debate
Kan du huske den gang, du ændrede en fremmeds politiske mening på Internettet ved hjælp af din logik og dine nøjagtige data?

Sikkert ikke. Fordi det sjældent sker. Hvis du var opmærksom i det forløbne år, lærte du at fakta, ikke betyder noget for vores beslutninger. Vi tror, ​​at de gør det, men det gør de ikke. I det mindste ikke for emner, hvor vi er følelsesmæssigt investeret, såsom politik. (Naturligvis har fakta betydning for resultaterne. Men ikke for beslutningerne.)

Så hvordan vinder du en politisk debat på Internettet, når folk nægter at ændre deres mening? Jeg foreslår den kognitive dissonans-test. Hvis du kan udløse kognitiv dissonans hos din modstander, vinder du. Det er normalt så vidt en politisk debat kan gå. Generelt kan du ikke ændre folks sind, men du kan bakke dem ind i et hjørne og få dem til at vise "tegn" på kognitiv dissonans. Det er i det væsentlige et hvidt flag, der siger, "Jeg har ingen logiske argumenter, så jeg vil sige noget latterligt og handle som om det ikke er det."

Problemet med kognitiv dissonans er, at det kan være svært at vide, om din modstander oplever det eller om det er dig, der gør det. Det ser nøjagtigt ud på samme måde for dig. Personen der befinder sig i en illusion kan ikke fortælle forskellen. Du har brug for et slags simpelt og objektivt tegn for at vide, hvornår kognitiv dissonans er i spil, og hvilken af ​​jer der oplever det. Og det har jeg beskrevet nedenfor.

Du kan registrere kognitiv dissonans ved at fortælle følgende:


Kommentar: Delvist oversat af Sott. net fra How do you know when you've won a political debate on the internet?


Absurd Absolute

An absurd absolute is a restatement of the other person's reasonable position as an absurd absolute. For example, if your point is there is high crime in Detroit, the absurd absolute would be your debate opponent saying something such as "So, you're saying every person in Detroit is a criminal." When your debate opponent recasts your opinion to include an "absolute" word, such as every, always, never, all, completely, universally, and the like, you are seeing cognitive dissonance.

Some people call what I just described a strawman argument. But a strawman argument refers to any sort of inaccurate recasting of your opponent's argument. That is the generic case. I'm referring to a specific strawman argument that uses an absurd absolute. When your debate opponent recasts your point as an absurd absolute, you won the debate. That's as far as you can go.

Analogy

Analogies are good for explaining concepts for the first time. But they have no value in debate. Analogies are not logic, and they are not relevant facts. An analogy is literally just two things that remind you of each other on at least one dimension. When I see a cauliflower, it reminds me of a human brain, but that doesn't mean you should eat brains in your salad. When your debate opponents retreat to analogies, it is because they have no rational arguments. You won.

There's a reason your plumber never describes the source of your leak with an analogy. He just points to the problem and says it needs to be repaired or replaced. No one needs an analogy when facts and reason can do the job.

Attack the Messenger

When people realize their arguments are not irrational, they attack the messenger on the other side. If you have been well-behaved in a debate, and you trigger an oversized personal attack, it means you won. When people have facts and reasons in their armory, they use them first. When they run out of rational arguments, they attack the messenger. That is the equivalent of throwing the gun at the monster after you run out of bullets.

People are mean on the Internet all the time. Being an ordinary jerk might not be a tell for cognitive dissonance. But when you see an attack that seems far angrier than the situation calls for, that's usually cognitive dissonance.

The Psychic Psychiatrist Illusion

The Psychic Psychiatrist Illusion involves imagining you can discern the inner thoughts and motives of strangers. I'm talking about the unspoken thoughts and feelings of strangers, not the things they have actually said. If your debate opponents retreat to magical thinking about their abilities to detect secret motives and mental problems in strangers from a distance, you won.



I'm not aware of any science to back my description of the tells for cognitive dissonance. But generally speaking, if your debate partner leaves the realm of fact and reason for any of the diversions I mentioned, you just won the debate. Declare victory and bow out.