I debated putting this question in Water Cooler talk, but I thought it would be best here because I specifically wanted to address the debate community at large.
The debate community here seems pretty rational for the most part, certainly more than the average population in my view.
I have long struggled to communicate adequately with general population at large. Oftentimes I find the reason is because I tend to or try to view things logically.
But this is not how the rest of the world communicates. There is a very large portion of the world that does not communicate in logic at all, but in some other medium of persuasiveness. It could be emotion, it could be tone of voice, it could be showmanship, charisma. I honestly do not understand many of these things, but I am in a position now where I must learn how to convince the general population at large. (your average jury for example)
So I pose the question, How do I be stupid? and I'd like to qualify that. I'm not just talking about putting my head into an oven, or swimming with a toaster, what I am talking about it how do I communicate in a manner that disregards all logic and reason.
How do you, other members of debate, communicate with others who do not communicate in logic or reason, or who actively discard it entirely.
There are a great many people who actively disregard logic or reason. In fact, I believe this kind of person to constitute the majority of humanity.
So my question is how do you, members of debate communicate in your own lives with people who actively disregard logic and reason? Do you forgo your own logic and reason to communicate within a different stratum?
What you are talking about is persuasion. It has nothing to do with being stupid. Rather it is about being able to effectively frame a conversation in a way that relates to the other person's perspective. It actually takes a lot of smarts to do it effectively. As it mixes a certain degree of knowledge about the person, and a nuanced control of language to thread the needle without putting them on the defensive. This implies being able to understand and potentially even argue for their viewpoint.
What you are talking about is persuasion. It has nothing to do with being stupid. Rather it is about being able to effectively frame a conversation in a way that relates to the other person's perspective. It actually takes a lot of smarts to do it effectively. As it mixes a certain degree of knowledge about the person, and a nuanced control of language to thread the needle without putting them on the defensive. This implies being able to understand and potentially even argue for their viewpoint.
Can you elaborate on how someone would be put on the defensive.
I have always seen arguments as a paradigm between two points of view and seeing where the logic falls.
But indeed, people have not always reacted positively to that approach.
Most real life arguments do not operate in a logical vacuum where the best and most consistent side wins. Most arguments devolve into a personal and deeply emotional struggle. Furthermore, people get defensive and unwilling to listen to your reasoning when they hear certain words and phrases that they have been conditioned to reject. This is especially true in politics. Hence, knowing what to say and what not to say, even if the point is the same, is crucial. Knowing how to argue their viewpoint as well as your own can help you to cloth your argument in the language of theirs.
Most real life arguments do not operate in a logical vacuum where the best and most consistent side wins. Most arguments devolve into a personal and deeply emotional struggle.
This is something I have struggled to grasp. I understand it in a superficial sense. But knowing of something and knowing what the other side looks like is a whole different level of comprehension.
But yes, that is a good characterization of what I have witnessed--that for most people all argument is a personal and deeply emotional struggle.
It sounds then that an element of persuasiveness is showing that you are on "their side"
It sounds then that an element of persuasiveness is showing that you are on "their side"
Some people respond to this. Some don't. It can come off as patronising or fake. For example, it's almost a cliche to say you "used to be a supporter of one side of politics until x happened." Whether or not it is true, some people will just think you are being disingenuous and then your argument is shot.
It's more of reading a person. What they think. How they think. What's important to them. And then use their own reasoning and values to turn the argument around. The Socratic method is a basic example of this. You have to come at it as though you are their own internal thought process.
There are a great many people who actively disregard logic or reason. In fact, I believe this kind of person to constitute the majority of humanity. So my question is how do you, members of debate communicate in your own lives with people who actively disregard logic and reason? Do you forgo your own logic and reason to communicate within a different stratum?
Step 1 would be to read Aristotle's Rhetoric, which is the definitive treatise on these matters. Indeed, most of what has been said on the subject in the intervening 2500 years is reducible to commentary on Rhetoric. If you haven't read it already, it's free online.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A limit of time is fixed for thee
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
I have long struggled to communicate adequately with general population at large. Oftentimes I find the reason is because I tend to or try to view things logically.
But this is not how the rest of the world communicates. There is a very large portion of the world that does not communicate in logic at all, but in some other medium of persuasiveness. It could be emotion, it could be tone of voice, it could be showmanship, charisma. I honestly do not understand many of these things, but I am in a position now where I must learn how to convince the general population at large. (your average jury for example)
So I pose the question, How do I be stupid?
Wow, that's... Holy *****, dude, you could start by not being so incredibly condescending. If you want to communicate with others, "Anyone who isn't like me is stupid," is a pretty poor place to start out.
When you speak of...
There is a very large portion of the world that does not communicate in logic at all, but in some other medium of persuasiveness. It could be emotion, it could be tone of voice, it could be showmanship, charisma.
... that doesn't sound like lack of logic. That sounds like being able to effectively communicate and knowing how to present oneself.
And yeah, I suppose an answer is to study rhetoric. Alternatively, you could just treat people like fellow human beings and not look down on them while clearly articulating your ideas.
@Highroller
"Wow, that's... Holy *****, dude, you could start by not being so incredibly condescending. If you want to communicate with others, "Anyone who isn't like me is stupid," is a pretty poor place to start out."
Totally agree, this kind of statement makes them look stupid.
You develop a voice, through practice just like how you "normally come off." It's called code switching, some people do it better than other. It takes practice. It's necessary for business. However, this can be taken too far and a person can devolve into a "kiss ass" personality type. You want to be the "nice, hard working dude that's truthful" and knowing when to speak up. Again, that's something you refine over a life time and dependent on the positions you hold in life.
I have long struggled to communicate adequately with general population at large. Oftentimes I find the reason is because I tend to or try to view things logically.
But this is not how the rest of the world communicates. There is a very large portion of the world that does not communicate in logic at all, but in some other medium of persuasiveness. It could be emotion, it could be tone of voice, it could be showmanship, charisma. I honestly do not understand many of these things, but I am in a position now where I must learn how to convince the general population at large. (your average jury for example)
So I pose the question, How do I be stupid?
Wow, that's... Holy *****, dude, you could start by not being so incredibly condescending. If you want to communicate with others, "Anyone who isn't like me is stupid," is a pretty poor place to start out.
When you speak of...
There is a very large portion of the world that does not communicate in logic at all, but in some other medium of persuasiveness. It could be emotion, it could be tone of voice, it could be showmanship, charisma.
... that doesn't sound like lack of logic. That sounds like being able to effectively communicate and knowing how to present oneself.
And yeah, I suppose an answer is to study rhetoric. Alternatively, you could just treat people like fellow human beings and not look down on them while clearly articulating your ideas.
What astounds me is that people can hold on to beliefs which are demonstrably refutable, and yet will continue to persist in such belief. That is absolutely fascinating to me because
1) I do not function in such a manner
2) The prevalence of such means that many people have a system of thought that is fundamentally different from mine.
Now I could rail on religion. But at least with religion, the answer of whether or not God exists is not answerable by science or facts.
But, these issues persist even when direct evidence to the contrary is freely available.
For example, people will assert the Constitution supports them when it is 100% demonstrable that it does not because the text is publically accessible. No lengthy debate needs to be had.
One can simply look up the words of the Constitution.
So then why is it that people cannot be convinced in light of 100% factual assertions to the contrary? What is the quality they have?
Perhaps it is condescending that I call such people stupid. So I apologize and refrain from that. In fact, the better query is how does one be convincing to such people?
Debate, and logic are near useless. In the case of the constitutional assertions, the quality of evidence to the contrary can literally be 100% provable.
What I am seeking to understand is the nature of the paradigm in which a great deal many people simply believe and are convinced by certain things, and facts hold no weight whatsoever.
In the greater sense, we debate here to practice a certain type of persuasive expression. But what good is it if it is only convincing to us (apparently we're all a bunch of science/math/history majors), and not the greater populace at large.
What if I believed your handle was NIGHroller instead of Highroller? I can clearly see your handle is not, but in the face of 100% to the contrary I will simply go on believing it is.
Now imagine 50% of the population is like me. How do you deal with that? Is stupid the wrong term? Ok fine. Then how would you qualify it?
edit:
What I have NOT done is gone out to provide more concrete instances of the web of people asserting things which are demonstrably false. Don't make me research "The View", pundits, or Donald Trump statements. I think we have all seen instances of this in our lives and certainly on the web.
There are a great many people who actively disregard logic or reason. In fact, I believe this kind of person to constitute the majority of humanity.
So my question is how do you, members of debate communicate in your own lives with people who actively disregard logic and reason? Do you forgo your own logic and reason to communicate within a different stratum?
People aren't robots, and your desire to ignore the emotional aspect of an argument is itself an emotional choice.
You need people skills and patience. I could try to quote Aristotle here, but to hell with that, honestly, it is not that big of a deal:
First stop thinking that other people are stupid. Yes, most of the population probably never studied advanced mathematics, or the constitution, or the basic laws of nature... so what? That doesn't make them stupid, they just didn't have time/opportunity/interest to go deep in these things.
Second, when people hold beliefs they will not be as easily dismissed by a meager fact or logical statement. A belief is much stronger than that in the eyes of the general population, it is something that they based their lives around, something that creates a moral compass for them to follow and is deeply marking who they are. If you want to show them that a belief they hold is wrong, then go slowly and be patient, you may have to show the same arguments thousands of times in different lights.
Third, and this is very important, don't be confrontational. I've seen few people in debates (even here) who take confrontanional stances and quickly change their minds when presented with facts or data. Au contraire, people actually get more pumped about their initial argument and go searching on opposing data or try to disqualify the sources of their oppositors. People change their minds, but it takes time, convincing, and a good deal of friendship and/or comradery. Try to practice that, it might help.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
.
Would you like to read Commander stories? Check my latest stories, coming from Lorwyn and Innistrad: Ghoulcaller Gisa and Doran, The Siege Tower! If you like my writing, ask me to write something for your commander as well!
The debate community here seems pretty rational for the most part, certainly more than the average population in my view.
I have long struggled to communicate adequately with general population at large. Oftentimes I find the reason is because I tend to or try to view things logically.
But this is not how the rest of the world communicates. There is a very large portion of the world that does not communicate in logic at all, but in some other medium of persuasiveness. It could be emotion, it could be tone of voice, it could be showmanship, charisma. I honestly do not understand many of these things, but I am in a position now where I must learn how to convince the general population at large. (your average jury for example)
So I pose the question, How do I be stupid? and I'd like to qualify that. I'm not just talking about putting my head into an oven, or swimming with a toaster, what I am talking about it how do I communicate in a manner that disregards all logic and reason.
How do you, other members of debate, communicate with others who do not communicate in logic or reason, or who actively discard it entirely.
There are a great many people who actively disregard logic or reason. In fact, I believe this kind of person to constitute the majority of humanity.
So my question is how do you, members of debate communicate in your own lives with people who actively disregard logic and reason? Do you forgo your own logic and reason to communicate within a different stratum?
Modern: R Skred -- WBG Melira Co -- URW Nahiri Control
Legacy: R Mono Red Burn -- UWB Stoneblade
Commander: R Krenko, Mob Boss -- WUBRG Scion of the Ur-Dragon -- WUBRG Maze’s End
Other: R No Rares Red (Standard) -- URC Izzet Tron (Pauper)
Can you elaborate on how someone would be put on the defensive.
I have always seen arguments as a paradigm between two points of view and seeing where the logic falls.
But indeed, people have not always reacted positively to that approach.
Modern: R Skred -- WBG Melira Co -- URW Nahiri Control
Legacy: R Mono Red Burn -- UWB Stoneblade
Commander: R Krenko, Mob Boss -- WUBRG Scion of the Ur-Dragon -- WUBRG Maze’s End
Other: R No Rares Red (Standard) -- URC Izzet Tron (Pauper)
This is something I have struggled to grasp. I understand it in a superficial sense. But knowing of something and knowing what the other side looks like is a whole different level of comprehension.
But yes, that is a good characterization of what I have witnessed--that for most people all argument is a personal and deeply emotional struggle.
It sounds then that an element of persuasiveness is showing that you are on "their side"
Some people respond to this. Some don't. It can come off as patronising or fake. For example, it's almost a cliche to say you "used to be a supporter of one side of politics until x happened." Whether or not it is true, some people will just think you are being disingenuous and then your argument is shot.
It's more of reading a person. What they think. How they think. What's important to them. And then use their own reasoning and values to turn the argument around. The Socratic method is a basic example of this. You have to come at it as though you are their own internal thought process.
Modern: R Skred -- WBG Melira Co -- URW Nahiri Control
Legacy: R Mono Red Burn -- UWB Stoneblade
Commander: R Krenko, Mob Boss -- WUBRG Scion of the Ur-Dragon -- WUBRG Maze’s End
Other: R No Rares Red (Standard) -- URC Izzet Tron (Pauper)
Step 1 would be to read Aristotle's Rhetoric, which is the definitive treatise on these matters. Indeed, most of what has been said on the subject in the intervening 2500 years is reducible to commentary on Rhetoric. If you haven't read it already, it's free online.
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
When you speak of...
... that doesn't sound like lack of logic. That sounds like being able to effectively communicate and knowing how to present oneself.
And yeah, I suppose an answer is to study rhetoric. Alternatively, you could just treat people like fellow human beings and not look down on them while clearly articulating your ideas.
What are you even trying to communicate anyway?
@Highroller
"Wow, that's... Holy *****, dude, you could start by not being so incredibly condescending. If you want to communicate with others, "Anyone who isn't like me is stupid," is a pretty poor place to start out."
Totally agree, this kind of statement makes them look stupid.
Legacy: Dark Depths, Pox, Eldrazi Agro
Vintage: Dark Depths, Grey Orge
Pauper: Faerie Ninja
7pt Highlander: BW Combo
EDH: Horobi, (t)Toshiro, (t)Isamaru
And oddly I agree with Highroller again.
Modern
Commander
Cube
<a href="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/the-cube-forum/cube-lists/588020-unpowered-themed-enchantment-an-enchanted-evening">An Enchanted Evening Cube </a>
What am I trying to communicate?
I think this is a good example of what I am learning. This is a satire "Area man passionate defender of what he imagines constitution to be"
What astounds me is that people can hold on to beliefs which are demonstrably refutable, and yet will continue to persist in such belief. That is absolutely fascinating to me because
1) I do not function in such a manner
2) The prevalence of such means that many people have a system of thought that is fundamentally different from mine.
Now I could rail on religion. But at least with religion, the answer of whether or not God exists is not answerable by science or facts.
But, these issues persist even when direct evidence to the contrary is freely available.
For example, people will assert the Constitution supports them when it is 100% demonstrable that it does not because the text is publically accessible. No lengthy debate needs to be had.
One can simply look up the words of the Constitution.
So then why is it that people cannot be convinced in light of 100% factual assertions to the contrary? What is the quality they have?
Perhaps it is condescending that I call such people stupid. So I apologize and refrain from that. In fact, the better query is how does one be convincing to such people?
Debate, and logic are near useless. In the case of the constitutional assertions, the quality of evidence to the contrary can literally be 100% provable.
What I am seeking to understand is the nature of the paradigm in which a great deal many people simply believe and are convinced by certain things, and facts hold no weight whatsoever.
In the greater sense, we debate here to practice a certain type of persuasive expression. But what good is it if it is only convincing to us (apparently we're all a bunch of science/math/history majors), and not the greater populace at large.
What if I believed your handle was NIGHroller instead of Highroller? I can clearly see your handle is not, but in the face of 100% to the contrary I will simply go on believing it is.
Now imagine 50% of the population is like me. How do you deal with that? Is stupid the wrong term? Ok fine. Then how would you qualify it?
edit:
What I have NOT done is gone out to provide more concrete instances of the web of people asserting things which are demonstrably false. Don't make me research "The View", pundits, or Donald Trump statements. I think we have all seen instances of this in our lives and certainly on the web.
Or that if a belief is not of material interest to you, it must be correct.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
First stop thinking that other people are stupid. Yes, most of the population probably never studied advanced mathematics, or the constitution, or the basic laws of nature... so what? That doesn't make them stupid, they just didn't have time/opportunity/interest to go deep in these things.
Second, when people hold beliefs they will not be as easily dismissed by a meager fact or logical statement. A belief is much stronger than that in the eyes of the general population, it is something that they based their lives around, something that creates a moral compass for them to follow and is deeply marking who they are. If you want to show them that a belief they hold is wrong, then go slowly and be patient, you may have to show the same arguments thousands of times in different lights.
Third, and this is very important, don't be confrontational. I've seen few people in debates (even here) who take confrontanional stances and quickly change their minds when presented with facts or data. Au contraire, people actually get more pumped about their initial argument and go searching on opposing data or try to disqualify the sources of their oppositors. People change their minds, but it takes time, convincing, and a good deal of friendship and/or comradery. Try to practice that, it might help.
Read my other stories as well (some ongoing):
Reaper King (a horror story), Kaalia of the Vast (an origin story), Sequels for Innistrad (Alternative sequels for Inn), Grey Areas (Odric's fanfic), Royal Succession (goblins),The Tracker's Message (eldrazi on Innistrad) and Ugin and his Eye (the end of OGW).