For Brutus is an honorable man.
3 Likes
I should make known these apply to CD, FIRST, and among Engineers. I wish they “would” apply to lawyers… I’ve been married to one for many years now and what I can tell you is they are and think differently. I have a hard time understanding even now how to communicate, ultimately for me the best way to win is to not play, because If I win an argument… boy I really lose!
On this subject… I have heard these points in direct line with fallacies we learn in critical thinking classes. Straw man, attacking the person, Cherry Picking etc…
For the straw man, one thing I have observed here is that we usually have good intentions, and the straw man is a result of miscommunication. I just hope when someone gets offended, they give the other person the benefit of the doubt that they meant well… and ask for clarification if it sounded offensive before assuming it actually was. I hope that makes sense.
1 Like
Thanks for bringing the “steel man argument” point up. This was mentioned in the video the Op cited.
I struggle with this one, and I think whether or not to do it should be on a case-by-case basis.
On one hand I 100% agree with the intentions and more important it helps one get closer to the enlightened truth to understand what the other person is saying.
On the other hand on some issues I struggle with disregarding my own feelings if they are strong… it’s like every fiber in my being just cannot agree or conceive the opposing argument. This is probably more rare of a case and most-likely would not arise within the realm of engineering. I think we all have strong opinions on somethings which gives our own individuality, and I embrace this because the world would be boring if we all were exactly the same. I simply cannot and will not practice any form of deception, so steel man may come easier for one who is wired this way (i.e. uses deception to gain persuasion).
Thanks @gerthworm for the OP. Here’s another quick list of tips, from a book, “How to Have Impossible Conversations” https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/09/18/opinion/peter-boghossian-interview.html
Direct four-minute YT video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOTC6hCc-hM&feature=emb_title
1 Like
I think that a steel man argument isn’t necessarily an act of deception, nor is it necessarily agreeing with their argument. It’s figuring out the strongest argument your opponent is making, and responding to that. You don’t have to pretend to agree with it, which I think is what you’re concerned about.
3 Likes
I’ll add another technique that’s useful when parsing through difficult disagreements between good-faith parties: the rationalist taboo.
Try to use this one as often as possible, I think. It’s legitimately one of the most-important and useful tools out there.
2 Likes
oh yes the golden circle “people don’t buy what you do, but WHY you do it” I always try to incorporate this principle and make a little narrative, which makes the presantation more interactive and relatable
This topic was automatically closed 365 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.