Argumentation Is Pointless

Here's my viewpoint:

1. Humans don't argue to learn from each other, we argue to win and show dominance towards other humans.

2. Anything that is done purely to win/show dominance is pointless.

Logical Conclusion: Argumentation is pointless.

Quote:

---

It's called the argumentative theory of reasoning, and it says that humans didn't learn to ask questions and offer answers in order to find universal truths. We did it as a way to gain authority over others. That's right -- they think that reason itself evolved to help us bully people into getting what we want. Here's how a proponent puts it:

"'Reasoning doesn't have this function of helping us to get better beliefs and make better decisions,' said Hugo Mercier, who is a co-author of the journal article, with Dan Sperber. 'It was a purely social phenomenon. It evolved to help us convince others and to be careful when others try to convince us.' Truth and accuracy were beside the point."

And as evidence, the researchers point out that after thousands of years of humans sitting around campfires and arguing about issues, these glaring flaws in our logic still exist. Why hasn't evolution weeded them out? The answer, they say, is that these cognitive flaws are adaptations to a system that's working perfectly fine, thank you. Our evolutionary compulsion is to triumph, even if it means being totally, illogically, proudly wrong.

You do this, too. If you're a human being, you're from a long line of people who got to the winner's circle again and again by ignoring facts in favor of advancing your side. So, the next time you find yourself desperately Googling for some factual example that proves your argument is right, and failing to find even one, stop. See if you can put the brakes on and actually say, out loud, "Wait a second. If the things I'm saying in order to bolster my argument are consistently wrong, then maybe my argument is also wrong."

It's going to be harder than you think. Back when evolution was still sculpting your ancestor's brains, admitting you were wrong to the person you were debating got you bred out of existence. These days, being able to admit you're wrong is the greatest skill you can develop if you want to stay married.

---

It can be said that ideas can't advance without arguing, but in reality, it isn't arguing that causes ideas to advance, it's numbers.

More people believe in A than in B. A will be written into the history books, while B will be mocked as myth.

Argumentation occurs when there is a conflict of ideas; this is not necessary to spread ideas. In the process of spreading an idea, you will meet conflict, but you will also meet people who believe your idea makes more sense than the previous one, and will adopt it without much trouble.

Discuss.

I agree completely. I would just add that the best ideas have objective experience argue for them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ezpata

Discuss.

---

It's unfortunate that think of argument the same way that 4 year olds do.

I view an argument as any attempt to convince someone of your opinion while they hold a differing one.

The issue is, while you may think you're doing it to convince someone of something, you're actually doing it to win and assert your dominance over someone.

Example A:

"I think you're wrong!"
"Yeah? Well I think you're wrong, dummy!"
etc.

This is not an argument.


Example B:

"I think you're wrong, here's why you should see things my way."
"Perhaps, but here's why YOU'RE wrong, and why you should see things MY way."
etc.

This is an argument, provided said reasons make sense, and are logical.

Most of the time people have opinions they're not completely sure about and should logically be more agnostic, but they take a stance for the sake of fighting. It usually is very pointless.

Yes, Galileo's argument with the Vatican over the heliocentric model was pointless. It was never about Earth's position in the solar system, Galileo just wanted to prove that he had a bigger penis than the Pope.

Try harder please.

This is the most transparently and hilariously self-defeating argument ever. It's hard to even know how one would begin to take this seriously. Are we even meant to?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ezpata

"I think you're wrong, here's why you should see things my way."
"Perhaps, but here's why YOU'RE wrong, and why you should see things MY way."
etc.

This is an argument, provided said reasons make sense, and are logical.

---

So you do understand what an argument is.

Well what the heck

All intellectual growth is self-emergent, people cannot simply give up their cognitive matrix of reality and adapt someone else's because they couldn't figure out how to trump that person in a debate. They can merely learn and build upon their cognitive matrix in order to improve it. The greatest tool to learn is humility, which enables one to have a more open mind. The greatest obstacle to growth is conviction and presumption, assuming you are right and the other is wrong and that it's merely your job to show the other person that they're wrong.

Evolution has two sides, competition and cooperation. Competition necessitates cooperation as the small and simple must become large and complex in order to gain the advantage. While argument purely for the sake of dominance, or as Mark put it, the 4 year old's version of argument (though I find it strange how many 4 year olds troll these forums), gives the initial competitive edge, evolving your level of communication beyond mere domination enables greater cooperation, greater growth and complexity and overall a greater competitive edge.

But there's still game theory to keep in mind. There is no point in communicating cooperatively with those of unshakable conviction, as you'll find yourself simply agreeing with everything they say whether or not it computes with your own worldview and your cognitive matrix cannot improve. If someone cannot take an open minded stance with you, there's no point in taking an open minded stance with them. There is nothing to gain from admitting you're wrong to someone who has failed to convince you of anything.

Spoiler for more in depth:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stormcrow

Yes, Galileo's argument with the Vatican over the heliocentric model was pointless. It was never about Earth's position in the solar system, Galileo just wanted to prove that he had a bigger penis than the Pope.

Try harder please.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DuB

This is the most transparently and hilariously self-defeating argument ever. It's hard to even know how one would begin to take this seriously. Are we even meant to?

---

It was not Galileo trying to show dominance, it was the Church. I don't know what was going through Galileo's mind, but I know that I, myself, am far less likely to care whether or not I am right when I have observation on my side. It is when I take the observation and try to reach a conclusion that I am more likely to fight for my opinion. For instance in the Tickle your Amygdala thread, I had no reason to fight for the conclusions made by Neil Slade or others on Amygdala clicking, I had nothing invested in it, they weren't my claims. But I was a beneficiary of the experiment and felt compelled to explain my observation, so long as people would listen. However, in my Extra Dimensions thread I was taking an observation from an ineffable realm and trying to explain it without knowing if there even was proper vocabulary to explain it with and before even hearing about the book Flatland which I could have borrowed arguments from to make my claim much easier to explain. I became more invested in the argument because people were caught up attacking my words or clinging to conviction for the sake of it, but my words were just whatever I could come up with to explain my argument which was based on an observation. The observation that I encountered was objective (in a nonpartisan sense, as in anyone could have the same observation) but I had to come up with my own conclusions as to what I experienced and put them into words that ultimately fell short. Because I knew the heart of the argument was still valid, whether or not my conclusions were, it was mostly just a struggle to find the right words to explain it, but the reaction I met was, as Ezpata has said, an attempt to gain dominance, just as the reactions I quoted from this thread are.

While Dub's argument lacks substance and is clearly nothing more than attempt to show dominance with pure fallacy, Stormcrow's attempt at dominance is only revealed by his afterthought, "Try harder please," but his claim itself still has value.

As Mark noted when trying to compare your perspective on argument to a 4 year olds, there is a distinction, which is also hinted at by the quote in the OP about admitting your wrong for the sake of sustaining a marriage.

1. Very dubious assertion.
2. Demonstrably false consequence of dubious assertion.

Logical conclusion: get this thread the fuck out of my science forum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

1. Very dubious assertion.
2. Demonstrably false consequence of dubious assertion.

Logical conclusion: get this thread the fuck out of my science forum.

---

I believe it's time for another episode of "Using Xei to argue with Xei."

The OP claims that argumentation is pointless. He supports this claim through... argumentation.

If that is not transparently self-defeating then I don't know what is. The hilarity of it is perhaps more subjective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

1. Very dubious assertion.
2. Demonstrably false consequence of dubious assertion.

Logical conclusion: get this thread the fuck out of my science forum.

---

You're dubious.

There's never really a need to argue. You can just simply state your view. Listen to other people's views and either pass them by or use them as tools for exploring the world of ideas and building better views. No argumentation is necessary, it only serves as, as the OP states, primitive fighting through words.

Quote:

---

Humans don't argue to learn from each other, we argue to win and show dominance towards other humans.

---

how many arguments have you won using the very techniques of an opponent that previously bested you in debate? no one wins, ever

There is definitely a part of people that does not like to be wrong, and will keep trying to argue even when their position doesn't make sense. People usually accept things that reinforce their beliefs and fight things that go against their beliefs.

The problem with the main point, is you are assuming all argumentation is the same and for the same reason. There is no reason to believe that at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ezpata

1. Humans don't argue to learn from each other, we argue to win and show dominance towards other humans.

2. Anything that is done purely to win/show dominance is pointless.

---

Your problem is with point 1. Not all people do this. [Name redacted by fascist moderators] generally does for instance but I generally don't. When I'm arguing with someone, it's because I believe that one of us is wrong and for the sake of both of us, I'd like to get to the bottom of it. This is highly useful when both people are taking the same attitude. When somebody is arguing to be right rather than to discover right, then it is very annoying. That's why I don't even bother to read [Name redacted by fascist moderators]'s posts any more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ezpata

Here's my viewpoint:

1. Humans don't argue to learn from each other, we argue to win and show dominance towards other humans.

---

Possibly true but learning is at least occasionally a painful byproduct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

Your problem is with point 1. Not all people do this. [Name redacted by fascist moderators] generally does for instance but I generally don't. When I'm arguing with someone, it's because I believe that one of us is wrong and for the sake of both of us, I'd like to get to the bottom of it. This is highly useful when both people are taking the same attitude. When somebody is arguing to be right rather than to discover right, then it is very annoying. That's why I don't even bother to read [Name redacted by fascist moderators]'s posts any more.

---

It's funny because if you had read my post in this thread you'd understand exactly what's wrong with that attitude.

Quote:

---

There is nothing to gain from admitting you're wrong to someone who has failed to convince you of anything.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ezpata

Example A:

"I think you're wrong!"
"Yeah? Well I think you're wrong, dummy!"
etc.

This is not an argument.

---

Oh yes it is!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oneiro

Oh yes it is!

---

oh no it's not, dummy!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oneiro

Oh yes it is!

---

Oh no it isn't XP

With regards to the Op, even if we accept the dubious premises, it does not deductively follow that “Argumentation is pointless”. Furthermore the Op clearly states in the premises that the point of argumentation is to display dominance. The argument refuted itself before it even took off the ground.

Arguments arise when two rational players assert contradictory views. The reason why logic is so cut and dry and black and white (in some cases) is to weed out ambiguity. It is either raining outside (R) or it is not raining outside (¬R). If it is the case that it is raining then the negation of R is false. It simply cannot be the case that it is raining and simultaneously not raining. There is no room for relativism or ambiguity of any kind. Like it or not, some things are demonstratively true and others are false. The point of argumentation is not just to be right but to demonstratively show how and why, R for example, is the true. Argumentation is not pointless; it is the vehicle of intellectual progress. If your feelings get hurt in the process then you are not doing it right.

Omnis Dei mentioned that arguments can be competitive or cooperative. Ponder this example. Two physicists are arguing over which mathematical model best fits the observational data. There is more than just rational self-interest at play here. The discourse concerning which model best fits reality is not primarily motivated out of self-interest but to collectively come to a better understanding of reality. In this case argument doesn’t always imply a winner and loser. If both physicist set out to further our understanding of reality then by finding the right model (regardless of whose it was), they both win.

Since OD brought up Game Theory this type of game would be called a Non-Zero Sum game because one player is not benefitting from the others loss, they both “win” because finding the best fitting model was their collective intentions in the first place.

I find the notion described in the Op to be naively pernicious. It states that the only mechanism which advances ideas is the sheer amount of people who hold the said idea to be valid. But science is not a democracy (sorry for that cliché). The heliocentric model is valid neither by virtue of collective opinion nor deductive reasoning; it is valid because it corresponds to empirical observations.

And Omnis Dei, if I cant make condescending attempts at dry humor (like "Please try harder") then what am I even doing here?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

It's funny because if you had read my post in this thread you'd understand exactly what's wrong with that attitude.

---

Dammit. I saw my name in your post and accidentally read it. Then I went back to read the post you're mentioning. I read the first sentence and the one that you quoted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

All intellectual growth is self-emergent, people cannot simply give up their cognitive matrix of reality and adapt someone else's because they couldn't figure out how to trump that person in a debate.

---

This is already showing that you argue precisely like OP is describing. Argument is not about "trumping" another person in a debate, it's about clearly showing why the ideas being advanced do not fit reality. It's ok though. The vast majority of people argue like you do.

Here's the sentence you quoted:

Quote:

---

There is nothing to gain from admitting you're wrong to someone who has failed to convince you of anything.

---

There is nothing to gain from arguing with someone that has failed to demonstrate so much as a shred of intellectual honesty because you will always fail to convince them of anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stormcrow

With regards to the Op, even if we accept the dubious premises, it does not deductively follow that “Argumentation is pointless”. Furthermore the Op clearly states in the premises that the point of argumentation is to display dominance. The argument refuted itself before it even took off the ground.

Arguments arise when two rational players assert contradictory views. The reason why logic is so cut and dry and black and white (in some cases) is to weed out ambiguity. It is either raining outside (R) or it is not raining outside (¬R). If it is the case that it is raining then the negation of R is false. It simply cannot be the case that it is raining and simultaneously not raining. There is no room for relativism or ambiguity of any kind. Like it or not, some things are demonstratively true and others are false. The point of argumentation is not just to be right but to demonstratively show how and why, R for example, is the true. Argumentation is not pointless; it is the vehicle of intellectual progress. If your feelings get hurt in the process then you are not doing it right.

Omnis Dei mentioned that arguments can be competitive or cooperative. Ponder this example. Two physicists are arguing over which mathematical model best fits the observational data. There is more than just rational self-interest at play here. The discourse concerning which model best fits reality is not primarily motivated out of self-interest but to collectively come to a better understanding of reality. In this case argument doesn’t always imply a winner and loser. If both physicist set out to further our understanding of reality then by finding the right model (regardless of whose it was), they both win.

Since OD brought up Game Theory this type of game would be called a Non-Zero Sum game because one player is not benefitting from the others loss, they both “win” because finding the best fitting model was their collective intentions in the first place.

I find the notion described in the Op to be naively pernicious. It states that the only mechanism which advances ideas is the sheer amount of people who hold the said idea to be valid. But science is not a democracy (sorry for that cliché). The heliocentric model is valid neither by virtue of collective opinion nor deductive reasoning; it is valid because it corresponds to empirical observations.

And Omnis Dei, if I cant make condescending attempts at dry humor (like "Please try harder") then what am I even doing here?

---

While you make a valid point, I can't help but furrow an eyebrow at condescending remarks in general. I don't understand why people cannot just win the game, they have to rub the losing team's face in the mud in the process. While I appreciate dry humor, I've found that most issues are a lot less demonstratively true or false than I once naively believed. I know you used rain just for the sake of an example, but surely you understand that mild precipitation could not be considered rain nor not rain. I find that people are typically overly presumptuous and eager to draw hard lines, ignoring the ambiguous nature of reality in favor of their cognitive matrix. While a matrix is a helpful guide to reality, a high level of disrespect emerges from confusing your cognitive matrix of reality for reality itself, and assumptions about the falseness of foreign worldviews and different methods of thinking becomes commonplace.

Truth be told I'm not sure much about life can be cleared of ambiguity except mathematics.

You're right that it's not a zero-sum game, and there's nothing to lose by comparing your viewpoint with another person's, but mutual respect is required in order to gain anything. Common ground must be found and terminology must be sufficiently resolved rather than utilized as a means to break down the other person's argument. Simply because someone doesn't explain things the way you expect them to, or they phrased their argument in a way you can find holes in, it doesn't mean you have the right to forego mutual respect. I see, too often, rather than attempt to resolve problems in terminology, these problems are used as a vehicle to attack the opponent. If you had proper respect for the OP's position, why would you feel the need to or even see the humor in being condescending?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

This is already showing that you argue precisely like OP is describing. Argument is not about "trumping" another person in a debate, it's about clearly showing why the ideas being advanced do not fit reality. It's ok though. The vast majority of people argue like you do.

---

Apparently you stopped there when you should have continued. I go on to explain how it is not beneficial to argue for the sake of trumping the other person.

Why did you find it necessary to respond condescendingly to DreamBliss' proposition to the ladies of DV in the "horny and single" thread?

I don't take the Op seriously. But he obviously takes his position seriously because I would assume that he believes that arguing that arguing is pointless is pointless (but then why make the thread in the first place?).

If the Op is offended then I apologize that he misconstrued my posts to be malicious. If the mods believe that I am crossing the line, then I will respectfully discontinue my behavior at their request.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

Dammit. I saw my name in your post and accidentally read it.

---

There's an ignore function on the forum, I turned it on a month or two ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stormcrow

Why did you find it necessary to respond condescendingly to DreamBliss' proposition to the ladies of DV in the "horny and single" thread?

I don't take the Op seriously. But he obviously takes his position seriously because I would assume that he believes that arguing that arguing is pointless is pointless (but then why make the thread in the first place?).

If the Op is offended then I apologize that he misconstrued my posts to be malicious. If the mods believe that I am crossing the line, then I will respectfully discontinue my behavior at their request.

---

Whatever the mods think is not my concern. And it's up to the OP whether or not he deserves more respect for his argument. But you prove his point when you choose not to give him any respect and instead use the thread as an excuse to display superiority.

Like I said, I'm all in favor of good humor, but in terms of constructive discussions it doesn't serve much purpose. It only seems to serve a purpose in argument when trying to dominate rather than grow.

There is ambiguity though, satire for instance is difficult to pinpoint. My favorite TV show, the Daily Show, often uses humor to tell the truth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

There's an ignore function on the forum, I turned it on a month or two ago.

---

Yeah, I've done it with a few members but I always end up turning it off. I guess I'm just a masochist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stormcrow

If the Op is offended then I apologize that he misconstrued my posts to be malicious. If the mods believe that I am crossing the line, then I will respectfully discontinue my behavior at their request.

---

If I was offended by every slightly negative thing that's been said about me on the internet, I would have killed myself by now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stormcrow

I don't take the Op seriously. But he obviously takes his position seriously because I would assume that he believes that arguing that arguing is pointless is pointless (but then why make the thread in the first place?).

---

I don't take myself all that seriously either, lol. I am serious about this however. And yes, I do believe that arguing that arguing is pointless is pointless, but I never explicitly stated that I made this thread to argue. Besides, arguing is just something that happens; it can't be avoided. I'm just saying that it's pointless.

Yes, I'm aware of the multiple levels of irony surrounding this thread; notice my signature.

And I'm still not entirely sure about Omnis Dei's opinion on all of this; I'll have to read his on-topic posts sometime (when I have time, that is XD).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

My favorite TV show, the Daily Show, often uses humor to tell the truth.

---

Daily Show, ftw.

I have to say your point contradicts the quote you used. I was defending/elaborating on the quote you used, but I find the conclusion you drew from it to be wrong.

If an argument would mean the difference as to whether or not you breed, in an evolutionary sense it is extremely important. Just because society has grown more complex since the days where it was really so simple that one single argument would decide the future of your genes, this doesn't mean there are various levels of dominance which still play a role. Besides, this is assuming evolution only works through genes, and that ideas do not also evolve and dominate other ideas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

I have to say your point contradicts the quote you used. I was defending/elaborating on the quote you used, but I find the conclusion you drew from it to be wrong.

If an argument would mean the difference as to whether or not you breed, in an evolutionary sense it is extremely important. Just because society has grown more complex since the days where it was really so simple that one single argument would decide the future of your genes, this doesn't mean there are various levels of dominance which still play a role. Besides, this is assuming evolution only works through genes, and that ideas do not also evolve and dominate other ideas.

---

My oh my. I find myself reading and responding again.

First off, when anybody cares about your opinion on the validity of a given argument, they'll surely ask. I wouldn't hold your breath. In this case, profound truths (the uselessness of arguments) are often contradicted by other profound truths (the absolute necessity of argument). I would expect you to understand this.

Second, of course evolution operates on ideas. This is memetics. Evolution operates on languages as well. Operating off of the whole language as a subset of memetics idea, I actually predicted (though didn't publish) that the most frequently needed words would be the shortest and that these would be the slowest to change. About two years later I read that the most frequently used words are the shortest and are the slowest to change. I was right again. What a surprise. They even went so far as to say that language appears to be an evolutionary system. Well, can't blame a scientist for caution I suppose.

At any rate, this isn't genetic evolution. This is memetic evolution. One's darwinian (ok, with epi-genetics a darwinian system occasionally simulating a lamarkian one). Memetic evolution is pretty close to larmakian system.

One day, I'll figure out how to formalize all this stuff and then I'll be able to prove things. Then I'll really be in a postion to ruthlessly mock creationists and new agers. I think that the key is a proper definition of "species". I started a thread on this but it got dismissed as too abstract. hahahahaha

Why do you phrase things as if we're in disagreement only to more accurately articulate my argument?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

I have to say your point contradicts the quote you used. I was defending/elaborating on the quote you used, but I find the conclusion you drew from it to be wrong.

---

Ah. Well, thanks for telling me I'm wrong in such a mature fashion, lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ezpata

Here's my viewpoint:

1. Humans don't argue to learn from each other, we argue to win and show dominance towards other humans.

2. Anything that is done purely to win/show dominance is pointless.

---

Adding to your argument:
3. In order to win an argument, ultimately one's argument must better model reality.
4. Modeling reality is useful.
Conclusion: Argumentation is useful.

wat.

If you know how to argue correctly you never have to lose.

I think the moment you bring winning and losing into the equation, you are no longer arguing correctly.

Probably took me 5 or 6 years of arguing on the internet, before I realised that I was often just arguing for the sake of arguing. Then I became more self-critical, and I realised that I was also at times defending view points I didn't believe in, or that I knew had faults, which I was trying to hide with misdirection and so on. This is all very subconscious, and it is easily observed in discussions with newbie debaters. It's a very compromising personal feature, and does indeed ruin discussions and debates everywhere, like politics, religion, climate change and so on. People on all sides do it. It's not something you can't get rid of though, and we absolutely have a lot of great people on DreamViews, who can engage in debate, without compromising. And that's great.

Example of being self-critical: It took me about 20 minutes to write this post.

so, by arguing your point in this thread...you are trying to assert your dominance?

Your argument is flimsy at best.

The dominance of an idea. The idea being propositioned here is that people do not argue in order to learn, they argue in order to feel good about themselves. Long ago enough, they would argue in order to become the dominant member of their group. This motivation continues to echo in our arguments today. It is natural to identify with what you believe, even though what you believe is a transitory construct. But to accept what we believe may be wrong, we invite others to dominate us. And it's certainly possible for two people with disagreeing viewpoints to argue without dominating each other, but that's not how it usually works. Most of the time, without even being consciously aware of it, we are invested in our opinions, even if logically we understand uncertainty principle and that we are going to learn more and at the very least evolve our opinions in time. It doesn't matter because it always feels like admitting that you're still learning gives the other person unwarranted advantage.

In other words its the feeling that our ideas are under attack, and therefore we are under attack, which causes this dilemma in the first place. Funnily enough, when you feel sure about something, you don't feel the need to prove it to anyone. For instance I don't feel the need to prove to anyone that I am sitting here typing on my keyboard right now. If anyone tried to prove this wasn't so, I wouldn't feel the need to defend myself at all. I would mostly just feel sorry for them. Another example would be in the thread mcwillis started in IS about using your amygdala to activate your frontal cortex. Because I went through the practice and had success with it, when people criticized it I didn't feel the need to defend the idea at all. I only felt sorry for them that didn't have access to the same function I did. And my responses were centered on trying to help rather than proving my point. But in other threads, I'm presenting a theory without such easily verifiable certainty, and even though I know it's just a theory I feel like the theory is worth my time to defend, because if I just call it quits and decide it's not worth arguing, I'm essentially admitting the theory has no substance. Or conversely if I criticize someone else's posit I feel obligated to continue criticizing it because I feel like giving up my opposition validates their opinion in an unjustified way.

A dominant idea is usually a winning idea, right?

But not a true idea. When you think of it in terms of winning and losing, you remove the prospect of learning something, or teaching something for that matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

But not a true idea. When you think of it in terms of winning and losing, you remove the prospect of learning something, or teaching something for that matter.

---

So you're saying that competition breeds false ideas that no one can learn from. I'm curious, since only pure freethinking leads to novel ideas (conflicting with solidarity among peers), how healthy competition amongst freethinkers facilitates some undesired outcome even when the end goal is the same?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

But not a true idea. When you think of it in terms of winning and losing, you remove the prospect of learning something, or teaching something for that matter.

---

I'm guessing that a true idea is most likely to "win" in the end, but a false idea can easily be the winning idea. For example, I guess you could say Hitler was pretty good at winning arguments, but he did so with "untrue" (pretty much agreed on by everybody but that 's subjective) ideas, yet his ideas were largely considered to be true for a long time.

I think this is exactly why "winning" an argument is pointless, compared to using a discussion in order to find a better understanding. It is possible to win an argument using untrue ideas, and it is possible to lose using true ideas and vice versa.

Rhetoric, logic, and dialectic are your friends; argumentation has such a pejorative connotation. :(

It's also probably one of the most ethical skills one could ever practice.

Liberal tendency: to value accuracy above all else.

Conservative tendency: winning the argument is more important than accuracy.

I think the problem of a winning argument and a losing argument is the same as the problem of a true argument and a false argument. Consider this, when you talk to someone and you both agree, you still utilize different terminology much of the time because you came to the same conclusion from two different places. Essentially, we all have our own model of reality in our heads, and this model cannot be dislodged by a superior model, only improved through transactional communication. When someone tries to prove their argument is true and the other person's is false, they are essentially claiming that person's entire model of reality has no value, at least in regard to this particular topic. This disables their ability to learn, because teaching is not about replacing someone's model of reality, it's about improving it. A religious person doesn't change their opinion because of one single argument, but if the person they're arguing with speaks carefully enough, they can plant the seeds of doubt which will eventually grow into a whole different belief system. This belief system still grew from their previous model though, it did not replace it any more than a tree replaces the grass. It simply takes the sunlight from the grass often enough until the grass is forgotten.

To connect this metaphor, I'll be paraphrasing The Secret, please forgive me. When you're in a relationship (of any kind) with someone and you spitefully focus on their negative traits, you reinforce these qualities. When you focus on their positive traits, you reinforce these traits until the negative qualities wither away and are forgotten. It is the same in argument, you can only coax the positive, you cannot destroy the negative.

So in order to avoid domination based arguing, you also have to avoid a true/false dichotomy. You sort of have to disidentify with your argument, which essentially means understanding this is what your experiences have led you to believe right now but that doesn't mean it's true. This allows you to weigh in based on your experiences rather than prove yourself in a tug-of-war. In fact, the dichotomy of self/not-self is the same as true/false but that's a tangent for a different thread.

See Omnis, you have an extremely strong liberal bias on this subject - to you learning from a conversation (argument, what have you) is the most important thing. Often the people you're arguing with have a strongly conservative viewpoint, and are only concerned with defeating you with no concern for whether you or anyone learns anything in the process. You will never be able to convince them that accuracy (truth, learning) is the most important thing... all they care about is smashing you because they don't like the way you think.

And talking about false dichotomies - it's also important to understand that neither viewpoint is necessarily the 'right' one - they're just two very different human tendencies - people are strongly polarized along this line and will always argue about it. Once you realize that a certain kind of mind just isn't impressed at all with accuracy but that that kind of mind has certain tendencies the liberal mind lacks (such as strong group loyalty for one) it becomes clear that both strains of thinking serve a valuable purpose - in some cases conservative tendencies are the best response, and at times of change or at the forefront of scientific research the liberal seeking for what's true is what's needed. Both tendencies serve the species.

What's really ironic is that it seems everyone (at least the last few respondents on this page) is really agreeing with the OP - that when people argue for dominance they aren't helping to do anything productive. Some are validating that this is indeed how they argue and they don't see any problem with it.

But what's suspect in the OP is the word Pointless. Is dominance at the cost of accuracy really pointless? Only if you have the liberal hankerin' for accuracy above all else. To the conservative mind dominance is far more practical and important. Consider this for instance - another strong conservative trait is to value a strong authoritarian father figure who is obeyed almost like a god. Sort of goes hand in hand with the idea that dominance is important, no? And also the conservative tendency to place a great deal of importance on authority (rather than to seek actual scientific facts as liberals tend to do).

Heh - sorry, this is my latest kick - just got done with The Republican Brain and found it extremely enlightening on so much that's baffling about human behavior.

I think most people want to be right and want to know the truth. So while that is true about people's subconscious desire to dominate, it isn't as likely that they consciously would rather dominate than know the truth. They kind of just get into that mindset, and it is hard for people to get out of it. Even extremely liberal people can get stuck into that way of thinking. I think it is probably a rare person who consciously says they have no interest in the truth and just want to be right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

I think it is probably a rare person who consciously says they have no interest in the truth and just want to be right.

---

Or left, as the case may be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

I think most people want to be right and want to know the truth. So while that is true about people's subconscious desire to dominate, it isn't as likely that they consciously would rather dominate than know the truth. They kind of just get into that mindset, and it is hard for people to get out of it. Even extremely liberal people can get stuck into that way of thinking. I think it is probably a rare person who consciously says they have no interest in the truth and just want to be right.

---

Well, yeah, of course most people won't just say "I don't care about being right, I just want to win!" (some actually will admit to it). But arguments bring out the worst in people quite often - and as you say, liberals aren't immune to wanting to win either. Once the emotions get strongly engaged, reason flies out the window. Heh, in fact one rather interesting section of The Republican Mind deals with studies showing that liberals can be made to think like conservatives in certain situations - namely when they're strongly emotionally engaged (mostly anger or fear), extremely distracted - or drunk! :cheeky:

It's because liberal thinking is more nuanced and subtle, and tries to deal effectively with all the variables, as opposed to the conservative tendency to make quick black or white distinctions about things. This one tends to piss conservatives off (understandably) - but keep in mind there's a long-running conservative joke that liberals are indecisive and wishy-washy, and when it hits the fan, you want a conservative on your side - they'll swing into action instantly to defend anyone they consider 'one of theirs' (friend, family, conservative - hell even a damn dirty liberal hippy) against an outside threat - even if they've just been arguing violently with that person, whereas a liberal has more of a tendency to turn their back on people and whaffle on and on about the consequences. I'm simplifying of course - most people don't fit neatly into either box - we all have some liberal traits and some conservative traits, and those to varying degrees (plus there are other factors). Damn, isn't it irritating, this liberal tendency to cover all the bases!! I'm getting irritated at myself for it!! :lol:

But, to get back to the point, when someone argues to dominate rather than to educate, a certain rationalizing is going on in their head. The conservative mind has a tendency to work from emotion rather than from reason, but the person often doesn't realize this. It happens unconsciously, and so fast that they aren't aware of it. A liberal might get exactly the same emotional reaction in the same situation, but will stop and analyse it and decide it's worthless and do some reasoning before making a judgement - but a die-hard conservative will react instantly to the emotional gut reaction and then work to rationlize it afterwards, rather than examine their own thought process. And when they're criticized for this, they'll get angry and lash out rather than consider that the criticism might actually be valid. This is why large portions of the Republican party (in the US) tend to believe the bible or their own gut reaction over science, and why a smaller portion of the same party believes in Creationism. And why, even when presented the evidence (the same evidence that convinces liberals) they'll figuratively jam their fingers in their ears and sing Battle Hymn of the Republic at the top of their lungs to shut out the facts they don't want to hear.

But I disagree that most people want to argue to get to the truth... as was suggested in the OP, historically argument was to dominate, and it makes sense. A career politician gets more mileage from making their opponent look bad than from being right. The same sort of cut-throat politics apply when several people are up for one promotion - just look at The Apprentice!! People will go all character assassin on each other for enough provocation! So while getting to the truth might benefit the society as a whole more, it doesn't necessarily offer any incentive to an individual.

I think a liberal is more likely to think like a conservative when they feel their ideas are being senselessly attacked by someone approaching the situation from a gut-reaction rather than a position of reason. The reaction is that it's worth it to defend an idea when the criticism is invalid.

It also seems to be like particles and waves, liberals understand the spectrum while conservatives think in categories. It's not that only particles exist, or only waves exist, it just depends what you're testing for. And in some cases, looking at things categorically is effective. In other cases, understanding the large spectrum is most effective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

...it's worth it to defend an idea when the criticism is invalid.

---

I agree with this, but wouldn't there be similar truth in saying that an idea is especially worth defending when criticism is valid?

If the criticism is valid and the idea is valid (and both positions realize they are uncertain which one is true), there's no point in taking a conservative approach. The idea will essentially defend itself and your only job is to present the evidence it needs to defend itself.

Other points that caught my attention that I want to look into further -

Liberals tend to be introverts and to be tender-minded and will suffer primarily from anxiety disorders, while conservatives tend to be extroverts, tough-minded, and more apt to suffer from hysteria disorders.

Of course this is all only laid out as a model, an aaid to observation to help understand human behavior, which is compicated by so many other variables that most individuals will never fit neatly into the slots. There are tough-minded introverts, and anxiety-ridden conservatives...

I was just looking at a discussion of some of these traits on a philosophy board with some very good thoughts (as well as some enlightening misunderstandings and arguments): ILovePhilosophy.com • Introverts, Extroverts, & Political Positions

Just provided for anyone interested in the subject.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Liberals tend to be introverts and to be tender-minded and will suffer primarily from anxiety disorders, while conservatives tend to be extroverts, tough-minded, and more apt to suffer from hysteria disorders. .

---

Dude, I swim in liberals. As you said yourself, there's a whole spectrum. Where's the stats in that thread? I found this site full of conservative/liberal tendencies, but nothing on introversion/extroversion explicitly. This is the closest it comes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Other points that caught my attention that I want to look into further -

Liberals tend to be introverts and to be tender-minded and will suffer primarily from anxiety disorders, while conservatives tend to be extroverts, tough-minded, and more apt to suffer from hysteria disorders.

Of course this is all only laid out as a model, an aaid to observation to help understand human behavior, which is compicated by so many other variables that most individuals will never fit neatly into the slots. There are tough-minded introverts, and anxiety-ridden conservatives...

I was just looking at a discussion of some of these traits on a philosophy board with some very good thoughts (as well as some enlightening misunderstandings and arguments): ILovePhilosophy.com • Introverts, Extroverts, & Political Positions

Just provided for anyone interested in the subject.

---

Nice find, I'll check them out.

Edit: They have very good introductions on that site.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Abra

Dude, I swim in liberals. As you said yourself, there's a whole spectrum. Where's the stats in that thread? I found this site full of conservative/liberal tendencies, but nothing on introversion/extroversion explicitly. This is the closest it comes.

---

You - swim in liberals! Really... well there's an interesting image!! :cheeky:

Yeah, no stats or links on that thread - it's just discussion. However the book The Republican Mind, which covers the same info, is loaded profusely with footnotes listing links and publications including plenty of scientific papers. And it also goes into the introvert/extrovert stuff - in fact when I found that I was mostly looking for something on that subject to link to here because I can't link to the book.

To me thinking in terms of these generalities is useful in the same way as talking about tendencies in dogs and cats for purposes of simplicity and categorization. You know - dogs are loyal and friendly (except for the mean viscsious ones) - and cats are aloof and independent. Does that make dogs conservs and cats libs? Hmm... But it's a useful device because you can say things like "my cat thinks he's a dog." - a very quick and effective way to express an otherwise difficult contradiction. By starting from generalizations we can then work toward specifics.

For some reason, I tend to find myself swimming in conservatives a lot - not sure why that is (though I'm not entirely or strongly liberal). But at least it's easy to keep my head above water - it's usually pretty shallow! :awesomed:

I'm very much like the OP of the thread I linked to (I _think_ he was the op).. I've always been an introvert who pays little attention to the outside world (especially politics) and concentrated instead on art. Then just a few years ago I started to take an interest in certain things - especially those that help me to understand the behavior and decisions of people I know (including myself). This whole liberal/conservative tendencies thing is one of the most helpful ones.

So basically you're saying conservatives are stupid

Dude relax - it was a joke!!

But they are stupid

Did the punctuation keys fall off your keyboard? :?

That's what your mom told me last night while I was having sex with her after we ate at Chile's

Nuh-uh!!!

I know cuz my mom never had sex!!

But thanks for showing her the best time she's had since I scattered her ashes last year, you dirtly little necrophiliac you! :cheeky:

Here is an interesting article on it.

How facts backfire - The Boston Globe

Excellent!! Thanks for bringing this back on track!!

Yes, in fact motivated reasoning and misinformation are the main points of The Republican Brain. That article draws from the same pool of information (though obviously doesn't go nearly as deep, being only 4 pages long).

Motivated reasoning and misinformation are much more prevalent on the right - fuelled by the rationalizations and untruths put out by Fox News and Rush Limbaugh and so many other republican 'news' sources.

However, at the extreme end, liberals are as dogmatic and unthinking as conservatives. You've got the Tea Party at one end, and New Agers and politically correct, ivory tower, out-of-touch university proffessors at the other.

And one very interesting point - engaging ina particular behavior creates and strengthens neural pathways in the brain, so it literally becomes ingrained and changes the brain itself.

Now - all this said, I'm supposed to be striving to overcome the false dichotomy of liberal/conservative...

That sounds to me, based on the way you've argued the differences so far, like you're looking at the world as particles and waves, and you're trying to remove the dichotomy of particles/waves. Sometimes it's beneficial to see things black and white, and sometimes its beneficial to consider the spectrum. I personally try to see things as a spectrum as much as possible because I feel like people have gotten addicted to their left brain's conceptualization of reality and we need a little more balance.

Mmmmmmnnnn - SORT of. More like, I only recently came to visualise it as particles/waves, and I'm trying to hold onto and fully accept that view inorder to find common ground with the conservatives I know, so I can stop thinking of them as THEM and realize we're all US. So, seeing it as particles and waves IS to overcome the false dichotomy. It's only seen as a dichotomy if you think in terms of "why are those damn conservatives so stoopit?".

And I'm the type of person that responds to knowledge - when I began to learn about the differences, and that people honestly can't help the way they think, and that conservatism serves a valuable purpose and that in fact most liberals could do with in certain ways cultivating certain aspects of (mild) conservatism in themselves - then I began to realize that we're all in this together and that it's pointless to hold a person's neural structure against them and blame them for the way they naturally think - instead we should strive to realize that 'our' way and 'their' way are just two sides of the human coin, both necessary and counterbalancing like Yin and Yang, providing a dynamic balance.

Unfortunately liberals are a lot more likely to come to this understanding, and that's part of what we have to understand and accept. We're made to be considerate and accepting - that's our strength. The strength of conservatives is to take immediate action to always protect themselves against what they percieve as outside threats. We can't change that about them, we'll never get them to see the importance of the global village...

Knowing this helps me to be more understanding of my more conservative friends. And that's something I needed, because I was pushing them away to the point of destroying old friendships over polarizing viewpoints.

**edit**

I'm not sure waves and particles is really a great metaphor. It implies that anyone can switch freely between the two as the need arises. I know liberals can understand conservative thinking, and in stressful times will become conservative temporarily, but can the same be said for conservatives? Do you really think a conservative is capable and/or willing to become liberal when it serves them well? I hope someone can convince me it's possible.

You have a point, and in fact you've led me in so many different directions right now I don't know how to respond, after all this dichotomy can also be related to academia in the field of specialization and generality, or to evolution regarding preservation and mutation. I think I'll stick with that way of looking at things despite the fact that I've argued this several times before.

I made this chart a while back and showcased it a bit http://i461.photobucket.com/albums/q...conchart-1.jpg

THis sort of comes from a discussion I had with someone who argued Republicans have a really strong base and a core set of values, and the Democrats are everyone else. I realized that's true, not necessarily conservative and liberal but the republican/democrat dichotomy is split between those really entranced in the core American value system and those more open to other value systems. For instance a muslim might be very conservative in mind but because they're at odds with the mainstream american value system, they're still more likely to vote democrat.

You could also replace conservative values with mainstream genetic make-up if you were talking about evolution. The mainstream genetic method represents a core in the species which some individuals orbit very closely to while others begin to drift and diversify in all directions. SOme of these mutations they drift to will prove superior and become the new core of the species. That's why liberals are so important, you need that exploration in order to continue evolving into something superior than before. However, some mutations will prove disastrous and may even be very advantageous in the short term before their disastrous consequences are realized. This is why a more slowly changing conservative core is required, to preserve the basic integrity of the system/method.

So for instance we think of the bible belt as our conservative core in the US but for humanity our conservative core is the Leaver peoples, the 10,000 peoples that did not transform into a totalitarian agriculture lifestyle and still live their lives in closer accordance to the natural way of their environment. This core has grown to be seen as separate by the new conservative core, the totalitarian agriculture side, so that if you used my chart as a reference it wouldn't even be in the exact center. But my chart takes personal POV into account. And if our method of living proved unsustainable, it would be removed and the old core method of living would remain.

That diagram really illiustrates well something I've been thinking/wondering about recently in relation to this - especially if you would draw two arrows, one pointing outward and one inward. Because that's how I'm currently envisioning it - liberalism being an outward expansive embrace of all cultures, all races religions sexualities etc, and conservatism an inward withdrawal or closing-off, excluding anything that isn't "of me and mine". One of the core concepts of conservatism seems to be patriotism and pride - Mine is the best country. Within the country, mine is the best city... the best race, religion, family... does it end in narcissistic solipsism? Probably only in the most extreme cases. Narcissism to me seems like a condition that either results from or causes extreme conservatism (all this thinking results because my lifelong friend is an extreme conservative and narcissist - I can't help but think they're related). Of course, I'm not suggesting that most conservatives fit this extreme profile at all - what I'm exploring now is a rare case and a very individual one, complicated by psychological issues (namely narcissistic personality disorder). But sometimes looking at an extreme version of something gives you insight into the nature of the overall thing itself.

So, how possible is it for open-minded, all-accepting (or trying to be) liberals to accept views that are essentially antithetical, that consist of a closing-off and shutting-down? This last question is meant in general, not just in the case of me and my friend. I mean, is it the right thing for liberals to try to find it in their hearts to forgive and understand racist and xenophobic behavior just because "they can't help it"? My question basically is this... IS the dichotomy really false? Is it just a matter of shifting perception and trying to be understanding? Or are the aims of liberals and conservatives completely antithetical?

I suppose in the political arena there can be no forgive and forget - liberals have to fight to protect the rights of the underprivileged and the environment. But as friends, as people, as long as there's no political debate going on, I guess I can just chuckle when he spews hateful venom against all and sundry that are different from him and accept that he can't help it. But it sucks to know I have to be ridiculously open and accepting to one who's exactly the opposite.

To me it's telling that the way in which many people take sides on an issue is a result of something as arbitrary as a personality trait.

I'm not sure exactly what that means. I'm sure that narcissism makes people conservative - it would be hard to imagine a narcissist who believes in equality for everyone.

But saying all narcissists are conservative is not to say that all conservatives are narcissistic. It's just one of the factors that shuts down calm rational consideration required for subtle nuanced liberal thinking.

I'm not entirely convinced that the dichotomy isn't a very pervasive illusion that only exists because it's been greatly exasperated by the media. But once it's true in enough people's minds, it's true enough, I suppose.

It sounds like you're in the same boat I'm in, or the one I've spent lots of time in, at least. You really start to think about these differences (owing more to the fact that these are the majority of the people in your environment and family than to the liberal tendency of wanting to be open-minded), and it's like... yeah this is fine but I don't think a conservative ever gives the time of day to understand a liberal, geez.

Sorry I really feel like I should have tons to say on this by now, but I can't quite think of how to put it, lol.

Ok, thanks for elaborating.

It's tough because we're dealing with a lot of generalities and most people dont fit neatly into either category, but I do believe there are 2 essentially opposed tendencies, one of acceptance for outsiders' beliefs and customs, and one of protection against outsiders. Call it the global village versus tribalism.

And I do realize that racism etc exists mainly at the extreme end of conservatism - I can get along fine with most moderately conservative people I know (until certain hotbutton topics come up).

It may be that I'm mixing up the macro-and micro-cosms because I'm looking at large social/psychological conditions through the prism of my personal friendship (with someone who is admittedly not typical of a conservative, or of ANYTHING for that matter!!)

I probably should try to keep the personal observations separate from the larger issues.

lol Sorry, I seem to have completely derailed this thread!

I see the purpose conservatism holds in society, but I don't accept the way of thinking most conservatives have. I think it's time their line of thinking evolved on most issues. So I like conservatism, I don't like the US's current paradigm of conservatives. However being conservative also means one preserve their culture better than a liberal, and I think that's a good thing. If no one preserved their culture, they would become vulnerable to the infection of unsustainable mutation. However, if no one was willing to evolve their culture, they would become vulnerable to their competitors which are willing to evolve. And I think the US conservatives have gotten twisted into a false sense of American Culture which is making us more vulnerable to exploitation.

In otherwords I don't even think they're really conservative, they're neocons which is something else entirely.

Agreed- the Republican party has moved much farther to the right over a couple of decades, and the former left has moved more toward the center. And conservatives worship a glorious past that never actually was, at least not as they imagine it.

This thread has helped me work out my thoughts to some degree, as far as getting over the false liberal/conservative dichotomy - I can mostly see the value of both sides (as well as the problems of both) but it's not helping much as far as getting along better with my friend. I can forgive his conservatism, but now I see that's not really the issue I have with him. Alright, I'll stop using this thread to talk about my personal life now. :lol:

So I totally got laid tonight. But now I think I may have genital warts

Here's a very interesting web page examining traits like introversion/extroversion, shyness and dominance in regards to political affiliation: Neuropolitics.org

The evidence isn't totally conclusive, and political neuroscience itself is still fairly new as far as I know, but findings so far seem very convincing, and corroborate suspicions I've had for many years just from observation and intuition. The findings show liberals lean much more toward introversion and shyness and conservatives toward dominance (but conservatives also excell at submissiveness - indicating that they simply are much more willing to play the social dominance game).

My personal view is that extroversion is rampant at the extremes of both liberal and conservative, but that there's probaly a wider swath of introversion among liberals than conservatives.

Here's a link to the archive on that site: http://neuropolitics.org/backissues.asp

Haven't looked at any of the other pages yet, but some of the articles look extremely interesting. I think I'll start with the one on Morality and the Dopamine Reward System.

The fact that this thread has 4 pages of responses to probably the most absentminded conjecture is enough of a reason to probably just switch to a different forum that isn't occupied by idiots.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreams4free

The fact that this thread has 4 pages of responses to probably the most absentminded conjecture is enough of a reason to probably just switch to a different forum that isn't occupied by idiots.

---

Sadly, idiots are everywhere.