was key.
- marcosdumay 10y ago
  Critical thinking is a piece of technology that evolved a lot since the Middle Age. I don't think Newton could do much better. If he wasn't at the leading edge on "critical thinking", he was very near it. And that's something most people choose to ignore, that even "how to think" is something that evolves, and our current standards were created by many people improving on what came before them.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
blazespin 10y ago
I think you're close, but still misguided. The issue isn't so much critical thinking (though that is a part of it) but a mismatch in baseline assumptions. Right makes might versus Might makes right, belief in the golden rule (duoaywhtduy or he who has the gold, makes the rules), the glass is half empty versus half full, etc. Unless you share the answers to these assumptions, you can't have a common dialogue. I mean, you can argue facts all day long but if someone believes that having a bigger gun makes them right -- what's the point? You really think Kim Jong-un is going to listen to reason when he has nukes?
- BeetleB 10y ago
  >You really think Kim Jong-un is going to listen to reason when he has nukes? This statement, my friends, is how most persuasion works in the world. No facts, just statements like: "You really think...?" If the person responds with "It's plausible - why not?", then you say: "I mean, Come On!" While it may be hard for some to believe, I write this comment with full seriousness and not as a joke. This really is how most persuasion works. It's been mentioned multiple times on HN, but Influence, by Cialdini, is a great read. Especially the chapter on Social Proof. I've seen this in action in the engineering world. You can have your data, as well as your error-free mathematics (no calculus, I promise! Just a few lines of algebra) to back your argument up. And the other person (PhD, no less) only needs to look at someone who shares his view of how the system under examination works to reject my mathematics. Hence, his social proof was stronger than my mathematical proof. I used to get upset about how I was working amongst the top engineers in one of the top companies in the world, and how illogical they seemed. But then I read the book and realized that's the "natural" order of things, and most people will not escape it. Academia was a nice place where this was less of a problem.
  - blazespin 10y ago
    It's called proof by contradiction. I thought it was self evident that Kim Jong-un wouldn't listen to reason once he had nukes, but perhaps you know better.
    - 10y ago
swanson 10y ago
From Scott Adams (Dilbert): > Rational People: Use data and reason to arrive at truth. (This group is mostly imaginary.) > Word-Thinkers: Use labels, word definitions, and analogies to create the illusion of rational thinking. This group is 99% of the world. > Persuaders: Use simplicity, repetition, emotion, habit, aspirations, visual communication, and other tools of persuasion to program other people and themselves. This group is about 1% of the population and effectively control the word-thinkers of the world. http://blog.dilbert.com/post/147595892021/how-persuaders-see-the-world http://blog.dilbert.com/post/147595892021/how-persuaders-see...
- TheGrumpyBrit 10y ago
  I used to really enjoy Adams' blog - he used to be fairly easy to read, conversational, and just controversial enough to be entertaining. Over the last couple of years though, it seems that he's become obsessed with this whole "master persuader" idea. It made for interesting reading for the first month or so, but it's slowly taken over all of his other content to the point that he now seems afraid to actually express an opinion of his own, instead trying to angle his posts as a "persuasion". He actually seems to be spiralling into madness. I just checked back and at least he's re-enabled comments now, so maybe there will be some entertaining reading there again (the comments were always the best part).
  - mark-r 10y ago
    Reading the blog, it appears this is a subject he's obsessed about his whole life. He wanted to share but held off until the perfect situation presented itself. I'm not sick of it yet, I think it's fascinating. You're right about the comments though, I missed them when they were gone.
- Paul-ish 10y ago
  Something about this categorization seems ironic to me. Does this mean that Scott Adams sees himself as a "word-thinker", because he is certainly labeling people in coming up with this list.
  - 10y ago
ci5er 10y ago
> It's nearly impossible to have a factual debate. You contextualize this as related to politics. But, I've noticed, in certain fora, that it's nigh-on impossible, even for something as measurable as energy production. And that's just inputs and outputs where the units of measurement are already agreed to! :-O What's the difference? What causes some topics to be amenable to rational debate (or even discussion that doesn't go off the rails) and not? Politics, economics (because it's related to politics?), and religion - no. No rationality to be had there. Anything that have to do with harmful invisible vapors (vaccines, electromagnetics, radiation, environmental toxins) and health - no. Any form of "alternative lifestyle", including digital nomadicism (!) - no. Law - all over the map. Computer programming - all over the map. In fact, right now, I'm trying to think of something that humans debate rationally, and I'm having a difficult time thinking of one (I'm sure they exist - but I'm only lightly caffeinated so far). Regardless of my inability to think of topics that we (humans) can debate about rationally, why do some topics "work" for rationality and some not? > Move on and repeat. Why? You just said it almost never helps.
- acjohnson55 10y ago
  > Why? You just said it almost never helps. Yeah, great question! I didn't really address that part. What I really meant is that I almost never "win" the argument. I've overtly changed someone's mind before, but that's like 10% of the time, at best. So making that my goal wouldn't be a good idea. More often, I can get the other person to expand their point of view, even just a little bit. I can gain some credibility in their minds as someone they may disagree with, but can respect. And it opens the door to the perception that maybe the point of view I represent isn't directly opposed to their tribe. For people I tend to debate repeatedly, I can tell there's a shift over time. Not to mention the fact that I'm not always right. I learn a lot from people who aren't already inclined to mindlessly Like everything I post. Debating people makes me a better thinker and persuader. But I think most importantly, I do it for the audience. I suspect that in many of these debates, the lurkers are much less entrenched in their point of view than me or the person I'm debating with. Those are the people I really want to move. And that's a big reason why it's crucial to be civil, sincere, and avoid blowing up on people. Nothing turns off a neutral onlooker like someone being an asshole, even if it's righteous.
bad_user 10y ago
Even though I have some training, skills in mathematical logic, probabilities and in mathematics in general being very good for spotting bullshit, I still need help. The only thing that actually protects me is this little voice in my head telling me "this guy could be full of bullshit, I'd better check". But then fact checking is too time consuming, many times I do it, but not often enough. And you can't just wipe clean from your memory whatever you heard. This is the genius behind repetition: if unchallenged, it sticks to your subconscious, whether you want it or not, especially when spoken by people you happen to respect. So here's the problem, even those of us with a logical, science-oriented mind, that studied the right things in school, even us need help. Do you think that us developers are immune to yellow journalism? Think again. Here's one concrete proof that we can swallow bullshit whole, much like everybody else: https://twitter.com/timbray/status/810157215478755328 https://twitter.com/timbray/status/810157215478755328 The answer is always education and even if you educate a tiny minority, those people can then educate others. And personally I feel like I need that education as well.
- croon 10y ago
  I agree with all your reasoning, except I'm unsure what you mean to say with the link. Are you saying we bought the bullshit when Oracle claimed they wouldn't monetize it? If that's the case, that was never a verifiable statement, or better yet, was never an immutable state either way. I don't think anyone convinced themselves they knew anything from that claim. That's not the same thing as accepting that someone claims that man landed on the moon. While still hard to verify (really), it still either happened or not. Monetizing Java could change at any time, what was the case yesterday might be changed today, and could be back again tomorrow.
samirillian 10y ago
So we need a course called: bullshitting people who want to be bullshitted? I'd worry a lot about the personal/existential implications. Gramsci says that the demagogue is the first one bitten by the snake of his own demagoguery.
- frozenport 10y ago
  Yeah but being a demagogue is a lot of fun. It feels like you're telling me the wealthy are suffering, or the role reversal in Hegel's master slave relationship.
notahacker 10y ago
> The audience who would see this kind of course/site are likely people who pretty much already have their head screwed on the right way. It would be much better to train them in effective rhetoric so they can counter the bullshit in real arguments. I'd like to see the principle of calling bullshit taught in high schools.
saosebastiao 10y ago
Thank you. I've always been a facts based argument type, and while I'm extremely proud of some of my best work, I never thrived in the places where I did it, and precisely for this reason. I wish I had studied rhetoric much earlier. As an aside, I read a book on rhetoric (Thank You for Arguing) written by a guy who is extremely passionate about it, to the point where he persuaded me to teach it to my 4yo. It was extremely effective. He picked up negotiation quickly, and has been analyzing (if you ask him, he can tell you whether his argument is ethos, pathos, or logos) and tuning his arguments as he gets older. Now he uses negotiation and reasoning for everything. While I feel like sometimes it works against me (I have to negotiate everything with him), he now knows how to compromise in a negotiation so that arguments don't end in tantrums. And I honestly feel like he'll be better off with that one skill than he ever would with a trust fund or inheritance.
augustocallejas 10y ago
> We keep forgetting that people tend to support policies and politicians for largely social and psychological reasons, not because of facts and ideology. The former are where the real battle is fought. Your comment was perfect as a lead up to this story about this Table of Knowledge group in Iowa: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/12/us/donald-trump-iowa-conservatives.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/12/us/donald-trump-iowa-cons... I bet there are a large number of these informal groups around the country. Listening to how they reason and what their units of reasoning are, which are not necessarily facts, is elucidating.
- mistermann 10y ago
  That's a great article, thanks for posting. I find it deeply saddening that so many people ask "How could people vote for Trump, what are they thinking!", but have less than zero interest (aka hostility) in any answers, and there are many, to that question.
dandrick 10y ago
What a cynical view - and coming from me, that's pretty bad. Things can improve, and in fact, they have improved quite a bit over the last several centuries. The appeal to authority of the ancient Greeks is sometimes a good one I guess, but not always. For instance, the Greeks "knew" a lot of things that they were flat wrong about.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

dennis_jeeves 10y ago

acjohnson55, your observation is spot on. There is one suggestion that I have for 'rational' people: Band together, discriminate against the 'irrational' people in your lives and help out each other. That is one way to preserve your sanity. Often I have found that 'Rational' people also tend be be non-discriminatory and very accommodating on the non-rational people to a point where it hurts their interests. Contact me if interested.

smsm42 10y ago

It is entirely possible to have a factual debate about facts and logical conclusions. It is, of course, impossible to make factual debate about opinions, moral principles and preferences, and politics is a mix of both kinds, heavily skewed to non-factual side, unfortunately. Still, I think there's demand for factual discussion even in politics. That's why "fact checking" became a thing and why "fake news" became a popular pejorative. Unfortunately - and probably inevitably, given the stakes - "fact checking" was taken over by opportunists and turned into partisan mudsligning, and "fake news" has been turned into a club for bashing political opponents. But the demand is still there. It's just that MSM media structures may be by now so corrupt that they are institutionally unable to satisfy it.

Chris2048 10y ago

> people who disagree with me politically Problem is, the truth is pretty hard to determine based on the usual suspects (studies, facts etc): "I worry that most smart people have not learned that a list of dozens of studies, several meta-analyses, hundreds of experts, and expert surveys showing almost all academics support your thesis – can still be bullshit." -- http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/12/beware-the-man-of-one-study/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/12/beware-the-man-of-one-s... Yikes. what we really need is to discuss the practicality of citing studies performed by third-parties, and of trying to "prove" truth individually rather than collect evidence over time, as a community. > do it with compassion and generosity of spirit This is just good-faith, and it needn't be "compassion and generosity" which can easily be abused.

driverdan 10y ago

> We know how to think critically Most people don't know how to think critically. You're right about the target audience, people who are already interested will take it.

mistermann 10y ago
I'll go even further: not only do most people not know how to think critically, but they are explicitly hostile (often extremely) to the idea of thinking or conversing about a controversial topic. Rarely do I ever see someone say "I don't know", and rarely have I observed anyone changing their mind, or conceding that their "opponent" may have some valid information they hadn't considered.

scandox 10y ago

People know how to think critically in a particular context. What I find is that when they're in an unfamiliar context their level of critical thinking is lower. Also tiredness, stress and so on contribute to less critical thinking. Also most people have certain irrational trigger topics, things that are so emotive to them or so wrapped up in their sense of identity that they can't break them down critically. (All of this also applies to myself of course.) Newton is, I guess, an example of someone very critical in one context and less critical in another (scientific historians rush to correct me). Still, though, I don't think we can all do enough work on training young people to at least have the tools to think critically. Studying medieval history at 17 changed my entire way of thinking about credibility. I think I'd be a much less critical thinker if I had not had that experience.

brachi 10y ago
> People know how to think critically in a particular context I observe that we tend to make an implicit assumption that most statements contain an opinion, perception, and anectotes. It gets harder to think everything in terms of data, e.g. I could ask "What people? Did you perform a study yourself?" for your statement, however, if it aligns with my perception or makes sense even without hard data, I'm not going to do it. > Studying medieval history at 17 changed my entire way of thinking about credibility Any books you would recommend?
- scandox 10y ago
  God's War By Dr Christopher Tyerman. He was my teacher so I think that it was his influence that was key.
marcosdumay 10y ago
Critical thinking is a piece of technology that evolved a lot since the Middle Age. I don't think Newton could do much better. If he wasn't at the leading edge on "critical thinking", he was very near it. And that's something most people choose to ignore, that even "how to think" is something that evolves, and our current standards were created by many people improving on what came before them.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

blazespin 10y ago

I think you're close, but still misguided. The issue isn't so much critical thinking (though that is a part of it) but a mismatch in baseline assumptions. Right makes might versus Might makes right, belief in the golden rule (duoaywhtduy or he who has the gold, makes the rules), the glass is half empty versus half full, etc. Unless you share the answers to these assumptions, you can't have a common dialogue. I mean, you can argue facts all day long but if someone believes that having a bigger gun makes them right -- what's the point? You really think Kim Jong-un is going to listen to reason when he has nukes?

BeetleB 10y ago
>You really think Kim Jong-un is going to listen to reason when he has nukes? This statement, my friends, is how most persuasion works in the world. No facts, just statements like: "You really think...?" If the person responds with "It's plausible - why not?", then you say: "I mean, Come On!" While it may be hard for some to believe, I write this comment with full seriousness and not as a joke. This really is how most persuasion works. It's been mentioned multiple times on HN, but Influence, by Cialdini, is a great read. Especially the chapter on Social Proof. I've seen this in action in the engineering world. You can have your data, as well as your error-free mathematics (no calculus, I promise! Just a few lines of algebra) to back your argument up. And the other person (PhD, no less) only needs to look at someone who shares his view of how the system under examination works to reject my mathematics. Hence, his social proof was stronger than my mathematical proof. I used to get upset about how I was working amongst the top engineers in one of the top companies in the world, and how illogical they seemed. But then I read the book and realized that's the "natural" order of things, and most people will not escape it. Academia was a nice place where this was less of a problem.
- blazespin 10y ago
  It's called proof by contradiction. I thought it was self evident that Kim Jong-un wouldn't listen to reason once he had nukes, but perhaps you know better.
  - 10y ago

swanson 10y ago

From Scott Adams (Dilbert): > Rational People: Use data and reason to arrive at truth. (This group is mostly imaginary.) > Word-Thinkers: Use labels, word definitions, and analogies to create the illusion of rational thinking. This group is 99% of the world. > Persuaders: Use simplicity, repetition, emotion, habit, aspirations, visual communication, and other tools of persuasion to program other people and themselves. This group is about 1% of the population and effectively control the word-thinkers of the world. http://blog.dilbert.com/post/147595892021/how-persuaders-see-the-world http://blog.dilbert.com/post/147595892021/how-persuaders-see...

TheGrumpyBrit 10y ago
I used to really enjoy Adams' blog - he used to be fairly easy to read, conversational, and just controversial enough to be entertaining. Over the last couple of years though, it seems that he's become obsessed with this whole "master persuader" idea. It made for interesting reading for the first month or so, but it's slowly taken over all of his other content to the point that he now seems afraid to actually express an opinion of his own, instead trying to angle his posts as a "persuasion". He actually seems to be spiralling into madness. I just checked back and at least he's re-enabled comments now, so maybe there will be some entertaining reading there again (the comments were always the best part).
- mark-r 10y ago
  Reading the blog, it appears this is a subject he's obsessed about his whole life. He wanted to share but held off until the perfect situation presented itself. I'm not sick of it yet, I think it's fascinating. You're right about the comments though, I missed them when they were gone.
Paul-ish 10y ago
Something about this categorization seems ironic to me. Does this mean that Scott Adams sees himself as a "word-thinker", because he is certainly labeling people in coming up with this list.
- 10y ago

ci5er 10y ago

> It's nearly impossible to have a factual debate. You contextualize this as related to politics. But, I've noticed, in certain fora, that it's nigh-on impossible, even for something as measurable as energy production. And that's just inputs and outputs where the units of measurement are already agreed to! :-O What's the difference? What causes some topics to be amenable to rational debate (or even discussion that doesn't go off the rails) and not? Politics, economics (because it's related to politics?), and religion - no. No rationality to be had there. Anything that have to do with harmful invisible vapors (vaccines, electromagnetics, radiation, environmental toxins) and health - no. Any form of "alternative lifestyle", including digital nomadicism (!) - no. Law - all over the map. Computer programming - all over the map. In fact, right now, I'm trying to think of something that humans debate rationally, and I'm having a difficult time thinking of one (I'm sure they exist - but I'm only lightly caffeinated so far). Regardless of my inability to think of topics that we (humans) can debate about rationally, why do some topics "work" for rationality and some not? > Move on and repeat. Why? You just said it almost never helps.

acjohnson55 10y ago
> Why? You just said it almost never helps. Yeah, great question! I didn't really address that part. What I really meant is that I almost never "win" the argument. I've overtly changed someone's mind before, but that's like 10% of the time, at best. So making that my goal wouldn't be a good idea. More often, I can get the other person to expand their point of view, even just a little bit. I can gain some credibility in their minds as someone they may disagree with, but can respect. And it opens the door to the perception that maybe the point of view I represent isn't directly opposed to their tribe. For people I tend to debate repeatedly, I can tell there's a shift over time. Not to mention the fact that I'm not always right. I learn a lot from people who aren't already inclined to mindlessly Like everything I post. Debating people makes me a better thinker and persuader. But I think most importantly, I do it for the audience. I suspect that in many of these debates, the lurkers are much less entrenched in their point of view than me or the person I'm debating with. Those are the people I really want to move. And that's a big reason why it's crucial to be civil, sincere, and avoid blowing up on people. Nothing turns off a neutral onlooker like someone being an asshole, even if it's righteous.

bad_user 10y ago

Even though I have some training, skills in mathematical logic, probabilities and in mathematics in general being very good for spotting bullshit, I still need help. The only thing that actually protects me is this little voice in my head telling me "this guy could be full of bullshit, I'd better check". But then fact checking is too time consuming, many times I do it, but not often enough. And you can't just wipe clean from your memory whatever you heard. This is the genius behind repetition: if unchallenged, it sticks to your subconscious, whether you want it or not, especially when spoken by people you happen to respect. So here's the problem, even those of us with a logical, science-oriented mind, that studied the right things in school, even us need help. Do you think that us developers are immune to yellow journalism? Think again. Here's one concrete proof that we can swallow bullshit whole, much like everybody else: https://twitter.com/timbray/status/810157215478755328 https://twitter.com/timbray/status/810157215478755328 The answer is always education and even if you educate a tiny minority, those people can then educate others. And personally I feel like I need that education as well.

croon 10y ago
I agree with all your reasoning, except I'm unsure what you mean to say with the link. Are you saying we bought the bullshit when Oracle claimed they wouldn't monetize it? If that's the case, that was never a verifiable statement, or better yet, was never an immutable state either way. I don't think anyone convinced themselves they knew anything from that claim. That's not the same thing as accepting that someone claims that man landed on the moon. While still hard to verify (really), it still either happened or not. Monetizing Java could change at any time, what was the case yesterday might be changed today, and could be back again tomorrow.

samirillian 10y ago

So we need a course called: bullshitting people who want to be bullshitted? I'd worry a lot about the personal/existential implications. Gramsci says that the demagogue is the first one bitten by the snake of his own demagoguery.

frozenport 10y ago
Yeah but being a demagogue is a lot of fun. It feels like you're telling me the wealthy are suffering, or the role reversal in Hegel's master slave relationship.

notahacker 10y ago

> The audience who would see this kind of course/site are likely people who pretty much already have their head screwed on the right way. It would be much better to train them in effective rhetoric so they can counter the bullshit in real arguments. I'd like to see the principle of calling bullshit taught in high schools.

saosebastiao 10y ago

Thank you. I've always been a facts based argument type, and while I'm extremely proud of some of my best work, I never thrived in the places where I did it, and precisely for this reason. I wish I had studied rhetoric much earlier. As an aside, I read a book on rhetoric (Thank You for Arguing) written by a guy who is extremely passionate about it, to the point where he persuaded me to teach it to my 4yo. It was extremely effective. He picked up negotiation quickly, and has been analyzing (if you ask him, he can tell you whether his argument is ethos, pathos, or logos) and tuning his arguments as he gets older. Now he uses negotiation and reasoning for everything. While I feel like sometimes it works against me (I have to negotiate everything with him), he now knows how to compromise in a negotiation so that arguments don't end in tantrums. And I honestly feel like he'll be better off with that one skill than he ever would with a trust fund or inheritance.

augustocallejas 10y ago

> We keep forgetting that people tend to support policies and politicians for largely social and psychological reasons, not because of facts and ideology. The former are where the real battle is fought. Your comment was perfect as a lead up to this story about this Table of Knowledge group in Iowa: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/12/us/donald-trump-iowa-conservatives.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/12/us/donald-trump-iowa-cons... I bet there are a large number of these informal groups around the country. Listening to how they reason and what their units of reasoning are, which are not necessarily facts, is elucidating.

mistermann 10y ago
That's a great article, thanks for posting. I find it deeply saddening that so many people ask "How could people vote for Trump, what are they thinking!", but have less than zero interest (aka hostility) in any answers, and there are many, to that question.

dandrick 10y ago

What a cynical view - and coming from me, that's pretty bad. Things can improve, and in fact, they have improved quite a bit over the last several centuries. The appeal to authority of the ancient Greeks is sometimes a good one I guess, but not always. For instance, the Greeks "knew" a lot of things that they were flat wrong about.