"Want to Win a Political Debate..."
Try making the liberal argument... the article doesn't say that outright, but, I read between the lines.
Gun control? Abortion? The new social science behind why you’re never able to convince friends or foes to even consider things from your side.
I started reading this article with some interest, until it dawned on me, the article is basically saying that "wining a political debate" is the worthwhile desired goal. Never mind the substance of the positions. Never mind why would you want to have a debate in the first place.
Imagine that instead of arguing about the quantity of gun deaths, for example, you make the case that universal background checks will allow a mom with two young kids to feel less nervous about the strange, reclusive man who lives down the street. Now your point is much less threatening. People will never believe they help bring about the deaths of innocents, but they can believe they failed to consider the peace of mind of some person they don’t know. The argument is objectively weaker, but it’s more likely to be below the threat threshold that leads to automatic rejection. It might actually be considered.
None of this is to say that when somebody is unknowledgeable or uncommitted it isn’t best to use your most powerful argument. And for political parties the priority is often driving activism rather than changing minds, and thus threatening arguments may be a better choice. But if you’re trying to convince a friend to change his views, it might be worthwhile to go against your instincts and hit him with all your weakest points.
The article is not worth reading. Go ahead if you want to, I cant stop you. I'm just warning you that I made a mistake bring it to your attention. It's liberal propaganda of the pernicious kind. If its worth anything, it should be read as a sign of what to look for when the debating society comes at you with their "weaker argument" bullshit approach.
53 comments:
Typical Lefty attitude - facts don't matter, it's all what you feel good about.
Stuart Smalley tactics.
I was in college and wanted to switch majors so maybe I'd be employable should I ever manage to graduate.
So I went to the career guidance center for help and they had me take some kind of interest test or aptitude test or something. It was one of those five-point-scale things.
I still remember one of the questions: "I derive personal satisfaction from persuading others and influencing their opinions."
And I was all like, "Huh? What the fuck are they talking about? Why would anyone want to do that?"
And then the penny dropped.
Those Who Maliciously Pull the Wings Off of Monarch Butterflies Are Not Good People.
I Use This To Start Off Every Argument, Regardless of Topic.
A Way of Establishing a Common Ground, Unless the Person I Am Arguing With Likes to Do That Sort of Thing; Then I Become the Butterfly Avenger and Smite Them With My Magical Butterfly Truncheon.
If We Find Agreement on the Monarch Butterfly Scenario I Then Proceed to the Evil That is Non-Consensual Unicorn Sex. This Goes For Whether the Unicorn is The Victim or the Oppressor.
Does the Butterfly and the Unicorn Not Have the Right to Protect Themselves?
When the Fuzzy Wuzzy Liddle Kitten on the "Hang in There" Poster is Hanging On, Do You Feel the Need to Rescue It, Give it a Warm Hug and Say "There, There", or Do You Think That the Kitten Is Learning a Very Important Lesson About How Gravity and Curiosity Coincide and Leave it to Science?
What If the Fuzzy Wuzzy Liddle Kitten Was Tormenting a Fuzzy Wuzzy Liddle-er Mouse? Or Are You a Colonialist?
The butterfly can always fly away and the unicorn has one kernel of corn... what more could a unicorn ask for?
Dirty Butterfly-Hating Unicorn-F**ker!
Butterfly popcorn.
You are a cruel man Betamax.
(10:38: Posted at the Same Time as Lem -- Not Directed at Him. Unless He Likes The Fit of That Particular Shoe.)
RE: "The butterfly can always fly away"
With Only One Wing? Sounds Like a Taylor Swift Song.
Argue for emotions. Use sad stories.
Facts are irrelevant.
So are butterflies (except one winged ones)and unicorns (unless they are wearing the BHO brand).
See? It's simple.
Argue for emotions. Use sad stories.
Facts are irrelevant.
So are butterflies (except one winged ones)and unicorns (unless they are wearing the BHO brand).
See? It's simple.
The Facts That I Make Up Are Never Irrelevant.
Yes, of course, I help to bring about the death of innocents.
Bah.
The reason that this argument doesn't work is that people know it's not true.
And I'm not going to be any more amenable to the argument that the woman down the street with only two children (and no husband) is going to be less worried about the reclusive male creep three doors down if I give in to a false (deliberately and provably so) argument about back ground checks that no one is making. Because DUDE! If he's a threat he's going to kill her and steal her 13 year old daughter and head to Idaho if I support universal registries or not.
Idiots.
I'll help the woman down the street feel more comfortable about the male creep on our street by taking her to the gun range and showing her how to shoot.
I like to play with the words sometimes.
As I've said many times before, Leftism/liberalism is easy. It requires little to no thought. Abortion? Sure, go for it. No guns, sure, not a problem. Welfare ad nauseum, absolutely. We are for the people and giving the people what they want as long as they keep voting for us and we let government expand to cater to their needs. Done and done.
The article says lie and you win.
According to the lair left - the rich don't pay any taxes, backgrounds checks for guns don't exist, and health care can be free if only those evil rethuglicans would stop their standing in the way.
Lies.
I had to go through a background check and a waiting period to get my gun. I also had to pay for that process myself.
Never mind that the wealthy people I know write huge huge checks - hundreds of thousands of dollars - to the government every quarter.
and what to they get in return? Waste, fraud and lies.
last I checked unemployment is on the rise along with healthcare costs and premiums.
But don't look at reality - some paid propagandist for the leftwing mouth piece has some lies for you to swallow whole - feels sooo good.
Actually, there's some good advice in there. And the writer does not recommend lying. He recommends, when debating, saving in reserve your strongest arguments while first offering your weaker arguements because strong arguments tend to be discussion-enders and weaker arguments allow your opponent to win a point, keeping him engaged and possibly able to be influenced.
Rope-a-dope dope. Float like a one-winged Monarch butterfly; sting not like a rapist unicorn.
Actually Meade has paraphrased the writer's argument well.
It is interesting how the left, more than the right I'd say, focuses on techniques rather than arguments in order to persuade. I'm reminded of all the attention George Lakoff's "framing" technique received in the 2000s.
The other day I was listening to a lecture on Richard Rorty, the neopragmatist philosopher, who recommended improving the lot of inner city blacks (a burning issue for Rorty) by perusasion based on the appeal, "We are Americans and we don't let other Americans suffer that way."
At least that was the lecturer's approving paraphrase of Rorty. In any event it struck me as a remarkably weak argument, really nothing more than a sentiment. If I could press a button and eliminate black suffering in the inner city, I would, but it's not that simple.
What is striking in all these liberal cases is their inability to question their own positions. Of course, they are right and of course, conservatives ought to realize it. It's just a matter of finding the right technique to persuade these stubborn conservatives.
It's liberal propaganda of the pernicious kind.
I don't get how this is "liberal propaganda" - of the pernicious or any other kind. I didn't parse it THAT closely admittedly, but it seemed like a NONpartisan article covering research on what are the psychological factors that make people more opened or closed to hearing other points of view.
I understand the POV that we all need to only evaluate the rational reasons why we are for or against something, and I'm as big a fan of reason as any other dingbat on the premises, but face it NONE of us is immune to psychological forms or persuasion. None of us completely eschew nonrational means of persuasion when we argue either - we're humans, not AI bots.
Unless you can demonstrate how this biased towards the libs, some of you are showing you're a little susceptible to nonrational means of persuasion yourselves.
phx said...
It's liberal propaganda of the pernicious kind.
I don't get how this is "liberal propaganda" - of the pernicious or any other kind. I didn't parse it THAT closely admittedly, but it seemed like a NONpartisan article covering research on what are the psychological factors that make people more opened or closed to hearing other points of view.
I understand the POV that we all need to only evaluate the rational reasons why we are for or against something, and I'm as big a fan of reason as any other dingbat on the premises, but face it NONE of us is immune to psychological forms or persuasion. None of us completely eschew nonrational means of persuasion when we argue either - we're humans, not AI bots.
Unless you can demonstrate how this biased towards the libs, some of you are showing you're a little susceptible to nonrational means of persuasion yourselves.
I've actually had discussions with my liberal/leftists friends. The ones I still have anyway. And one in particular is a rabid little communist who has told me on any number of occasions that conservativism can never work on a population of the stupid because he views modern America and Americans as basically stupid. And stupidity is the red meat of leftism. It requires that people be as dumb as possible in order to be as malleable as possible. That malleability is the playground for leftists for they can shape you into anything they want. He said at one time conservativism worked because it was rooted in the individual that was smart and could take care of themselves because it was out of necessity and that in pockets throughout the country it still holds strong, but in larger collectives like big urban centers, that kind of reliance on ones self can't work so well. You have to rely on others for other things. You have to inadvertently rely on the state apparatus to get things done. And when the state pegs you for anything you get caught in its web much easier and are as supple to bend as necessary.
According to him, this started in the great depression and really didn't take root until the middle of the 50's. Once it got into schools and became more entrenched in the 70's and made into a Federal Department of Education, that was it. It sealed the deal.
Every argument I've faced with a liberal, every single one, the individual disappears right before my eyes and the DNC appears in place. All liberal arguments, from my pov are arguments with the entire liberal establishment's received wisdom, an argument with their most fierce activist. The vocabulary changes to the current temporary language absolutely shiny newly minted for the occasion of argument. They're trying out other people's words for a spin because their own words are insufficiently cogent and their own personal ideas insufficiently developed. So they're gone and an activist replaces them for the occasion.
So that is where I start. By acknowledging my friend is gone and my patience with DNC vocabulary is measured in microseconds. That's how much time you have to get to the core of your own thoughts because the point where the discussion of me sharing political reality with you quickly ends when it's not the you that I know that I'm seeing and hearing.
Then there comes a point where that characterizes you and I depart permanently. That has happened scores of times.
Like the cab driver I mentioned. It took him 2.5 minutes to reveal Republicans always lie, he never listens to anything a Republican says and in the next .0005 seconds the political discussion ended and had already shifted to model boats. We passed the Brown Palace and there is a model boat on the street-level window. I have a few of those. they always catch my eye, a switch so abrupt, the cab driver goes "what?"
you make the case that universal background checks will allow a mom with two young kids to feel less nervous about the strange, reclusive man who lives down the street.
I imagine she'd also feel less nervous about the strange, reclusive man down the street if she knew she wouldn't have to wait two weeks for a gun if he tried something.
As for the article itself, I don't read it as being about winning liberal arguments. It points out that the same tactic works when convincing people to support restrictions on abortion, for example.
The article's larger point -- that people are emotionally invested in their beliefs and thus resistant to facts and arguments that contradict them -- true enough. You have to make the emotional case as well as the factual one, with most people.
Dumb/lazy/unfocused people are swayed by emotional argumentation. Cowardly people are afraid to refute it. Voila, that's well over half the population. Ergo, winning political debates relies on emotional argumentation.
(But don't make any emotional arguments that might hurt minority feewings. That's racist and evokes the spectre of white supremacism. All your emotional arguments are belong to us.)
Dumb/lazy/unfocused people are swayed by emotional argumentation. Cowardly people are afraid to refute it. Voila, that's well over half the population. Ergo, winning political debates relies on emotional argumentation.
(But don't make any emotional arguments that might hurt minority feewings. That's racist and evokes the spectre of white supremacism. All your emotional arguments are belong to us.)
Well, sure. So let's see you make a logical appeal to your cause. That's thing you posted above is just a hot feely mess of emotion. You're trying to paint the libs with the brush emotionalism, but where in the heck is there anything that looks like actual thinking in your comment? It's all emotional and practically inarticulate.
You guys sometimes just phone it in when you don't have any real lefties in here.
Meade is of course full o' shit. There are no "discussion enders" w/ liberal ideologues. Exhibit A is the widow nurse!
People's political, religious, and moral views tend to correlate strongly with the views of their parents, the people they were raised around, and the country they were raised in.
This strongly suggests that most people do not derive their political, religious, and moral views through reason. They derive them through the normal human habit of assuming that widely-held beliefs are true.
phx: I'd agree that Lem goes too far in labeling the article "pernicious," as in "highly injurious or destructive." I'd reserve pernicious for writings like "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion."
Instead I'd call the article annoying, at least for conservatives, because of the writer's unthinking liberal bias. Note the examples mostly show conservatives falling prey to emotional bias. In each case the author assumes that the liberal positions on gun control, climate change, and death panels are correct and conservative positions are wrong.
BTW -- I left a note for you on an Open Thread from the other day. It's not directed at you; it's about chess and something you might find interesting as I did.
"That's thing you posted above is just a hot feely mess of emotion."
True. Disgust is an emotion.
And yet, in your little mind, somehow I'm not winning. Hmm, ponderponder. (See the last sentence of my argument.)
Also, no need for me to exert myself and "paint the libs with the brush of emotionalism." (Which I didn't.) Not when you all are constantly breaking out the paint cans of emotionalism and dumping them on each other. Frickin' sloppy logic-free fingerpainting crybabies. You melt down like nuclear reactors, warping everything in every direction. Apparently including reading comprehension skills.
True. Disgust is an emotion.
You don't credit for being all emotional and claiming it's the other guy who's the emotional one.
Not when you all are constantly breaking out the paint cans of emotionalism and dumping them on each other.
I hate to break this to you, but you conservatives constantly do the same thing. In this thread, for example, the only conservatives to reply with reason instead of emotion were Synova and Meade.
Even Lem's attempt to spin this as a left-vs-right issue ignores the fact that the article gives examples of using the technique against liberal beliefs. But that gets ignored in favor of an emotional response to the very notion that someone might try to change a conservative's beliefs.
Here's a liberal presenting his weakest arguments to James O'Keefe.
I think we saw this same fellow in Malta recently.
I can only assume that "spud" as an insult has something to do with the Atkins diet. Those low-carb guys can get pretty feisty.
You can not convince a liberal with a reasoned argument. The only time they change their minds is when they get mugged. Sometimes even that isn't enough. Witness Detroit.
So the best thing to do is write them off and concentrate on people with the same conservative values of family and religion that you have. Often the newest immigrants have that tradition and would be ripe targets for a party that embodies their values.
ndspinelli said...
Exhibit A is the widow nurse!
Is that some kind of spider?
I have to deny being reasonable rather than emotional in my reply.
But mostly that's because I discovered that the University converted all the computer pods to touch screen monitors and Windows 8 over the weekend and I needed to act out or else break something.
creeley23: I reread the article - you are right. I got the lefty spin in the second reading. Thanks for keeping me honest.
I didn't realize you left a comment in the open thread - I went back and commented on it.
Did you see everybody took easy draws today at the World Cup? I think they're all betting on the condition of their own nerves.
Most liberals are just party line followers. They aren't interested in having argument, because they can't. They're not interested in facts or principles (like what's good for the country) - they are either trying to sell you the party line - or posturing to make themselves feel good.
Its why liberals will argue for something one day, and then argue against it the next (Cf the filibuster), or for example - they'll pretend to be in favor of a color-blind society, and then when that's implemented, will favor discrimination based on color - only this time against whites. Which was the goal all along.
The smart ones always have their "eyes on the prize" - which is why arguing with them is a waste of time.
Mind experiment. Imagine arguing with a Bolshevik in 1917 about what was good for Russia.
phx: You knew about Kirsan. Good for you. Like I said, I had no idea. I'm used to FIDE and the USCF being on the incompetent side, but this is a whole nother level.
I'm not following the World Cup. I'm still catching up from where I left off in the seventies -- reading up on history (Kasparov's "My Predecessors" series is incredible!), practicing tactics, and putting together a new opening repertoire.
I'm even getting some tournament gear together. I'm saddened by how ugly the plastic sets are these days, so I went for a basic European wood set with the "German Knight." I miss the tapering profile of the old sets, but otherwise I like this one.
I love working on my opening repertoire - it's an art form.
But don't neglect your middle and endgame! Don't forget the tactics! :D
Well also to be truthful I did start out thinking about Kirsan exactly the same way you did. That's after all the default position and when you hear things like "he believes he was abducted by UFOs", and seeing him pictured playing chess with Qadaffi, the default position has some things to recommend it.
But maybe because it is the default position and I just hate being on the side of a "mob" - I'm starting to wonder if that description of Kirsan and FIDE is really wholly accurate. Maybe he really hasn't been as bad for chess as Karpov (& Kasparov) was saying when he ran for the presidency.
I just haven't totally made up my mind about the man I guess.
I like Blueberry pie. Its great.
Apple is good too.
But Blueberry is better, for some reason.
phx: Well, as you said, anyone who could unify Karpov and Kasparov...
Kirsan may be charming from a distance, but I'm pretty sure he's a stone cold autocrat gangster in the Putin mold. We don't need more of those.
For tactics -- I'm 1552 into the Polgar "5334 Problems" and rated 2059 at GameKnot.
I'm using Lev Alburt for my black repertoire and John Emms for white.
Post a Comment