Debate Tactics

[David Quinn]

What a thread. The hypocrisy meter nearly blew its top off a number of times, I'd say.

-

[Trevor Salyzyn]

To debate people you disagree with is the nature of debate... no?

Not necessarily.

[Jason]

After much thought I've come to realize that, here, it is not 'dog-fights' that happen and that define the place, but rather miscommunication issues that arise from doggish ass-sniffing ritualism run amok.

Alex, can you expand upon, explain and give examples of this "doggish ass-sniffing ritualism"? You mentioned ritualistic communication in males in another post, I find the idea interesting. I'm up for some psychological insight - if you've got any to give.

[mikiel]

Well, I just read in the "Imbalance" thread as to how Trevor intended this thread to be tongue-in-cheek, based on some inside joke developed in another thread.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:
("The "Debate Tactics" thread was a farce. Some people picked up on the irony; those who didn't see it were annoyed. On page three, David revealed it when he said, "the hypocricy meter nearly blew its top off a number of times, I'd say", and totally killed the gag. I hope he said it with a chuckle.")

I'm with Alex on this one:
"Trevor (or anyone): Can I please be emailed when the Shrouds of Irony are laid on, I am regretfully a little slow..."
(Well, anyway, unless otherwise labeled or some hint of reference to the joke is insinuated, I will take a thread topic at face value. I know, how un-hip of me.)

So then David diss-es the whole thread on account of some of us were not in on the joke... whatever it was which supposedly gave the lie that this thread is cynical bullshit.... just a joke.

Trevor, there was no label and no clue.
So I took it seriously and put some honest effort into the topic. Thanks for wasting my time. Maybe the thread is a farce, but my posts were serious and maybe worth considering as something other than "hypocricy" as painted over with a broad brush by David.

Anyway, now its come down to the finer points of the difference between dog fights (as contrasted with respectful dialogue) and "doggish ass-sniffing ritualism."

One can easily see why respectful dialogue has no chance of survival, much less prevailing as the forum standard here.

mikiel

[Alex Jacob]

Jason writes:

"Alex, can you expand upon, explain and give examples of this "doggish ass-sniffing ritualism"? You mentioned ritualistic communication in males in another post, I find the idea interesting. I'm up for some psychological insight - if you've got any to give."

Hai! I'll do my best!

There have been behavioral studies of groups of boys and groups of girls, you maybe have heard of them, and they find that the males have radically different ways of interrelating than the females. One researcher (a woman) said 'it was like observing two different species'. And she (they) went on to describe the differences.

One of the things I noted and remembered from this study was that they found that boys don't network to arrive at consensus, it is more like each boy declares his 'truth' ('my daddy is a fireman and drives a truck!') and other boys don't relate to that fact per se, but make efforts to top it with their own 'truth'. If you ever have a chance to observe boys and girls (I worked in a childcare center for a time when I was in university) it is truly remarkable the different styles of behavior. It is fascinating to see leaders develop, with their 'assistants', and to note how other kids, and very interestingly the girls, watch what is happening (it seems sub-linguistic), and quickly make efforts to adapt to the 'power-structure'. Strangely, they are powerless over the influence of group-dynamics.

I was being (do we have other options here?) ironic when I sniped of 'ass-sniffing', but in male dogs there clearly is ritualism that serves a purpose, and in primate groups (did I tell you that I am a behavioral scientist from the star cluster 654-3C who is doing research on Earth and trying to learn how to 'pick up chicks'?), and especially among primates who have developed Internet, there is clearly something similar.

To be a little more serious, I think that men challenge stances (behavior, ideas) and resist overt 'agreement', and on their own, perhaps, are influenced by other's ideas, I mean in their own thinking apart from the group.

It helps me a great deal, when I turn on my computer module, to remember that I am going to Genius Forum to converse with the chimps about 'Truth, Courage, Honesty, Logic, Masculinity, Wisdom, Perfection'.

A look in the mirror?

[Trevor Salyzyn]

miki:
Indiscretion has such a vicious aftermath that it's no wonder I chose to be subtle in the first place. So long as you wish that this forum is populated by morons, well, that's something easily faked. I can paint a bright red target on my forehead and pretend to be anything you like. And you will look like a fool for believing it, since it shows a total lack of faith in the wisdom of others. I am confident that those that evacuated this thread after my replies to their first posts clued in.

Anyway, if you look at Alex's stereotype of "QRS-tians", you can see where I got all the material for this parody.

[Carl G]

Jason writes:

"Alex, can you expand upon, explain and give examples of this "doggish ass-sniffing ritualism"?

Hai! I'll do my best!

There have been behavioral studies of groups of boys and groups of girls, you maybe have heard of them, and they find that the males have radically different ways of interrelating than the females. One researcher (a woman) said 'it was like observing two different species'. And she (they) went on to describe the differences.

One of the things I noted and remembered from this study was that they found that boys don't network to arrive at consensus, it is more like each boy declares his 'truth' ('my daddy is a fireman and drives a truck!') and other boys don't relate to that fact per se, but make efforts to top it with their own 'truth'. If you ever have a chance to observe boys and girls (I worked in a childcare center for a time when I was in university) it is truly remarkable the different styles of behavior. It is fascinating to see leaders develop, with their 'assistants', and to note how other kids, and very interestingly the girls, watch what is happening (it seems sub-linguistic), and quickly make efforts to adapt to the 'power-structure'. Strangely, they are powerless over the influence of group-dynamics.

I was being (do we have other options here?) ironic when I sniped of 'ass-sniffing', but in male dogs there clearly is ritualism that serves a purpose, and in primate groups (did I tell you that I am a behavioral scientist from the star cluster 654-3C who is doing research on Earth and trying to learn how to 'pick up chicks'?), and especially among primates who have developed Internet, there is clearly something similar.

To be a little more serious, I think that men challenge stances (behavior, ideas) and resist overt 'agreement', and on their own, perhaps, are influenced by other's ideas, I mean in their own thinking apart from the group.

It helps me a great deal, when I turn on my computer module, to remember that I am going to Genius Forum to converse with the chimps about 'Truth, Courage, Honesty, Logic, Masculinity, Wisdom, Perfection'.

A look in the mirror?

In other words, No.

[mikiel]

miki:
Indiscretion has such a vicious aftermath that it's no wonder I chose to be subtle in the first place. So long as you wish that this forum is populated by morons, well, that's something easily faked. I can paint a bright red target on my forehead and pretend to be anything you like. And you will look like a fool for believing it, since it shows a total lack of faith in the wisdom of others. I am confident that those that evacuated this thread after my replies to their first posts clued in.

Anyway, if you look at Alex's stereotype of "QRS-tians", you can see where I got all the material for this parody.

Do you mean "indiscrete" like assuming this is a little clique of back-scratchers who read all the threads? (which excludes me.)
What is the difference between "subtle" and opaque with no clue to the game at all?
Where did you get that I wish this forum were populated with morons? I'd have preferred that it lived up to its title. But the prevalence of "morons" is about equal here to the general population, it seems... at least from "high genius" perspective. (I didn't coin the phrase or invent the tests.)

Re: "I can paint a bright red target on my forehead and pretend to be anything you like."...

Anyone can assume an identity in cyberspace and play their game. The difference is in commitment to authenticity... radical honesty which transcends egoic games.... To tell the truth as a higher priority than fake identities in cyber games... maybe a priority of little interest to you.
I am still wondering what you mean by: 'And you will look like a fool for believing it, since it shows a total lack of faith in the wisdom of others."
I am easily "fooled" by deception and self styled irony (i.e., "I'm too cool for straight forward and sincere conversation."... (how I see your tack here.) This is not to be mistaken for an apology. I value honest communication infinitely higher than irony, tho you must know by now that there is a certain humor in this one's transcendence of the personal drama.

As to: 'I am confident that those that evacuated this thread after my replies to their first posts clued in."...
I'm sure that they were part of the clique who "knew better" than to take the thread at face value. Maybe this forum is the major focus of their lives. If so, that would be tragic. I have a life, and this forum is a very small part of it, and I don't "read all the threads."

I know, its a lame excuse for not being in on the joke which this thread is, but its all I've got.

mikiel

[Trevor Salyzyn]

miki: You're right. It's entirely my fault that you got caught up in drama that has nothing to do with you or just this thread, and I'm treating you like collateral damage. I should not have directed my point toward you. It was just drama.

Had my opening post been sincere, your responses would have been appropriate. (If you still believe Bohm dialogue worth discussing, I suggest opening a different thread.)

[Jason]

Jason: Bloody hell, I don't like to explain jokes, but this thorn's become infected. The OP was a cheeky response to something Alex said in a different thread. The gag began as soon as he joined. Since it was clear you weren't getting the humour, I deliberately teased you with the most nonsensical arguments I could think up. It wasn't very nice. The gag has run its course: I can't even post in that thread without feeling like I'm beating a dead horse. So can we let it rest here?

No we can't let it rest there. I entered into this discussion in good faith Trevor, with charity in my heart even, and you deceived me and wasted my time and effort. It pisses me off. There's no way I could've known that you were joking, but you kept stringing me along.

A little tip for ya: it's difficult enough to successfully communicate on an internet forum like this without adding deceptive games to the mix. Most of us don't know each other beyond the text on screen, we don't closely follow each and every discussion, we can't hear voice tone, can't see body language, facial expressions or other cues. If you think you were being clever because we didn't realize what you were doing - you're the fool.

[bert]

I consider the ability to follow deductive logic from premises to conclusion, the ability to maintain consistent definitions, the ability to be produce terse arguments free of rhetor, and the avoidance of fallacies and contradictions to be essential to a successful argument. Am I missing anything? Are there any tactics which are even more important? Moreover, are there any common tactics which are questionable?

when the abnegation of a proposition is incapable of being conceived, then the proposition is to be accepted as necessary or true: when you find such a proposition, there will be no necessity for it.

[Tomas]

-Trevor-
Tomas: So, I guess you'd add "nitpicking" to the list...? My guess is that the "be" appears because I deleted something that I decided wasn't important, but somehow didn't delete it completely. Its ghost is still there, clinging to a two-letter word that defies all logic.

-tomas-
When you didn't correct the supposed error in your writing, I figured the fix was in. Then, as now, it will be difficult to believe anything that you write from here on out. Jason has said it (David Quinn hypocrite comment) on your parsing-of-words...

I hereby sentence you to 10,000 years in Purgatory.

Your cell-mate will be Martin Luther (also received 10,000) but he has served-out 500 years already - so, you (be sure to) enjoy his anti-jew rants of yesteryear.

BTW - No laptops will be available where you are going - so don't think about it!

PS - Your commode will be a paper-mache bucket.


.

[Alex Jacob]

What you say about Internet communication is true, Jason. I sometimes make (pathetic) efforts to include humor or irony, but I mix it together with 'serious' things. Some of what I write turns out (in my eyes) successful, some of it I should probably delete. In what I wrote above, the first two paragraphs were serious, along with the fourth, and that is what I think, the rest of it---just more wretched silliness.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Jason: Over-react much? "Pissed off"? Jason, pull this huge stick out of your ass. You can't honestly be such a humourless wanker.

How many posts did you make? Two? Three? You weren't deceived for long enough to be pissed off, and you weren't even the focus of the parody. You're so goddamn self-important. Mikiel deserved an apology, but you can just go cry me a fucking river. I was bringing to the foreground what a "QRS-tian" would actually be like, if such a thing actually existed. If anyone should be having a hissy fit, it should be Alex Jacob.

[Alex Jacob]

I just collapsed on the floor crying when the news came. And when a man cries, you know 'something of great import has happened'.

:-(

[Trevor Salyzyn]

AJ: I know. I didn't think I'd ever be saying this, but I'm impressed. You're a bloody model of good humour and self-control. I told you that you had been the brunt of a 2-page deception, and you laughed it off.


What baffles me about this is when people who supposedly value truth aren't capable of spotting even the least deception. It must be embarassing. Jason was almost on the right track when he said he'd never trust anything I said ever again. Now, if that had been his tactic from the start... you know, not trusting what anyone says... he'd have never been in this mess, and probably would have figured out what was going on.

As Dan said somewhere, "how do you know we (QRS) aren't deceiving you all?"

[Jason]

What baffles me about this is when people who supposedly value truth aren't capable of spotting even the least deception.

Riiight......so Alex didn't pick up on it for two pages, but those of us who hadn't even been following the previous discussions which led to this "joke" should have realized what was going on. Are you a moron in real life or do you just play one on GF?

It must be embarassing. Jason was almost on the right track when he said he'd never trust anything I said ever again. Now, if that had been his tactic from the start... you know, not trusting what anyone says... he'd have never been in this mess, and probably would have figured out what was going on.

The thing I trusted was that you wanted serious discussion. If we all lacked that trust GF wouldn't even exist.

[Alex Jacob]

"I told you that you had been the brunt of a 2-page deception, and you laughed it off."

Yes but I went to a local shaman down here in my South American swamp and he conjured up a swarm if giant toxic hopping spiders who left on a 6 month journey to track down your Canuck ass...

I don't know what to say. I still don't have the slightest idea what you were up to. I didn't go back and try to figure it out. But I actually spent an afternoon with a book called The Art of Thinking, by Routledge, that traces all the fallacies of argumentation.

Now if I can only get more brief I'd be a model GF citizen... ;-) Just read this.

But Jason does have a point: you have to have a basic trust of 'the other' for these conversations to function.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Jason,

Alex didn't even pick up on it for two pages, but those of us who hadn't been following the previous discussions which led to this "joke" should have realized what was going on.

For the minimal participation you had in this thread and in the ones that preceded it, you make an awful lot of noise. Moral outrage is blind -- and you wouldn't want to make the same mistake twice, would you?

The thing I trusted was that you wanted serious discussion. If we all lacked that trust GF wouldn't even exist.

You can't tell up from down. GF has had non-serious -- even subtle -- discussion in the past, and it's survived. It's not my problem if you can't follow it.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

AJ,

I don't know what to say. I still don't have the slightest idea what you were up to.

Wise words.

[Jason]

Alex didn't even pick up on it for two pages, but those of us who hadn't been following the previous discussions which led to this "joke" should have realized what was going on.

For the minimal participation you had in this thread and in the ones that preceded it, you make an awful lot of noise.

Yes deflect attention away from the point I was actually making about your moronic assessment of the situation, just cover it over by referring to it as "an awful lot of noise."

Anyway, for your education, the number of posts I make, and the number of words I use in said posts, isn't an accurate gauge of how much thought and effort I have expended on a thread. Sometimes I'll think about threads on and off all day before replying with a few chosen sentences.

Maybe you're not getting one of the main points: you intentionally strung me and others along with multiple posts of "the most nonsensical arguments I could think up." for no apparent reason. If you don't see how that reflects poorly on you, well.....

Moral outrage is blind -- and you wouldn't want to make the same mistake twice, would you?

Moral outrage? Perhaps you didn't understand what I meant when I said "it pisses me off." Around here those words can be used to mean "mildly annoyed" and that is how I was using them.

The thing I trusted was that you wanted serious discussion. If we all lacked that trust GF wouldn't even exist.

You can't tell up from down. GF has had non-serious -- even subtle -- discussion in the past, and it's survived. It's not my problem if you can't follow it.

Straw man enough?

[Leyla Shen]

[laughs] Bloody hell, Trevor. Cannae leave you alone for a second, eh?

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Jason,

Yes deflect attention away from the point I was actually making about your moronic assessment of the situation, just cover it over by referring to it as "an awful lot of noise."

I don't take noise seriously enough to reply to it. I may as well have been trying to strike up a meaningful conversation with my dog. "Bark bark" -- "I can see how that might trouble you, but what do you propose to do about it?" -- "Bark bark" -- "An excellent solution, my dear."

Maybe you're not getting one of the main points: you intentionally strung me and others along with multiple posts of "the most nonsensical arguments I could think up." for no apparent reason. If you don't see how that reflects poorly on you, well.....

Liar. I've already explicitly stated the reason, which is a first for a joke, because I prefer to keep those unexplained. Alright, I get it, you didn't find it funny. But that's because jokes are never funny when you explain them. Especially complicated ones that require background knowledge.

My grandfather died in a concentration camp... he fell out of a guardtower.

If you don't know the history of WW2, it won't make any sense, and if someone has to explain the history of WW2 for you to understand it... well, it's totally ruined by that point.

SO STOP RUINING MY FUCKING JOKE.

Moral outrage? Perhaps you didn't understand what I meant when I said "it pisses me off." Around here those words can be used to mean "mildly annoyed" and that is how I was using them.

Thanks for taking that back: I didn't expect you were actually pissed off, since that would have been a total over-reaction. I can't believe that you are still complaining, though.... It's like, I told you to drop it right at the start. If you didn't get it then, you won't get it now.

Straw man enough?

*sigh*

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Leyla: I feel like a guy who goes to the bar every night and someone decides to fight him every single time. It's totally not my fault, and I thought this was a free country.

[Jason]

One of the things I noted and remembered from this study was that they found that boys don't network to arrive at consensus, it is more like each boy declares his 'truth' ('my daddy is a fireman and drives a truck!') and other boys don't relate to that fact per se, but make efforts to top it with their own 'truth'. If you ever have a chance to observe boys and girls (I worked in a childcare center for a time when I was in university) it is truly remarkable the different styles of behavior. It is fascinating to see leaders develop, with their 'assistants', and to note how other kids, and very interestingly the girls, watch what is happening (it seems sub-linguistic), and quickly make efforts to adapt to the 'power-structure'. Strangely, they are powerless over the influence of group-dynamics.

To be a little more serious, I think that men challenge stances (behavior, ideas) and resist overt 'agreement', and on their own, perhaps, are influenced by other's ideas, I mean in their own thinking apart from the group.

I think you're on the right track, I do believe similar dynamics probably exist on GF. It seems to broadly describe me in certain ways.

I know I can be hyper-competitive, and I have to admit that it does sometimes spill over into GF and interfere with my ability to communicate effectively, openly, honestly and productively. The reality is - I want to win. I want to win every single time. That can potentially be a serious problem for someone who also wants, ultimately, to uncover truth. It has to be constantly monitored and controlled.

Sometimes I even feel like I'm in combat on GF. It can make me defensive, destructive and overly tactical.

But it's not all bad, far from it. At its best GF and philosophy for me is a beautiful aggressive and spirited all-out battle - a pure righteous honest battle for all that is true. I come here, I state my claims, my ideas, and I invite others to attack them. "Come on! Give me all ya got!" I try my best to defend them. I test my claim's strength. I see if it can withstand the barrage of criticism. I likewise attack other's claims. It helps me and them hone and perfect both our ideas and ourselves.

The key is to not allow the desire to win, to overcome the desire for truth. At the end of the day you have to be able to honestly look at yourself and admit to defeat if that is what truly occurred. Without such honesty any truth you think you may have found would always be questionable.