That's interesting | Forum

I tend to read more than write on all forums because of what you mention. I even offer advice to people who ask for it on forums for my profession and still get my head bit off. I think people are just naturally xenophobic especially when it comes to religious/philosophical beliefs. Which is especially ironic when they say they are here to learn new things. I think sometimes it can also be a ploy to push their agenda whatever that might be. I took an ethics class once and this Muslim dude always had to push what the Quran said referring to an ethical issue. I called him out on it and said "you obviously already have all this figured out, so why are you taking this class?" I thought there was gonna be a jihad up in there by the look on his face lol.

Both of you have some really good points that are well worth exploring. I don't like generalisations but ol' grimey's second paragraph rings true on many levels. It also seems the safe space and trigger warning mentality has been around a long time and only the labels are new.

I understand many go through the memorise and repeat stage in the form of quotes. It's kind of a stepping stone for some till they form their own understanding. Others use quotes as as a borrowed intelligence without forming their own ideas around it. Think of it as stages of understanding and then they may move onto forming their own.

I actually find it fun to dive into what people think and often find myself in religious, political or even ethical conversations when I get the chance. I even see this thread becoming fun if more turn up and we dive into understanding stages of learning. Most schools have the memorise and repeat method and questioning is shunned, is it that many give up in school?

This is an idea that peeks my interest!

When most think of open minded they think fully open or fully closed. Just like a door or window there are many stages between fully open and fully closed.

Quote from Dede

 

 How accepting are we, as a so-called open-minded group of people?

Some people are willing to listen as long as key topics are not disagreed with or even covered. Some like to control the topics covered and get upset if they don't have full control. Some have a prejudiced rhetoric and dislike being told to communicate without that rhetoric.

The person that can only communicate in rhetoric kind of reminds me of the Uni Student who sits at the cafe with their coffee and notes on talking points. I have little against the cafe philosopher if it is part of a progression but many use it for it's pose value.

Detachment of the emotional ego is as simple as addressing the care factor. Do you care that the other person is ok with your views and will your life mean nothing if they don't agree?

What does the other person mean to you? If they mean nothing then very little they say should get a reaction. Most people are after reactions so if you base the interaction of win and lose then giving a reaction means you lost. The real question is why do people class interactions in the win/ lose status?

The televised debates is a good place to see a large range of flawed logic and reaction based statements. Many debate with the idea that the other side should drop ideas and use their ideas. This is the foundation of their flaw. If looked at logically even if the other person considers the point and then asks for the merits and flaws of the idea it would be progression.

Two Logic Flaws often seen

First that is seen often is if they get to prove one point right they think that validates the entire argument. See “ad hoc propter hoc”. Eg; I took my rain coat it didn't rain, so taking my coat means it will not rain.

Second is to attack and devalue the speaker in their mind means they devalue what the speaker said.

See “ad hominem”. Eg; First speaker says a point and the second speaker brings up a list of everything they have gotten wrong before. This one is seen often in political speeches and is also based off the first point. Eg; The first speaker was wrong on points a, b and c, therefore they are always wrong.

Honestly I care little for most reputation based ideas though I am not above cultivating a reputation to get what I want. If you were to talk to different people from my past they would describe me as totally different people. Reputation is just another tool to me, like politeness, word structure, timing and stance (both physical and mental). As for credibility, I like coming from an unknown or misunderstood stance.

Some tricks in debating;

Stay calm and count to 10 before each reply. This helps in decreasing the emotional based replies and helps keep your mind on topic. Or you could take that time to think what emotion would best fit that timing set.

Praise the person up before hand and show some form of respect so you can act disappointed when they make a certain comment. If done right it will play on their need to be liked/ respected and may disarm their aggression a bit.

<I learnt this one while dealing with a sociopath and they were rather good at it>

Drop references on key topics and in turn ask for references when the other party states things.

Most important I would say is politeness. People are less likely to be rude if your being polite and if they are rude you can fake disappointment like in the second trick.

So many people respond more to emotional events rather than logical points,,, use this.

@Debe, Actually you are right on both counts. I don't really care what the sheep think and often I like to play mind games. On the other hand, to play mind games well I have to understand at least the basics of how they think and act. Yes, there are some I actually respect and at least say what I am doing so they wake up to basic games.

For example; April 1st is coming up in a few months and here is my favoured joke.

Talk to second party while pointing out a third party (getting the third party to notice you pointing at them is needed so don't be subtle). Tell the second party to look at the third party and scan them from head to toe and then laugh. I normally laugh after the second party is laughing. This is a short game based on the third party will think of far more humiliating things to them than we can come up with. And will often go into a panic after they come up with a few different ideas and wonder what I know and have said.

Depending on if I like or respect that person is how long I leave it before letting them in on the joke. The idea of the joke comes from the catholic teaching of hell being far worse than you can imagine as they know people's imagination can go wild.

Well there are limits to how far people take it before I say something. It is usually something pretty extreme and half the time I will just call bullshit and move on. Most that would go so far to fabricate stories like that are not the kind of person to have factual conversations with.

Basic insults are worth at least a surface thought before moving on. Often people will list you as a smart ass for breaking down insults the way I do and I guess in many ways they are right.

What tends to upsets me about insults is how little thought people put into them. The same old dried up insults over and over again like a fundamentalist stuck on looped play. For crying out loud they should add a few adjectives, pronouns and such to show someone is actually awake.

PS; As for the mind play joke, it points out how we can be our own worst enemy.