51–60 of 66 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That... that's really not the case for most of "rationalist" youtube. Examples of rebuttals: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAmM872874A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rc24YtUslCU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYQo6LI3Y7c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ahuj1B0ow4U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpgBkpb7xlU
All five of those videos are from one person. How is that "most of rationalist youtube"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He critiques a fair chunk of rationalist youtube.
Is Sargon of Akkad "rationalist" youtube?
He seems to be fairly big in the ""rationalist"" crowd.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is Sargon of Akkad "rationalist" youtube?
""I'm for finding the truth of the matter using rational arguments backed up by evidence. I do my own research and I try to be thorough."" He seems to be fairly big in the ""rationalist"" crowd.
I'd never even heard of The Golden One or Thunderf00t but that youtuber spends a lot of time responding to them.
Being polite seems like a good idea until you realize that people having arguing against gender stereotypes, politely, for several decades at the least. But even after all that, people find it far easier to believe that men are more inclined to work with things. (One has to wonder then why women don't form the majority in leadership positions, given that being a leader is all about working with people and not things)…
https://www.google.co.in/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtm...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As information, I had given up on your comment persuading me of anything before the first comma. It's really that easy.
Then, with all due respect (and perhaps I misunderstood), perhaps you should consider a greater degree of open mindedness? If the fact that you disagrees with the first clause in an argument is enough for you to conclude the rest of the discussion is unable to make you change your opinion, I'd argue that is a much more significant barrier to open dialogue.
I don't even expect either of our beliefs to change much here, but conversations do add up to something over the decades. And some people are much better at this than others. I know, your side of the culture war compared to them, oh Lord. I don't know if Dunning-Kruger applies to open-mindedness -- are there studies?
Being polite seems like a good idea until you realize that people having arguing against gender stereotypes, politely, for several decades at the least. But even after all that, people find it far easier to believe that men are more inclined to work with things. (One has to wonder then why women don't form the majority in leadership positions, given that being a leader is all about working with people and not things)…
> Historically, the biggest social changes happened by force. Like the civil rights movement. The threat of civil disobedience forced the government to enact laws. That's one point of view. Another might argue that MLK sent a letter from a certain jail in Birmingham rather than oppose the arrest, say. Yet another might invoke Gandhi or Mandela. Is civil disobedience a form of force? Yes, I suppose it is one of the po…
MLK sent a letter from a certain jail in Birmingham rather than oppose the arrest
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Historically, the biggest social changes happened by force. Like the civil rights movement. The threat of civil disobedience forced the government to enact laws. That's one point of view. Another might argue that MLK sent a letter from a certain jail in Birmingham rather than oppose the arrest, say. Yet another might invoke Gandhi or Mandela. Is civil disobedience a form of force? Yes, I suppose it is one of the po…
MLK sent a letter from a certain jail in Birmingham rather than oppose the arrest How, specifically, do you propose that a black minister demonstrating for civil rights safely oppose an arrest in 1963 Birmingham?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then, with all due respect (and perhaps I misunderstood), perhaps you should consider a greater degree of open mindedness? If the fact that you disagrees with the first clause in an argument is enough for you to conclude the rest of the discussion is unable to make you change your opinion, I'd argue that is a much more significant barrier to open dialogue.
"With all due respect" so often precedes a mark of disrespect that it's already a small example of the kind of rhetoric that gets people's backs up before you even get to your point. I don't think it's generally deliberate, but it's a pretty good sign of talking at someone instead of genuinely trying to get closer to a common understanding. If I notice those words about to come out, I try to step back and remind myse…
I did feel awkward writing it - in this case it was actually meant sincerely. I really wasn't sure if I'd misunderstood. It seemed too ironic in a discussion on open minded-ness to basically say "I immediately stopped listening after I heard something I didn't like" (although maybe this is a reasonable approach? I'd strongly argue it's not, but that's certainly a discussion we can have). I'll do my best to catch myself in the future. I should say that I did read your comment as a touch condescending, just FYI.
WRT to Dunning-Kruger for open-mindedness (which is a very interesting idea) some quick searches didn't reveal anything obvious, but I may be using the wrong keywords - social psychology isn't exactly my strong suit! Sort of intuitively you'd think a similar kind of relationship might exist ("Of course I'm open minded, but I _know_ that X is X and Y is Y, but those are truths not debatable ideas!") - although maybe now I'm conflating open mindedness with the ability to think critically...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"With all due respect" so often precedes a mark of disrespect that it's already a small example of the kind of rhetoric that gets people's backs up before you even get to your point. I don't think it's generally deliberate, but it's a pretty good sign of talking at someone instead of genuinely trying to get closer to a common understanding. If I notice those words about to come out, I try to step back and remind myse…
Ha! - point extremely well taken, in much the same vein as "I'm not racist, BUT...". I did feel awkward writing it - in this case it was actually meant sincerely. I really wasn't sure if I'd misunderstood. It seemed too ironic in a discussion on open minded-ness to basically say "I immediately stopped listening after I heard something I didn't like" (although maybe this is a reasonable approach? I'd strongly argue it…
Sigh, yeah, I need to watch that. Good of you to let me know.
My take on the not-listening thing -- of course I'm not Aron -- is that if you've heard a faction hector you a lot, and you don't think they're listening to you except maybe to match some of your words into their standard bingo cards, then it's natural to tune someone out the moment they say one of that faction's shibboleths. From this POV, telling the speaker how their rhetoric failed is actually reaching out to them a little. That's not the POV I aspire to: I try to consider more words that piss me off than I really feel like, because I meta-want to be less biased. Sometimes I do, and sometimes they even get through.
Re: social psychology, I'm just starting on Haidt's The Righteous Mind in hopes of learning some basics.
(Since many more people might read this, I guess I want to make it completely clear that I didn't say what brand of words piss me off.)