spoken by the one that put brittain through it largest depression ever"Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other peoples money"
Dame Margaret Thatcher
"Debate", interesting word choice....Everyone has extreme views on one side or the other, and no debate what so ever seems to be able to bring people together ...
Not sure about thatpossibly the misuse of conversational science is why there are so many extreme views on one side of the other.
... because they have willfully or otherwise abandoned evaluative ponderance...
Mercier and Sperber prefer the term “myside bias.” Humans, they point out, aren’t randomly credulous. Presented with someone else’s argument, we’re quite adept at spotting the weaknesses. Almost invariably, the positions we’re blind about are our own.
... At the end of the experiment, the students were asked once again about their views. Those who’d started out pro-capital punishment were now even more in favor of it; those who’d opposed it were even more hostile.
Interesting. But my hope is the"Debate", interesting word choice.
It's extremely difficult to win an argument, it typically just reinforces the beliefs of the other. It's part of how the brain is hard-wired. One of the problems with arguments is they're for the wrong reasons, to change the other person. Real change starts from within. Ask any reformed alcoholic how hard it was for them to even admit they might have a problem and how much they argued previously there was no problem.
A debate is something different though. It's where different points of view are presented to an audience (like social media). A debater isn't trying to sway their opponent, but the audience. In social media you may not hear from the entire audience, in fact you're most likely to only hear from those that dislike what you're saying.
So, what do you do when there's something critical that needs to change and you want to help? Say for example your child starts to do drugs?
There's an amazing book on that called Crucial Conversations. It's decades old now and I'm sure the science has gotten better so there might be an even better book.
I know, if it's so amazing why don't political readers read it and solve all the problems? My theory is that is they do read it, but like super-powers, they can be heros or villians... and they were politicians to start with -- so they use it not as intended but to sway minds to their political viewpoints.
Very possibly the misuse of conversational science is why there are so many extreme views on one side of the other.
Well said. About IQ rising, just watch anyone do a "man on the street" survey on the constitution, government, geography, etc. Our schools seem to focus on marxist indoctrination, racism and gender. Not actual math, science, history, and the beauty of being an American. Perfect example is the Portland school system. Tests no longer required, as they are considered racist.Not sure about that
I think there’s declining intellectual capacity in the world. Well I don’t know about the world- let’s say declining intellectual capacity in the US.
The ability to think and draw reasonable conclusions relies on intellectual capacity. Post-modern Americans as a cross section, however, are becoming more educated. Along with this trend some study authors suggest IQ is rising. Yet even when we narrowly observe, say, personal debt for Americans we can clearly see that “we” are making poor decisions. Which spawns my argument that neither IQ nor education are precursors to intelligent thought.
So ‘victims’ of conversational science are more vulnerable to be swayed thisaway or thataway because they have willfully or otherwise abandoned evaluative ponderance and instead replaced it with a practice of recitation and group (clan?) alignment.
We have major cultural problems and “we” -America- try to fix that with money and ill-witted politics that are more about The Machine and politician’s pockets and less about The People
Interesting- I see five points there.Self study would provide a higher level of education.
Parents and religion are also absent in many cases, so morals are in a steep decline.
Your recommendation seemed to be helpful, however after reading the lengthy preview and the negative reviews of that book I would tend to agree that is a good concept that in execution goes nowhere."Debate", interesting word choice.
It's extremely difficult to win an argument, it typically just reinforces the beliefs of the other. It's part of how the brain is hard-wired. One of the problems with arguments is they're for the wrong reasons, to change the other person. Real change starts from within. Ask any reformed alcoholic how hard it was for them to even admit they might have a problem and how much they argued previously there was no problem.
A debate is something different though. It's where different points of view are presented to an audience (like social media). A debater isn't trying to sway their opponent, but the audience. In social media you may not hear from the entire audience, in fact you're most likely to only hear from those that dislike what you're saying.
So, what do you do when there's something critical that needs to change and you want to help? Say for example your child starts to do drugs?
There's an amazing book on that called Crucial Conversations. It's decades old now and I'm sure the science has gotten better so there might be an even better book.
I know, if it's so amazing why don't political readers read it and solve all the problems? My theory is that is they do read it, but like super-powers, they can be heros or villians... and they were politicians to start with -- so they use it not as intended but to sway minds to their political viewpoints.
Very possibly the misuse of conversational science is why there are so many extreme views on one side of the other.
after reading the lengthy preview and the negative reviews of that book I would tend to agree that is a good concept that in execution goes nowhere.
Debate skills are for debating. It’s an expository exercise.didnt see anything convertable to a tool you could improve debate skills with.
Logical fallacies mostly incorporate themselves when we consider those with differing views as opponents. Appealing facts presented to discussion are much effective than using logic. Why? Often the other person in the debate that holds opposing views didn’t arrive at their positions logically- they did so emotionally or by some other outside motivator. Usually emotionally, however. While avoiding logic altogether isn’t appropriate either- no matter the intellect of the other party- trust and respect open hearts and minds.any serious attempt for those new at it to get better should be the simple education about logical fallacies… the opponents prolific use of logical fallacies at least the wise debator can salvage himself before the audience by pointing them out.
I respectfully disagree, I thought they outlined exceptionally good steps. I found it useful, YMMV.... I would tend to agree that is a good concept that in execution goes nowhere....
I suspect the focus is very different.Perhaps this would be a better read [Psychology-Persuasion].
IMO their focus isn't to be insulting.... it's to garner power. Vilifying the not-them is just an effective way. It's not just politicians, a lot of leaders do the same thing. Unfortunately, it confuses a lot of people who believe them and when they later change their mind (as they have with Covid and climate change (not 100% of either party, but both parties are over the 50% mark now, a literal triumph of reason or their constituents telling them via polls))....political discussions now sadly seem to focus on goals of publically insulting the opposition, destroying their credibility, shutting down their talking points,
I don't know that it has to be "attractive and reasonable" (e.g., Neither Covid or Climate change are particularly appealing), but believe you are right that the "issue" wins when both parties adopt it as their own....I feel the way to win in politics is to present a point of view that is so much more attractive and reasonable to the opposition that they have no choice but to adopt at least part of it as their own.
Agreed, attacks are usually the last refuge of a non-tenable position....The ad hominem, the red herring, straw man, things like that. Recognizing and avoiding them keeps the discourse progressive...
Most people don't lie on forums just to lie or cause trouble (sure, some do). They are stating what they really believe, and sometimes their livelihood is wrapped around it (e.g., ranchers & methane). Even the best of us can fall prey to media hyperbole (aka fake-news). I know I have. That doesn't mean you shouldn't point out the truth. Usually, I try to provide solid references so folks hopefully understand it's not "me" attacking their point of view.For instance Ive pointed out that statements by a person were lies, which they quickly turned into a victim arguement saying I called them a liar.
Perhaps an appetizer for some, a gourmet meal for others. As I said originally, probably a lot better books on conversational science out nowadays.Anyway thanks for the amazon link it was food for thought even if just an appetizer.
Thats true but really depends on the level of moderation. Even if the rules are not evenly enforced, if they arent enforcing them the field stays level.the whole sad fact of the matter is when you are online you are slaves to whomever owns the forum, and whatever their particular viewpoint is. nothing else matters, no matter how accurate your arguments are, now matter if they are soft and gentle or crude and to the point.. it boils down to who is who in the jungle.... and on the interwebs it boils down to whose name is one the paperwork. I prefer to tell the truth...every single time.
Youre right but my adhd mind is looking for the short instructional which may not even be possible. However the book is touted as virtually being just that, and I wouldnt have made the point of a reply except for the number of reviewers who said there just wasnt much useful about it.You are viewing books like this as ‘instruction’ rather than volumes to educate and pique the mind.
You do and all who argue for AOC and Bernies Socilistic crap. You can spin it however you want.Interesting. I never met anyone that wants to be Cuba. I have never encountered any progressive that wants the US to be a true socialist country.
Move to The Nordic Countries if you want to pay 80% taxes for “social safety nets”
Funny how all my relatives in Norway and Sweden say otherwise.Yeah, as someone living in a Nordic country, you don't pay 80% taxes.
I always find it interesting that most socialists are always altruistic using other peoples money. This is why I think US governor DeSantis has the right idea to ship all the folks breaking US law by coming over the border illegally to Martha's Vinyard, Delaware, and Washington DC, so the politicians can open their homes and wallets to cloth, feed, house, and medically take care of all the covid infected.Funny how all my relatives in Norway and Sweden say otherwise.
Funny how all my relatives in Norway and Sweden say otherwise.
So now my relatives are liars eh?Maximum effective marginal tax rates
www.skatteetaten.no
Note that these are the maximum tax rates. The following document shows how it's calculated and what the average is:
https://www.oecd.org/tax/tax-policy/taxing-wages-norway.pdf
Also keep in mind that the highest marginal bracket only applies to income earned in that bracket, not your total income - and comes into play once you make over 1 million NOK, or 112,000$.
So your relatives are wrong.
So now my relatives are liars eh?
Wow you got some balls.
No they are not wrong.Didn't say that. I only said they were wrong, for whatever reason.
You have no idea.
Funny, thats less than what I pay here in New York, between federal, state, city, local, property, gas, and sales tax.Maximum effective marginal tax rates
www.skatteetaten.no
Note that these are the maximum tax rates. The following document shows how it's calculated and what the average is:
https://www.oecd.org/tax/tax-policy/taxing-wages-norway.pdf
Also keep in mind that the highest marginal bracket only applies to income earned in that bracket, not your total income - and comes into play once you make over 1 million NOK, or 112,000$.
So your relatives are wrong.
No they are not wrong.
I have seen their tax returns.