Thread: why are we so obsessed with proving other people wrong and making ourselves look good?

For some of us it's just naturally effortless.

Arguing does three things: (1) Perfects (or shows the flaws in) arguments. (2) Educates me. (3) Shows how some people are just dead wrong about things, which leads to the realm of who-can-come-up-with-the-most-creative-personal-attack(s).

Why are we so obsessed at proving others wrong and making ourselves look good?

I'm not sure that's the thing everyone does. But whatever, here goes nothing:

1) Because some people do not know any better, and actively search for a higher social status or self fulfillment, whether unconscious or not, or
2) Because some people think it is worth arguing about. If certain topics are of great importance to them personally, I can see why they'd be ferocious in their defense when they feel attacked, whether unconscious or not...

Also, one minor note: I always got the impression that 'knowledge is power' meant something else in contrast to 'when you have knowledge, you have power over stuff'. Foucault's philosophy was all about how every single human was bombarded by mechanisms of power designed to shape you into a certain mold, whether intentional or not. As in: seeing that we are the sum of our experiences, then the things we experience have tremendous effect on who we turn out to become. This power takes many forms, from the media, to entertainment, to the word on the street, to social convention, to law , to the current scientific consensus. Everything shapes you in some way or form. As such, the power in Foucault's sense is invisible. It isn't "done" by anyone, mostly. It's just there. It's in the zeitgeist. It is the zeitgeist.
As such, knowledge is power means exactly that: the knowledge you gain during your lifetime will shape the 'glasses' through which you might see and interact with the world. As such, the knowledge you gain will end up having "power" over you.
Do note, though, that this 'power' doesn't necessarily have to be malignant. 'Power' has a bit of a negative vibe to it, but that's just how you've been conditioned by power mechanics, right? In Foucault's philosophy, power just 'is'. It isn't good, it isn't evil. Hell, morality doesn't even exist in the sense of universal rules for the betterment of the world. Morality is just as subject to change as anything else is. It is itself a mechanism of power (again: note that power is truly neutral) and is transformed over the years by other sources of power as well.


FWIW,

Tim

Originally Posted by sloth

Heh.

Your username becomes you.

Originally Posted by TimB

Also, one minor note: I always got the impression that 'knowledge is power' meant something else in contrast to 'when you have knowledge, you have power over stuff'. Foucault's philosophy was all about how every single human was bombarded by mechanisms of power designed to shape you into a certain mold, whether intentional or not. As in: seeing that we are the sum of our experiences, then the things we experience have tremendous effect on who we turn out to become. This power takes many forms, from the media, to entertainment, to the word on the street, to social convention, to law , to the current scientific consensus. Everything shapes you in some way or form. As such, the power in Foucault's sense is invisible. It isn't "done" by anyone, mostly. It's just there. It's in the zeitgeist. It is the zeitgeist.
As such, knowledge is power means exactly that: the knowledge you gain during your lifetime will shape the 'glasses' through which you might see and interact with the world. As such, the knowledge you gain will end up having "power" over you.
Do note, though, that this 'power' doesn't necessarily have to be malignant. 'Power' has a bit of a negative vibe to it, but that's just how you've been conditioned by power mechanics, right? In Foucault's philosophy, power just 'is'. It isn't good, it isn't evil. Hell, morality doesn't even exist in the sense of universal rules for the betterment of the world. Morality is just as subject to change as anything else is. It is itself a mechanism of power (again: note that power is truly neutral) and is transformed over the years by other sources of power as well.


FWIW,

Tim

Great post. I'm tackling Foucault's The Archaeology of Knowledge right now and having some difficulty, its a dense book. Thanks for clarifying what he means by knowledge is power. I had taken it as saying that our accumulated knowledge affects how we take action in the world and thus is an exertion of power.

Originally Posted by no-Name

sure, but that's ignorance. a lack of knowledge. which is what I was talking about. if you learn to talk to her, you can teach her, and convince her that there's nothing wrong.

why is she ignorant, though? because her parents or friends are/were, or she had a bad experience with someone that happened to be homosexual. or possibly some other scenario. it's not important why, only that we end it.

Being homophobic doesn't mean you are lacking some critical insight into knowledge. It is merely an aesthetic choice. Homophobic people find homosexuality disgusting.

What you are saying in your post is akin to calling a person ignorant because they don't like a Picasso painting or a Pollock painting.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Arguing does three things: (1) Perfects (or shows the flaws in) arguments. (2) Educates me. (3) Shows how some people are just dead wrong about things, which leads to the realm of who-can-come-up-with-the-most-creative-personal-attack(s).

what do "personal attacks" accomplish in the end for the person being attacked?

I've noticed that there are a few people here on DV who always have to be right (and will not admit they are wrong even when proven wrong) and greatly enjoy deriding others and aggrandizing themselves in a fatuous display. It's disappointing because this arrogance belies any great intelligence they are purported to have.

For me personally, I enjoy being right, but not to make anyone else look bad or to make myself more important. For me it's merely a challenge of my own wit, while at the same time, hopefully, helping someone to learn more. I am more than happy to admit that I may be completely ignorant about any given situation, and I am careful to make sure that when I do make claims, they are correct and have plenty of support. I won't hesitate to admit when I am wrong. The people described above are the ones that I have the biggest problem with, because, unlike me, they are unable to approach discourse with any sense of humility, and are incapable of extending to me the same courtesies that I extend to them, which is, mostly, the possibility of being wrong, and the desire to learn what is right.

I think people always fight about the same things we always have. Religion and politics or topics that fall close to these areas like the supernatural and things you can not prove. People always get hot. I myself am pretty middle of the road and often make both sides of these issues pissed. I think there is a higher power even though am by no means a big holy roller so often the atheist or agnostic thinks I am hopelessly simple. The big time religious person thinks I am on my way to a warm stay in hell unless I change my ways, break out my bible and burn my Tarot cards! You just can not win! So I usually just do not say too much about these things.

Originally Posted by erible

what do "personal attacks" accomplish in the end for the person being attacked?

Nothing, but it sure is fun. They're usually reserved for when two people hit a wall and can't constructively argue anymore.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Nothing, but it sure is fun. They're usually reserved for when two people hit a wall and can't constructively argue anymore.

so its fun to attack people for your own selfish reasons?

Personal attacks are the last refuge of the defeated in my opinion.

Originally Posted by erible

so its fun to attack people for your own selfish reasons?

If a conversation is going absolutely nowhere, yes.

Don't get confused and think I employ personal attacks right off the bat. But when two people hit a wall and will not even listen to what each other is saying, the chances that a personal attack will be thrown rise considerably.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Being homophobic doesn't mean you are lacking some critical insight into knowledge. It is merely an aesthetic choice. Homophobic people find homosexuality disgusting.

What you are saying in your post is akin to calling a person ignorant because they don't like a Picasso painting or a Pollock painting.

I personally believe that the motivations for the aversion to homosexuality are irrational and largely a cultural/religious construction. Irrationality is a lack of critical insight.

Originally Posted by stormcrow

I personally believe that the motivations for the aversion to homosexuality are irrational and largely a cultural/religious construction. Irrationality is a lack of critical insight.

I don't think you are using the correct definition of irrational. Irrational means an action beyond reason. Homophobes have a reason. You may not like it but they have one. Really no irrational action, action being the purposeful behavior of applying means to ends, is possible. Irrationality is more akin to a involuntary twitch or contraction.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Being homophobic doesn't mean you are lacking some critical insight into knowledge. It is merely an aesthetic choice. Homophobic people find homosexuality disgusting.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

I don't think you are using the correct definition of irrational. Irrational means an action beyond reason. Homophobes have a reason.

LOLMG. I can see that you actually believe this.
This is your argument-
Homosexuals look no different to any other person, but it's an aesthetic choice to be scared of, or by extension, hate them.
No.

Originally Posted by Aquanina

I've noticed that there are a few people here on DV who always have to be right (and will not admit they are wrong even when proven wrong) and greatly enjoy deriding others and aggrandizing themselves in a fatuous display. It's disappointing because this arrogance belies any great intelligence they are purported to have.

The people described above are the ones that I have the biggest problem with, because, unlike me, they are unable to approach discourse with any sense of humility, and are incapable of extending to me the same courtesies that I extend to them, which is, mostly, the possibility of being wrong, and the desire to learn what is right.

Well, I've noticed, that when people do good, or humble things (or other things which harm their ego a bit), it usually goes unnoticed.
For example, if I clean up the kitchen my mum won't even notice. But when I don't, she notices and gets frustrated that it's "always dirty" or whatever.

Similarly you may be only noticing when people defend their position even in light of the fact that they are clearly wrong, but forgetting about the times that they do change their view and admit the other person is right. Or you may have just missed the times that they admitted they were wrong.

Going a bit off topic here but....
I don't really hate when people do this, or even dislike it. It's normal, and if they have enough introspection, they will admit it to themselves later on.
What I do dislike, is when people don't finish an argument because they know they are wrong or can't back up anything they say so they're just like "I don't wanna argue right now/about this!".

This has probably been said but EGO

We want to prove other people wrong because we think that makes us better than them because we are right. It only keeps you caught up in duality. someone is better than someone else. Really I think it makes you look stupider than whoever your trying to prove wrong. Because nobody is better than anyone else. We are all perfect. The only thing that makes anything less perfect than anything else is you own subjective judgment of it. If you can't wrap your mind around that. Basically you create a though or belief in your mind. This alters the way you percieve the world subjectively (meaning you only see it this way because you think it). realize this godddamit!!!!! People are soo stupid and don't realize things are good or bad or right or wrong or ugly or beautiful only because you think they are. Everything is beautiful. I see all of you as beautiful. You are all special in your own way.

Originally Posted by tommo

LOLMG. I can see that you actually believe this.
This is your argument-
Homosexuals look no different to any other person, but it's an aesthetic choice to be scared of, or by extension, hate them.
No.

It has nothing to do with what they look like but the actions they commit. I have nothing against homosexuals. I'm not offended by what they do or how they choose to live their lives. The mere explanation of why some people are homophobic does not make the explainer a homophobe. So you "see" me incorrectly which doesn't really surprise me.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

It has nothing to do with what they look like but the actions they commit. I have nothing against homosexuals. I'm not offended by what they do or how they choose to live their lives. The mere explanation of why some people are homophobic does not make the explainer a homophobe. So you "see" me incorrectly which doesn't really surprise me.

Lol I see you projected your own feelings in to what I said. I never said you were a homophobe, at all.

I said I see you actually believe what you are saying; that homophobes have an aesthetic repulsion to homosexuals.
The point is, homophobes are mostly likely never going to see homosexuals doing anything they find disgusting. Homophobes are scared and sometimes they hate homosexuals. Aesthetics doesn't come in to the equation, it's just ignorance.

homophobes usually hate "femininity" or "weakness" in men, and that happens when they can't accept their fragile, sweet and submissive nature so they lock it in, and when some feminine guy is in front of them it makes them remember so they have to make the feminine guy disappear or treat him like shit so that their femininity seems less important to them.

Answering the creator of this thread , people tend to bring others down because it's easier to eliminate threats than to trust in other people and look for solutions, being able to show someone wrong actually gives you more security in being able to control other threats that may come your way.

I think people are homophobes because they don't want men being attracted to them. not that they don't like who they are, although that might also be the case to. Its just kind of akward for some straight guys if they feel another man might be attracted to them.

Originally Posted by tommo

Lol I see you projected your own feelings in to what I said. I never said you were a homophobe, at all.

I said I see you actually believe what you are saying; that homophobes have an aesthetic repulsion to homosexuals.
The point is, homophobes are mostly likely never going to see homosexuals doing anything they find disgusting. Homophobes are scared and sometimes they hate homosexuals. Aesthetics doesn't come in to the equation, it's just ignorance.

Ignorance of what exactly? You make this claim yet give no proof to back it up. This is a really annoying trait you seem to possess.

Originally Posted by mowglycdb

homophobes usually hate "femininity" or "weakness" in men, and that happens when they can't accept their fragile, sweet and submissive nature so they lock it in, and when some feminine guy is in front of them it makes them remember so they have to make the feminine guy disappear or treat him like shit so that their femininity seems less important to them.

So women can't be homosexuals and people can't have homophobic beliefs about lesbians?

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Ignorance of what exactly? You make this claim yet give no proof to back it up. This is a really annoying trait you seem to possess.

Lol. I like how you back up everything you say /sarcasm.

I disproved your idea and postulated my theory. That was all I wanted to do.