I definitely admit to having been on this journey, or at least one very similar. I've always been fully aware that people lied and otherwise acted in blatantly dishonest ways, but I assumed the optimal approach remained the same as if they were acting honestly. I still think that's *mostly* true, but over time I realized just how much of a wasteful time sink that approach is. VERY similar to the evolution vs creationism debates from 20+ years ago, there is limited value to earnestly debating someone who can only pantomime what logic would look like.
That's not to say that conversations should be foreclosed, but right now I'm interested in formulating a much better detection system. Two of the filters I'm contemplating are asking someone:
1) to identify the weakest part of their argument
2) articulate their position's falsifiable state
If they refuse either ask, I'd say that's good evidence that they're an implacable fundamentalist who is immune to reason. It's hard for me to think of a scenario where this filter would net a false positive.
While I really disagree that the above rant by Destiny was a *GOOD* reaction, and one worthy of replication, I really like this two-filters approach. Am I wrong in assuming that filter No. 2 is, in lay terms, asking someone "well what is the one thing that I could show you verifiable, irrefutable evidence of that would make you say oh, okay that changes everything including my stance on this topic." I know that isn't as eloquent but I've been thinking along those lines for some time now, and am a fan of your writing, and would love to know we are on the same wavelength.
You're not wrong, that's the same thing. Another way I like to phrase it is asking people to fill in the blanks on "I would change my mind on this topic if XYZ"
I definitely admit to having been on this journey, or at least one very similar. I've always been fully aware that people lied and otherwise acted in blatantly dishonest ways, but I assumed the optimal approach remained the same as if they were acting honestly. I still think that's *mostly* true, but over time I realized just how much of a wasteful time sink that approach is. VERY similar to the evolution vs creationism debates from 20+ years ago, there is limited value to earnestly debating someone who can only pantomime what logic would look like.
That's not to say that conversations should be foreclosed, but right now I'm interested in formulating a much better detection system. Two of the filters I'm contemplating are asking someone:
1) to identify the weakest part of their argument
2) articulate their position's falsifiable state
If they refuse either ask, I'd say that's good evidence that they're an implacable fundamentalist who is immune to reason. It's hard for me to think of a scenario where this filter would net a false positive.
While I really disagree that the above rant by Destiny was a *GOOD* reaction, and one worthy of replication, I really like this two-filters approach. Am I wrong in assuming that filter No. 2 is, in lay terms, asking someone "well what is the one thing that I could show you verifiable, irrefutable evidence of that would make you say oh, okay that changes everything including my stance on this topic." I know that isn't as eloquent but I've been thinking along those lines for some time now, and am a fan of your writing, and would love to know we are on the same wavelength.
Best,
Andy
You're not wrong, that's the same thing. Another way I like to phrase it is asking people to fill in the blanks on "I would change my mind on this topic if XYZ"
<insert quokka picture>