Jump to content

How to argue with someone who won't listen


Recommended Posts

Ben Shapiro explaining logic?

LOL

37 minutes ago, rpn said:

Why would anyone argue with someone who "won't listen"?  Isn't that the better question?

The Ben Shapiro crowd are insufferable and talking with them is tedious so most people avoid it. They think it is because their “logic” is not working. They are wrong.

Link to comment
11 hours ago, InCognitus said:

Did you watch the video?  Ben Shapiro isn't explaining logic.  He and many others were used as examples of individuals who have fallen into psychological booby traps on heated subjects.  

No, I didn’t watch it. The guy’s whiny voice is like nails on a chalkboard.

Ben Shapiro often communicates via memes and primarily goes with sarcastic takedowns that may or may not work. He doesn’t participate in any kind of serious discourse. He goes for in-person shouting matches (some call these debates) over reasoned discourse.

I am saying that the whole thing about his opponents being trapped in their own psychology is at least partially projection.

Link to comment
20 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Ben Shapiro explaining logic?

LOL

The Ben Shapiro crowd are insufferable and talking with them is tedious so most people avoid it. They think it is because their “logic” is not working. They are wrong.

Neither Ben Shapiro nor Jordan Peterson produced the video. Obviously you didn't go any further than the thumbnail. Shapiro happens to be used in a couple of examples, as both a bad as well as a good example -- of effectively debating in fact, and not necessarily logic. One important point made uses Shapiro as BAD example. Though logic is covered. The video is one of a large number of videos from a channel calling itself "Charisma on Command." In his videos the producer uses images and footage from well-known public figures and famous characters from film and television, in order to illustrate what he's talking about. And in his videos he uses public figures and characters from all viewpoints, not just left and right political ones.

Your reaction reaction rather nicely illustrates a principle that is not necessarily positive: Judging a book by its cover. Which I am sure I am guilty of, too, from time to time.

Here are the points made:

#1: Being stunned by new information.
#2: Inaccurately summarizing the other's perspective.
#3: Misreading nefarious intent.
#4: Regularly moving goalposts.
#5: Yelling or getting angry.
#6: Attacking someone's character.
#7: Retreating Without Concession

Then he goes on to give 3 Key Mindsets To Change Their Mind
And finally discusses the Most Dangerous Cognitive Dissonance

 

 

Edited by Stargazer
Link to comment
20 hours ago, rpn said:

Why would anyone argue with someone who "won't listen"?  Isn't that the better question?

The video's intent is actually to help you identify that the person you're talking with is useless to debate with, so that you can save your effort for someone who isn't a block of wood.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

No, I didn’t watch it. The guy’s whiny voice is like nails on a chalkboard.

InCognitus was trying to tell you that Shapiro didn't make the video, but you missed the turn. As InCog said: "He and many others were used as examples of individuals who have fallen into psychological booby traps on heated subjects."

The intent of the video is to educate people to recognize that they may be wasting their time debating with someone who is incapable of listening. 

So, what you're saying, is that if Shapiro's voice were changed you'd be more willing to listen to him?

 

Edited by Stargazer
Link to comment
50 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

InCognitus was trying to tell you that Shapiro didn't make the video, but you missed the turn. As InCog said: "He and many others were used as examples of individuals who have fallen into psychological booby traps on heated subjects."

The intent of the video is to educate people to recognize that they may be wasting their time debating with someone who is incapable of listening. 

So, what you're saying, is that if Shapiro's voice were changed you'd be more willing to listen to him?

 

No, I read one of his books once due to something I was working on. That was enough.

Link to comment
59 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Neither Ben Shapiro nor Jordan Peterson produced the video. Obviously you didn't go any further than the thumbnail. Shapiro happens to be used in a couple of examples, as both a bad as well as a good example -- of effectively debating in fact, and not necessarily logic. One important point made uses Shapiro as BAD example. Though logic is covered. The video is one of a large number of videos from a channel calling itself "Charisma on Command." In his videos the producer uses images and footage from well-known public figures and famous characters from film and television, in order to illustrate what he's talking about. And in his videos he uses public figures and characters from all viewpoints, not just left and right political ones.

Your reaction reaction rather nicely illustrates a principle that is not necessarily positive: Judging a book by its cover. Which I am sure I am guilty of, too, from time to time.

Here are the points made:

#1: Being stunned by new information.
#2: Inaccurately summarizing the other's perspective.
#3: Misreading nefarious intent.
#4: Regularly moving goalposts.
#5: Yelling or getting angry.
#6: Attacking someone's character.
#7: Retreating Without Concession

Then he goes on to give 3 Key Mindsets To Change Their Mind
And finally discusses the Most Dangerous Cognitive Dissonance

 

 

The thumbnail was enough. Might have value but I have a video about Rome I want to watch instead.

Link to comment

One of the points in the video deals with the difficulty of recognizing cognitive dissonance in one's own self.

Link to comment
7 hours ago, Stargazer said:

One of the points in the video deals with the difficulty of recognizing cognitive dissonance in one's own self.

Imo the video was well worth the eleven minutes, though I'm not likely to retain all of the points in it.

Ironically the more intelligent a person is, the more quickly and convincingly their mind manufactures dismissive counter-arguments when confronted with new information that challenges their pre-existing beliefs.  In other words, you smart folks' smartness is a double-edged sword.   

Edited by Olmec Donald
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Olmec Donald said:

In other words, you smart folks' smartness is a double-edged sword.   

On the other hand, some of us have been trained to give others the benefit of the doubt even if that means setting aside our own opinions. With some arguments I spend more time constructing why I might be wrong than why I might be right. 

Link to comment
5 hours ago, Stargazer said:

One of the points in the video deals with the difficulty of recognizing cognitive dissonance in one's own self.

The past and present wilt—I have fill'd them, emptied them.
And proceed to fill my next fold of the future.

Listener up there! what have you to confide to me?
Look in my face while I snuff the sidle of evening,
(Talk honestly, no one else hears you, and I stay only a minute longer.)

Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)

I concentrate toward them that are nigh, I wait on the door-slab.

Who has done his day's work? who will soonest be through with his supper?
Who wishes to walk with me?

Will you speak before I am gone? will you prove already too late?

 

I don’t think it is hard to recognize. Everyone holds contradictory views about some things. Finding all of them. Yeah, probably hard.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...