4 ms·
Isn't psychoanalyzing the other person (and considering him an 'opponent'), rather than focussing impersonally on ideas, more the stuff of the low numbers than
by xlnt 19y ago
Isn't psychoanalyzing the other person (and considering him an 'opponent'), rather than focussing impersonally on ideas, more the stuff of the low numbers than the top?
True it could help him, but only if appreciated. It frequently won't be in public, or between strangers. And it runs a danger of polluting the main discussion. Any personal help is strictly a separate issue than which of the original ideas is true -- the person being helped could still have been right.
- nostrademons 19y agoIf it's a logical argument, you can explain where he went wrong without psychoanalyzing him. Just point out the step in his reasoning that's fallacious, or the premise which is incorrect. Most people don't take well to having their fallacious reasoning questioned, but they do appreciate having incorrect premises pointed out, particularly if it's done politely. If you need to psychoanalyze the other person to explain the flaw in his ideas, then chances are you're arguing over opinions rather than facts or conclusions. Opinions, by definition, can't be right or wrong, so you're wasting your time.
- pg 19y agoI didn't mean studying his motivations so much as reconstructing his chain of reasoning all the way back to the faulty step.