Qooper on 2/5/2023 at 08:43

---

I debated myself whether to create a new thread or put this in some existing thread. Tocky's (https://www.ttlg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=149253) Random thoughts has been awesome (and I think we should resurrect it), but I don't think this is random enough to qualify, and besides, I don't want to derail that thread.

There's a person I used to have a phone call with maybe once a year, and over time I found it more and more difficult to have a conversation with them. This person is very strong minded and stubborn, and is very skilled at verbal dominance. By verbal dominance I mean specifically, that when I try to have a conversation with them, they easily get to say what they aim to say, and use various ways to prevent me from responding effectively, or in some cases at all when they simply steamroll over me and prevent me from answering. This seems dishonest to me, and I consider this an argumentation failure on their part, because if they are in truth, then why would they need to resort to dishonest methods such as these? Sometimes I lose my temper and, as such, also fail. If I was skilled enough, I wouldn't need to lose my temper and I would be able to counter their dishonesty with honesty and the proper counter (which I don't know what it is).

How do you deal with a steamroller without being a steamroller yourself? And how do you respectfully deal with someone who behaves disrespectfully towards you?

I don't want this thread to become political, so if I may ask, let's leave out comments such as "That's exactly what the left/right does" etc. Thank you! :)

Even though the video clip below is political, it gives a good example of a dishonest way of presenting a fact by leaving out relevant information. Here at 1:39 onwards, in my opinion the student does a good job of pointing out how Charlie used a statistic that said that the 10 worst cities in America are run by Democrats, but didn't mention that so are the 10 best cities. If I understand correctly, the fact is that most cities are Democrat. The conversation is respectful in the beginning, but Charlie does deflect from the student's point and the other panelists do come to Charlie's aid even. I understand that the point of a debate is to put your arguments to the test, and a part of the required skillset is to be able to reveal dishonest tactics of the opponent. When you confront someone of their dishonesty and bring it to light, how do you respectfully deal with someone who deflects and wiggles away?

[video=youtube;p4QikQuwN6c]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4QikQuwN6c[/video]

demagogue on 2/5/2023 at 15:43

---

A few things that I've read or experienced...

1. There's some study somewhere that says the most likely thing to change an intransigent person's mind, where they're in a mode of scoring points more than figuring out an actual situation, is that a person they highly respect and feel the authority of expresses their uncertainty. (To begin with, they're probably in a mode of reflexive "strict father" morality, where authority is one of the preeminent influences, as opposed to nurturing parent morality on the other end of the spectrum, where "recognition" and oxytocin hits are preeminent. And there's a whole theory underlying that.) The force of the respect for authority can have a chance of breaking through the pretext.

2. When I see things moving in this direction, well even if it isn't, this is the way I like to frame discussions generally (being reflexively diplomatic), where we're not actually debating the final answer itself, we're trying to come to an agreement about what it is we're disagreeing on. In that example above, you want to move the discussion to us agreeing that one of the root disagreements is the situation actually on the ground, e.g., that the 10 cities with the worst statistics in X are Democrat controlled vs. Democrats control most cities, good and bad, and that's a well-known statistical fluke. Anyway you talk in terms of always trying to build agreement or consensus about what you're talking about. You never move the next step into an argument until you've got agreement on the previous step.

3. Oh, I already forgot what my third point was going to be... Maybe it'll come to me later and I might edit it in. But I'll write something in the neighborhood. Generally speaking, I don't bother engaging in discussions I can tell from the beginning are going nowhere. One might try to argue it's a sign of respect for another person in trying to have an adult conversation with them, but then I might think they have to display respect to be worth receiving it, but I think deeper than that, people with this way of thinking I tend to think represent a sliver of a much bigger movement. This is one person out of like 80 million people that think the same way. What's important is those 80 million people; this person is a pointless drop in the ocean. They think the same way because of the way populism, human emotion, the media, etc., work. So if you really care, you target those things, you aim for the ocean and don't get bogged down by the drips. (If I think a person is showing genuine respect for the debate or it's someone I care about, I'll usually engage though.)

All that said, I also usually make one big post answering what is often brought up by reactionary types... either in answer to one person or I'll spontaneously make my own post on it. Then whenever anyone else brings up the issue, I can always give a link to that big post. I mean generally I like thinking myself about what I think about the big issues of our day, abortion, the war in Ukraine, Latin American migration into the US, what's happening in US politics or in China, etc., etc., even before anyone else wants to argue about it. But if someone is going to be intransigent and not arguing in good faith, it's better for me just to give a link with my thoughts already written out and leave it at that.

Nicker on 2/5/2023 at 17:54

---

Here ya' go... (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/taxonomy.html)


Also... (https://literarydevices.net/fallacy/)

But remember the fallacy fallacy - just because someone uses a logical fallacy doesn't mean they are wrong.


If you make a matrix for a binary proposition with, Well Argued or Poorly Argued on one axis, and Correct or Incorrect on the other, you get four results: WA/C, PA/C, WA/I and PA/I.



And if you want to enjoy logical fallacies exploited for comedic effect, check out (https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thedebaters) The Debaters, on CBC.

Cipheron on 2/5/2023 at 18:53

---

Gotta be careful with that one too, because they could pull that logic to distance themselves from it: "well my guys don't have the swastika flags so they're clearly not Nazis" ... but their guys also spout the Great Replacement, Cultural Marxism and Soros conspiracy theories.

Qooper on 2/5/2023 at 20:14

---

Lots of good posts, I appreciate it. I'll write more tomorrow.



You're right, I can't force anyone. I don't get anything by winning, and I'm not trying to win. About once a year they approach me for some reason, and we have a conversation that starts off with us exchanging what's new, and soon they start talking about a deeper topic (it's not politics). Then, when it's my turn to reply, they try to distract me by interrupting me (I lose my concentration and train of thought very easily) and in the end they start steamrolling and not letting me speak. When I say I don't want to fight, they deny trying to make a fight. This last time we spoke I made the choice not to respond to them again. So to what end? In this case no more to any end, but all this made me think how to deal with such people in the future. I'm not sure why I didn't end the conversation earlier. I think my problem is I get too caught up in the conversation, or maybe there's a type of obsession in the moment the conflict begins where I can't let go trying to show them that their behavior is inappropriate. We used to be friends many years ago, which is why I care, but this person started changing at one point. But I've taken enough punches and I've tried my best. I think I've followed wisdom in making the decision not to respond to this person anymore.