Diatribes or Pre-meditated Conversational Hammers

[Reverse Transcriptase]

Background Story:
Half a year ago one of my INTP-obsession interests was climate change & the criticisms of it. I watched a couple anti-global-warming documentaries, found holes in a lot of their arguments, and general bad-stuff about it.

During spring break I was talking with my family about it. My mom, dad & brother, though they are skeptical of global warming, were talking about it like they were respecting it, or giving it credence.

I had been having a bad couple days, so I just unleashed a rant against it, referenced the strongest pro-debunking theories I had heard, and didn't let any of them stop me.

When I was done, my dad said "uh, yeah, but we were most talking about the implications of assuming that it is already happening..."
And my brother said: "wow Peter, you brought a Nuke to an knife-fight."

Meat of the thread:
So do you have pre-meditated conversational hammers? I think that we might be prone to doing it- because we have a lot of hypothetical conversations with ourselves, which would help prepare us.

However I think we wouldn't unleash these hammers very often- we're more likely to listen to other people, and wouldn't want to express ourselves often. Nevertheless, I think it's a good tool to have.

(I was inspired & reminded of this by Enne's topic on "Active Listening". How ironic? http://www.intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=4826 )

 

[Artifice Orisit]

Being able to figure out why anyone is a hypocrite in 30sec doesn’t mean one should.
...
Then again when someone starts lecturing me from the moral high ground in a poorly veiled attempt to make me hypothetically respect them by forcing me to either agree slavishly or take up an indefensible position against them, that's just asking for it.

 

[Anthile]

Being able to figure out why anyone is a hypocrite in 30sec doesn’t mean one should.
...
Then again when someone starts lecturing me from the moral high ground in a poorly veiled attempt to make me hypothetically respect them by forcing me to either agree slavishly or take up an indefensible position against them, that's just asking for it.

Objection! That doesn't really help with getting your point across. To convince someone you have to see a debatte like a piece of music. You cannot simple start with timbals and trumpets, you have to use flutes and strings! Acknowledge that their opinions might contain a minimum of truth; use "Yes, but..." or "I see your point although...". Let them see that you take them serious and never let the atmosphere slip onto a personal level. After that, dismantle their arguments one by one. Ideally you convince them without that they even notice it.

 

[Artifice Orisit]

Well it isn't used for polite conversation, it's an intellectual challenge.

I honestly don't care about global warming, but I do care if somebody is spouting opinionated misinformed-trivia at me in a piss-poor attempt at sounding intelligent. Of course if said person takes up the challenge, defends their position and deconstructs mine, that'll impress me.

Ideally you convince them without that they even notice it.

Were's the fun in that?

 

[Aiss]

Were's the fun in that?

I'd say there's more fun in seeing people changed, going around and repeating whatever it was you've talked them into, than hearing them say "OK, I was wrong" 5% of time and dismiss the argument because they're losing the rest of the time.

 

[Agent Intellect]

I often use the Socratic method when debating in real life. This is more because I don't have the internets vast resources to cite within my own arguments like I do here, but also watching people convince themselves that their initial stance was incorrect (or at least not backed by any solid logic or strong foundation of facts) is very satisfying, and it takes less talking/effort on my part (although a staggering number of people have a strong personal investment in their side of any particular argument and will often get backed into a corner with only being able to answer "because that's just the way I think/feel").

 

[Vrecknidj]

I really don't like feeling intimidated or humiliated, and I assume others don't either, so, I don't pre-plan ways that I can intimidate or humiliate others.

As far as debates go, I don't worry about it. There really aren't any topics of debate, from politics to religion to science, that I care so much about that I have to win them. Though I'm an INTP, I don't really enjoy arguing for the sake of arguing, and I'm no longer all that attached to winning arguments, so, I don't really get too moved by these sorts of things.

Once upon a time, yes, I would have been interested in bringing a nuke to a knife fight.

Dave

 

[Cogwulf]

I've stopped being interested in debates in the past year or two, just not much seems to interest me anymore. Most of my internal thinking recently has been about technical things.
When I did used to think about those sorts of things my hammers were very large but they often missed, I would often mess up my arguments by using the wrong words or making my points in the wrong order

 

[Da Blob]

I learned at a very young age, that it is almost impossible to 'win' an argument. Even when one is correct and somehow are able to point out the errors in Others thinking, they very rarely see it as someone doing them a favor and more often respond with inflicting pain of some kind. It turns out to be socially wrong to be objectively right. There was a time in my life when being 'right' was very important to me. However, being right, so often left me miserable, socially speaking.

I learned to keep my mouth shut in social settings, which perhaps was a good thing. The cruelest thing a person can say to an Other is a true statement. I mean look at what many consider to be insulting words - vulgarities and comparisons that do not have a grain of truth to them. People choose to become insulted at such words, but it seems that the element of choice is removed when a true observation of an Other's inadequacies/opinions is spoken of , thus the hypothetical 'conversational hammer'....

Humans, in modern society, are incredibly defensive, there are just so many that see a difference in opinion as an attack. Again, truth is not held in high regard, in the general population. I have spent weeks with a client simply to get them to acknowledge one particular truth about their own selves or their lives. It is sad. The major hurdle to begin addressing a client's addiction is for them to admit that he or she is an addict....

One of my 'mentors', Roger Schank, when he was working at MIT doing research in AI, showed that communication was actually virtually impossible for humans to achieve. He showed that for two computers to accurately share information, there were 17 classes of prior knowledge that each computer had to have in order for information to be transfered from one system to the next...

I believe, he suggested that humans, on the average, share only about a dozen classification of knowledge. So if no information is to be shared verbally, perhaps the best form of communication is of a nonverbal nature...(?) Unless, it is truly important, just let Others think that they are correct in their opinions... Otherwise it seems impossible to be seen as a 'social' person...

Alas, enough of this rambling...

 

[Vrecknidj]

One of my 'mentors', Roger Schank,

My sister-in-law worked for him for a while at Northwestern...

when he was working at MIT doing research in AI, showed that communication was actually virtually impossible for humans to achieve.

And yet, ironically, here we are, posting in a thread on a forum for communicating...

He showed that for two computers to accurately share information, there were 17 classes of prior knowledge that each computer had to have in order for information to be transfered from one system to the next...

Yeah, but, we're not computers.

I believe, he suggested that humans, on the average, share only about a dozen classification of knowledge. So if no information is to be shared verbally, perhaps the best form of communication is of a nonverbal nature...(?)

I'm not entirely sure where you're going here. Do you mean something like "If information cannot be shared verbally, then another method should be found"?

Unless, it is truly important, just let Others think that they are correct in their opinions... Otherwise it seems impossible to be seen as a 'social' person...

In other words, accuracy OR etiquette, but not both?

I agree that many people would prefer not to have the truth, but I don't think it follows that it's not possible to be socially polite and honest at the same time (though I admit it might seem that way for many).

Dave