The thing about arguing on the internet, and winning is: you can't tell whether you've "won." Nearly nobody changes their mind after one conversation, and even fewer admit to it. But minds are changed sometimes. After many conversations, often when they have time alone to ruminate over what they've heard. Not in the moment, when people are at their most defensive. Maybe your argument isn't the one that snaps them out of it, but it primes the pump for another interlocutor to attack their position from a different direction. Probably the biggest thing for changing minds is to attack bad positions from as many angles as possible, and that's often a team effort.
Yeah out of every argument I’ve had online, the only satisfactory ending was when someone thanked me for the discussion & for giving them a better outlook on a topic.
Honestly I think arguements just make the person more defensive and rigid when it comes to changing their v1ews. We can debate in a nice manner, but if they find the argument to be a bad thing in the first place and think you are insulting them by proving them their some points might be wrong then the person wouldn't really be able to change.
This is why I often do engage when I probably shouldn't I often do when I see no backlash to insane takes. I just hate seeing someone say something crazy (often in community that might not think twice about it) and have no one at least try to offer a counterpoint. Often I have no intention of trying to change the person's mind, but rather prevent the dozens of people who scroll by reading comments without saying anything or even liking them. All of what they read has some effect on them, whether they totally agree, get confused, or totally disagree. I don't want people to have flawed ideas or prejudices reinforced without them thinking twice, so offering a counter-point is more so that other readers are forced into reassessing themselves (unlikely) or at least get them exposed to arguments they've likely never even heard before. A lot of this stems from myself changing a lot. A lot of what I believe now, I was exposed to when I believed the opposite. It wasn't until years of hearing the same things get repeated, better explanation after better explanation, and no longer being able to hold my own beliefs or justify them anymore. There was never a point I went, "Oh I guess I'm wrong, this guy's right." But a long gradual process of getting stumped, getting yelled at (in person), hearing concepts I disagreed with get better explanations, and eventually even maturing so I became more open-minded and understand I need other people's views if I'm ever to get a wider view of the world.
The most satisfactory ending is when someone starts insulting you or stops responding. It means you've destroyed them so bad they have no response anymore.
idk that the goal of internet arguments is to change the mind of the person you are arguing with so much as to change the mind for whoever the audience of the argument is, anyone so emotionally invested in a subject to argue with strangers over it is probaby someone who isn't going to change their mind just because someone explained to them why they are wrong
A few years ago I was in a political debate online group and I saw a lot of the debates weren't productive because people didn't really talk about the core of their disagreement but just repeating claims so I decided to start every debate with defining what we are talking about and the terms we were using and than what the facts are before talking about what is the problem with that or what should be done. That worked really nicely for two months before a couple of less than nice people started just insulting anyone who didn't agree with them, even if all they said was "I think we need to discuss what we actually mean by X since I don't think we are on the same page." This is when I knew there was no more hope for productive discussions there, so I left after a week.
I guess that's the fifth step in the pyramid, the other person has to be arguing in good faith and be willing to listen. The only way to win arguments with trolls is to not bother. I'd say you made the right move.
It's interesting because I studied mathematics and I always explain how that degree translates to real life skills by saying it taught me to look at my assumptions and definitions. It turns out that a lot of people often don't do that and being able to just suggest they should is a valuable skill, as you also found out.
@@daan8695 I also like to apply algebraic principles to certain topics and logic just to see what happens, its a good thought experiment in actually fleshing out the idea and also shows how silly some arguments can be.
God I wish the war on cars actually existed. Imagine America having the same robust public transit as every other industrialized country so that folks with -ADHD and seizure history- haha jk it’s CPTSD (raises hand) aren’t left up a creek without a paddle -- or better yet, _building cities that pedestrians can actually traverse._ EDIT: Since nobody reads the thread before commenting: unmanaged ADHD (and other attention problems) can make it hard to figure out which lane of traffic to pay attention to and when. If we look at the wrong lane for the wrong millisecond, we can end up getting hit. On a _population scale,_ we are almost _twice as likely_ to end up in an accident. Some of us are so aware of our focus issues and so full of anxiety that we don't tempt fate in the first place.
Cars are just bad for general health--people get less exercise, breathe exhaust, and die in accidents. Cars make city planning unsustainable and hostile to pedestrians (ie, humans). I could go on about this all day
As someone who comes close to having meltdowns while *thinking* about driving, I'll raise my hand for the autistic folk in the crowd. Too many variables that I can't control, so much overwhelming information, so many things to keep in your mind at all times, nothing being one-to-one (think like a videogame), and the fact that, at any time, any other person can decide to kill you... it's all waaay too much for me to handle. Having to rely on other people driving me places (not that there's any place for me to go, even pre-pandemic) is such a huge slash against my agency.
(Not me having ADHD and only being able to get my brain to shut up and focus in the car), but also having comprehensive public transportation would be fantastic when I don’t feel like driving :)
So I got super excited on Patreon but wanted to comment here too: as a very, very enthusiastic rhetoric major who would have gone for my doctorate if I hadn't have had a family to worry about (worth the tradeoff for me personally), stasis theory is so, so, so important. It's incredibly useful--I've used it to explain interdepartmental conflict to my boss and I think of it often. The only thing it isn't equipped to deal with is bad faith arguments, I think, although those are incredibly frequent on this internet of ours. Then again, you could argue that it just means that you cannot agree on reality and walk away. I feel like, to a degree, the Alt-Right Playbook is a very long study of this as relates to the alt right, but particularly "Always A Bigger Fish." The part where he discusses how liberals treating conservatives like failed liberals is condescending and inaccurate made me go...oh. It's just stasis again, like everything is. stasis, all the way down
Oh, I agree 100%. Bad faith arguments are actually something I struggle with identifying & combatting, myself. So any advice you have is MUCH appreciated! lol But 1000x YES to Innuendo Studios!
I've struggled with dealing with bad faith arguments for a long time, and I used to just call out the bad faith and bounce, simply to release myself from being dragged into pointless wall-head-banging. Calling out their behaviour seemed to be the best way to make them lose their shix, and that seemed... productive, I guess? These days I've started trying a different strategy: "I have to ask because this is feeling like it's going in circles, are you actually curious to understand my position here? I'm curious to understand yours but I'm having a hard time seeing what you mean. Before I continue, I need you to tell me you're curious." It is incredibly effective. Most of the time they ignore the question, or they call it irrelevant, or they simply order me to reply. I simply respond with, "So, to clarify, you're not prepared to even admit that you're curious to learn anything? You're not even going to pretend?" I have witnessed the most beautiful implosions doing this. I sometimes keep the replies going one or two more times, just to try iterations on the idea. Usually, it's extremely freeing. Curiosity is anathema to a bad-faith actor, and they cannot admit it because they know it's a humble position that they are not willing to occupy. Like, one time I got a half-hearted admission of in-principle curiosity, and it kind of went somewhere but also just sort of petered out. It was better than just yelling past each other. I love this method because I also think it reveals something devastating about the bad-faith actor, and also shows the absolutely crucial nature of curiosity to anyone reading on. I also have to resist the temptation to use it in a bad-faith "MNYAH" sort of way, which I have once or twice partly strayed into, but also I feel like if you ask this of a good-faith arguer you're more likely to get a "yes, I am curious" sort of reply, which would be great! I kind of fear the day that reactionaries get ahold of this language and weaponise it, but I also don't know how they could. We'll see, I guess.
as a rhetoric major, what books would you recommend to a total noob like me who wants to use rhetoric to get along with others and understand them better?
@A Cool YooToobist This is exactly the kind of behaviour I'm talking about. Conservatives and fascists in general act like this because they would prefer to rely on the coercive power of an institution than actual argument. This usually makes them incurious. I have found this behaviour in other political tendencies, but usually again only in service of insititutions. The point is, if you just want to show how dumb they are (go out and destroy, you little monster :P ), then this is still pretty effective. Sometimes a bad faith actor just needs to be exposed, and I've found this is a very fast way to get them to give up the act and just tell you that they don't care what you think.
I mean...I am pro "war on cars". Cities would be far better off with less cars and car infrastructure, and more public transport, biking, and walking infrastructure. Rural places would have a harder time reducing cars and car infrastructure, but as the voting blobs show, there is fewer of them than those who live in cities so the environmental impact would definitely be noticable.
As a rural dude, I would love to have any mass public transit that reaches us out in the boonies. It would be so freaking convenient for long distance travel. Basically, I just really want a bunch of trains. Bikes just aren't practical for carrying, say, a cord of wood, but having more trains to reduce demand on trucks would be awesome.
@@FractalSpiral1 For sure. A lot of this "war on car" stuff really just comes down to making urban centers more walkable and sustainable socially and economically. The car has a place in this transition, but ultimately the less cars that need to be driving because of the convince of alternative forms of transport, the better. Rural areas will probably still have the car for a long time. On the bright side, fuel might be cheaper? By then we'll likely be on a road to electrification, of course.
@@FractalSpiral1 German is at least trialing overhead electricity for trucks...that would reduce battery demands, given no place is 150 miles from the Autobahn. Tesla had been promising milion mile batteries for ages and those are as disgustingly frivolous as the additional cars some people have for entertaining in heated garages
I cannot count the number of times I've gotten into an argument, just to realize the person I was arguing with had a Completely different set of base assumptions. Thank you for giving a framework I can use to approach these arguments in the future.
This reminds me of an instance where I was browsing Twitter, and someone [A] was irritated at being defined as a liberal. "B: Can't handle a different opinion then yours? I thought liberals were supposed to be the embodiment of tolerance C: well known ascriber to center right ideology, liberalism, [A] B: Center-right : That's still a liberal in my book. Not conservative enough. C:that's literally what a liberal is... you stumbled onto the page of a communist podcaster and are implying she ascribes to a right wing ideology" It's important to remember that people have such different definitions of words that what can seem like obvious sarcasm to one group (C's first statement), can be completely misinterpreted by others (those who use liberals and leftists as synonyms). People can start talking past each other so easily, that you have to stop and define even basic terms if you want to have any sort of conversation. Assuming the other person even wants to have that conversation, and isn't just replying in order to talk to the other people reading the thread.
@@nicolescats2 when I started learning about us politics I thought "liberal" had a different meaning in english, but no, conservatives just don't know what it means
This is a very interesting look into the structure of arguments and provides a great method for having productive, good faith discussions online with those who you disagree with. Unfortunately I, the #1 internet debate thunder dome champion of the world, have no use for “good faith conversation” as I already know I am correct about everything all the time. This is probably useful for those who aren’t as perfect as I tho.
I'm sorry, but _you_ are not the #1 internet debate thunder dome champion of the world because _I_ am the #1 internet debate thunder dome champion of the world! And outside of Lazytown, there can only be one #1.
Given all the recent debate shenanigans online, I feel like this video could not have come at a better time lol. Very practical for helping us aim towards mutual understandings, rather than, all that other stuff. Great work! 😄
As someone who previously worked in marketing this is a really important tool in targeting different messages to different audiences. It also helps in marketing to pretend like you're on their side because they will be less guarded and more trusting of you. If you can argue why your product/solution/policy benefits them in their view of reality while also having the benefit of them thinking you're on their side you'll convince people really quickly. I also think a lot of people have the arrogance to think they've never been tricked by a industry plant. I have, you have, we all have. You might detect some poorly conceived plants, but a lot of them go under the radar and people just believe them to be real.
My sister has worked in advertising and sales for a while and was pretty chagrined to notice that she was still susceptible to marketing ploys. If those trained in such matters can still fall under the spell, what hope do the rest of us have?
@@hughcaldwell1034 I raise you: I never go outside and already enjoy and am comfortable with the current products and what have you that I live with. Can't get tricked if I never meet them in the first place
@@uncroppedsoop Ah, I see you are a visitor to the Internet. Well, marketing plants live here among us, and don't need to come into your house to find you :P
I've broken down arguments in a similar way for a long time, and the problem I've largely run into is that generally belief systems are a web or knot of other beliefs, as well as social effects. For instance trans discourse is dominated by the definition and reality levels (which aren't always easily disentangled and people often have disagreements on both), but fundamentally that's not the only issue. If someone's entire social group is "gender critical" groups then you have to consider that you're not just arguing with the person on matter of facts, you're arguing with whether they should be with their friends and social spaces. This is particularly prominent when it comes to any argument with religious people about facets of religion (or more commonly political beliefs that are motivated by the prevailing theological arguments brought forth by their church). You're, broadly, not arguing about what you're actually arguing about - you're arguing about their belief in god writ large, their personal trust in their priest/pastor/minister, the belongingness in their church that comes with having congruent political views, and similar things. Similarly, this is why cults prey on alienated people - it's not easy to convince someone of culty beliefs, but it is easy to give someone alienated a sense of community and build the beliefs contingent on their membership to a group that finally appears to accept them. Beliefs are clustered, and even if you identify it's at the "definition" level, that's usually entangled with quite a lot of other things. Like going back to the "definition" aspect of trans restroom debates, okay sure, they definitionally disagree that trans people are the gender they say they are, but that's generally due to much more fundamental beliefs about the hard, binary reality of sex as a scientific concept, which itself is often rooted in feelings of tradition or trust in the education they got as children, or, again, a sense of community with other people who dislike trans people. This is part of why I tend not to argue about most things, particularly online, most of the time I can identify both the level we disagree on in the stasis theory sense, but also how axiomatic it is, or the other "nodes" in their network that support that belief and prevent it from wavering even if you were to completely wreck that level of disagreement with facts and logic (and empathy) or whatever.
I think a lot of the good arguing does isn't reflected on the surface. I personally didn't change my political beliefs until many, many challenges to my previous belief structure finally came together in a way that helped me unknot that big web you mention more or less all at once. Each bit of it was picked at individually over time, but the consequences of each of those challenges weren't really seen until much later. I don't think arguing is useless, we just can't expect results to be obvious or immediate
@@GlitzPixie Funny. I still remember the day my political believes were smashed into peaces. It took about 15 minutes :D It happened when I saw a bunch of people from so called BLM run up and attack a gay man in front of a filled hall. This simple demostration was enough to prove that many of civilized standarts I believed to be universal were in fact not shared by the good people of the left. After that, It took a lot of time to collect my thoughts, but yes, sometimes, all it takes to turn your world view upside down is one irrefutable demonstration.
As a recent MaRKeTiNg PrOFesSiONAL, I cosign this as a really great way to learn how to be persuasive. I think a lot of people on the left will say something like "Aren't you mad that you have to work three jobs with no benefits but your employers have multiple mansions? That's why we need communism!" and they'll have people nodding to the first part only to bail on the word "communism" or "justice" or "abolition" or whatever. It's because our definition for those things is so different than how lots of people see them after decades in a flood of propaganda. In marketing, if you're trying to sell a technical solution, you can't just be like "You need to buy my Robotic Process Automation platform!" you gotta walk people through what it means first, and to do *that*, you gotta walk them through why it's a problem or what pain point you're addressing. So I think your method in this video is perfect for zeroing in on those things when you're trying to persuade others.
I was drafting my strategy for my upcoming Flat Earth debate, and this stasis theory seems to be my basic approach. So, instead of trying to debunk the angles and the distances and the bubbles and the CGI claims.... I'm just going to address the fact that they dont believe the earth is round because they don't understand how people and water don't just fall of the "bottom" of the planet. The core of their entire argument, everything the supplemental arguments stem from, is the fundamental misunderstanding of gravity.
I loved your video. I truly believe the most important thing about arguments is intellectual honesty. Lots of discussions don't go anywhere because considering the counterpart arguments as valid is not on the table. Nice work, as always
I think you forget an important point before asking about reality. The question is : does the person care? In some cases you might argue for hours with someone and it turns out they don't care at all and are just holding an opposite stance to be a contrarian or are trolling and trying to waste your time or are being dishonest on purpose and not trying to have a discussion with your and not caring about the truth. Having a discussion about the nature of reality with someone who does not care what reality is is never going to be productive. Having a discussion about definitions with someone who changes the meaning of words based on what suits their argument is never going to be productive. Discussing wether something is good or bad with someone whose interest are drastically opposed to yours is never going to be productive. Discussing what policy to adopt with someone who starts with a policy and argues in order to justify it and not the other way around is never going to be productive. So making sure you're talking with someone who actually wants a conversation is the first step.
This method can also help you "win" arguments by understanding your opponents reality or definitions and tailoring your policy arguments to that. You can make a lot of arguments for climate change mitigation. If they're a patriotic American argue for energy independence and not relying on OPEC for your energy generation. if they're a libertarian, argue for decentralized, private and self-sustained power generation, ... If you want to convince someone to get an electric car, maybe talk about the money they will save on gas. I've personally convinced conservatives that coal power is maybe not so great, if rural communities are displaced by the open pit mines. They might not care about climate change, but they do care about rural communities and family farms.
This... So much... I personally hate the climate debate, because it ignores the problem, that is for me the important one. "How do you suppose we get the energy then?" If you keep just repeating "cut the coal", then of course I will resist. But if you say "Let's build a nuclear powerplant to replace this coal and make electricity even cheaper, and still completelly independant of good wether", then you've got me aboard in no time.
I agree with you mostly, and I use these ideas, but the outcome of almost every one of these discussions will be realizing more and more that you do not agree on reality, and that they actually aren't listening and are often arguing in bad faith. This may work great in academia but it will not get anyone vaccinated, and realistically if you try this in public the right wins. This is great advice for deradicalizing a friend in private conversation, bad advice for a public debate. Not because it's wrong but because it's missing too much. Often people don't listen because of something called tone policing. The right is trained to be as offensive as possible all the time, then when someone who is a member of the group being ridiculed gets upset the right are taught to mock and ignore them. This has the tendency to appoint allies who aren't members of the groups in question as the spokesperson for a cause they are not part of, and too often don't understand very well. As an Autistic person this is part of why "Not about us, without us." is so critical, and it extends to all groups who struggle with these issues. We need to be honest that the primary reason these arguments aren't working isn't because the arguer is doing a bad job, but because of our society and the unfortunate things we associate with credibility. It seems kind of naive to me to act like the issue is with the people arguing for their right to not be killed. I have had dozens of debates with people about my rights as an LGBT person, and sometimes people listen, but more often than not they are not listening. They are warriors of jesus, and I am an agent of satan, it really is usually that simple. And they will tell me to my face that me, and everyone like me should be wiped from the face of the earth. Usually you have to argue for a while before they say that but still. I can identify that we disagree on reality but how does that help? The real solution here I think is to realize that debate is a joke. If you want to change an individuals mind then you befriend them and spend several years slowly and gently encouraging them. It takes a village, and an inhuman amount of patience (especially if you're one of the people they hate) but that is how you change your loved one's mind. NEVER DEBATE THEM! If you want to change many people's mind, you can debate in public, but you aren't there to convince your opponent, you're there to convince the audience. You have to make the opponent look foolish, and their position embarrassing, then right when they feel backed into a corner you let them go. You offer the golden gate of retreat. It probably won't convince Tim Pool, but it will likely convince 10% of his audience to feel like maybe they should check their belief. These debates just aren't about facts they're about how we feel about the facts. Public debates are about posturing, let's not kid ourselves. There's a reason the right loves to go on CNN but is scared to death of Sam Seder. When they go to a debate they just want to repeat their talking points, it's what all politicians do. Activists need to do better than fall for that. Hillary Clinton followed this model well in her debates, she's an awful debater and shouldn't be allowed to represent us up there any more. It just seems like this puts an unrealistic expectation on marginalized people to defend themselves from people who advocate for their genocide. If you made it this far into my comment, congratulations! You are a very patient person. As a reward, have a depressing but inciteful reference! ruclips.net/video/4xGawJIseNY/видео.html and so we don't all fall down the sewer slide, here's a more helpful and hopeful debate tactic that actually works all the time! ruclips.net/video/JU-SE5eNt04/видео.html “Build your opponent a golden bridge to retreat across.” Sun Tzu "You have to give people enough room in a conversation, for them to look good changing their mind." AOC
Sadly, that was my take by the end of this video, too. Recently got into a 'discussion' about how, without the profit motive, society would collapse, and at no stage in the pyramid could we even agree on what we were talking about. But they got a lot more likes than I did, so I'm sure they think they 'won'. And... *sigh*
I love this and enthusiastically agree with your points. I’m going to have to put off following the depressing link, though. TLDR: My new winning strategy: stop getting into arguments on You Tube. Edit: I just watched the pertinent portion of your second link, and AOC gave some amazing advice. I’m very science-oriented, and have a visceral reaction to pseudoscience. I watch a lot of channels that debunk the same nonsense over and over again, and honestly, the videos are usually very derogatory to people who adhere to such beliefs. You see a lot of name-calling and vitriol in the comment sections toward anyone who deigns to disagree with the video content, and the videos are often made primarily to mock. I’m finding more and more that I’m becoming an angrier, more judgmental person, and I didn’t consciously realize a link until now. Due to certain situations that are occurring right now, some of that is completely justified, in my opinion, but it certainly doesn’t make me happier. Neither does getting into fruitless arguments with people who believe in their “side” as enthusiastically as I do mine. A couple of days ago, I did something different. I asked a moon-landing denier what he thought the motivation for such a fraud could possibly be, and he answered me. I thanked him for explaining, and he said I was welcome. No, I didn’t change his mind about anything, I didn’t even attempt to, but I also didn’t claim to be more intelligent than he, or imply that he was an idiot. I felt so much better after that interaction than I have about any of my carefully crafted rebuttals. Perhaps being right and attempting to “win” isn’t always as important as being kind, and actually listening to other equally fallible, possibly hurting, perhaps lonely people on this vast, impersonal web. Perhaps it’s also time for me to start choosing the content I consume more thoughtfully. Thanks for the nudge that changed my perspective. Edit: Please understand, I’m not saying we should stop trying to change people’s minds especially about critical issues that significantly affect people’s lives and even put their lives in jeopardy. I’m just saying the YT comment section isn’t necessarily the best place to do it, and that there are better and worse ways to do it.
I agree with everything you've said about making an impact taking years and an inhuman amount of patience. The most inspirational example of this I have seen is the Ted Talk RUclips video titled: Why I, as a black man, attend KKK rallies. | Daryl Davis | TEDxNaperville. 10-second written summary: The presenter is a kid. People throw trash at him in a Boy Scout parade. He thinks they don't like the Boy Scouts. When he gets home, his parents tell him about racism. He doesn't believe his parents. He thinks, "How could they hate me if they don't even know me?" Over time, his life experience teaches him that his parents are correct. But he still ponders the question of why. When he's older, as a musician, he has his secretary, who normally schedules his gigs, book a meeting with the Grand Dragon of the KKK. They meet. They talk for two hours. The musician goes to the rallies. He invites the KKK leader to his house. After a couple of years, the KKK Grand Wizard invites the musician to his house, eventually without his bodyguard. The Grand Dragon KKK head honcho would say on CNN into a microphone against a crowd of white protesters, "My views on the Klan won't change. I've formed my opinions a long time ago. But I trust this black man more than the lot of you because even when we don't see eye-to-eye, he respects me and listens to what I have to say." In the Ted Talk, the speaker onstage opens this wardrobe and pulls out a swastika uniform. He says to the crowd listening at the Ted conference, "Do you know why I have this uniform? Because Robert gave it to me the day he resigned from the KKK." A principle I believe in is that if you wish to persuade, seek only to understand. Connection is the most persuasive force. Edit: Link to the aforementioned presentation - ruclips.net/video/ORp3q1Oaezw/видео.html
I think you're absolutely right for extremists. More moderate people or reasonable people CAN have these sorts of debates and it can make a difference, but those types of people are rare, and honestly, it's also dependent on the current emotional health of each person too, making it rarely effective. Real social change does happen person by person, life you said . We have a lot of people who act "woke" because it's become dangerous for their social and financial wellbeing to be otherwise. But I can tell you many people who act progressive online and in public, are a lot different behind closed doors. (I've been shocked). Coming in with facts, logic, statistics, and intense, confident pressure can cause people to yield and conform, but that is not change. I think this is why there are still so many white supr3macists in North America to this day. I grew up in a Christian conservative cult (mormonism) with racist, sexist, and homophobic history. Even though I am bisexual, open minded, and very passionate about equality naturally, I was forced into a life that worked against myself. It was so intensely ingrained in me that I was fully convinced of the reality od the cult. But my friends, not saying a WORD about my specific faith, just living their lives and being kind, being progressive, patient, good, got my natural instincts flaring up more and more until I met my husband, who also, never said a word to attack me for my shitty beliefs, but was so much better than anyone I had met in the church, it made me break free of my old belief system. And yes, you can be pressured and coerced into leaving cults, but lots of those people go back or do jot grow. People seem to have lost faith in the power of example and life experience. For me, because I changed with love and integrity, I never go back into that headspace, I only move forward. That's the kind of change I want to do, which is why even though it gets me shit for sympathizing with unsavory people, or not outright condemning them as people, I still do it, because i know from experience it's the only way to create real lasting change. I haven't disparaged my family members for their beliefs (still in this cult) but I've noticed them become more open as time goes by. That's what it's about. Not being right, not instant justice (it's impossible). Reformation, transformation, growth, community. Really enjoyed your words, even though they can be so disheartening and stressful. I just wanted you to know that your theory has personally made a huge difference in my own life. (And I've helped several people leave the cult as well, it pays itself forward!)
That cat is living an incredible life, and that makes me happy. Just look at it. Sleeping on a bookshelf, grooming on the couch? So comfy. The video was good and all that jazz, but like, good kitty.
What an excellent video! I'm a math major, so asking for 'definitions' has always been in my toolbox, but checking for reality and quality haven't been something I've done. I'm excited to use them in the future. And that poem- WOW! Absolutely gonna memorize that one
I've actually had quite the success with arguing and changing minds on a certain extremely controversial topic, which is always pretty validating. I wonder how much of what I've noticed / worked out from repeated experience will show up in this video? Edit: Claw from the future here. I think this is generally true, and it's definitely things that I've noticed. However, a few caveats I would like to make. First is that, I think there's an even lower tier here, below reality, and that's worldview. What someone sees as reality is often dependent on their worldview. Often, different worldviews accept similar things about reality so this isn't always a problem, but sometimes that's not true. And discussions of worldview are rarely productive, because it's not the sort of thing that small corrections or changes are really applicable to. Second is that not all arguments are made in good faith. Sometimes the reason it seems like the person you're talking to isn't listening is because they aren't. Sometimes, people are in a conversation to advocate to an audience, or as idle amusement for themselves, or at worst, to feel superior to others or engage in socially-acceptable cruelty. Dismal, perhaps, but true. If you want to have a productive conversation, you've got to be able to evaluate who's actually engaging on the same level you are. And that's difficult. My advice on THAT would be, (1) try to encourage private discussions. If someone's willing to discuss in DMs, they're much more likely to be honestly engaging. (2) Be on the lookout for people expressing genuine questions, displays of empathy or understanding, those sorts of things, rather than slogans or buzzwords.
@@blidea9191 It's a flat disc but has a wrap-around effect where you come out on the opposite side if you go past the edge, so topologically it's a projective plane.
It's flat, but every time you try to look for evidence, space Jesus bends the plane to confine to round earth theory. If you have two or more people with different beliefs looking at the same evidence, then space Jesus bends the plane into superposition so that everyone is right. When in doubt, always rely on the unfalsifiable.
0:27 "Productive debates on the internet are pretty rare [...]" No, debates period are pretty rare. I don't consider people throwing insults at each other while repeating fake news and misinformation until the other side finally accepts it or not a "debate". Even babies throwing a fit are more mature than those people.
It doesn't even have to be that. We all throw insults, some at face value others more condescendingly hidden. We all put on a show. There are times were any of us just want to shut the other up for variety of reasons. Some better some worse. Not always but specific positions have little to do with this.
Yeah lol, they (more so conservatives) call ppl they are arguing w/ "snowflakes" or "sjw's" or even "groomer" (oof, they mostly call adult trans people that.) Or people mention ur PFP in a way to insult you or invalid your argument. Like they use the fact that someone has an anime PFP to say their entire opinion is somehow wrong.
Holy heck I wish I had this video when I studied philosophy. Having to figure out this stuff myself in logic class (yeah, we had one of those) without having words for it was the major reason I switched to linguistics. It's so nice to actually be allowed some tools made in advance instead of being asked to craft and test them yourself like a freaking one-man civilization. Weren't historical philosophers supposed to have big shoulders or something? Anyway, this was a sweet video,
I had never heard of Stasis theory before but the art of asking questions is a very pervasive tool for understanding. Did your university not have you read anything on the topic?
@@o.sunsfamily We learned propositional logic and how to check if an argument is sound all definitions being clear. Then we did a tonne of exercises with thought up statements and examples from real history, like the Malthusian argument, but we were never taught an explicit method for making sure we had the same definitions as the other interlocutor or how there might be a difference in underlying assumptions that are left out of the explicit argument. Generally, it is seen as a weakness in a philosophical argument if something is left implicit, but in real life conversations (thanks linguistics), implicity is quite an important part and tool, so the Stasis model would have been a nice addition, especially for people with reduced social skills (like me), of which there are many who study philosophy.
Firstly, I must say that I didn't know Stasis Theory had a name, much more a whole structured field of knowledge behind it, and it is just soooo helpful for much more than just internet debates. I'm a huge proponent of Nonviolent Communication and Street Epistemology, and Stasis Theory fits so nicely together with these, like a guide on how to interact with people with empathy and open heartedness. Thank you so much for this amazing video. Secondly, I must use this opportunity as well to say you became one of my favourite youtubers by a big shot. Mainly, your video on why grades are a scam is a masterpiece, Zoe. I'm a doctor in Brazil, and am currently doing my master's degree in Health Education; everything you said resonates with such force and precision with what I'm studying and practicing with my students. It's such a shame this knowledge is still so misunderstood and neglected. But you're doing an amazing job by bringing it through a didatic, clean and visual way. Thank you for your hard work. I'm joining your Patreon today. I know it's not much, but hopefully it helps you.
If I am in a conversation/argument where I disagree with someone, and over the course of the conversation I realized that I hold the wrong position and changed my mind, I consider that a win! Another great video, thanks Zoe!
Of course the main problem with internet 'debates' is one party too often arguing in bad faith. And against bad faith actors there is not much you can do, other than just not engaging in the first place.
Love this video. This is why when you're in a debate league (at least mine), you have to define the terms and arguments you're using to avoid this exact problem.
This framework explains a lot of what the techniques of "Street Epistemology" get at, glad to have found more info on it! I think a discussion of rhetoric may have been fruitful, perhaps framed as "But how do we even get to a place where people will be willing to engage with us?" As it stands, it's a fine discussion of how to actually understand what the disagreements are -- it's a touch more complicated to resolve them! Great video, as per usual! Looking forward to more.
I love how in the "How to win" section of the video, Zoe demonstrates one of the parts of stasis theory - reality - by asking what the goal of having an argument is.
You are one of the few channels to actually favorite my rare comments in the past. I appreciate your focus on language, but mixing your teachings with philosophy like this- is what I truly crave. Like myself, I believe you have an altruistic existential mission; please keep it up. To all else reading this, never forget-all is one, I am a strange loop, and everything is part of the complex system.
I never knew it by the name Stasis Theory, but it was something I was aware of in online arguments. The problem of, "How far back into our respective experiences do I have to go before we reach a point of common ground from which our assumptions and understanding of concepts diverged?" If that point can be found, we can get back to productive argumentation, where if we don't agree at least we understand what the source of our difference in opinion is. However, then I run into the concept of, "How much time and energy do I want to invest in uncoiling all this?" It also rests on an assumption of good faith, which unfortunately isn't something I can take as a given. If an interlocutor inserts themselves into a conversation for the purpose of changing the topic away from one in which they can't defend but don't want to "lose" (a "Control the Conversation" rhetorical technique Innuendo Studios described) then they're not interested in actually debating, they're interested in having a fight.
"Do you agree that the subject's extant?" "Do you agree on the details like what the meanings of the relevant keyords in the terminology mean?" "Do you agree on how serious the subject discussed of is?" "Where most arguments start apparently."
Beautifully done. I can relate to this video. I had a lot of frustrating conversations that couldn't evolve past reality or definitions. Rarely could I get to the quality level.
A thing that's important is that it takes 2 people to have a discussion. If either person doesn't want to discuss, then productive discussion is impossible, full stop. And some people simply don't want to be convinced. I think a lot of problems with discourse is that some people want to try and change people's opinions without being willing to put their own opinions at similar risk. Sometimes such people argue in genuine bad faith: with full knowledge of what they are doing, they employ rhetorical tricks to try and stifle or control discussion: things like making intentionally bad arguments in favor of a controversial position by using a piece of false information as a basis for the bad argument. Since the bad argument is easier to identify and the position taken is controversial, discussion back and forth often proceeds under the assumption that the false information is true, and thus creates an impression in the audience that its true. I see such tactics used with disturbing frequency, where a lie will be baked in early to a long winding series of bad arguments starting a thread of discussions on the merit of the argument and giving obvious counter arguments, all assuming the lie is actually a fact.
I love this video so much, thank you for sharing this with us in such a simple and accessible way, it's really great! I definitely felt that I've gotten into arguments before where communication falls apart due to silly differences in reality and semantics, and it's a challenge to recover from that point. I'm honestly kinda mad I've never heard of statis theory before lol
Left out of this is that having a productive debate is only possible when *everyone* wants to have a productive debate, not just you. If my opponent is trying to argue that 2+2=18, and they aren't trying to use this to find truth, no amount of finding out where they're coming from or identifying different premises is going to do anything; at best, you'll just discover that their premise is "I'm cleverer than everyone on the planet," and... you can't do anything with that. Internet arguments are unproductive because, most times, *at least* one person is arguing in bad faith, to win rather than to learn.
Exactly, some people post rage baits because they simply don’t have anything else to do in their free time, so there’s no negatives; it’s entertainment like any other.
My favorite phrase to break down to truly Define what it is is the "free market"... a lot of Libertarians throw this phrase around and I noticed him put a whole lot of thought into what it actually means but only about how they want interpret it.
This was a super helpful video in a ton of ways, but specifically for me, it gave me a more solid framework for problems that I've already seen or engaged with. The thing that I end up using this for, unconscious about the stasis questions, is when it comes to anti-abortion activists. I've seen people engage with them on their turf, of fighting against the amount of abortions by saying stuff like "free contraception and comprehensive sexual education would solve this instantly! No unwanted babies born in the first place, so none of them will be harmed!" which is true, for sure, but doesn't get to the core of the problem. Fights around abortion *are not about abortion*. Typically, since there are always exceptions, it comes down to controlling women or punishing women (afab people in general, but there are a lot of other complicating factors that make it more difficult to be nuanced in this general comment, so I'll generally be talking about cis women). If there's no access to contraception or abortion on the woman's side, then the man holds all the cards and he gets to choose whether a baby is born by not using a condom, taking it off, poking a hole in it, etc. And if you believe that being pregnant when you can't support/don't want a child is a moral failure, or that they should've thought about that before "opening their legs," then putting them in emotional, mental, and financial anguish over having to give birth and then support a child is a worthy punishment for their sins. The above example shows people engaging with the policy angle and ignores the definition and reality beneath. I was using something akin to stasis theory to think about it already.
Exactly, there's also a very basic belief I realised a while back. Sex is 'sacred' in religion, sex is regulated and that's what we fight with them about. Saying abstinence only education is abysmal doesn't mean anything when they think it's immoral to even think about the opposite sex with lust, let alone give people the freedom to act how they please and redefine what sex is for themselves.
Lol you're doing the exact same things you accuse them of doing and what Zoe brought up in the video. Nice poisoning the well. Nope. Pro-lifers simply have a different ethical system. They consider fertilized eggs to be morally relevant, ergo, it would be immoral to k1ll them. But nope, to you it's all just "lol they just want to control women's bodies", you're no different than a pro-lifer saying "lol the pro-choicers just want to k1ll babies". I am pro-choice but poisoning the well is poisoning the well.
It's awesome that the current generation of educators are just based and very up to date on stuff. We've never really seen different generations interact and agree this well, you guys have miraculously bridged the gap
Good video, but i'm a little taken aback that people werent already kind of aware of these points (not that i'd heard of of stasis theory). It seemed clear to me a number of years ago that we were clearly dealing with entire different worldviews. that we didnt just have different standard of evidence, but different standards of what could be taken as evidence. on the left disagreements are often because of the things you laid out. but when arguing against the right, they are told that any thing you say MUST be wrong because of youre quality as a person. the right is not out to have productive debates, theyre out to stop people form listening to you. due to their vast resources, and the fact that they dont care about honesty and reporting things fairly, and theyre getting to people first and poisoning them. I just thought everyone already knew this.
Sometimes, it takes someone articulating something out loud for people to recognize something that they’ve known to be true for a while. Being smug because we already knew about this doesn’t do us-or anyone else-any good.
Strange, isn't "cancel culture", which is "out there to stop people from listening to you" considered the leftist solution to silence people? And the left doesn't seem to mind this perception? Also, a couple of blanket statements, which very much show the bias- fine for a commenter, he is an average lad, nothing at stake here. But did OP just kinda roll with these? "Yeah, I like that, that's how it works"? Really? Is that how it is you think things are? The whole shebang about discussing things, and after all that effort, you go with "left good, right bad"? That prejudice won't make for a productive discussion, and you totally know that, so how does this work? Dissapointing.
I feel that in a lot of arguments we aren't actually arguing about what we're talking about. We feel attacked by a statement for whatever reason and feel the need to defend. Heck, this can somtimes even bring us into arguments where we are arguing in favor of somthing that goes against our beliefs and point of veiw. These arguments are littered online and, especially IRL, are super harmful to both paties. The good news is that once you are aware of this, it is ridiculously easy to reconize, and you'll realize you're arguing for the sake of doing so. Somtimes i've typed comments and midway through i'd realize this. In other arguments where we argue against ideas, however, the argument is only worthehile if you can learn something from it, it not more.
When you're losing an argument (Never fails) Step 1: Just look up some insults on the web Step 2: Pick a random insult and send it to your enemy Step 3: Block them before they respond
I am going to send this to anyone I have an argument with when they refuse to actually argue and instead uses it as a medium to say how wrong I am on x,y or z. Good video btw.
Awesome, I've had a couple of interesting but fruitless debates both on and off line. I tend to explain my own reality well, as I argue most about issues personal to me. But I rarely try to discuss or examine the other person's perspective.
Wait, I was always told that you can't argue with conspiracy theorists; even if you think you've convinced them on one thing, they will still be easily drawn to the next and the next and the next. You can't change a lack of critical thinking skills in one argument feasibly.
As someone coming from one of the least literate regions in the world, these kinds of video are nice because it gets me to learn something that i could've never learned otherwise.
You can't win anyone on the internet, same way as real life. You can only convince people who want to listen and understand. Also, you don't have to "win" every argument. It's a toxic mentality. You debate a stranger and the purpose is to be smarter.
@@mellalanny957 I have written this comment as a general idea I wanted to present, and no, I haven't watched the video before I have commented on it. I'll gladly watch the video soon.
One of the my personal favorite productive debates I have ever had on youtube was actually on this channel. On her video talking about facts don't care about your feelings i wrote a comment of an idea that was infantile at the time. After many people responding to me and challenging the original comment the idea developed and and my knowledge of the subject matter grew. Most people were very respectful and called me out for being wrong in some ways and really evolved the way I saw the subject. Most of the time these comments sections are so dreadful but sometimes you get a bit of a diamond in the rough kind of interaction with people.
This actually makes so much sense, a lot of debates I've had could be broken down to disagreement of reality of the scientific method being equal parts sourcable data, logical reasoning, and a subjective element; So often I get people (and probably myself!) tunneled into one aspect that it's impossible to use reasoning because I need not only sources but also sources that reasoning applies to the very specific problem at hand, or impossible to get sources on straight up figures used in an argument because they're being substituted by subjective perceptions
So what's one to do should there be a reality level disconnect and a subproblem appears where it becomes a broken argument all it's own? How many layers before we gotta rethink?
Honestly, I'm not sure. Those kinds of things are really frustrating, and I don't have a great answer. I don't want to say "just give up," but I do think if an argument gets to that point, unless you have an exceptional amount of patience, I don't know that it's worth it to keep arguing. But if anyone has a better idea, I'd love to know!
@@zoe_bee I think it's at that point you (as in, folks in general, not you specifically -- I'm sure you know much or all of this already) need to start using some of the "dirty tricks" of rhetoric. There's generally considered to be 3 things that help in convincing someone of something: Logos, Pathos, and Ethos. Logos is the one we all like to pretend is the only one that matters -- it's the realm of facts and logic, after all! But as far as evidence and reasoning can take us, they only really work when someone is prepared to listen to us. That's where Ethos comes in. Ethos is, in short, how trustworthy or "credible" you seem to your interlocutor(s). It's all about convincing them that you're in their in-group, whatever relevant in-group that happens to be. It's "decorum", being taken seriously, being presentable -- the dreaded zone of "respectability politics" is one facet of it, but leaves out that, in fact, frankness and straightforward language are actually to your benefit here. Once you've established Ethos, they're prepared to be dazzled by your facts and logic -- but what if they just don't care? (This ties in to the quality question, too!) Pathos is probably the hardest one to use effectively, because it's very obvious when you're making an emotional appeal, particularly if it's something they've seen before. That being said, it's one of the most powerful tools of the rhetorician -- which is why it's dangerous! Getting someone to *care* about something is powerful. When it comes to Reality-level disagreements, you're often not going to get anywhere with Logos -- someone has already convinced them not to trust whoever it is you're trusting. You need to work on the Ethos -- establish common values, try to foster a sense of belonging and trust. A good book (which is unfortunately geared towards succeeding in business, because, hey, how else would it be profitable to publish?) on the topic which I found helpful was Jay Heinrich's "Thank You for Arguing". There's also some good groups online that you might be able to find by searching "Street Epistemology" (I personally frequent the subreddit for it, for example).
I always fairly soon realize that (my) opponents have wildly different realities. But those are so dearly held and often intertwined with their identity that debunking them is a painful uphill battle.
Seconded. Some people take for granted their own emotional investment in the reality of a situation and expect everyone else to respect it. Some people use their trauma or even project fictional trauma as a way to keep their reality from even being discussed, and it's heartless of you to try and verify that ever, no matter how much they go on offense and put themselves out there. Even when you totally disregard yourself to ask simple questions, they consider questions a warning sign and quickly call sealioning. Tangentially, I feel like sealioning is a tough concept because in its worst case scenario, if you call harassment the moment someone asks their first couple questions, you simply pre-judge that the other person is acting in bad faith. If they weren't already acting in bad faith, you may have just gave them a reason to. You might be prescribing it as a way to demonstrate to them the social consequence of just how hard they're not thinking, but it's probably the least desirable, last resort way to show them their error. There does come a point where enough's enough, but I've found some people constantly declare sealioning because they categorize entire genres of questions under "bad faith" and nobody outside their social paradigm would know until they stepped on the land mine. Obvious social landmines do exist, but some people take their own beliefs for granted and like to pretend that "their enemies" are already in the know about their buttons.
I had no idea about Stasis theory, this is great. Sort of touches on things I kinda intuitively knew were there but realises them nicely. One problem I have though, is how do you argue with people with differing realities? When I argue with my Christian friend about things (like homophobia), everything eventually boils down to "well it says this in the bible". Because he's a fundamentalist, the bible is literally the word of God to him. I've tried arguing about the interpretation, intent and quality of the bible verses he cites. I've argued that the bible is a collection of stories from multiple authors over multiple ages and has been translated hundreds of times from its original manuscripts. None of this ever works; he is utterly convinced his interpretation and the the literal English words are the word of God, and are beyond skepticism and beyond criticism. To get him to be less homophobic and be more respectful towards LGBT people, I have to somehow disprove the word of God or somehow question his faith. This is literally impossible. Not to mention that despite his terrible views, his religion provides him genuine comfort and community, and I don't really want to take that away from him. I couldn't do that even if I wanted to. I guess sometimes its best to just not argue at all when realities differ so much?
I think both of you would agree that other religious books are blasphemy, so maybe you could start there to try to understand the first emerging path of disagreement? For example, why does he believe other religious books are false and why the Bible isn't false, out of all the others? What makes the Bible different if all the other books are claiming to be the word of God as well? It also sounds like he could be a bad faith actor that you can't convince, so nothing you do will help anyways
@@thatoneuser8600 I have asked him this, he just says that all the others are wrong and his is right, lmao. I don't think he is bad faith, just a true believer.
@@zoe_bee I’ve held off on this but what I find is that they purposely choose hot button topics and talk almost in memes. So I think that may be one sign
Honestly? Familiarize yourself with the typical "sea-lioning" questions that get brought up on the topic(s), and set a threshold after which you discount someone as a troll. I like "5 strikes and you're out", personally. Familiarize yourself with common logical fallacies and dishonest forms of argumentation (RationalWiki, despite the cringey-seeming name, is actually a great resource on this), and point them out when you see them used. If they change the subject or evade or what have you, you can safely ignore them as a troll and not waste any more time.
I would recomment learning the bad faith tactics: 1) definition minigun 2) Do my homework These two are the worst one lefties use. Sadly, I cannot help you with the right as much.
@@ShadesOfMisery Lol "sea-lioning" doesn't exist. Asking for evidence is important in a debate. Those that accuse you of "sea-lioning" are the "bad faithers".
I remember having a full heated argument with someone who thought a minute was 100 seconds. They just couldn't except that it was 60 seconds despite me showing Google searches and asking more people.
Is having a productive debate and listening to someone else _not_ a win 😌 Looks like maybe a problem of ... what, definition... ? This was great though - some of the best internet debates I've had involved me recognizing that an issue is less that someone is misunderstanding me, and more that _I'm_ misunderstanding someone else. It's so gratifying to reach the seed of an argument with someone and have a productive conversation with them about it, even if you don't end up agreeing. It's the understanding where something magical happens in debate. I've also had great (internet) debates where going back to check on the reality level of our argument does a lot to disarm frustration and aggression, and can lead to improved understanding and thoughtfulness in an argument. I usually have done this by stating _my_ reality and saying what I think we agree on, or by simply rewording what I feel they've argued and why. This provides a great opportunity for us to agree (if we do), gives them an opportunity to better define their reality or position for me (whether we agree or disagree), and ultimately often resets the playing field and clears up some miscommunications. Usually, if can make someone I disagree with feel heard (and check that I actually am hearing them), we do a lot better with our disagreement - same when someone else can do that for me (thank you and sorry to all the patient humans who have disarmed me in online arguments 😬 ).
I like to use "So you are saying that ___?" to tell the person what I got from their argument. And if I got it wrong, they have the room to elaborate and explain themselves further.
really enjoyed the video, but one thing to add: there's a question of why people accept certain premises over others. Sometimes it's just peer pressure, but a lot of the time, accepting particular premises benefits them materially or spiritually.
Rewatching this, I can't help but question the ordering of the first two Stasis levels. I feel like definition just logically makes sense to come first before reality. How can you firstly discuss whether or not something exists if you don't agree on that thing's definition? If you agree apples exist, but both participants define an apple differently, then using the current model for Stasis Theory, you will have to backtrack to the Reality level to redecide if apples exist once you agree on the definition. Whereas, if definition was level one, you would find that problem at the very beginning where there would be no backtracking, and thus reach maximal efficiency by not having to step backwards and instead keep moving up the ladder of Stasis levels. If you keep fighting about something existing or not, what if you never come to an agreement and never realized that both of you had completely different definitions this whole time? Now you wasted a ton of time on an issue that never even existed, and now you realize you were talking past each other this whole time on something you would have never agreed with anyways due to there being a deeper level of conflict existing at the definition level that you never unraveled at the start of the argument.
I think definition is a thing that reemerges because our beliefs are never linear, and more like tangled clusters. Because on the other hand, you may never agree on one definition of apple for external reasons. You will have to go back to reality because of a different belief that ties into the previous one.
Honestly, I love you. And I don't think I ever meant these words as much as right now. I constantly get so overwhelmed with everything, wether thats arguments where people just don't listen despite the facts or writing poetry or whatever and just when I feel like my energy level will be negative soon I find a video by you and I am grounded by your calming, emotional rationality. Thank you
Im barely a few seconds in but the choice to open with the slow pan from ur ever present cat walking up behind you, to your face was cinematically pleasing as hell
this was really good. i've been having thoughts like these for years but only now with your insight can i actually give them structure and make sense of them. thanks for posting this video :)
If you've never tried arguing this way, you might find it equally frustrating. When you're arguing deeper down the pyramid, you're often dealing with more deeply-held beliefs. A person's worldview it built up around their core values and beliefs. Getting someone to closely examine what they believe and why is really hard sometimes. We're afraid to look in that mirror. If we discover cracks in the foundation at our core, it can bring down our whole worldview and make us question who we are. We instinctively know that so we have a tendency to avoid it. Intellectually honest and intellectually curious people will do that exercise with you, they'll self-reflect and explain it to you. But many people get angrier and angrier the closer you get to the core. They refuse to let the conversation go there, no matter how polite and well-intentioned you are. E.g. "Why do you think that welfare queens don't exist? To me, a welfare queen is someone who spends more time and energy trying to get government benefits than they spend trying to get a job and working. They apply for every benefit and take every handout and they do it for as long as they possibly can. What is a welfare queen to you? What would change your mind? What if I you met someone like that? What if there were whole families like that living near you? Grandmother down through grandchild, all on welfare, passing down the knowledge of what to say to get the benefits. What if they bragged to you about how they did it? What if you watched them buy new cars and fancier electronics than you had? All while none of them were working. Some who haven't worked in decades. Do you think people like that can't exist? What if I introduced you to some of them (all of them white, by the way)? Even if there aren't that many of them, would that at least open your eyes to something you thought didn't exist?" "YOU JUST HATE BLACK PEOPLE AND POOR PEOPLE YOU RACIST PIECE OF SHIT!"
Well, if anyone is open to a real debate: What's wrong with eugenics? It can solve the problem of climate change. Not by having to make every small part of our life climate friendly (which is basically the definition of totalitarianism). It can increase humanity's average IQ and therefore its potential for scientific and economic achievement making more people less poor. What is wrong with eugenics? Please explain it to me.
Interesting question, the thing I think it's wrong with it is that it assumes that there are objective 'good' qualities in people that are 100% genetic in nature. What is seen as a good quality is ofcourse subjective, so therefore you can't really even select people by the best genetics. IQ for example, has been shown to be mostly due to external factors.
The biggest problem that I have with eugenics is that I do not know of an answer to the question “who gets to decide what traits are gotten rid of” that is satisfactory.
@@d.def.9734 I'm positively surprised that I've got an honest polite reply. For that I want to thank you. I think there are though some problems with this argument: If you say that there are no objective goods (even if it's only in people) that you open the door for every kind of moral relativism. There are after all no objective goods. Including compassion. If you're willing to agree with this logic than I'm willing to call you intellectually honest and to welcome you to the place beyond good and evil to speak in Nietzschean terms. Still though, if you set a goal there will be some proporties which make it o b j e c t I v e l y more suited to reach this goal and others that don't. So by setting this goal of increasing total human intelligence there can be such a thing as objective good. Provided that eugenics could help achieving this goal it would be an objectively good enterprise. It would not even be necessary that genetics is only responsible for IQ or other human properties. BUT: What if I tell you that it is? There is a strong hereditary component of IQ (its probably the strongest). If there wasn't a strong genetic component why would IQ be so closely tied to our species. Shouldn't their be apes donkeys or even bacteria with IQs of 160? This is of course not possible because they lack the necessary physiology. The same is (of course with less effect) true with humans in one species. And that is also partly the reason why environmental determination of IQ is non-existent. You can train someone to be better in IQ-TESTS but you can't increase his or her IQ. If there are new sets of problems to solve (a new IQ-test) he or she does just as good or as bad as without the training. IQ is largely determined by genetics and it can therefore be increased with eugenics. Still, I'm really thankful for your reply.
This is fantastic. Lately I've been trying to approach internet debates in terms of "what are this person's underlying assumptions" or "what framework are they operating from," without realizing this strategy had a name. It certainly doesn't lead to me winning every debate, but I do at least end up feeling like I understand what the core disagreement was.
Love this. Communication is a process between people not just the words you say or hear. It's inherently the back and forth so trying to find understanding is incredibly important.
I find that a lot of arguments come down to definition. I’ve never heard of stasis theory before, but I’ve had som many arguments break down to “that’s not what I think that word means” that I basically always just start there, and it’s worked a lot better for me. And yeah, if you see the other person as your opponent, even if you “win”, you won’t change any minds, or win any friends or respect.
As a mathematician, the first thing I think of when hearing something that isn't clearly defined: What do you mean by ...? For example, when people ask how many holes a straw has, they rarely define what a hole is and thus don't progress in their discussion. But if you define it, there is one clear answer. If there is one area of interest that needs unambiguous definitions more than anyone else, it's mathematicians
Fellow mathematician here: "what do you mean by ...?" is probably the most used sentence in my vocabulary. It is an exception for me to not respond with it in almost every conversation :-D you just made me realize that. LOL
And just finished part 1 and… thank you! The whole "understanding what your opponent believes" (and whether they belivied that thing X is a problem or not) is sooo overlooked on the internet! This is the source of a lot of dialogue of the deaf online.
This is like a we'll organized qnd smart way I intuitively try to disagree disagree others. I'm incredibly impulsive, passionate and sensitive. It's a recipe for disaster online lmao. I also have a mediator sort of personality, so I'm not easily sucked into an us vs them mentality. The easiest way I communicate well online in a disagreement, is to first humanize, find common ground or show understanding why they would feel that way, then like you've said, make sure definitions are understood and on the same page, then ask questions, both to make the person think, as well as to continue to ensure I'm understanding where the person is coming from. This doesn't often make people completely on board with me, which honestly, I'm glad. I'm just a random schmuck, I think I'm pretty logical, but I don't think I have the perfect ideas or solutions. Also it takes serious time and effort and a healthy ego to change one's mind. So to expect people to feel safe and strong enough to completely change their mind openly to a stranger is a big ask. It doesn't feel like it should be, until you yourself are cornered logically and have to uproot your bias. Growing up in a cult, I've experienced extreme ego death in my life. I think civil arguments often are productive, a lot more behind the scenes than online. As I've been working out being less argumentative qnd self righteous, I've been able to see more merit in others different perspectives, as well as solidified more confidently my most important beliefs.
Your cat is so cute. Also, this was valuable information. Thank you. I can't tell you how many "arguments" I've gotten into with people that just ended up being little more than shouting matches.
In competitive debating we call this metal debating. We ask where exactly is the debate? What is the debate about first? Debate on what is the debate before you can debate. I used to compete/currently coach in the British Parliamentary/Asian Parliamentary/Australs/World Schools format. But I'm sure there's some version of this in American formats too.
This is pretty much all the content contained in a six lesson course I took. Good going for distilling it into 4% of the time and keeping the cat shenanigans in!
Solution: make 30 alternative accounts and agree with yourself
Solid advice.
I can't break the 69 likes so you rock
I do it all the time and it works
I fully agree with you.
sockpuppets to win arguments
The thing about arguing on the internet, and winning is: you can't tell whether you've "won." Nearly nobody changes their mind after one conversation, and even fewer admit to it. But minds are changed sometimes. After many conversations, often when they have time alone to ruminate over what they've heard. Not in the moment, when people are at their most defensive.
Maybe your argument isn't the one that snaps them out of it, but it primes the pump for another interlocutor to attack their position from a different direction. Probably the biggest thing for changing minds is to attack bad positions from as many angles as possible, and that's often a team effort.
Yeah out of every argument I’ve had online, the only satisfactory ending was when someone thanked me for the discussion & for giving them a better outlook on a topic.
Honestly I think arguements just make the person more defensive and rigid when it comes to changing their v1ews. We can debate in a nice manner, but if they find the argument to be a bad thing in the first place and think you are insulting them by proving them their some points might be wrong then the person wouldn't really be able to change.
This is why I often do engage when I probably shouldn't I often do when I see no backlash to insane takes. I just hate seeing someone say something crazy (often in community that might not think twice about it) and have no one at least try to offer a counterpoint. Often I have no intention of trying to change the person's mind, but rather prevent the dozens of people who scroll by reading comments without saying anything or even liking them. All of what they read has some effect on them, whether they totally agree, get confused, or totally disagree. I don't want people to have flawed ideas or prejudices reinforced without them thinking twice, so offering a counter-point is more so that other readers are forced into reassessing themselves (unlikely) or at least get them exposed to arguments they've likely never even heard before.
A lot of this stems from myself changing a lot. A lot of what I believe now, I was exposed to when I believed the opposite. It wasn't until years of hearing the same things get repeated, better explanation after better explanation, and no longer being able to hold my own beliefs or justify them anymore. There was never a point I went, "Oh I guess I'm wrong, this guy's right." But a long gradual process of getting stumped, getting yelled at (in person), hearing concepts I disagreed with get better explanations, and eventually even maturing so I became more open-minded and understand I need other people's views if I'm ever to get a wider view of the world.
The most satisfactory ending is when someone starts insulting you or stops responding. It means you've destroyed them so bad they have no response anymore.
idk that the goal of internet arguments is to change the mind of the person you are arguing with so much as to change the mind for whoever the audience of the argument is, anyone so emotionally invested in a subject to argue with strangers over it is probaby someone who isn't going to change their mind just because someone explained to them why they are wrong
Just say "shut up nerd" and you'll always win.
Nerd is more of a compliment then an insult.
And here we have an example of 2 different realities
lmao true^
🤓
or just hit them with a “who?”
A few years ago I was in a political debate online group and I saw a lot of the debates weren't productive because people didn't really talk about the core of their disagreement but just repeating claims so I decided to start every debate with defining what we are talking about and the terms we were using and than what the facts are before talking about what is the problem with that or what should be done.
That worked really nicely for two months before a couple of less than nice people started just insulting anyone who didn't agree with them, even if all they said was "I think we need to discuss what we actually mean by X since I don't think we are on the same page."
This is when I knew there was no more hope for productive discussions there, so I left after a week.
I guess that's the fifth step in the pyramid, the other person has to be arguing in good faith and be willing to listen. The only way to win arguments with trolls is to not bother. I'd say you made the right move.
"Let's start by defining what the facts are."
"LOL NO."
Every 'discussion' I've had since... uhm... mid 2016?
It's interesting because I studied mathematics and I always explain how that degree translates to real life skills by saying it taught me to look at my assumptions and definitions.
It turns out that a lot of people often don't do that and being able to just suggest they should is a valuable skill, as you also found out.
@@Oxtocoatl13 below reality is the base of actually intending to argue, otherwise you have no hope of getting anywhere.
@@daan8695 I also like to apply algebraic principles to certain topics and logic just to see what happens, its a good thought experiment in actually fleshing out the idea and also shows how silly some arguments can be.
God I wish the war on cars actually existed. Imagine America having the same robust public transit as every other industrialized country so that folks with -ADHD and seizure history- haha jk it’s CPTSD (raises hand) aren’t left up a creek without a paddle -- or better yet, _building cities that pedestrians can actually traverse._
EDIT: Since nobody reads the thread before commenting: unmanaged ADHD (and other attention problems) can make it hard to figure out which lane of traffic to pay attention to and when. If we look at the wrong lane for the wrong millisecond, we can end up getting hit. On a _population scale,_ we are almost _twice as likely_ to end up in an accident. Some of us are so aware of our focus issues and so full of anxiety that we don't tempt fate in the first place.
I have Tourette’s and can’t drive because of it. The war on cars should totally exist
Cars are just bad for general health--people get less exercise, breathe exhaust, and die in accidents. Cars make city planning unsustainable and hostile to pedestrians (ie, humans). I could go on about this all day
As someone who comes close to having meltdowns while *thinking* about driving, I'll raise my hand for the autistic folk in the crowd.
Too many variables that I can't control, so much overwhelming information, so many things to keep in your mind at all times, nothing being one-to-one (think like a videogame), and the fact that, at any time, any other person can decide to kill you... it's all waaay too much for me to handle. Having to rely on other people driving me places (not that there's any place for me to go, even pre-pandemic) is such a huge slash against my agency.
"if there is a war on cars, then the cars are winning" -not just bikes (comment)
(Not me having ADHD and only being able to get my brain to shut up and focus in the car), but also having comprehensive public transportation would be fantastic when I don’t feel like driving :)
"Go out and destroy, you little monsters!" Zoe Bee... internet yelling advocate....
Great video!
ALRIGHT, YOU HEARD IT. UNLEASH HELL
@@Sudo_Nimh no
@@-dennis3755 yes
How to win an argument: have the audience already agree with you
I mean...you're not wrong.
not even that, with bad faith actors they get confused and then get mad at you... and just start making things up.
So a ratio?
@@zoe_bee another thing: Aside from having audiences that already agrees with you, avoid being vague, or you'll get ad hominmed very quickly.
Or only argue against strawmen. That works too.
So I got super excited on Patreon but wanted to comment here too: as a very, very enthusiastic rhetoric major who would have gone for my doctorate if I hadn't have had a family to worry about (worth the tradeoff for me personally), stasis theory is so, so, so important. It's incredibly useful--I've used it to explain interdepartmental conflict to my boss and I think of it often. The only thing it isn't equipped to deal with is bad faith arguments, I think, although those are incredibly frequent on this internet of ours. Then again, you could argue that it just means that you cannot agree on reality and walk away.
I feel like, to a degree, the Alt-Right Playbook is a very long study of this as relates to the alt right, but particularly "Always A Bigger Fish." The part where he discusses how liberals treating conservatives like failed liberals is condescending and inaccurate made me go...oh. It's just stasis again, like everything is. stasis, all the way down
Oh, I agree 100%. Bad faith arguments are actually something I struggle with identifying & combatting, myself. So any advice you have is MUCH appreciated! lol
But 1000x YES to Innuendo Studios!
I've struggled with dealing with bad faith arguments for a long time, and I used to just call out the bad faith and bounce, simply to release myself from being dragged into pointless wall-head-banging. Calling out their behaviour seemed to be the best way to make them lose their shix, and that seemed... productive, I guess?
These days I've started trying a different strategy: "I have to ask because this is feeling like it's going in circles, are you actually curious to understand my position here? I'm curious to understand yours but I'm having a hard time seeing what you mean. Before I continue, I need you to tell me you're curious."
It is incredibly effective. Most of the time they ignore the question, or they call it irrelevant, or they simply order me to reply. I simply respond with, "So, to clarify, you're not prepared to even admit that you're curious to learn anything? You're not even going to pretend?" I have witnessed the most beautiful implosions doing this. I sometimes keep the replies going one or two more times, just to try iterations on the idea. Usually, it's extremely freeing. Curiosity is anathema to a bad-faith actor, and they cannot admit it because they know it's a humble position that they are not willing to occupy.
Like, one time I got a half-hearted admission of in-principle curiosity, and it kind of went somewhere but also just sort of petered out. It was better than just yelling past each other.
I love this method because I also think it reveals something devastating about the bad-faith actor, and also shows the absolutely crucial nature of curiosity to anyone reading on.
I also have to resist the temptation to use it in a bad-faith "MNYAH" sort of way, which I have once or twice partly strayed into, but also I feel like if you ask this of a good-faith arguer you're more likely to get a "yes, I am curious" sort of reply, which would be great! I kind of fear the day that reactionaries get ahold of this language and weaponise it, but I also don't know how they could. We'll see, I guess.
@@excrubulent As the token reactionary here, I'll put "weaponing curiosity and polite conversation" on the agenda.
as a rhetoric major, what books would you recommend to a total noob like me who wants to use rhetoric to get along with others and understand them better?
@A Cool YooToobist This is exactly the kind of behaviour I'm talking about. Conservatives and fascists in general act like this because they would prefer to rely on the coercive power of an institution than actual argument. This usually makes them incurious. I have found this behaviour in other political tendencies, but usually again only in service of insititutions.
The point is, if you just want to show how dumb they are (go out and destroy, you little monster :P ), then this is still pretty effective. Sometimes a bad faith actor just needs to be exposed, and I've found this is a very fast way to get them to give up the act and just tell you that they don't care what you think.
I mean...I am pro "war on cars". Cities would be far better off with less cars and car infrastructure, and more public transport, biking, and walking infrastructure. Rural places would have a harder time reducing cars and car infrastructure, but as the voting blobs show, there is fewer of them than those who live in cities so the environmental impact would definitely be noticable.
As a rural dude, I would love to have any mass public transit that reaches us out in the boonies. It would be so freaking convenient for long distance travel. Basically, I just really want a bunch of trains. Bikes just aren't practical for carrying, say, a cord of wood, but having more trains to reduce demand on trucks would be awesome.
@@FractalSpiral1 For sure. A lot of this "war on car" stuff really just comes down to making urban centers more walkable and sustainable socially and economically. The car has a place in this transition, but ultimately the less cars that need to be driving because of the convince of alternative forms of transport, the better.
Rural areas will probably still have the car for a long time. On the bright side, fuel might be cheaper? By then we'll likely be on a road to electrification, of course.
@@FractalSpiral1 German is at least trialing overhead electricity for trucks...that would reduce battery demands, given no place is 150 miles from the Autobahn.
Tesla had been promising milion mile batteries for ages and those are as disgustingly frivolous as the additional cars some people have for entertaining in heated garages
Also more people would get more excersize by biking and walking to close-by places too.
I read that as war on cats for a depressing amount of time
I'm not saying "stop using rhetoric", I'm saying "start teaching rhetoric properly", and this is definitely part of that!
But you define what is "proper" while commanding strangers in the internet 😺
I cannot count the number of times I've gotten into an argument, just to realize the person I was arguing with had a Completely different set of base assumptions. Thank you for giving a framework I can use to approach these arguments in the future.
This reminds me of an instance where I was browsing Twitter, and someone [A] was irritated at being defined as a liberal.
"B: Can't handle a different opinion then yours? I thought liberals were supposed to be the embodiment of tolerance
C: well known ascriber to center right ideology, liberalism, [A]
B: Center-right : That's still a liberal in my book. Not conservative enough.
C:that's literally what a liberal is... you stumbled onto the page of a communist podcaster and are implying she ascribes to a right wing ideology"
It's important to remember that people have such different definitions of words that what can seem like obvious sarcasm to one group (C's first statement), can be completely misinterpreted by others (those who use liberals and leftists as synonyms). People can start talking past each other so easily, that you have to stop and define even basic terms if you want to have any sort of conversation. Assuming the other person even wants to have that conversation, and isn't just replying in order to talk to the other people reading the thread.
@@nicolescats2 when I started learning about us politics I thought "liberal" had a different meaning in english, but no, conservatives just don't know what it means
This is a very interesting look into the structure of arguments and provides a great method for having productive, good faith discussions online with those who you disagree with. Unfortunately I, the #1 internet debate thunder dome champion of the world, have no use for “good faith conversation” as I already know I am correct about everything all the time. This is probably useful for those who aren’t as perfect as I tho.
Well of course, you - the #1 internet debate thunder dome champion of the world - don't need this advice! Apologies for the oversight!
I'm sorry, but _you_ are not the #1 internet debate thunder dome champion of the world because _I_ am the #1 internet debate thunder dome champion of the world! And outside of Lazytown, there can only be one #1.
@@Junosensei There can be only one number one and that one number at number one is number FIIIIIIVE.
@@Junosensei I think there is a disagreement on the level of reality between you guys...
Because it is infact I who is...
Do you believe perfection exists?
Given all the recent debate shenanigans online, I feel like this video could not have come at a better time lol. Very practical for helping us aim towards mutual understandings, rather than, all that other stuff. Great work! 😄
As someone who previously worked in marketing this is a really important tool in targeting different messages to different audiences. It also helps in marketing to pretend like you're on their side because they will be less guarded and more trusting of you. If you can argue why your product/solution/policy benefits them in their view of reality while also having the benefit of them thinking you're on their side you'll convince people really quickly. I also think a lot of people have the arrogance to think they've never been tricked by a industry plant. I have, you have, we all have. You might detect some poorly conceived plants, but a lot of them go under the radar and people just believe them to be real.
My sister has worked in advertising and sales for a while and was pretty chagrined to notice that she was still susceptible to marketing ploys. If those trained in such matters can still fall under the spell, what hope do the rest of us have?
@@hughcaldwell1034 I raise you: I never go outside and already enjoy and am comfortable with the current products and what have you that I live with. Can't get tricked if I never meet them in the first place
@@uncroppedsoop Ah, I see you are a visitor to the Internet. Well, marketing plants live here among us, and don't need to come into your house to find you :P
@@hughcaldwell1034 you fool, you said Among Us
@@uncroppedsoop I'm afraid I... don't get it. Is this something to do with the game?
I've broken down arguments in a similar way for a long time, and the problem I've largely run into is that generally belief systems are a web or knot of other beliefs, as well as social effects. For instance trans discourse is dominated by the definition and reality levels (which aren't always easily disentangled and people often have disagreements on both), but fundamentally that's not the only issue. If someone's entire social group is "gender critical" groups then you have to consider that you're not just arguing with the person on matter of facts, you're arguing with whether they should be with their friends and social spaces. This is particularly prominent when it comes to any argument with religious people about facets of religion (or more commonly political beliefs that are motivated by the prevailing theological arguments brought forth by their church).
You're, broadly, not arguing about what you're actually arguing about - you're arguing about their belief in god writ large, their personal trust in their priest/pastor/minister, the belongingness in their church that comes with having congruent political views, and similar things. Similarly, this is why cults prey on alienated people - it's not easy to convince someone of culty beliefs, but it is easy to give someone alienated a sense of community and build the beliefs contingent on their membership to a group that finally appears to accept them.
Beliefs are clustered, and even if you identify it's at the "definition" level, that's usually entangled with quite a lot of other things. Like going back to the "definition" aspect of trans restroom debates, okay sure, they definitionally disagree that trans people are the gender they say they are, but that's generally due to much more fundamental beliefs about the hard, binary reality of sex as a scientific concept, which itself is often rooted in feelings of tradition or trust in the education they got as children, or, again, a sense of community with other people who dislike trans people.
This is part of why I tend not to argue about most things, particularly online, most of the time I can identify both the level we disagree on in the stasis theory sense, but also how axiomatic it is, or the other "nodes" in their network that support that belief and prevent it from wavering even if you were to completely wreck that level of disagreement with facts and logic (and empathy) or whatever.
Almost makes you wander, just how deep the original fundamental difference realy is.
I think a lot of the good arguing does isn't reflected on the surface. I personally didn't change my political beliefs until many, many challenges to my previous belief structure finally came together in a way that helped me unknot that big web you mention more or less all at once. Each bit of it was picked at individually over time, but the consequences of each of those challenges weren't really seen until much later. I don't think arguing is useless, we just can't expect results to be obvious or immediate
@@GlitzPixie Funny. I still remember the day my political believes were smashed into peaces.
It took about 15 minutes :D
It happened when I saw a bunch of people from so called BLM run up and attack a gay man in front of a filled hall. This simple demostration was enough to prove that many of civilized standarts I believed to be universal were in fact not shared by the good people of the left.
After that, It took a lot of time to collect my thoughts, but yes, sometimes, all it takes to turn your world view upside down is one irrefutable demonstration.
@@konoko1002k alrighty
@@konoko1002k Well, that was an anecdote. Argues facts not in evidence. Plus "false flag operation"?? Also, TROLL!!!
As a recent MaRKeTiNg PrOFesSiONAL, I cosign this as a really great way to learn how to be persuasive. I think a lot of people on the left will say something like "Aren't you mad that you have to work three jobs with no benefits but your employers have multiple mansions? That's why we need communism!" and they'll have people nodding to the first part only to bail on the word "communism" or "justice" or "abolition" or whatever. It's because our definition for those things is so different than how lots of people see them after decades in a flood of propaganda.
In marketing, if you're trying to sell a technical solution, you can't just be like "You need to buy my Robotic Process Automation platform!" you gotta walk people through what it means first, and to do *that*, you gotta walk them through why it's a problem or what pain point you're addressing. So I think your method in this video is perfect for zeroing in on those things when you're trying to persuade others.
Zoe can I just hire you to have all my arguments? Cause I'm just exhausted 😢
I was drafting my strategy for my upcoming Flat Earth debate, and this stasis theory seems to be my basic approach.
So, instead of trying to debunk the angles and the distances and the bubbles and the CGI claims.... I'm just going to address the fact that they dont believe the earth is round because they don't understand how people and water don't just fall of the "bottom" of the planet. The core of their entire argument, everything the supplemental arguments stem from, is the fundamental misunderstanding of gravity.
Zoe really just made a grafic to not have to say "eat the rich" out loud
A beautiful graphic, really
yess eating the rich is delicious (different definitions lmao)
Do eat them. Ruthlessly!
I loved your video. I truly believe the most important thing about arguments is intellectual honesty. Lots of discussions don't go anywhere because considering the counterpart arguments as valid is not on the table. Nice work, as always
Thank you! I agree wholeheartedly - intellectual honesty is SO important!
I think you forget an important point before asking about reality. The question is : does the person care?
In some cases you might argue for hours with someone and it turns out they don't care at all and are just holding an opposite stance to be a contrarian or are trolling and trying to waste your time or are being dishonest on purpose and not trying to have a discussion with your and not caring about the truth.
Having a discussion about the nature of reality with someone who does not care what reality is is never going to be productive. Having a discussion about definitions with someone who changes the meaning of words based on what suits their argument is never going to be productive. Discussing wether something is good or bad with someone whose interest are drastically opposed to yours is never going to be productive. Discussing what policy to adopt with someone who starts with a policy and argues in order to justify it and not the other way around is never going to be productive.
So making sure you're talking with someone who actually wants a conversation is the first step.
This method can also help you "win" arguments by understanding your opponents reality or definitions and tailoring your policy arguments to that.
You can make a lot of arguments for climate change mitigation. If they're a patriotic American argue for energy independence and not relying on OPEC for your energy generation. if they're a libertarian, argue for decentralized, private and self-sustained power generation, ...
If you want to convince someone to get an electric car, maybe talk about the money they will save on gas.
I've personally convinced conservatives that coal power is maybe not so great, if rural communities are displaced by the open pit mines. They might not care about climate change, but they do care about rural communities and family farms.
This... So much... I personally hate the climate debate, because it ignores the problem, that is for me the important one. "How do you suppose we get the energy then?" If you keep just repeating "cut the coal", then of course I will resist. But if you say "Let's build a nuclear powerplant to replace this coal and make electricity even cheaper, and still completelly independant of good wether", then you've got me aboard in no time.
I agree with you mostly, and I use these ideas, but the outcome of almost every one of these discussions will be realizing more and more that you do not agree on reality, and that they actually aren't listening and are often arguing in bad faith.
This may work great in academia but it will not get anyone vaccinated, and realistically if you try this in public the right wins. This is great advice for deradicalizing a friend in private conversation, bad advice for a public debate. Not because it's wrong but because it's missing too much.
Often people don't listen because of something called tone policing. The right is trained to be as offensive as possible all the time, then when someone who is a member of the group being ridiculed gets upset the right are taught to mock and ignore them. This has the tendency to appoint allies who aren't members of the groups in question as the spokesperson for a cause they are not part of, and too often don't understand very well. As an Autistic person this is part of why "Not about us, without us." is so critical, and it extends to all groups who struggle with these issues.
We need to be honest that the primary reason these arguments aren't working isn't because the arguer is doing a bad job, but because of our society and the unfortunate things we associate with credibility. It seems kind of naive to me to act like the issue is with the people arguing for their right to not be killed.
I have had dozens of debates with people about my rights as an LGBT person, and sometimes people listen, but more often than not they are not listening. They are warriors of jesus, and I am an agent of satan, it really is usually that simple. And they will tell me to my face that me, and everyone like me should be wiped from the face of the earth. Usually you have to argue for a while before they say that but still. I can identify that we disagree on reality but how does that help?
The real solution here I think is to realize that debate is a joke. If you want to change an individuals mind then you befriend them and spend several years slowly and gently encouraging them. It takes a village, and an inhuman amount of patience (especially if you're one of the people they hate) but that is how you change your loved one's mind. NEVER DEBATE THEM!
If you want to change many people's mind, you can debate in public, but you aren't there to convince your opponent, you're there to convince the audience. You have to make the opponent look foolish, and their position embarrassing, then right when they feel backed into a corner you let them go. You offer the golden gate of retreat. It probably won't convince Tim Pool, but it will likely convince 10% of his audience to feel like maybe they should check their belief. These debates just aren't about facts they're about how we feel about the facts. Public debates are about posturing, let's not kid ourselves.
There's a reason the right loves to go on CNN but is scared to death of Sam Seder. When they go to a debate they just want to repeat their talking points, it's what all politicians do. Activists need to do better than fall for that. Hillary Clinton followed this model well in her debates, she's an awful debater and shouldn't be allowed to represent us up there any more. It just seems like this puts an unrealistic expectation on marginalized people to defend themselves from people who advocate for their genocide.
If you made it this far into my comment, congratulations! You are a very patient person. As a reward, have a depressing but inciteful reference!
ruclips.net/video/4xGawJIseNY/видео.html
and so we don't all fall down the sewer slide, here's a more helpful and hopeful debate tactic that actually works all the time!
ruclips.net/video/JU-SE5eNt04/видео.html
“Build your opponent a golden bridge to retreat across.” Sun Tzu
"You have to give people enough room in a conversation, for them to look good changing their mind." AOC
Sadly, that was my take by the end of this video, too. Recently got into a 'discussion' about how, without the profit motive, society would collapse, and at no stage in the pyramid could we even agree on what we were talking about. But they got a lot more likes than I did, so I'm sure they think they 'won'. And...
*sigh*
I love this and enthusiastically agree with your points. I’m going to have to put off following the depressing link, though.
TLDR:
My new winning strategy: stop getting into arguments on You Tube.
Edit: I just watched the pertinent portion of your second link, and AOC gave some amazing advice. I’m very science-oriented, and have a visceral reaction to pseudoscience.
I watch a lot of channels that debunk the same nonsense over and over again, and honestly, the videos are usually very derogatory to people who adhere to such beliefs. You see a lot of name-calling and vitriol in the comment sections toward anyone who deigns to disagree with the video content, and the videos are often made primarily to mock.
I’m finding more and more that I’m becoming an angrier, more judgmental person, and I didn’t consciously realize a link until now. Due to certain situations that are occurring right now, some of that is completely justified, in my opinion, but it certainly doesn’t make me happier. Neither does getting into fruitless arguments with people who believe in their “side” as enthusiastically as I do mine.
A couple of days ago, I did something different. I asked a moon-landing denier what he thought the motivation for such a fraud could possibly be, and he answered me. I thanked him for explaining, and he said I was welcome.
No, I didn’t change his mind about anything, I didn’t even attempt to, but I also didn’t claim to be more intelligent than he, or imply that he was an idiot. I felt so much better after that interaction than I have about any of my carefully crafted rebuttals.
Perhaps being right and attempting to “win” isn’t always as important as being kind, and actually listening to other equally fallible, possibly hurting, perhaps lonely people on this vast, impersonal web. Perhaps it’s also time for me to start choosing the content I consume more thoughtfully. Thanks for the nudge that changed my perspective.
Edit: Please understand, I’m not saying we should stop trying to change people’s minds especially about critical issues that significantly affect people’s lives and even put their lives in jeopardy. I’m just saying the YT comment section isn’t necessarily the best place to do it, and that there are better and worse ways to do it.
I agree with everything you've said about making an impact taking years and an inhuman amount of patience. The most inspirational example of this I have seen is the Ted Talk RUclips video titled: Why I, as a black man, attend KKK rallies. | Daryl Davis | TEDxNaperville. 10-second written summary:
The presenter is a kid. People throw trash at him in a Boy Scout parade. He thinks they don't like the Boy Scouts. When he gets home, his parents tell him about racism.
He doesn't believe his parents. He thinks, "How could they hate me if they don't even know me?" Over time, his life experience teaches him that his parents are correct. But he still ponders the question of why. When he's older, as a musician, he has his secretary, who normally schedules his gigs, book a meeting with the Grand Dragon of the KKK. They meet. They talk for two hours.
The musician goes to the rallies. He invites the KKK leader to his house. After a couple of years, the KKK Grand Wizard invites the musician to his house, eventually without his bodyguard. The Grand Dragon KKK head honcho would say on CNN into a microphone against a crowd of white protesters, "My views on the Klan won't change. I've formed my opinions a long time ago. But I trust this black man more than the lot of you because even when we don't see eye-to-eye, he respects me and listens to what I have to say."
In the Ted Talk, the speaker onstage opens this wardrobe and pulls out a swastika uniform. He says to the crowd listening at the Ted conference, "Do you know why I have this uniform? Because Robert gave it to me the day he resigned from the KKK."
A principle I believe in is that if you wish to persuade, seek only to understand. Connection is the most persuasive force.
Edit: Link to the aforementioned presentation - ruclips.net/video/ORp3q1Oaezw/видео.html
I think you're absolutely right for extremists. More moderate people or reasonable people CAN have these sorts of debates and it can make a difference, but those types of people are rare, and honestly, it's also dependent on the current emotional health of each person too, making it rarely effective.
Real social change does happen person by person, life you said . We have a lot of people who act "woke" because it's become dangerous for their social and financial wellbeing to be otherwise. But I can tell you many people who act progressive online and in public, are a lot different behind closed doors. (I've been shocked). Coming in with facts, logic, statistics, and intense, confident pressure can cause people to yield and conform, but that is not change. I think this is why there are still so many white supr3macists in North America to this day.
I grew up in a Christian conservative cult (mormonism) with racist, sexist, and homophobic history. Even though I am bisexual, open minded, and very passionate about equality naturally, I was forced into a life that worked against myself. It was so intensely ingrained in me that I was fully convinced of the reality od the cult. But my friends, not saying a WORD about my specific faith, just living their lives and being kind, being progressive, patient, good, got my natural instincts flaring up more and more until I met my husband, who also, never said a word to attack me for my shitty beliefs, but was so much better than anyone I had met in the church, it made me break free of my old belief system. And yes, you can be pressured and coerced into leaving cults, but lots of those people go back or do jot grow. People seem to have lost faith in the power of example and life experience. For me, because I changed with love and integrity, I never go back into that headspace, I only move forward. That's the kind of change I want to do, which is why even though it gets me shit for sympathizing with unsavory people, or not outright condemning them as people, I still do it, because i know from experience it's the only way to create real lasting change. I haven't disparaged my family members for their beliefs (still in this cult) but I've noticed them become more open as time goes by. That's what it's about. Not being right, not instant justice (it's impossible). Reformation, transformation, growth, community. Really enjoyed your words, even though they can be so disheartening and stressful. I just wanted you to know that your theory has personally made a huge difference in my own life. (And I've helped several people leave the cult as well, it pays itself forward!)
Zoe Bee drops the LOGIC BOMB and ANNIHILATES debate bros!
That cat is living an incredible life, and that makes me happy. Just look at it. Sleeping on a bookshelf, grooming on the couch? So comfy. The video was good and all that jazz, but like, good kitty.
What an excellent video! I'm a math major, so asking for 'definitions' has always been in my toolbox, but checking for reality and quality haven't been something I've done. I'm excited to use them in the future.
And that poem- WOW! Absolutely gonna memorize that one
I've actually had quite the success with arguing and changing minds on a certain extremely controversial topic, which is always pretty validating. I wonder how much of what I've noticed / worked out from repeated experience will show up in this video?
Edit: Claw from the future here. I think this is generally true, and it's definitely things that I've noticed. However, a few caveats I would like to make.
First is that, I think there's an even lower tier here, below reality, and that's worldview. What someone sees as reality is often dependent on their worldview. Often, different worldviews accept similar things about reality so this isn't always a problem, but sometimes that's not true. And discussions of worldview are rarely productive, because it's not the sort of thing that small corrections or changes are really applicable to.
Second is that not all arguments are made in good faith. Sometimes the reason it seems like the person you're talking to isn't listening is because they aren't. Sometimes, people are in a conversation to advocate to an audience, or as idle amusement for themselves, or at worst, to feel superior to others or engage in socially-acceptable cruelty. Dismal, perhaps, but true.
If you want to have a productive conversation, you've got to be able to evaluate who's actually engaging on the same level you are. And that's difficult. My advice on THAT would be, (1) try to encourage private discussions. If someone's willing to discuss in DMs, they're much more likely to be honestly engaging. (2) Be on the lookout for people expressing genuine questions, displays of empathy or understanding, those sorts of things, rather than slogans or buzzwords.
wanna have a debate for fun for smth? try to convince me the earth is flat
@@blidea9191 I’ll go: it’d be fun if it was flat yea? So it is
@@blidea9191 It's a flat disc but has a wrap-around effect where you come out on the opposite side if you go past the edge, so topologically it's a projective plane.
It's flat, but every time you try to look for evidence, space Jesus bends the plane to confine to round earth theory. If you have two or more people with different beliefs looking at the same evidence, then space Jesus bends the plane into superposition so that everyone is right.
When in doubt, always rely on the unfalsifiable.
@@Junosensei god of the gaps lol
0:27 "Productive debates on the internet are pretty rare [...]"
No, debates period are pretty rare. I don't consider people throwing insults at each other while repeating fake news and misinformation until the other side finally accepts it or not a "debate". Even babies throwing a fit are more mature than those people.
It doesn't even have to be that. We all throw insults, some at face value others more condescendingly hidden. We all put on a show. There are times were any of us just want to shut the other up for variety of reasons. Some better some worse.
Not always but specific positions have little to do with this.
Yeah lol, they (more so conservatives) call ppl they are arguing w/ "snowflakes" or "sjw's" or even "groomer" (oof, they mostly call adult trans people that.) Or people mention ur PFP in a way to insult you or invalid your argument. Like they use the fact that someone has an anime PFP to say their entire opinion is somehow wrong.
The only productive debates I've had were actually agreements using different vocabulary.
Holy heck I wish I had this video when I studied philosophy. Having to figure out this stuff myself in logic class (yeah, we had one of those) without having words for it was the major reason I switched to linguistics. It's so nice to actually be allowed some tools made in advance instead of being asked to craft and test them yourself like a freaking one-man civilization. Weren't historical philosophers supposed to have big shoulders or something?
Anyway, this was a sweet video,
I had never heard of Stasis theory before but the art of asking questions is a very pervasive tool for understanding.
Did your university not have you read anything on the topic?
@@o.sunsfamily We learned propositional logic and how to check if an argument is sound all definitions being clear. Then we did a tonne of exercises with thought up statements and examples from real history, like the Malthusian argument, but we were never taught an explicit method for making sure we had the same definitions as the other interlocutor or how there might be a difference in underlying assumptions that are left out of the explicit argument. Generally, it is seen as a weakness in a philosophical argument if something is left implicit, but in real life conversations (thanks linguistics), implicity is quite an important part and tool, so the Stasis model would have been a nice addition, especially for people with reduced social skills (like me), of which there are many who study philosophy.
Firstly, I must say that I didn't know Stasis Theory had a name, much more a whole structured field of knowledge behind it, and it is just soooo helpful for much more than just internet debates. I'm a huge proponent of Nonviolent Communication and Street Epistemology, and Stasis Theory fits so nicely together with these, like a guide on how to interact with people with empathy and open heartedness. Thank you so much for this amazing video.
Secondly, I must use this opportunity as well to say you became one of my favourite youtubers by a big shot. Mainly, your video on why grades are a scam is a masterpiece, Zoe. I'm a doctor in Brazil, and am currently doing my master's degree in Health Education; everything you said resonates with such force and precision with what I'm studying and practicing with my students. It's such a shame this knowledge is still so misunderstood and neglected. But you're doing an amazing job by bringing it through a didatic, clean and visual way.
Thank you for your hard work. I'm joining your Patreon today. I know it's not much, but hopefully it helps you.
If I am in a conversation/argument where I disagree with someone, and over the course of the conversation I realized that I hold the wrong position and changed my mind, I consider that a win! Another great video, thanks Zoe!
I'd love it if you taught more basic rhetoric like this. So I can understand my conversation partners into OBLIVION
Kudos for the cameo of Shaun (on the top shelf).
I like how charlie is an active character in the video. Its a fun way to reveal the reality of collaboration. Well done!
That poem was actually super calming. Thank you, I needed that :)
Of course the main problem with internet 'debates' is one party too often arguing in bad faith. And against bad faith actors there is not much you can do, other than just not engaging in the first place.
Love this video. This is why when you're in a debate league (at least mine), you have to define the terms and arguments you're using to avoid this exact problem.
This framework explains a lot of what the techniques of "Street Epistemology" get at, glad to have found more info on it! I think a discussion of rhetoric may have been fruitful, perhaps framed as "But how do we even get to a place where people will be willing to engage with us?" As it stands, it's a fine discussion of how to actually understand what the disagreements are -- it's a touch more complicated to resolve them!
Great video, as per usual! Looking forward to more.
I love how in the "How to win" section of the video, Zoe demonstrates one of the parts of stasis theory - reality - by asking what the goal of having an argument is.
You are one of the few channels to actually favorite my rare comments in the past. I appreciate your focus on language, but mixing your teachings with philosophy like this- is what I truly crave. Like myself, I believe you have an altruistic existential mission; please keep it up. To all else reading this, never forget-all is one, I am a strange loop, and everything is part of the complex system.
Fellow Douglas Hofstadter fan? :)
@@erictao8396 Was hoping someone would notice that 😁.
I never knew it by the name Stasis Theory, but it was something I was aware of in online arguments. The problem of, "How far back into our respective experiences do I have to go before we reach a point of common ground from which our assumptions and understanding of concepts diverged?" If that point can be found, we can get back to productive argumentation, where if we don't agree at least we understand what the source of our difference in opinion is. However, then I run into the concept of, "How much time and energy do I want to invest in uncoiling all this?"
It also rests on an assumption of good faith, which unfortunately isn't something I can take as a given. If an interlocutor inserts themselves into a conversation for the purpose of changing the topic away from one in which they can't defend but don't want to "lose" (a "Control the Conversation" rhetorical technique Innuendo Studios described) then they're not interested in actually debating, they're interested in having a fight.
"Do you agree that the subject's extant?"
"Do you agree on the details like what the meanings of the relevant keyords in the terminology mean?"
"Do you agree on how serious the subject discussed of is?"
"Where most arguments start apparently."
thank you so much!! this is so incredibly helpful when having conversations with people
Beautifully done. I can relate to this video. I had a lot of frustrating conversations that couldn't evolve past reality or definitions. Rarely could I get to the quality level.
A thing that's important is that it takes 2 people to have a discussion. If either person doesn't want to discuss, then productive discussion is impossible, full stop. And some people simply don't want to be convinced. I think a lot of problems with discourse is that some people want to try and change people's opinions without being willing to put their own opinions at similar risk.
Sometimes such people argue in genuine bad faith: with full knowledge of what they are doing, they employ rhetorical tricks to try and stifle or control discussion: things like making intentionally bad arguments in favor of a controversial position by using a piece of false information as a basis for the bad argument. Since the bad argument is easier to identify and the position taken is controversial, discussion back and forth often proceeds under the assumption that the false information is true, and thus creates an impression in the audience that its true.
I see such tactics used with disturbing frequency, where a lie will be baked in early to a long winding series of bad arguments starting a thread of discussions on the merit of the argument and giving obvious counter arguments, all assuming the lie is actually a fact.
I love this video so much, thank you for sharing this with us in such a simple and accessible way, it's really great! I definitely felt that I've gotten into arguments before where communication falls apart due to silly differences in reality and semantics, and it's a challenge to recover from that point. I'm honestly kinda mad I've never heard of statis theory before lol
I really appreciate how you broke down this video into key parts/chapters, it made it way easier to understand!
Left out of this is that having a productive debate is only possible when *everyone* wants to have a productive debate, not just you. If my opponent is trying to argue that 2+2=18, and they aren't trying to use this to find truth, no amount of finding out where they're coming from or identifying different premises is going to do anything; at best, you'll just discover that their premise is "I'm cleverer than everyone on the planet," and... you can't do anything with that.
Internet arguments are unproductive because, most times, *at least* one person is arguing in bad faith, to win rather than to learn.
Exactly, some people post rage baits because they simply don’t have anything else to do in their free time, so there’s no negatives; it’s entertainment like any other.
My favorite phrase to break down to truly Define what it is is the "free market"... a lot of Libertarians throw this phrase around and I noticed him put a whole lot of thought into what it actually means but only about how they want interpret it.
This was a super helpful video in a ton of ways, but specifically for me, it gave me a more solid framework for problems that I've already seen or engaged with.
The thing that I end up using this for, unconscious about the stasis questions, is when it comes to anti-abortion activists. I've seen people engage with them on their turf, of fighting against the amount of abortions by saying stuff like "free contraception and comprehensive sexual education would solve this instantly! No unwanted babies born in the first place, so none of them will be harmed!" which is true, for sure, but doesn't get to the core of the problem. Fights around abortion *are not about abortion*. Typically, since there are always exceptions, it comes down to controlling women or punishing women (afab people in general, but there are a lot of other complicating factors that make it more difficult to be nuanced in this general comment, so I'll generally be talking about cis women). If there's no access to contraception or abortion on the woman's side, then the man holds all the cards and he gets to choose whether a baby is born by not using a condom, taking it off, poking a hole in it, etc. And if you believe that being pregnant when you can't support/don't want a child is a moral failure, or that they should've thought about that before "opening their legs," then putting them in emotional, mental, and financial anguish over having to give birth and then support a child is a worthy punishment for their sins.
The above example shows people engaging with the policy angle and ignores the definition and reality beneath. I was using something akin to stasis theory to think about it already.
Exactly, there's also a very basic belief I realised a while back. Sex is 'sacred' in religion, sex is regulated and that's what we fight with them about.
Saying abstinence only education is abysmal doesn't mean anything when they think it's immoral to even think about the opposite sex with lust, let alone give people the freedom to act how they please and redefine what sex is for themselves.
Lol you're doing the exact same things you accuse them of doing and what Zoe brought up in the video. Nice poisoning the well.
Nope. Pro-lifers simply have a different ethical system. They consider fertilized eggs to be morally relevant, ergo, it would be immoral to k1ll them. But nope, to you it's all just "lol they just want to control women's bodies", you're no different than a pro-lifer saying "lol the pro-choicers just want to k1ll babies".
I am pro-choice but poisoning the well is poisoning the well.
It's awesome that the current generation of educators are just based and very up to date on stuff. We've never really seen different generations interact and agree this well, you guys have miraculously bridged the gap
Good video, but i'm a little taken aback that people werent already kind of aware of these points (not that i'd heard of of stasis theory). It seemed clear to me a number of years ago that we were clearly dealing with entire different worldviews. that we didnt just have different standard of evidence, but different standards of what could be taken as evidence. on the left disagreements are often because of the things you laid out. but when arguing against the right, they are told that any thing you say MUST be wrong because of youre quality as a person. the right is not out to have productive debates, theyre out to stop people form listening to you. due to their vast resources, and the fact that they dont care about honesty and reporting things fairly, and theyre getting to people first and poisoning them. I just thought everyone already knew this.
Sometimes, it takes someone articulating something out loud for people to recognize something that they’ve known to be true for a while. Being smug because we already knew about this doesn’t do us-or anyone else-any good.
Strange, isn't "cancel culture", which is "out there to stop people from listening to you" considered the leftist solution to silence people? And the left doesn't seem to mind this perception?
Also, a couple of blanket statements, which very much show the bias- fine for a commenter, he is an average lad, nothing at stake here.
But did OP just kinda roll with these? "Yeah, I like that, that's how it works"? Really? Is that how it is you think things are? The whole shebang about discussing things, and after all that effort, you go with "left good, right bad"? That prejudice won't make for a productive discussion, and you totally know that, so how does this work? Dissapointing.
I feel that in a lot of arguments we aren't actually arguing about what we're talking about. We feel attacked by a statement for whatever reason and feel the need to defend. Heck, this can somtimes even bring us into arguments where we are arguing in favor of somthing that goes against our beliefs and point of veiw. These arguments are littered online and, especially IRL, are super harmful to both paties. The good news is that once you are aware of this, it is ridiculously easy to reconize, and you'll realize you're arguing for the sake of doing so. Somtimes i've typed comments and midway through i'd realize this. In other arguments where we argue against ideas, however, the argument is only worthehile if you can learn something from it, it not more.
When you're losing an argument (Never fails)
Step 1: Just look up some insults on the web
Step 2: Pick a random insult and send it to your enemy
Step 3: Block them before they respond
Lo⅃
I am going to send this to anyone I have an argument with when they refuse to actually argue and instead uses it as a medium to say how wrong I am on x,y or z. Good video btw.
Awesome, I've had a couple of interesting but fruitless debates both on and off line. I tend to explain my own reality well, as I argue most about issues personal to me. But I rarely try to discuss or examine the other person's perspective.
Came for tips on how to destroy my opponents and win the internet, stayed for the chill poetry that I didn't even know I liked.
Wait, I was always told that you can't argue with conspiracy theorists; even if you think you've convinced them on one thing, they will still be easily drawn to the next and the next and the next. You can't change a lack of critical thinking skills in one argument feasibly.
As someone coming from one of the least literate regions in the world, these kinds of video are nice because it gets me to learn something that i could've never learned otherwise.
You can't win anyone on the internet, same way as real life. You can only convince people who want to listen and understand.
Also, you don't have to "win" every argument. It's a toxic mentality. You debate a stranger and the purpose is to be smarter.
watch the video
did- did you even watch 1m into the video??
@@mellalanny957 guys its actually a trick, they're trying to start an argument to practice what Zoe said
@@mellalanny957 I have written this comment as a general idea I wanted to present, and no, I haven't watched the video before I have commented on it. I'll gladly watch the video soon.
One of the my personal favorite productive debates I have ever had on youtube was actually on this channel. On her video talking about facts don't care about your feelings i wrote a comment of an idea that was infantile at the time. After many people responding to me and challenging the original comment the idea developed and and my knowledge of the subject matter grew. Most people were very respectful and called me out for being wrong in some ways and really evolved the way I saw the subject. Most of the time these comments sections are so dreadful but sometimes you get a bit of a diamond in the rough kind of interaction with people.
This is a good video CHANGE MY MIND
I'll argue with FACTS AND LOGIC
This actually makes so much sense, a lot of debates I've had could be broken down to disagreement of reality of the scientific method being equal parts sourcable data, logical reasoning, and a subjective element; So often I get people (and probably myself!) tunneled into one aspect that it's impossible to use reasoning because I need not only sources but also sources that reasoning applies to the very specific problem at hand, or impossible to get sources on straight up figures used in an argument because they're being substituted by subjective perceptions
So what's one to do should there be a reality level disconnect and a subproblem appears where it becomes a broken argument all it's own?
How many layers before we gotta rethink?
Honestly, I'm not sure. Those kinds of things are really frustrating, and I don't have a great answer. I don't want to say "just give up," but I do think if an argument gets to that point, unless you have an exceptional amount of patience, I don't know that it's worth it to keep arguing.
But if anyone has a better idea, I'd love to know!
@@zoe_bee I think it's at that point you (as in, folks in general, not you specifically -- I'm sure you know much or all of this already) need to start using some of the "dirty tricks" of rhetoric. There's generally considered to be 3 things that help in convincing someone of something: Logos, Pathos, and Ethos.
Logos is the one we all like to pretend is the only one that matters -- it's the realm of facts and logic, after all! But as far as evidence and reasoning can take us, they only really work when someone is prepared to listen to us.
That's where Ethos comes in. Ethos is, in short, how trustworthy or "credible" you seem to your interlocutor(s). It's all about convincing them that you're in their in-group, whatever relevant in-group that happens to be. It's "decorum", being taken seriously, being presentable -- the dreaded zone of "respectability politics" is one facet of it, but leaves out that, in fact, frankness and straightforward language are actually to your benefit here. Once you've established Ethos, they're prepared to be dazzled by your facts and logic -- but what if they just don't care? (This ties in to the quality question, too!)
Pathos is probably the hardest one to use effectively, because it's very obvious when you're making an emotional appeal, particularly if it's something they've seen before. That being said, it's one of the most powerful tools of the rhetorician -- which is why it's dangerous! Getting someone to *care* about something is powerful.
When it comes to Reality-level disagreements, you're often not going to get anywhere with Logos -- someone has already convinced them not to trust whoever it is you're trusting. You need to work on the Ethos -- establish common values, try to foster a sense of belonging and trust.
A good book (which is unfortunately geared towards succeeding in business, because, hey, how else would it be profitable to publish?) on the topic which I found helpful was Jay Heinrich's "Thank You for Arguing". There's also some good groups online that you might be able to find by searching "Street Epistemology" (I personally frequent the subreddit for it, for example).
I always fairly soon realize that (my) opponents have wildly different realities. But those are so dearly held and often intertwined with their identity that debunking them is a painful uphill battle.
Seconded. Some people take for granted their own emotional investment in the reality of a situation and expect everyone else to respect it. Some people use their trauma or even project fictional trauma as a way to keep their reality from even being discussed, and it's heartless of you to try and verify that ever, no matter how much they go on offense and put themselves out there. Even when you totally disregard yourself to ask simple questions, they consider questions a warning sign and quickly call sealioning.
Tangentially, I feel like sealioning is a tough concept because in its worst case scenario, if you call harassment the moment someone asks their first couple questions, you simply pre-judge that the other person is acting in bad faith. If they weren't already acting in bad faith, you may have just gave them a reason to. You might be prescribing it as a way to demonstrate to them the social consequence of just how hard they're not thinking, but it's probably the least desirable, last resort way to show them their error. There does come a point where enough's enough, but I've found some people constantly declare sealioning because they categorize entire genres of questions under "bad faith" and nobody outside their social paradigm would know until they stepped on the land mine. Obvious social landmines do exist, but some people take their own beliefs for granted and like to pretend that "their enemies" are already in the know about their buttons.
Another zoe bee banger 🥴
I had no idea about Stasis theory, this is great. Sort of touches on things I kinda intuitively knew were there but realises them nicely. One problem I have though, is how do you argue with people with differing realities?
When I argue with my Christian friend about things (like homophobia), everything eventually boils down to "well it says this in the bible". Because he's a fundamentalist, the bible is literally the word of God to him. I've tried arguing about the interpretation, intent and quality of the bible verses he cites. I've argued that the bible is a collection of stories from multiple authors over multiple ages and has been translated hundreds of times from its original manuscripts. None of this ever works; he is utterly convinced his interpretation and the the literal English words are the word of God, and are beyond skepticism and beyond criticism.
To get him to be less homophobic and be more respectful towards LGBT people, I have to somehow disprove the word of God or somehow question his faith. This is literally impossible. Not to mention that despite his terrible views, his religion provides him genuine comfort and community, and I don't really want to take that away from him. I couldn't do that even if I wanted to. I guess sometimes its best to just not argue at all when realities differ so much?
I think both of you would agree that other religious books are blasphemy, so maybe you could start there to try to understand the first emerging path of disagreement? For example, why does he believe other religious books are false and why the Bible isn't false, out of all the others? What makes the Bible different if all the other books are claiming to be the word of God as well? It also sounds like he could be a bad faith actor that you can't convince, so nothing you do will help anyways
@@thatoneuser8600 I have asked him this, he just says that all the others are wrong and his is right, lmao. I don't think he is bad faith, just a true believer.
@@lvl99paintKnow when to cut your losses.
How do you identify trolls who’re just bad faithing every discussion
Now that's a good question. And if you ever figure it out, be sure to let me know!
@@zoe_bee I’ve held off on this but what I find is that they purposely choose hot button topics and talk almost in memes. So I think that may be one sign
Honestly? Familiarize yourself with the typical "sea-lioning" questions that get brought up on the topic(s), and set a threshold after which you discount someone as a troll. I like "5 strikes and you're out", personally. Familiarize yourself with common logical fallacies and dishonest forms of argumentation (RationalWiki, despite the cringey-seeming name, is actually a great resource on this), and point them out when you see them used. If they change the subject or evade or what have you, you can safely ignore them as a troll and not waste any more time.
I would recomment learning the bad faith tactics:
1) definition minigun
2) Do my homework
These two are the worst one lefties use. Sadly, I cannot help you with the right as much.
@@ShadesOfMisery Lol "sea-lioning" doesn't exist. Asking for evidence is important in a debate. Those that accuse you of "sea-lioning" are the "bad faithers".
I remember having a full heated argument with someone who thought a minute was 100 seconds. They just couldn't except that it was 60 seconds despite me showing Google searches and asking more people.
It’s hard to argue with a smart person- it’s impossible to argue with an idiot
Is having a productive debate and listening to someone else _not_ a win 😌 Looks like maybe a problem of ... what, definition... ?
This was great though - some of the best internet debates I've had involved me recognizing that an issue is less that someone is misunderstanding me, and more that _I'm_ misunderstanding someone else. It's so gratifying to reach the seed of an argument with someone and have a productive conversation with them about it, even if you don't end up agreeing. It's the understanding where something magical happens in debate.
I've also had great (internet) debates where going back to check on the reality level of our argument does a lot to disarm frustration and aggression, and can lead to improved understanding and thoughtfulness in an argument. I usually have done this by stating _my_ reality and saying what I think we agree on, or by simply rewording what I feel they've argued and why. This provides a great opportunity for us to agree (if we do), gives them an opportunity to better define their reality or position for me (whether we agree or disagree), and ultimately often resets the playing field and clears up some miscommunications. Usually, if can make someone I disagree with feel heard (and check that I actually am hearing them), we do a lot better with our disagreement - same when someone else can do that for me (thank you and sorry to all the patient humans who have disarmed me in online arguments 😬 ).
Step 0: Dont.
I like to use "So you are saying that ___?" to tell the person what I got from their argument. And if I got it wrong, they have the room to elaborate and explain themselves further.
Sorry, can you redo the beginning of the video there was a sleeping cat in the background and I couldn't hear you over how cute the boi was?
really enjoyed the video, but one thing to add: there's a question of why people accept certain premises over others. Sometimes it's just peer pressure, but a lot of the time, accepting particular premises benefits them materially or spiritually.
Rewatching this, I can't help but question the ordering of the first two Stasis levels. I feel like definition just logically makes sense to come first before reality. How can you firstly discuss whether or not something exists if you don't agree on that thing's definition?
If you agree apples exist, but both participants define an apple differently, then using the current model for Stasis Theory, you will have to backtrack to the Reality level to redecide if apples exist once you agree on the definition. Whereas, if definition was level one, you would find that problem at the very beginning where there would be no backtracking, and thus reach maximal efficiency by not having to step backwards and instead keep moving up the ladder of Stasis levels.
If you keep fighting about something existing or not, what if you never come to an agreement and never realized that both of you had completely different definitions this whole time? Now you wasted a ton of time on an issue that never even existed, and now you realize you were talking past each other this whole time on something you would have never agreed with anyways due to there being a deeper level of conflict existing at the definition level that you never unraveled at the start of the argument.
I think definition is a thing that reemerges because our beliefs are never linear, and more like tangled clusters. Because on the other hand, you may never agree on one definition of apple for external reasons. You will have to go back to reality because of a different belief that ties into the previous one.
Honestly, I love you. And I don't think I ever meant these words as much as right now. I constantly get so overwhelmed with everything, wether thats arguments where people just don't listen despite the facts or writing poetry or whatever and just when I feel like my energy level will be negative soon I find a video by you and I am grounded by your calming, emotional rationality. Thank you
It's easy: you respond with their home address
Im barely a few seconds in but the choice to open with the slow pan from ur ever present cat walking up behind you, to your face was cinematically pleasing as hell
waiting for that one long comment chain in here that completely ignores every point in the video
Context is everything! All human problems have human solutions. Every tool can be constructive or destructive.
And win? That's a stretch
I was watching this while doing housework, I think this may have been my most productive time spent in actual years
answer: dont 😭
this was really good. i've been having thoughts like these for years but only now with your insight can i actually give them structure and make sense of them. thanks for posting this video :)
ever comment on a premiere
naaah you?
@@smileyface6583 very often
If you've never tried arguing this way, you might find it equally frustrating. When you're arguing deeper down the pyramid, you're often dealing with more deeply-held beliefs. A person's worldview it built up around their core values and beliefs. Getting someone to closely examine what they believe and why is really hard sometimes. We're afraid to look in that mirror. If we discover cracks in the foundation at our core, it can bring down our whole worldview and make us question who we are. We instinctively know that so we have a tendency to avoid it.
Intellectually honest and intellectually curious people will do that exercise with you, they'll self-reflect and explain it to you. But many people get angrier and angrier the closer you get to the core. They refuse to let the conversation go there, no matter how polite and well-intentioned you are. E.g. "Why do you think that welfare queens don't exist? To me, a welfare queen is someone who spends more time and energy trying to get government benefits than they spend trying to get a job and working. They apply for every benefit and take every handout and they do it for as long as they possibly can. What is a welfare queen to you? What would change your mind? What if I you met someone like that? What if there were whole families like that living near you? Grandmother down through grandchild, all on welfare, passing down the knowledge of what to say to get the benefits. What if they bragged to you about how they did it? What if you watched them buy new cars and fancier electronics than you had? All while none of them were working. Some who haven't worked in decades. Do you think people like that can't exist? What if I introduced you to some of them (all of them white, by the way)? Even if there aren't that many of them, would that at least open your eyes to something you thought didn't exist?" "YOU JUST HATE BLACK PEOPLE AND POOR PEOPLE YOU RACIST PIECE OF SHIT!"
Well, if anyone is open to a real debate:
What's wrong with eugenics?
It can solve the problem of climate change. Not by having to make every small part of our life climate friendly (which is basically the definition of totalitarianism). It can increase humanity's average IQ and therefore its potential for scientific and economic achievement making more people less poor.
What is wrong with eugenics?
Please explain it to me.
Whenever people hear "eugenics" they think of racial eugenics.
Interesting question, the thing I think it's wrong with it is that it assumes that there are objective 'good' qualities in people that are 100% genetic in nature. What is seen as a good quality is ofcourse subjective, so therefore you can't really even select people by the best genetics. IQ for example, has been shown to be mostly due to external factors.
If policies for making life climate friendly are totalitarian, how would eugenic policies not be totalitarian?
The biggest problem that I have with eugenics is that I do not know of an answer to the question “who gets to decide what traits are gotten rid of” that is satisfactory.
@@d.def.9734 I'm positively surprised that I've got an honest polite reply. For that I want to thank you.
I think there are though some problems with this argument:
If you say that there are no objective goods (even if it's only in people) that you open the door for every kind of moral relativism. There are after all no objective goods. Including compassion. If you're willing to agree with this logic than I'm willing to call you intellectually honest and to welcome you to the place beyond good and evil to speak in Nietzschean terms.
Still though, if you set a goal there will be some proporties which make it o b j e c t I v e l y more suited to reach this goal and others that don't. So by setting this goal of increasing total human intelligence there can be such a thing as objective good. Provided that eugenics could help achieving this goal it would be an objectively good enterprise. It would not even be necessary that genetics is only responsible for IQ or other human properties.
BUT: What if I tell you that it is? There is a strong hereditary component of IQ (its probably the strongest). If there wasn't a strong genetic component why would IQ be so closely tied to our species. Shouldn't their be apes donkeys or even bacteria with IQs of 160? This is of course not possible because they lack the necessary physiology. The same is (of course with less effect) true with humans in one species. And that is also partly the reason why environmental determination of IQ is non-existent. You can train someone to be better in IQ-TESTS but you can't increase his or her IQ. If there are new sets of problems to solve (a new IQ-test) he or she does just as good or as bad as without the training.
IQ is largely determined by genetics and it can therefore be increased with eugenics.
Still, I'm really thankful for your reply.
This is fantastic. Lately I've been trying to approach internet debates in terms of "what are this person's underlying assumptions" or "what framework are they operating from," without realizing this strategy had a name. It certainly doesn't lead to me winning every debate, but I do at least end up feeling like I understand what the core disagreement was.
Love this. Communication is a process between people not just the words you say or hear. It's inherently the back and forth so trying to find understanding is incredibly important.
I find that a lot of arguments come down to definition. I’ve never heard of stasis theory before, but I’ve had som many arguments break down to “that’s not what I think that word means” that I basically always just start there, and it’s worked a lot better for me.
And yeah, if you see the other person as your opponent, even if you “win”, you won’t change any minds, or win any friends or respect.
As a mathematician, the first thing I think of when hearing something that isn't clearly defined: What do you mean by ...?
For example, when people ask how many holes a straw has, they rarely define what a hole is and thus don't progress in their discussion. But if you define it, there is one clear answer.
If there is one area of interest that needs unambiguous definitions more than anyone else, it's mathematicians
Fellow mathematician here: "what do you mean by ...?" is probably the most used sentence in my vocabulary. It is an exception for me to not respond with it in almost every conversation :-D you just made me realize that. LOL
What do you mean I have to follow the order of operations? − Young me
And just finished part 1 and… thank you!
The whole "understanding what your opponent believes" (and whether they belivied that thing X is a problem or not) is sooo overlooked on the internet! This is the source of a lot of dialogue of the deaf online.
This is like a we'll organized qnd smart way I intuitively try to disagree disagree others.
I'm incredibly impulsive, passionate and sensitive. It's a recipe for disaster online lmao. I also have a mediator sort of personality, so I'm not easily sucked into an us vs them mentality. The easiest way I communicate well online in a disagreement, is to first humanize, find common ground or show understanding why they would feel that way, then like you've said, make sure definitions are understood and on the same page, then ask questions, both to make the person think, as well as to continue to ensure I'm understanding where the person is coming from.
This doesn't often make people completely on board with me, which honestly, I'm glad. I'm just a random schmuck, I think I'm pretty logical, but I don't think I have the perfect ideas or solutions. Also it takes serious time and effort and a healthy ego to change one's mind. So to expect people to feel safe and strong enough to completely change their mind openly to a stranger is a big ask. It doesn't feel like it should be, until you yourself are cornered logically and have to uproot your bias. Growing up in a cult, I've experienced extreme ego death in my life. I think civil arguments often are productive, a lot more behind the scenes than online.
As I've been working out being less argumentative qnd self righteous, I've been able to see more merit in others different perspectives, as well as solidified more confidently my most important beliefs.
Your cat is so cute. Also, this was valuable information. Thank you. I can't tell you how many "arguments" I've gotten into with people that just ended up being little more than shouting matches.
In competitive debating we call this metal debating. We ask where exactly is the debate? What is the debate about first? Debate on what is the debate before you can debate.
I used to compete/currently coach in the British Parliamentary/Asian Parliamentary/Australs/World Schools format. But I'm sure there's some version of this in American formats too.
This is pretty much all the content contained in a six lesson course I took. Good going for distilling it into 4% of the time and keeping the cat shenanigans in!
I would love to see more soft skill videos like these! They would really help, especially coming from an English teacher like you!
After learning this is really coo to go through your online arguments and see how many of these things you have applied unintentionally.