Just Wondering...

[Sunstone]

How many people who habitually offer negative -- and only negative -- criticisms of proffered views and opinions could -- if challenged to do so -- accurately point out the main or principle strengths of a view or opinion they had just criticized? Half? A quarter? A tenth? Some other fraction?

 

[Thief]

Nez Perce, The Lord's Prayer: Chief Shatka Bear Step offers the prayer in Indian sign language

 

[Cooky]

How many people who habitually offer negative -- and only negative -- criticisms of proffered views and opinions could -- if challenged to do so -- accurately point out the main or principle strengths of a view or opinion they had just criticized? Half? A quarter? A tenth? Some other fraction?

I remember that notion now. Personally, when I'm in a stable state of mind, I'm looking for signs of purity or positivity. If it can be portrayed in that light, very carefully, I might notice it.

...But I know the topic question isn't directed toward me. So that's all I can say, from my angle.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

It's a fair point, but it doesn't really seem to be a part of our culture to 'steel-man' one's opponents

 

[Cooky]

It's a fair point, but it doesn't really seem to be a part of our culture to 'steel-man' one's opponents

I really like the "steel man" technique... Thanks for teaching me that! It seems very constructive, and something I would totally enjoy doing.

The Steel Man Technique: How To Argue Better And Be Persuasive

 

[Sunstone]

It's a fair point, but it doesn't really seem to be a part of our culture to 'steel-man' one's opponents

Indeed! Do you think we might culturally lack 'intellectual sportsmanship', if I can use that term?

Incidentally, my professors used to caution us that we'd lose a grade if they caught us straw-manning an argument. Hence, I was highly motivated as an undergraduate to present any argument I was going to criticize in the strongest formulation I could justify.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Indeed! Do you think we might culturally lack 'intellectual sportsmanship', if I can use that term?

I really don't know since I'm not in academia, but I kind of suspect we are approximately there on a cultural level. Really what I think the problem is, is that we are confused, because we have entered a situation of 'informational fog.' Maybe steel-manning could help find something to grip in this fog, then again maybe it won't. At least the ability to broaden consideration might help us see the fog itself

 

[Sunstone]

I really don't know since I'm not in academia, but I kind of suspect we are approximately there on a cultural level. Really what I think the problem is, is that we are confused, because we have entered a situation of 'informational fog.' Maybe steel-manning could help find something to grip in this fog, then again maybe it won't. At least the ability to broaden consideration might help us see the fog itself

I don't know whether your ideas could ever be implemented on a scale to make a difference -- and if they could, it would involve a gradual process of cultural change likely to take generations -- but your ideas are sheer brilliance.

 

[Deidre]

I think that this strong arming type of argument style is seen more online than offline. If you have to look your ''opponent'' in the eye, it changes things.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

I don't know whether your ideas could ever be implemented on a scale to make a difference -- and if they could, it would involve a gradual process of cultural change likely to take generations -- but your ideas are sheer brilliance.

i don't think I'm really too sharp.. but I try to read or listen to people I consider far more competent than I am though.. 'informational fog' is my term as far as I know.. However, lately I've been studying this 3 hour podcast between Eric Weinstein and Daniel Schmachtenberger.. and it just seems like they are sort of dead-on about how the civilization could end. My simplistic takeaway of that so far, is that information seems to be a problem at this point. And that perhaps they are right, in sort of implying that market theory could evolve into a sort of AGI paperclip maximizer, auto-poetic though organically dead as it is, which through this self-perpetuation would eventually destroy itself through over-mitosis. I like to hope that they were rambling out science fiction

But I think it's visually apparent as well, that information might be snowballing into something more than we can handle, unless we evolve with it. I mean you could not get any more of a civil, and simple to understand conversation, more than what you saw with kennedy vs. nixon for example. There was consensus on information, at least. Fast forward to now, and conversations have become so complicated and competitive, that you'd to pause recorded discussions every 30 seconds to think about what is being said, to try and cut through the fog

 

[Stevicus]

How many people who habitually offer negative -- and only negative -- criticisms of proffered views and opinions could -- if challenged to do so -- accurately point out the main or principle strengths of a view or opinion they had just criticized? Half? A quarter? A tenth? Some other fraction?

I would say most reasonably informed people could point out both the pluses and minuses of opposing viewpoints, although it depends on how well-informed someone's viewpoint is. If they're unable to do it, or if they simply repeat the same original argument even when faced with a counter-argument, then I would see that as an indicator that they may not be adequately informed about a given topic.