3 ms·
The problem with this technique is that everyone thinks they're right. You would be amazed and appalled to learn how opponents of, say, evolution think that the
by sho 17y ago
The problem with this technique is that everyone thinks they're right. You would be amazed and appalled to learn how opponents of, say, evolution think that they are the knowledgable few and you are the "sheep" who has been brainwashed by the scientific "man".
There is little to be gained from this kind of mano-a-mano debate, IMO, and much to be lost in terms of time and emotional energy. The intelligent person of programmatic means would be wise to consider how better he might make use of his time, for example in constructing appropriate systems to enable larger scale, and more effective, destruction and undermining of the ignorance in the world.
- yummyfajitas 17y agoI'd amend your statement. There is little information to be gained from this kind of debate. You can, however, gain position, status or resources from this kind of debate. In the real world, it is often necessary to deal with irrational actors. I don't think it is a bad idea to learn how to hack people's irrationality for your own ends. It is evil to short circuit rational debate, but if the debate is already irrational, why not learn how to win it?
- staticshock 17y agoI agree. And, in subtle ways, even rational arguments are often won with appeals to emotion. Learning how to use emotion in an argument is a very powerful tool.
- yummyfajitas 17y agoI think that by definition, a rational argument cannot be won with appeals to emotion. The only exception I can think of is revealing to a person that their perceived utility function is different from their actual utility function. (E.g., how happy does owning diamond necklace actually make you?) But in that case, appealing to emotion is more about revealing new information (about emotions) than overriding rational thought.