@@E-plunksna Why are you forcing your beliefs on other? You are doing this stating that. It’s simply a good suggestion, the person has free will to choose. You clearly don’t know what the definition of “forcing” means…
@@E-plunksna That's not forcing? He's just stating an opinion . . . Also, it's kind of ironic that you're having this disagreement immediately after a comment about disagreeing but treating each other with respect . . . just sayin
This video, ironically, was the one that finally made me quit smoking. Even though it took a lot of failure and another 6 months of misery, I've been clean since April 15, 2021
I carry a small packet of mints wherever I go, they're cheap and they don't melt in your pocket and they don't go off easily. When a discussion looks like it's starting to become heated, I whip out the mints, put one in my mouth and offer the other person one. Sharing food is primal and quickly defuses the other person's flight or fight mechanism and immediately reminds them that I'm not their enemy and we're just having a discussion. It's the quickest way I know to defuse a tense situation.
agreed, if I get into a difficult situation in a bar, I just offer to buy them a drink, especially if the problem is that I drank their drink by mistake!
It's impossible to win an argument if you're not having one. Which is usually the case. Indeed, when we speak of "winning arguments", we already got it wrong. In a discussion, whoever has his views improved is the one who wins out, after all. But when we use the term, usually we have a battle of words. People want to be right... and because of that, we're unwilling to recognize when we're wrong, and thus unable to ever become right. This is why people are constantly wrong. Usually both parties are wrong. Either on the subject, or in the delusion that they're disagreeing, while they're really just talking past each other.
THAT'S THE PROBLEM!!!! TOO MUCH ARGUING AND NOT ENOUGH DISCUSSION!!! BRAINSTORMING = GOOD SOLUTIONS. ARGUING = VERY BAD SOLUTIONS! GOVERNMENT = DISASTROUS SOLUTIONS!!!
The problem with that line of thought is who decides which side is the fool and which side isn't? You have to understand that you don't only have the potential to be the fool, but are also THE fool in some situations. Otherwise many just use this line of thinking to coincide with their cognitive dissonance as an excuse to continue with it instead of realizing the truth.
@@theworstcatholic7247 Do you want to say that it’s all relative? 😄 I would probably consider people that have a history of being sarcastic and not bothering to use any logic in a debate- fools. People who aren’t even trying to back their own opinion, just wanting to ruin your credibility. It’s pretty distressing in my experience 😫. Then again I could also be considered a fool for continuing a discussion hours in, even tough it’s clearly not progressing any time soon :).
Best advise I ever got for having a discussion was that if I I find myself not truly listening but waiting for my turn to speak. I'm not discussing I'm trying to score points. Best to stop and start over.
And if the person you're talking to is doing that to you, then they are not interested in your insight and you will never win an argument, change their mind, or even instill a little bit of insight or food for thought. You are only waisting your breath. Best to stop and walk away.
@@eugenedeckard8714I also believe that to be true, but from personal experience arguing with friends, sometimes, over time and given space to self reflect, the point can sink in. I've mentioned years later to a friend how he was right, I just had to work through it myself. Anymore, I try to adopt the attitude to be appreciative of learning the truth, rather than defensive, as though it was some personal affront to my intelligence. I believe that it's part of the path to enlightenment.
So this whole video is about how to know when the other person is not using logic. So you know when to stop wasting your time. I already know that within 20 seconds of talking to someone. The headline is misleading.
give it time.... we will have that umbrella medicine eventually. ZOMBIES~~~ i mean resurrection within certain time frame after they have been declared dead may one day (or may not) get created.
I have found that lack of reason to be the result of a deeper underlying issue. Victims of gas lighting can loose their since of logic. They may not even believe what the see. If it goes against their previous beliefs.
"You are trying to win instead of learn" is probably the most powerful bit here, to me. I've always loved debating, because it accomplishes many things at once: - It allows me to learn about the subject matter, because nothing drives me to verify my claims like an argument. - It allows me to learn about the person I'm arguing with, because I'm literally butting heads with that person about something they feel strongly about. - It allows me to learn about myself, because I'm throwing my mind against someone elses and in the process they can change my mind or expose me to new information or perspective. The fact that so many are so hinged on "winning" or even worse, "making the other person lose" is always depressing because it just... shoves the entire subject off the table, and then it's just about personal attacks.
Agreed. I remember debate class and I always thought it was so strange that no topic or point of view was considered more valuable than another, the focus was always on the debate itself. While I see the point in that to a certain degree, the idea that one view or idea is as good as another is obviously VERY dangerous. Ideas have consequences. Beliefs drive action, or inaction.
If the point of the argument is to teach rather than to win, then you shouldn't be abandoning logic. Even if logic isn't winning the argument it's still always correct.
@@goawayleavemealone2880 I agree but what he said in the video is very true so you have to be very careful and be on the persons GOOD side which can be very hard to do lol
there is a reason at the core of why this has become so widespread, though accordingly most disagree or refuse to acknowledge it: people are increasingly rooted in an ambiguous set of values as opposed to being rooted in a foundation of values that are set in stone and apart from our own cognition. or simply, God as the foundation of morality is evaporating, caused by both believers and non believers falsely believing that the people themselves are who determines this morality instead of God Himself
@@jamescohen There is value in arguing with someone who uses reason and still disagrees with you. But there is no value in arguing with someone who has abandoned reason. I also think you missed the point.
Well the first way I know someone is using reason is when they don't make it personal. Inversely, I know someone has abandoned reason for classic fallacies when instead of addressing the point in a reasoned way, they focus on the other person directly. An example of this might be: " I also think you missed the point." This is ad hominem, and also assumes that the person did not understand you, while you in fact may not have understood your interlocutor. Yes indeed there is value when two or more people are able to use the critically important tool of reason to address a subject. Even with no agreement, if all parties reason well, chances are each will go away with new thoughts. This is pretty much optimum. What is also true, is both parties can have the same facts and reason very well, but have significantly different world views and hold different axiomatic beliefs which make agreement impossible. Especially where value sets are involved. We have all likely witnessed experts who are also brilliant argue about the value of the mRNA platform injections for the recent pandemic of sorts. As I have a side on the issue, it is difficult for me to recognize that the other side has reasoning which justify the measures it took. But as I say, many brilliant experts are on both sides of an issue where we are very far from consensus. So while reason as a cognitive tool is by far the most important meta-invention in human history, and I really mean that, it is important to see where it fails. Thanks for the discussion. @@theeye8276
tbh Cathy didn't contradict herself in that, she was lead to believe she did, which was definitely a mistake on her side. the other guy literally said: if the police have the right to shoot people, why shouldn't I be able to shoot people. The argument is not about the act of offending others itself. He wants to defend unfounded violence, violence on the grounds of race or sexual orientation, things people cannot change about themselves. That is wrong, that is asking to be able to bully people. Now she says he shouldn't have the right to offend those people, thus apparently offending him. But the difference is the goal and the context of that "offence". Standing out against oppression is not oppression. Freedom to kill shouldn't trump the freedom to live, and for that to happen we must allow punishing killers. That law already exists and noone seems to be opposing that. I think similar reasoning can be applied to all sorts of violence.
a lot of this is culture shock. if you've heard one thing your whole life, hearing the opposite will shock you and sound intuitively wrong. it takes time to get used to a new idea. being nice can do more for your side than being right.
This is somewhat true. But it’s also important to at least acknowledge that being highly critical of new ideas has benefit because new ideas may seem good but not stand up to deep scrutiny, or long term scrutiny. One of my favorite quotes from Fear And Loathing In Las a Vegas is when Hunter S. fathom pain explains that Hippie Culture and Free Love thought they were doing the right thing. They thought that if they could get past the “hang ups” of their parents generation, they could create a new world that was better and more equal. In reality, as the books comments, everyone who got swept up in it wound up dead, abandoning it, or burned out husks. There can be value in sticking to old beliefs and proven truths. Not every new idea is worth adopting. Even if it SOUNDS good.
Hey bud I understand totally. I would love to have a discussion with you and ask if you believe animal cruelty is wrong? In addition to that do you also believe its okay to eat meat and whats your reason for it?
@@dm7630 if I can talk... I would say humans are natural omnivores, we have the ability to break down a lot of different substances we abstain by eating. Nature and evolution made it this way. Why not take advantage of that? All carnivores eat other animals, why aren’t vegetarians reprimanding these actions..is it because they know carnivores have no way of surviving without meat? I think most people believe animal cruelty is bad. Killing animals is however not really animal cruelty. You aren’t torturing or having any malicious intent towards the poor animal. Now I don’t know what your exact opinion is on this, so I don’t have much to argument against or discuss with.
This is something that has been particularly exacerbated by the advent of social media and content algorithms. Now it's not just proximal people and the main stream media one deals with, but with platforms who drive content specifically to reinforce one's bias on a minute to minute basis.
Self reflection is really key here. Asking yourself, "what did I do to make the argument or situation worse" is very hard to do, that is how you grow as an individual.
This is why truly enlightened people never change the world - as soon as you even start on the path to enlightenment you realise what other people believe is none of your business... That your intervention, no matter how well-intentioned, will likely make things worse. And that you are responsible for your own happiness, not that of others. Finally - that you know basically nothing, you used to believe a lot of things, but what you actually know is next to nothing, you don't even know yourself...
After you do your self-reflection, you'll need to deal with a third nonsense claim, built on the first two. Better leave the ring and go make more money for yourself and your family.
The three key mindsets to change someone’s mind who won’t listen: Be curious: Instead of trying to prove your point or convince them of your view, try to understand why they think the way they do and what are their underlying assumptions or values. Ask open-ended questions and listen actively to their answers. Be respectful: Instead of judging or criticizing them for their beliefs or opinions, try to acknowledge their perspective and find some common ground or shared interests. Show them that you respect them as a person and that you are willing to learn from them. Be humble: Instead of acting like you know everything or that you have the final word on the topic, try to admit your own limitations or uncertainties and express your willingness to revise your views if presented with new information or evidence. Show them that you are open-minded and flexible.
That's an inefficient method, to be used only where social conditions prevent the use of more efficient tools. Historically, the most efficient means of persuasion is force, physical or verbal. Even the gandhis and mlks of the world succeeded by economically extorting and humiliating their enemies into submission.
Like, for example: The second tell barely ever gets interpreted friendly or even gets corrected! This procedure is oftenly followed by denunciation afar from the person, who cognitively plays another tune!
Ironic Thomas Sowell was the one who said that, since he's never had a single peer reviewed piece of research published and is pretty much disregarded by his peers
This is why I can't bring myself to argue on the internet. Everyone's yelling at each other and assumes the worst out of everyone that doesn't take their side. There's no winning.
I keep thinking about that line in the movie 🎥 the Joker when he says to Murraay : ever ones yelling and screaming over on another and no one's being Civil anymore and that's when goes left and things spin out of control there for igniting a small brush fire of battle which if left unchecked or cooler heads prevail leading into a forest fire of war
I've actually had a few disagreements online that have been pretty civil. I doubt I ever changed anyone's minds or swayed their opinion but there have been a few "I never looked at it that way" kinds of discussions.
When someone refuses to adjust their position and double down I willingly throw them into that hole when they dont listen to reason. Because what's really lost when you're forced to stoop down to their level? If they're willing to waste their time convincing no one with their beliefs then I'm willing to waste my time assuring them nobody believes them.
I need to learn this. Usually, when I am getting triggered by something, cognitive dissonance occurs. I start to get angry and can’t really listen anymore when I feel attacked. Thank you for the video. I really hope that I’m able to work on it and overcome it.
The fact you say this is more than half the battle. Love the truth and others and your there. Put the truth before your feelings or personal desire. That can be hard but sounds like you're on your way. Congratulations. You win at life
The first step is awareness of something you’d like to change I your life. Out of all the comments that get the most attention, I’d argue it’s people like you and posts like this that deserve the most feedback/support. Peace and love to you and your journey 🙏
@@47shadows76 Bro thank you! That's an honest tell on myself, and quite frankly proves your point exactly! My opposing position implying that "our side" doesn't have this fault. To truly change someones mind It's imperative we understand how to change our own in the process, to find a mutual ground to meet upon and really be "on the same side". I didn't realize I was being counter-intuitive to my own argument by segregating people as one or the other: when as you said, it's that "we" are in this together, everyone from "both sides" needs to see eachother in the same pool. I appreciate your insight, it gave me a lot to consider and think about. Wishing you a good day man!
@NagsterTheGangster Exactly! It is impossible to debate, let alone have just a simple conversation with someone who can be presented the truth...but who won’t then “see” it because of their own preconceived notions, arrogance at having to be right, or their alternate universe they choose to live in. There are none so blind as those who WILL NOT SEE.
@@45auto82 Yeah man its super frustrating at times. Cuz theres literally an INFINITE amount of reasons that are wrong about why grass is green, but only one correct answer. If you compete in this kind of debate, they have an infinite amount of reasons To debate against you (all being wrong but apparently that doesn't matter anymore) and you only have the one, real reason.
The panic part I think is because, for a lot of people, their beliefs are part of their identity, so an "attack" on one is an attack on the other. The panic sets in when you realize the flaws in your beliefs, which then turn your identity upside down. So of course logic won't work on such an existential threat.
That’s basically the majority of belief systems on the planet. Especially atheism as they claim to know 100% sure there is no God or else they would be agnostic at the least. We all know it’s not possible that nothing can make everything, but especially DNA code write itself by assembling itself by random molecules combining together only by struck of luck and that it starts working all together to create metabolism and copy itself for no reason.
@@derda1304 Clearly you’re clueless on how it works because if you would, you wouldn’t believe nothing made everything wizardry. That’s the worst belief system ever!
This is the problem with regurgitating misquoted catch phrases then peppering the internet like ammunition shells ...it becomes a bunch of meaningless irrelevant word litter.
This is,,,, a lot of work. I'd rather not get into arguments with someone who won't listen, that's utterly exhausting. Especially when you throw in mental health matters, gaslighting and stubborn illogical narcissists.
@@boomshine87 Anything can teach you by means of persuading you to believe it, but that doesn’t mean it’s true. Truth’s power of persuasion comes simply from teaching it because it can speak for itself
Check out the old Ronald Reagan videos. He was one of the most loved Presidents and told jokes every time he spoke to the public and really great ones during debates.
I can see that. Over here in the UK, we have a comedian, who edits a satire magazine called Private Eye. His name is Ian Hislop, and he is the master of the put-down. I think I can work out why comedians would be devastating in a political debate. They're trained in responding to hecklers without missing a beat or breaking into a flop sweat. Someone heckles them - they clap back. So the other guy's arguing, thinking he's winning a debate, but he's not reading the room: the comedian's responding as though he were on stage, and he's facing a tough room of precisely one heckler.
The big problem is knowing a particular subject quite well and arguing with someone you love who knows just enough to develop a misinformed position, but defend that position to the point of anger and the informed person just backs down because correction would not be taken well.
"Expertise" can also be a self-snaring trap. Expertise of a subject can actually make us MORE close-minded in an argument because we arrive at supposed mastery of a subject by a specific method which can, by it's very nature, lead us down an illogical path. It's actually better to take the position of self-awareness that you DON'T know as much as you think you do and be more open-minded and desiring the advancement of learning.
@davestang5454 Expertise in one particular subject or even more so to a certain aspect of that subject should include the knowledge of alternate theories pertaining to that subject. So yes, an expert can have an entrenched view of a subject and may dismiss out of hand a different view, not because they are arrogant or close-minded, but because they already explored that line of thought which turned out to be incorrect. I can see an expert in one area pontificating on a different area using their specific method of learning and inquiry to present an opinion as being correct even though they have not explored other lines of thought. My question revolves around knowing an accepted truth like the round earth versus the flat earth. Both sides of that argument have their zealots that will go bananas if you even mention the opposing theory. One side is backed by verified facts and physical evidence, while the other side has equally compelling evidence and facts supporting their view. Neither person can travel to the moon and see with their own eyes whether what they've been taught is true or is a lie. How do you argue your position to someone you are very close to and don't want to sacrifice the relationship with, to realize, or at least be open to the correct line of thought? When it comes down to it, there is a true side and false side to every argument. What I'm asking is how to argue the true point versus the falsehood supported by flawed logic that seems not so flawed. And still have a close valued relationship.
The “so you are saying” done correctly works wonders in arguments, they feel understood. Try it! With enough practice, you can ”win” arguments with only questions.
Yes but at that point you're not winning arguments, you're trying to sell them your point of view with the same tactics used by salesmen to try and lock people into sales they otherwise would have never made on their own. The only difference being you're trying to get them to concede to a different way of thinking vs trying to get them to buy a product. It's still a manipulative practice even if the intent is good.
To me the best arguments are not the ones were you're trying to "destroy the competition" and do everything to convince the other person your position is the right/correct one, but instead when both treat each other like the person in front of you is trying to teach you something, like you're on class and you say to your teacher "so you are saying..." because you want to be absolutely sure you understood the idea correctly, but not as just one sided thing but more like they both treat each other the same way when the other person is speaking and expressing their ideas. To me thats a win/win situation for both parties. Using the "so you're saying..." the wrong way, that is, to try to ridiculize or take out of context the idea someone is trying to say it's basically just sarcasm, basically when used the wrong way, you're basically telling the person in front of you that you don't care about the discussion, you don't care about what they're saying, and a serious/adult discussion that has idea as a foundational stone to start a discussion is no discussion at all, serves no purpose and it's a waste of time for everyone.
Try it with a narcissist. That is possibly the most volatile cognitive dissonance you will ever see. This video is excellent and I thank you for it. Have a lovely Christmas ❤️
Yeh that’s why I clicked it. My dad is one. There’s no reasoning with him. Had to completely shut him out of my life because you can’t reason with him.
As an introvert person that i am , narcissistic people tend to overpower me and are entitled, so i want to understand them more and or perhaps put them out of my life if being nice to them is not enough.
@@kristinasanchez8510 There is no "understanding" a narcissist which will bring your relationship with him/her to a state of normalcy and mutual benefit. Narcissists are always looking for an angle, and they are brilliant assessors of personalities and will learn to control anyone. Just stay away. Abandonment is a good tactic. You will sleep much better and have a happier, peaceful life.
My recent experiences with cognitive dissonance are when someone asks me to show my evidence or pull up what I’m talking about, and then when I show them the law or whatever evidence it is on my phone they say “I don’t want to talk to you anymore,” and walk away. They’re scared of truth.
You're butting up against their subconscious which is protecting the worldview that they've developed and relied on for their lives up to that point. Often that worldview in their mind is "common sense" and yet nothing more than unchallenged, passively-received opinions. Evidence that most of us are fancy apes.
I had the same experience. When I asked if they had considered a particular point, they emotionally attacked me twice before I could say anything else. Not willing to continue like that, I simply commented "Thus ends the rational discussion" and left.
Had a similar experience. I was asked for a "source?" to the information I shared. They claimed to want evidence. When I listed a number of channels and videos on UA-cam, instead of being willing to watch the videos or check out the sources, they simply said "youtube's not a reliable source". When I listed another website and source, they said the same thing. It's infuriating but it also clearly reflects these types of people are ultimately not interested in truth. What I struggle with is maintaining compassion for these brainwashed individuals, it's easy to fall into anger and resentment. By the way, for anyone reading this comment, these were people who will literally believe ANYTHING the mainstream media tells them. In their mind, if the MSM says it, it's unquestionably truth.
I don't agree, rational thinking people are open-minded when arguing with someone and will listen attentively to their arguments. He will analyze objectively the arguments of both sides and change his starting opinion if the other person brings more rational and sane arguments to the table.
never say never. someone might gain the mind control ability or place you in a dream like state where you end up believing the dream is real and your stance within the dream will be dictated by them (or the if you fall asleep with it on TV ;D )
“The argument is never the argument.” People usually hold a viewpoint strongly because of deeply personal reasons or past experiences. A sommelier won’t be able to sell a fine wine to someone whose dad was a raging alcoholic and beat her with wine on his breath, no matter how fine that wine objectively is. Usually just listening to why someone thinks or believes as he or she does will build rapport, trust, and respect, all being necessary foundations for actually being able to come to the table with good will and have a challenging yet mature and fruitful conversation.
Absolutely and each of us having our own opinions and beliefs is absolutely fine Even sharing those beliefs with others personally I consider myself Christian and I have heard many individuals say to me it's nice that you have your belief system just don't share it with others I find that statement interesting considering that's exactly what they're doing with me 🙂
this. I have to listen to alot of unreasonable talk. I debate religion and ethics/culture differences alot. Basically you have to almost agree with the person, then start asking questions.... "well, thats cool. Have you ever been in that situation?" or "I wonder if that person ever thought of this". Hell, last argument I had with my christian buddy, I made a joke about the bible being a conspiracy for control over the masses by the church. Ironically he uses the king james bible. But I went into some crazy detail on what might have happened at the actual crucifiction and w/e. When you out-crazy the crazy person, it has an interesting affect.
the most effective way to approach someone is not by shaming them for believing something or overwhelming them with counter-evidence but to try and be empathetic, meet them where they are, and nudge them to make them think a bit more critically.
Yeah normally I agree but some peoples beliefs are actually so frustrating, but I find those people rare. Most people, I find, at least want to think they're the good guys and in the right
Tried that a lot of times, and I don't remember it working. Most people don't really want to change what they think. But it is good advise nonetheless, antagonizing for sure never works.
Life isn’t nearly as complicated as we make it seem. We’re constantly going back and forth, lying to ourselves and (eventually) recognizing, then addressing our own BS
Couldn't agree more! I've been on that loop for a long time until some people (so close to me) left because they thought I was being toxic around them. It was a heartbreaking experience but it has finally awaken me
I like how Professor Jordan Peterson pointed out that we need to listen to that still small voice within us that encourages us away from bad thoughts and behavior, and into better modes of thinking and living. That has worked for me, but can be really hard to follow through with it; it can require a lot of effort depending on which personal flaw we're being encouraged to overcome.
I actually like the Cathy Newman example because she handles it so well. Many people would actually backtrack the argument to familiar ground and assert some other point, but she was quite candid.
I hate cognitive dissonance, especially in myself. So when someone points out my cognitive dissonance, I do my best to get to the bottom of it right then and there. I even ask them to help me straighten out my own thoughts. I don't want to stop until I've updated one of my positions to be in line with the other, or abandoned one completely. On rare occasions, I'll suggest that we may be unaware of another angle or more information which could ease the dissonance, and insist we come back to the topic later.
It's a natural survival mechanism, embrace it and refuse to change reasonable believes, without concrete evidence. Even scientific theories have exceptions , so it depends a lot on context too . If people want to be understood or heard they have to meet you halfway.
Rare bird. Introspective and wanting to know more, be better...rather than be "right", "win", posturing. We all would do well to take a breath, (or 10), pause, zoom out, realize a tiger isn't chasing us (as it's our fight/flight, sympathetic nervous system activated) and try to get our prefrontal cortex online. No one really comes out on top, by doubling down on beliefs built from various conditioning, biases, cognitive distortions and so on. When we can look at all that, and decide how we want to think, what we want to believe...then we are empowered, vs our thoughts controlling us.
When you feel like you are losing the connection to the other person, say "Please help me here." And then something like "The problem I have right now is...".
@@Spicyfeathers It's a scientically proven truth! People like to help and they think that the person is worthy for their help. I was in both situation and people mostly give me whatever I ask if they can. On the other side I use my power to find a solution for the problem if someone ask for my help.
Stated positively: 1. Take new information into account 2. Accurately summarize the other's perspective (and they agree you stated correctly) 3. Assume good intentions on their part 4. Be consistent with expectations of others' behavior 5. Speak calmly, without anger 6. Build up the other person and show respect 7. Say when they are right or have made good points Also, establish good rapport by cracking a joke that doesn't put them down. Three additional tips: 1. Maintain equality even if they change their mind 2. Give them time to change 3. Hold them accountable for current behavior and views, not past views
After studying the art of the argument and being in a family with a lot of lawyers, I'm a strong believer that arguments can never be won. And they shouldn't be won. They should be yielded.
*facts don’t matter to people who don’t listen. If both sides start the debate with a criteria based upon facts, then it clearly matters. If you are having an argument with people whose lives are effected by the facts, then it does clearly matter. In politics and society, we talk about topics that may not matter much to the politician or the blabber mouth who isn’t involved and so conversation can easily be like talking with a deaf person. At that point it is true, the most manipulative or witty person wins the entertainment of the hour.
Why are 70% of these comments saying just not to argue with them at all? I understand the frustration, but this video is literally giving advice on how to deal with it properly.
Sometimes it is not worth the time to argue with someone who will inaccurately address your arguments, or try to fit their own narrative,etc. Its takes lots and lots of time for people to realize their mistake, especially cognitive dissonance. We can also take into account that you in most arguments have the agency to leave. It is very difficult to change someones values and beliefs if they don't want that thing to change.
Hey I would love to have an honest open discussion with anyone on the ethics of eating meat if youre down for it! Are any of you against animal cruelty? In addition to that do you feel that you can be against animal cruelty while also paying for animals to be killed for your meal?
What. How does one get someone to listen without seeming like it's from a place of superiority? When cognitive dissonance occurs there immediately on the defensive which must mean you're on the offensive and therefore superior. The accusation that you're coming from a place of superiority is a defense mechanism on their part. How does one dismantle this
This is a really good tool for self reflection. More so than how to “win” an argument, I’m learning when this cognitive dissonance starts and how not to let it take over. Kind of embarrassing to notice these same patterns in myself but also super useful. Thanks. Keep putting out quality content.
Nobody is immune to cognitive dissonance or other types of cognitive biases or logical fallacies. But knowing when they're effecting your thinking is huge.
You shouldn't be ashamed to find weak points in your perspective - the very fact you realize it demonstrates that you are examining your own beliefs from a honest perspective.
I gave up on arguing a long time ago. You have to give a crap what the other person thinks, and you have to believe the other person actually cares what you think.
0:00 Sometimes people won't listen to reason even when they're smart 0:20 Cognitive Dissonance 0:56 People use logical beliefs to justify illogical behavior 1:37 The worst thing you can do is to continue with logical argument 1:48 Seven tells that someone is going into a cognitive shutdown and you need to tread carefully 2:12. Being stunned by new information without adjusting perspective 3:00 Inaccurately summarizing the other side's perspective 4:01 Mindreading nefarious intent of the opposing side 4:41 Regularly moving goalposts 5:35 Yelling or getting angry 6:12 Attacking a person's character instead of their argument 6:33 Retreating from a point without any concession 7:08 Re-establish rapport (Crack a joke that does not insult the other side) 8:03 3 key mindsets to change their mind 8:10 Demonstrate no superiority if they come to your side 8:32 Do not force people to immediately live out their values 8:49 Do not hold past inconsistences against people 9:05 The most dangerous cognitive dissonance you will ever encounter will be your own 9:35 Connect with your body
@@virtualworlds8081 is it though? I like using bullet points very much, and I happen to identify as male. He/him pronouns and everything. Brenda ☝🏼 on the other hand 🤷🏻♂️ hard to say...
I felt so bad for Sam Harris there. The fact that Ben Affleck's tone of voice alone was enough to win the crowd when he wasn't even having the same argument.
Bill Maher crowd are a bunch of sheep as one famous Rick said "Oh please boo me if you want, I've seen what makes you cheer" getting cheers on Bill Maher is like getting a participation trophy.
@Liz Lee Affleck just didn't listen, there's nothing more to it. His pre assumptions took control and he comoletely missed the point. Not bad intention, just stupidity.
I watched the whole discussion, and Affleck did not come out of that looking good. Sure some people cheered right then, but he didn't have Maher fooled for one second. He eventually calmed down enough that Harris was able to explain. I'm not sure how well Affleck absorbed it at the time, but when all was said and done it was pretty clear who was making sense.
Great insight, but readers beware. This can be taken 2 ways. 1 moves forward and the other moves back. The easy way to read this is to think that a smart person doesn't argue with someone who he deems a fool... However, the correct answer is that if you think the other person is a fool... then you are the fool. The 2nd way to read it is to think that if I am not skilled enough to bring us to a meeting of the minds, then I actually am not as skilled as I thought I was going into the argument and therefore a fool. The latter will cause you to improve yourself and actually move yourself and the team forward.
@@incrediblee3688 Brilliant analysis, I agree with everything you've written. To add to what you said: On the first way to read it, I guess you could say that "the unseen Dunning Kruger is the deadliest", as in a lack of self-awareness will turn even the most gifted into a fool. The second point you made was even more interesting to me, because it is the reverse; through humility and self-improvement we may eventually overcome our foolishness by realising what fools we were in the first place.
This is the second video of CoC I have watched and I know I'm going to love watching all this channels content. I will be, on paid day of course - come on we ain't all successful UA-camrs millionaires, be setting up a Patrion account to help this channel. Side note: the lessons I learnt in the first too are going to literally save lives! I won't go into why or how, but me being able to teach this to countless others, due to work were I work with the demographic of people who always end up with someone getting physically hurt and all too often killed. Me right now after I press send: Starting to watch the rest of these videos. THANK YOU Charisma on Command!!!
@@Ben-Rogue Great point. Reasonable is reason-able; ie, processing information one has accumulated at any given time in one's journey of education and experience. Point #1 on list of cognitive dissonance is being stunned by new info w/o adjusting perspective. This is true no matter what the ism is.
Sadly journalism has been reduced to clickbait and gotcha moments. I doubt many of them find their jobs rewarding in this way. Larry King (rip) was able to have long open and honest conversations with his guests and was to many the pinacle of great journalism. Without clickbait or gotcha moments.
It’s always hard to debate/argue with someone who won’t admit to gaps in their knowledge, gotta be willing to take new information in to make sure your opinion is an informed one. If you’re basing your beliefs off something with only 50% or 70% of the picture then your not really forming an opinion on the same thing as someone viewing the whole picture
It's rare for people to have the full 100% of info. Usually when you discuss difficult matters with someone, then both don't have all the knowledge. Likely both have different info and or vaule the infos they got differently. If someone just knew it all, then discussion wasn't needed. That conversation would be called "lecturing". If you think you know 100% about a difficult matter, maybe that's your own cognitive dissonance preventing you from staying open minded. Don't get me wrong, I've had my fair share of discussions with hard headed people. I know that you don't need to know it all to realize how shallow some people are, but I think this self awareness is kinda important to have, whenever you put yourself "on the high horse". In my experience it is also not recommended to further discuss the matter with such hard headed people. Yea, you can crack a joke to lift the spirits, but then you gotta move on to an other subject. Otherwise you just end up in the same corner again almost instantly. I usually hope, that I was able to set the seed of doubt in peoples minds and them getting out of their comfort zone to research the matter further themselves.
If you don't have to just don't. If you have to I suspect it's close friends or family. Then you can try to wear the stone with constant dripping. Don't push the matter when they shut down. Use data, bring it to the discussion share the links/ source. Encourage them to educate themselves and give them the tools to do so. But don't be pushy. They have to want to do it themselves. Other than that, check out how cults manage to find followers to their ridiculous beliefs. They do the same thing you desire to achieve, it's just the other side of the coin.
@@crankpatate3303 Idek if I’d say it’s rare, most of the time it’s improbable that someone would know 100% of a subject, there’s always something new to add, wether it’s perspective or some detail
I want to show this to someone I have these issues with, but their cognitive dissonance is extremely high. To the point that they'll say "That just something you saw on UA-cam"
A lot of times the biggest problem is getting people to realize that they DONT have all the facts. People are very proud and hate admitting they are wrong about something, even if that thing is the idea that they don’t have all the facts or that they should be digging deeper into another’s perspective. A lot of times they don’t want to do this because they’re afraid if they do dig deeper, they actually will be proven wrong and will have to admit this and change their entire worldview, which can be daunting for some.
I do not know a single person who will automatically concede his/her opinion, no matter how flawed and grossly out of reality because they attach their ego to it. I do the same and have been very aware of this and am changing. I think humans entangle a lot of things that aren't an identifier (for example, politics) to the very foundation of their identity. If you could take away your ego and emotional attachment and look at what you hold as sacred and true, much more can be accomplished.
I remember debate class and I always thought it was so strange that no topic or point of view was considered more valuable than another, the focus was always on the debate itself. While I see the point in that to a certain degree, the idea that one view or idea is as good as another is obviously VERY dangerous. Ideas have consequences. Beliefs drive action, or inaction.
It's good to give people a chance to defend their viewpoint, because nobody has the authoritative truth. If their viewpoint makes sense, it will hold up. If not, it will fall apart under scrutiny.
Completely agree. The belief that all views are equally valid has almost destroyed acedemia. Everyone has a right to their views, and a right to express them, but just because you can argue something doesn't make it right, true, or relevant. Trying to stay self-consistent while arguing a position divorced from reality is an exercise in futility.
This is true bliss. We humans are on a loong span of range in behaviour and spiritual development. Some of us are very enlightened, and can listen in any time and place. Some listen not at all. Some listen if a person they like or know is saying something. We are all here to learn our personal stuff. I am not perfect, but I seek to understand and I yell sometimes, and I get angry for wrong reasons sometimes, but I still work on trying to overcome myself. I've found out this is exactly the kind of person I want to be. Meanwhile, a lot of people have gone all their lives to their graves without overcoming obstacles they've been stuck at for perhaps 50 years or more. I think a solution for this (or atleast one of many solutions may be), that one asks oneself, when you are all alone, before you sleep for example; these very questions. Am I listening? Am I learning? Am I doing the right thing? Do I know this? Do I know that? Why do I know that? etc. :)
A line I sometimes use to bring down someone's guard and it also works in sales. "I also, not too long ago thought that too, but once I learned about this... I changed my mind."
i like that at the end he said that if you have enough self awareness check yourself for these tell tails, soo many people (including me) go under the assumption that we are right and the other is just confused and never try to think about if we are wrong.
It can depend on how honest each side is. If you nail it and they say no that's not what I meant, then proceed to speak and ask questions that support the very read you had on them...its disingenuous on their part.
@@johndurrett3573 - Exactly! Some people actually are good at accurately mindreading. But the thing is many others lack the self-awareness to even know their own minds.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with that statement, however, figuring out what is logical isnt always easy. Im not trying to spark an argument, but in the pro oife/choice debate, which side is the most logical. The side that believes that a fetus isnt life, up to a point, or the side that believes that a fetus is a life from the very first second, and views all aborts as murder? I for sure dont quite know what to think about it.
@@wrath-2187 The thing with the pro-life/choice debate is that it's a morally based debate, therefore it's harder to apply logic to both sides as it's all subjective in the end. Of course I believe one side has more logic than the other, which is why I'm pro-choice personally, but that doesn't mean I don't get where the other people are coming from morally, and that doesn't mean I think they're completely wrong in every scenario, as I wish pro-life people view some of our scenarios and arguments as valid and moral reasons to get an abortion. And I truly think most people view it in a healthy way, at least, I hope so.
@@LoreCatan yeah i agree i suppose, but my point was just that sometimes its easier to attempt to apply logic to something instead of morals, as morals change and its expectations, but logic is unmoving amd yet its jard to apply logic to the abortion debate unless you have the cold hard facts: and people cant even agree on what is fundamentally right..
@@wrath-2187 with the pro life and choice thing. I personally will find other things that work the same. Like let's say if I know someone who is pro abortion. I'll ask before if they see how scientist found life on space on single cell organism and of they agree then I say how is a fetus not life then? If a single cell organism on another planet counts as life then the same must be said about when a baby is conceived.
@@shoepuffwilliam560 well, i guess im not considered a murderer for using alcohol to clean my hands, because, you know, i terminated millions of bacteria and other similar life forms. Theres a million arguments for and against everything, i feel like its best to just pick your poison.
One strategy I’ve used in getting ppl to come to my side is present my arguments as not my own ideas so a concession on their part is not felt by them as a submission to me. “These aren’t my own ideas. I’ve learned these from doing reading and listening to ppl much smarter than me.” That works well for winning arguments.
That also doesn't work. For example, if you tell me the earth is flar and say that “These aren’t my own ideas. I’ve learned these from doing reading and listening to ppl much smarter than me.” I will still think you're insane. Not to mention, how am I supposed to trust that statement of yours? Who are these people who are much smarter then you? Anyone can publish a book if they have enough money, what were there sources? etc. I might be understanding you wrong, but I don't think that is a smart thing to say.
討論をする時、何を目的とするかによって言い方は変わって来ます。 相手の論に対して勝つ為か、相手を納得・説得する為か、相手からこちらが望む答えを引き出す為か、などいろんな目的があります。 結局のところ、相手がこちらの言う事を聞く聞かないは1番の問題ではありません。 When you have a discussion, the way you say it will change depending on what you are aiming for. There are various purposes such as to win against the other party's argument, to agree with you and persuade the other party, or to draw out the answer you want from the other party. After all, whether the other party listens to you or not is not the number one problem.
@@fellinuxvi3541 I hope you will pardon me if I find your response to be odd, but when you start out with the word "because" it sounds as though you are answering a question that I never asked. As for the "dire consequences", to the general public the consequences of honesty means they run out of money. So the lying will continue because people would rather be paid liars than honest homeless.
@@terrythompson7535 I was specifically answering "why does society keep expecting honesty?" question. The thing is, I don't think you're right, politicians lie to different extents and their earnings don't correspond directly to their dishonesty. I think there's definitely some spaces in which modern society incentivizes lying, but I don't think it's as ubiquitous as we might believe.
"Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit." Proverbs 26:4-5
Exactly. Smack them (gently and lovingly) with truth and walk away. Let them stew in their anger. Or, they can take the bait and grow as a person. Either way, you have done your job of kind-truth-telling. NEVER plow into the gritty, slimy muck that is an argument. You only show how unwise you are and hurt people. That's why Neil Degras-Tyson (and a great many others including myself) never engages in debates. Too messy with too little reward. Better to teach and let as many as want to understand, understand. People who love to argue are not interested in truth, just arguing. It is an addiction!
Neil Degras-Tyson is an overinflated windbag only interested in hearing his own personal views regurgitated back to him. He refuses to hear, and often very rudely dismisses anything other than his own personal world views and opinions. Don't believe it? Merely quote some proverbs to him. He'll tell you his (many) offensive personal opinions regarding any sort of religion or God before you know what hit you. That isn't any sort of greatness on Tyson's part. That's just him displaying another type of intolerance, ignorance, and even outright stupidity.
About 15 years ago I took a psych 101 class, and when speaking about cognitive dissonance it was explained in the sense when someone is experiencing cognitive dissonance they can have feelings of anxiety, guilt, and a sense of unease, and individuals may try to reduce or resolve it by altering their beliefs or behaviors in order to create consistency. It's not so much that this feeling is a show stopper in the discussion, to the contrary, it is the precipice of changing one's mind.
This is similar to what I learned in educational psychology, but the main takeaway was that it takes being exposed to the new info more than once in order to internalize it because our brain is going to fight to restore balance.
@Liz Lee This. People who are hyperfocused on "logic" get lost in the semantics. They think they're smarter for this, but it shows how tone deaf they really are. Real life is not a series of yes and no's. The people who think like this were the same ones who couldnt accept that someone who threw logic out all his debates won the White House in 2016.
Probably the worst thing in an argument is having it framed as "1v1 me bro" where the goal of both sides is to "win". The only way to actually get results is have it framed as a learning experience for both parties where solutions for problems come out of it. However the biggest problems with this are that 1. both sides have to buy into this system, otherwise one side will just talk over the other and 2. for talk shows, the drama of "schooling the other side" is way more entertaining than "two sides learning about each other and finding out ways they can help one another"
I've seen all of these hundreds of times in the UA-cam comments sections. Just arguments that drag out and almost never end up with either person being persuaded. The exchanges almost always end up with snide and snarky remarks and personal insults. And that occurs generally within the first few replies, which just means that many people aren't there to truly discuss or respect another person or exercise good manners. They are there to quickly convert, shame, or to "win".
I’ve been watching you for a couple years now and I have to say.. this is probably the most important video I’ve seen you put out. The growing difficulty for people to communicate their perspectives with one another on difficult topics is making people become more and more resentful towards one another. These skills you’re teaching, and the ability to have a productive, or at least cordial, conversation is undoubtedly one of the most important social tools in any aspect of life. Thanks for the vid man👌🏽
One thing! Just one thing! Please tell IT to me: WHY tf do I have so many fans even though no UA-camr is unprettier than I am? WORLDWIDE!!!! WHY??? Tell me, dear rock
I have no evidence except for the fact that he went to rehab, but I’m fairly certain that Ben Affleck was drunk or otherwise inebriated on that show. I think it was very embarrassing for him so I don’t think he would repeat that visit even if Asked
I love your videos and watch them regularly. One thing that isn't mentioned that perhaps should be when considering our own cognitive dissonance is the need for humility. A strong understanding that we don't know it all goes really far in our willingness to give up any dissonance that creeps into our lives. Without this, we are setting ourselves up for continued self-deception.
"If you don't do this you'll find yourself in a near perpetual state of shock and outrage when the world doesn't match your predefined expectations and worse, you'll be poorly equipped to do anything about it." Wow.
@@HollyWho-sh1dx So if somebody tries to tell me I should be stoned for things I can't control, I can't yell at them? Getting emotional in a debate isn't bad, especially if it's a topic close to you.
Replace responding with "so you're saying" with "let me see if I understand what you're saying" and it'll be a game changer. The former is often perceived as an attack while the later is akin to a deceleration of intent to understand.
"SO YOU'RE SAYING" is a TOTALLY LEGIT TOOL. That doesn't mean many ppl don't use it dishonestly. I USE IT OFTEN: to any conservative: "SO YOU'RE SAYING THE PRESS, OWNED BY WALL ST.... IS A BUNCH OF SOCIALIST LIBERALS.....WHO HATE MONEY AND CAPITALISM?" They have NEVER say "that's not what I said!" They ALWAYS rebut with "get lost you libtard!" ANd....CHECKMATE.
@@dumpygoodness4086 "SO YOU'RE SAYING THE PRESS, OWNED BY WALL ST.... IS A BUNCH OF SOCIALIST LIBERALS.....WHO HATE MONEY AND CAPITALISM?" See, that would just indicate to me that you really don't understand what they're saying. There's great value, if you're already wealthy, in ending the ability to be upwardly mobile. It means you keep your position and nobody can really threaten it. You get to stay rich while others stay poor. Do you really think Putin, Kim Jong-un, and Maduro, who are vastly wealthy, want Capitalism? And then I'd attack your claim that "Wall Street" owns the press. The majority shareholders might very well be using capitalism to get themselves wealthy, and then use the things they've acquired to try to put an end to it. Having money, or being involved in a financial system doesn't preclude your hatred for that system. One could make a very strong argument Goldman Sachs has absolutely no desire to play by the rules of capitalism, which is why they asked for a ridiculously large bailout that screwed the average working American. Corporations like the MSM today operate much more on cronyism than actual capitalism. They're the very danger Ayn Rand was pointing to in Atlas Shrugged.
I have seen hundreds of psychology videos this one is one of my favourites, while the first video im watching from this channel. Keep up the great work and save the world from ignorance.
I remember arguing with someone a few months back, and looking at it now, I was so wrong, after looking at the whole discussion, I was mad, in panic and wasn't willing to listen. Yikes, it's embarrassing tbh
This comment made my day. Thanks for sharing the self-reflection. Wholesome, and hopeful. :) Having read your post, I'll try to keep a pulse on my arguments too. I often avoid confrontation in general, but I'm sure I can improve Stay solid mate
Jordan Peterson is a Might Makes Right closet misogynist, who attempts to explain it away using flowery language, speciesism, cherry-picking appeals to Christian scriptures that speak to the worst of human baseness and irrationality (he is not a Christian: just uses those to buy the Christian vote) and not bothering to do better than the status quo or to seek to improve upon it. It's easy to see that after reading "12 Rules For Life." I don't know why you think she didn't have valid points in this interview. She did. He refused to tell the audience about the lobsters example (where in his book, he decided that humans ought to live like lobsters, because of the following: "One lobster determines he can physically beat this other lobster up for gain, so he does, because then the other lobster will become meeker and conform to being like the first lobster." The only cognitive dissonance I saw in the room was with him: she was stunned at his level of cognitive dissonance. Please tell me why you believe this interview was legendary.
@@aerialrose I am not native english speaker but I some points I understand what you're saying. It's normal to disagree... However I like Jordan Peterson for saying how world for young mens are dificult too. Not only for women as many feminists and even other women think. The dominance "Lobster hierarchy" is just one of his many metaphors. I think he means it like this.. man has higher value when: he is rich, muscular, masculine and maybe some more I couldnt think of rn. I am atheist btw so idc if he is christian, muslim or any other religion. I think he just just genuiely good person who is trying to help young men in this world and become better person. I am not saying Cathy Newman is a bad person either. As Jordan said perfectly once again xd. Sorry for that :D She is just doing her job.
Well, despite many of these, they still think they’re right.... so fastest solution is just let them think they’re right and use your time on something productive or fun.
It's only a 'solution' if nothing bad happens by losing the argument. If you're on the street arguing with antifa, or in a courtroom, or a senator trying to keep a ridiculous and dangerous bill from passing, you need to win the argument.
@@jameseverett4976 I'm a very hard arguing guy, but when I step back, I realize most of the time I was being too harsh, I was trying to "win". There is no winning when both people harden up and say they're right. You have to be open to have a productive conversation.
I like that it points out that everyone is guilty of this sometimes Usually if this happens either to me or the person I’m debating with we take a break and talk about again some other time or if it’s something the person keeps doing then that generally isn’t someone you want to debate with if you’re trying to keep a reasonable head
This reminds me of a statement from Thomas Paine where he is quoted as saying, "TO ARGUE WITH A PERSON WHO HAS RENOUNCED THE USE OF REASON IS LIKE ADMINISTERING MEDICINE TO A DEAD PERSON".
I got a better quote: "WHO IS MORE INSANE? THE PERSON WHO BELIEVES IN INVISIBLE SKY DADDY..... OR THE PERSON WHO TRIES TO REASON WITH A PERSON WHO BELIEVES IN INVISIBLE SKY DADDY?" GOTCHA!
@@pjj9491 no dead people's votes. you're just parroting a talking point. but it did come out that Trump sent a LOT of stimulus checks to dead people! Google it!
Well, at least you can't loose it. If you ask a question, it's hard to be wrong, because it'a a question. But the person that may answer you may answer something wrong, then you can correct it and kinda win the debate. Or he cansay something that doesn't match with a precedent answer. So, you just have to show his answer are inconsistent.
Pro tip: frame your argument in a way that insinuates the other person already agrees with you. People hate to be wrong, just skip the part where they're wrong and you'll find people are more willing to agree with things they otherwise wouldn't be.
@@SuperMysticflower that's a fair point. Creating the narrative is the first step though. This technique is used on a large scale throughout the west. It's social manipulation. It's like how it's become taboo to be a trump supporter so trump supporters most of the time hide the fact they're trump supporters so leftist won't shriek and attack them. It might not be effective for immediately changing the person's view on the subject, but it creates a social pressure that can easily convert 3rd parties when they see everyone agreeing.
@@alexhurt7919 I get what you mean. But, isn’t it kind of dangerous? It might hinder free speech and rational discourse in public, driving people into more extremist online spaces. Neither side is right about all issues, surely
@@SuperMysticflower that's really irrelevant isn't it? It's a practice already in use so the best course of action is to put it in everyones hands. It's like guns, now that they exist it's better if everyone has one.
@@SuperMysticflower it is dangerous and big media outlets use it very often. Look at all these college kids who have sincere believes and are almost radical, yet they cannot explain why they believe in them
To completely disagree with someone, and yet engage with them with respect, grace and honesty, is a superpower.
Exactly. I agree with you 100%
This is where Jesus comes in. Mimic how he was.
@@godloves9163 Why are you forcing your religion on others?
@@E-plunksna Why are you forcing your beliefs on other? You are doing this stating that. It’s simply a good suggestion, the person has free will to choose. You clearly don’t know what the definition of “forcing” means…
@@E-plunksna That's not forcing? He's just stating an opinion . . .
Also, it's kind of ironic that you're having this disagreement immediately after a comment about disagreeing but treating each other with respect . . . just sayin
"It’s eaier to fool a person than it is to convince a person that they have been fooled”, Mark Twain
"...you must not fool yourself--and you are the easiest person to fool." -Richard Feynman
@@keensoundguy6637 -ed by yourself.
"XBOX LIVE" -The YoMama Guy
Of course
Why do you think there are so many liberals And democrats
This video, ironically, was the one that finally made me quit smoking. Even though it took a lot of failure and another 6 months of misery, I've been clean since April 15, 2021
Well done! Keep it up!
Good luck,bro you did it in my birthday
Congrats! I’m sober off alcohol since August 8th, 2021
Congrats man!
W
I carry a small packet of mints wherever I go, they're cheap and they don't melt in your pocket and they don't go off easily. When a discussion looks like it's starting to become heated, I whip out the mints, put one in my mouth and offer the other person one. Sharing food is primal and quickly defuses the other person's flight or fight mechanism and immediately reminds them that I'm not their enemy and we're just having a discussion. It's the quickest way I know to defuse a tense situation.
I will have to remember that! I don't have mints right now, but I am going to go get some next time I am out.
Clever.
agreed, if I get into a difficult situation in a bar, I just offer to buy them a drink, especially if the problem is that I drank their drink by mistake!
Thank you! Thats the useful advice I was looking for.
Another strategy is to respond by saying "Maybe you're right."
It’s *hard* to win an argument against a smart person but it’s *impossible* to win an argument against an ignorant person
It's impossible to win an argument if you're not having one. Which is usually the case. Indeed, when we speak of "winning arguments", we already got it wrong.
In a discussion, whoever has his views improved is the one who wins out, after all.
But when we use the term, usually we have a battle of words. People want to be right... and because of that, we're unwilling to recognize when we're wrong, and thus unable to ever become right.
This is why people are constantly wrong. Usually both parties are wrong. Either on the subject, or in the delusion that they're disagreeing, while they're really just talking past each other.
THAT'S THE PROBLEM!!!! TOO MUCH ARGUING AND NOT ENOUGH DISCUSSION!!! BRAINSTORMING = GOOD SOLUTIONS. ARGUING = VERY BAD SOLUTIONS! GOVERNMENT = DISASTROUS SOLUTIONS!!!
@Moto Guzzi
Let’s not get political 🙄🖐 (lmao jk but in all seriousness)
@Moto Guzzi
Oh lmao it’s ok
I just want to point out that smart and ignorant are not mutually exclusive. Smart is the ability to learn. Ignorant is a lack of information.
In my experience, it usually just boils down to ego; people absolutely hate to be wrong, and will go at lengths to avoid being seen as the "loser".
Then what if you recognize that your knowledge of reality can be at all times wrong because you are not God?
@@redemptivememelord6283 That's impossible. I'm never wrong.
Yeah, and that comes from discussions being seen as a fight where someone wins and someone else loses instead of a simple exchange of opinions
my parents in a nutshell
Absolutely, I've said for years that people don't care if they're right, they just don't want to be wrong.
"Never argue with a fool - They will drag you down to their level, Then beat you with experience" is this how they say it?
But never assume you can't be in the position of the fool
Great point
Also never argue with a fool because from a distance we can't tell who is who
The problem with that line of thought is who decides which side is the fool and which side isn't? You have to understand that you don't only have the potential to be the fool, but are also THE fool in some situations.
Otherwise many just use this line of thinking to coincide with their cognitive dissonance as an excuse to continue with it instead of realizing the truth.
@@theworstcatholic7247 Do you want to say that it’s all relative? 😄
I would probably consider people that have a history of being sarcastic and not bothering to use any logic in a debate- fools. People who aren’t even trying to back their own opinion, just wanting to ruin your credibility. It’s pretty distressing in my experience 😫.
Then again I could also be considered a fool for continuing a discussion hours in, even tough it’s clearly not progressing any time soon :).
@@theworstcatholic7247 Great comment.
Best advise I ever got for having a discussion was that if I I find myself not truly listening but waiting for my turn to speak. I'm not discussing I'm trying to score points. Best to stop and start over.
Good way to see it
And if the person you're talking to is doing that to you, then they are not interested in your insight and you will never win an argument, change their mind, or even instill a little bit of insight or food for thought. You are only waisting your breath. Best to stop and walk away.
@@eugenedeckard8714I also believe that to be true, but from personal experience arguing with friends, sometimes, over time and given space to self reflect, the point can sink in. I've mentioned years later to a friend how he was right, I just had to work through it myself. Anymore, I try to adopt the attitude to be appreciative of learning the truth, rather than defensive, as though it was some personal affront to my intelligence. I believe that it's part of the path to enlightenment.
So this whole video is about how to know when the other person is not using logic. So you know when to stop wasting your time. I already know that within 20 seconds of talking to someone. The headline is misleading.
@@eugenedeckard8714 or, maybe back track a little bit and see where they got defensive?
Arguing with someone whom has renounced the use of reason is like trying to administer medicine to the dead. ~Thomas Paine
give it time.... we will have that umbrella medicine eventually.
ZOMBIES~~~
i mean resurrection within certain time frame after they have been declared dead may one day (or may not) get created.
BRILLIANT comment, thank you for sharing xx
Guess there is a high demand for necromancers these days then... -.-
Good comment but bad grammar. In this instance it's actually *who and not whom
I have found that lack of reason to be the result of a deeper underlying issue. Victims of gas lighting can loose their since of logic.
They may not even believe what the see. If it goes against their previous beliefs.
Imagine a world where politicians and people try to solve problems, instead of trying to feed their own ideology.
What matter of utopia is this!?
isn't the problem, that they often think they're solving an issue by feeding their ideology?
@@ferdisot2190 yeah it’s a common problem, not the main one but still a common
imagine having ZERO politicians and instead using Best Practices.
@@FractalPrism. Your country first.
"You are trying to win instead of learn" is probably the most powerful bit here, to me.
I've always loved debating, because it accomplishes many things at once:
- It allows me to learn about the subject matter, because nothing drives me to verify my claims like an argument.
- It allows me to learn about the person I'm arguing with, because I'm literally butting heads with that person about something they feel strongly about.
- It allows me to learn about myself, because I'm throwing my mind against someone elses and in the process they can change my mind or expose me to new information or perspective.
The fact that so many are so hinged on "winning" or even worse, "making the other person lose" is always depressing because it just... shoves the entire subject off the table, and then it's just about personal attacks.
Agreed. I remember debate class and I always thought it was so strange that no topic or point of view was considered more valuable than another, the focus was always on the debate itself.
While I see the point in that to a certain degree, the idea that one view or idea is as good as another is obviously VERY dangerous. Ideas have consequences.
Beliefs drive action, or inaction.
If the point of the argument is to teach rather than to win, then you shouldn't be abandoning logic. Even if logic isn't winning the argument it's still always correct.
@@goawayleavemealone2880 I agree but what he said in the video is very true so you have to be very careful and be on the persons GOOD side which can be very hard to do lol
"[...] I'm literally butting heads with that person [...]"
Erm... That's not a debate then. That's a brawl.
there is a reason at the core of why this has become so widespread, though accordingly most disagree or refuse to acknowledge it: people are increasingly rooted in an ambiguous set of values as opposed to being rooted in a foundation of values that are set in stone and apart from our own cognition.
or simply, God as the foundation of morality is evaporating, caused by both believers and non believers falsely believing that the people themselves are who determines this morality instead of God Himself
To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason ... is like administering medicine to the dead.
-Thomas Paine
Two people can reason equally well and with facts of equal weight and come to different conclusions. It isn't always about that.
@@jamescohen Perhaps you did not understand the quote or the context.
Thanks! I think you proved my point!@@celestialnubian
@@jamescohen There is value in arguing with someone who uses reason and still disagrees with you. But there is no value in arguing with someone who has abandoned reason. I also think you missed the point.
Well the first way I know someone is using reason is when they don't make it personal. Inversely, I know someone has abandoned reason for classic fallacies when instead of addressing the point in a reasoned way, they focus on the other person directly. An example of this might be: " I also think you missed the point." This is ad hominem, and also assumes that the person did not understand you, while you in fact may not have understood your interlocutor.
Yes indeed there is value when two or more people are able to use the critically important tool of reason to address a subject. Even with no agreement, if all parties reason well, chances are each will go away with new thoughts. This is pretty much optimum.
What is also true, is both parties can have the same facts and reason very well, but have significantly different world views and hold different axiomatic beliefs which make agreement impossible. Especially where value sets are involved.
We have all likely witnessed experts who are also brilliant argue about the value of the mRNA platform injections for the recent pandemic of sorts. As I have a side on the issue, it is difficult for me to recognize that the other side has reasoning which justify the measures it took. But as I say, many brilliant experts are on both sides of an issue where we are very far from consensus.
So while reason as a cognitive tool is by far the most important meta-invention in human history, and I really mean that, it is important to see where it fails.
Thanks for the discussion.
@@theeye8276
That moment when Cathy realised she was contradicting herself was amazing, but what was more amazing was that she admitted it 🙈
Yes. Kudos to her, she had more integrity than most other SJWs.
She's smart, just very attached to her viewpoint.
Because she was not used to people beating her at her own game.
tbh Cathy didn't contradict herself in that, she was lead to believe she did, which was definitely a mistake on her side.
the other guy literally said: if the police have the right to shoot people, why shouldn't I be able to shoot people. The argument is not about the act of offending others itself. He wants to defend unfounded violence, violence on the grounds of race or sexual orientation, things people cannot change about themselves. That is wrong, that is asking to be able to bully people. Now she says he shouldn't have the right to offend those people, thus apparently offending him. But the difference is the goal and the context of that "offence". Standing out against oppression is not oppression. Freedom to kill shouldn't trump the freedom to live, and for that to happen we must allow punishing killers. That law already exists and noone seems to be opposing that. I think similar reasoning can be applied to all sorts of violence.
@@theadalbert2458 thank you for explaining this to me
a lot of this is culture shock. if you've heard one thing your whole life, hearing the opposite will shock you and sound intuitively wrong. it takes time to get used to a new idea. being nice can do more for your side than being right.
This is somewhat true. But it’s also important to at least acknowledge that being highly critical of new ideas has benefit because new ideas may seem good but not stand up to deep scrutiny, or long term scrutiny.
One of my favorite quotes from Fear And Loathing In Las a Vegas is when Hunter S. fathom pain explains that Hippie Culture and Free Love thought they were doing the right thing. They thought that if they could get past the “hang ups” of their parents generation, they could create a new world that was better and more equal. In reality, as the books comments, everyone who got swept up in it wound up dead, abandoning it, or burned out husks.
There can be value in sticking to old beliefs and proven truths. Not every new idea is worth adopting. Even if it SOUNDS good.
Hey bud I understand totally. I would love to have a discussion with you and ask if you believe animal cruelty is wrong? In addition to that do you also believe its okay to eat meat and whats your reason for it?
@@dm7630 if I can talk...
I would say humans are natural omnivores, we have the ability to break down a lot of different substances we abstain by eating.
Nature and evolution made it this way.
Why not take advantage of that?
All carnivores eat other animals, why aren’t vegetarians reprimanding these actions..is it because they know carnivores have no way of surviving without meat?
I think most people believe animal cruelty is bad.
Killing animals is however not really animal cruelty. You aren’t torturing or having any malicious intent towards the poor animal.
Now I don’t know what your exact opinion is on this, so I don’t have much to argument against or discuss with.
@@fridakron1696 I completely agree with you on this. But still I am sometime feel guilty when I see videos of breeders mistrating the animals
This is something that has been particularly exacerbated by the advent of social media and content algorithms. Now it's not just proximal people and the main stream media one deals with, but with platforms who drive content specifically to reinforce one's bias on a minute to minute basis.
Self reflection is really key here. Asking yourself, "what did I do to make the argument or situation worse" is very hard to do, that is how you grow as an individual.
Seriously, I was given a daily self reflection question set years ago and it's been the most useful tool in my life. Self reflection is a super power.
@@ryanackert1536 I'm curious where you got one of those.
Preach
This is why truly enlightened people never change the world - as soon as you even start on the path to enlightenment you realise what other people believe is none of your business...
That your intervention, no matter how well-intentioned, will likely make things worse.
And that you are responsible for your own happiness, not that of others.
Finally - that you know basically nothing, you used to believe a lot of things, but what you actually know is next to nothing, you don't even know yourself...
After you do your self-reflection, you'll need to deal with a third nonsense claim, built on the first two. Better leave the ring and go make more money for yourself and your family.
The three key mindsets to change someone’s mind who won’t listen:
Be curious: Instead of trying to prove your point or convince them of your view, try to understand why they think the way they do and what are their underlying assumptions or values. Ask open-ended questions and listen actively to their answers.
Be respectful: Instead of judging or criticizing them for their beliefs or opinions, try to acknowledge their perspective and find some common ground or shared interests. Show them that you respect them as a person and that you are willing to learn from them.
Be humble: Instead of acting like you know everything or that you have the final word on the topic, try to admit your own limitations or uncertainties and express your willingness to revise your views if presented with new information or evidence. Show them that you are open-minded and flexible.
Amen. Meet people on eye level
Most peoples mind-set has to do with their upbringing, culture and education.
That's an inefficient method, to be used only where social conditions prevent the use of more efficient tools. Historically, the most efficient means of persuasion is force, physical or verbal. Even the gandhis and mlks of the world succeeded by economically extorting and humiliating their enemies into submission.
Precisely
All things Shapiro isn't..he's gone full deranged genocidal maniac mode.....
I'm addicted to these videos. They're like guidelines for maturity.
Lmao
Fax
At the same time, they are the origin of mature faults!
Like, for example:
The second tell barely ever gets interpreted friendly or even gets corrected!
This procedure is oftenly followed by denunciation afar from the person, who cognitively plays another tune!
and TONS of people don't even care.
"It's usually futile to talk facts and analysis to people who are enjoying a sense of moral superiority in their ignorance."...Thomas Sowell
I never heard this quote of his before. Thank you. Do you know what source (debate, interview, book, etc) it is from?
@Kamil S Just accept Thomas for the quote, no one mentioned LEFT or RIGHT.
Yes .this 7 point all of it shown in second impeachment trial and quot from thomas sowell also refelected in the show of impeachment
Ironic Thomas Sowell was the one who said that, since he's never had a single peer reviewed piece of research published and is pretty much disregarded by his peers
Kamil that's not correct. The right lives on facts. Stop being salty.
This is why I can't bring myself to argue on the internet. Everyone's yelling at each other and assumes the worst out of everyone that doesn't take their side. There's no winning.
True that's how all wars n battles have been everybody thinks they are right........
I keep thinking about that line in the movie 🎥 the Joker when he says to Murraay : ever ones yelling and screaming over on another and no one's being Civil anymore and that's when goes left and things spin out of control there for igniting a small brush fire of battle which if left unchecked or cooler heads prevail leading into a forest fire of war
I've actually had a few disagreements online that have been pretty civil. I doubt I ever changed anyone's minds or swayed their opinion but there have been a few "I never looked at it that way" kinds of discussions.
When someone refuses to adjust their position and double down I willingly throw them into that hole when they dont listen to reason.
Because what's really lost when you're forced to stoop down to their level? If they're willing to waste their time convincing no one with their beliefs then I'm willing to waste my time assuring them nobody believes them.
It's like wrestling with a pig. All you get is covered and smeared in filth and the pig enjoys it.
I need to learn this. Usually, when I am getting triggered by something, cognitive dissonance occurs. I start to get angry and can’t really listen anymore when I feel attacked. Thank you for the video. I really hope that I’m able to work on it and overcome it.
based for being able to admit it
The fact you say this is more than half the battle. Love the truth and others and your there. Put the truth before your feelings or personal desire. That can be hard but sounds like you're on your way. Congratulations. You win at life
@@nemesisurvivorleon Exactly my thought
The first step is awareness of something you’d like to change I your life. Out of all the comments that get the most attention, I’d argue it’s people like you and posts like this that deserve the most feedback/support. Peace and love to you and your journey 🙏
Without truth we are lost brother
I call it "The inability to ACCEPT information. They hear it, they even listen to it. But then they CHOOSE not to accept that information."
Not they, “we”
@@47shadows76 Bro thank you! That's an honest tell on myself, and quite frankly proves your point exactly! My opposing position implying that "our side" doesn't have this fault. To truly change someones mind It's imperative we understand how to change our own in the process, to find a mutual ground to meet upon and really be "on the same side". I didn't realize I was being counter-intuitive to my own argument by segregating people as one or the other: when as you said, it's that "we" are in this together, everyone from "both sides" needs to see eachother in the same pool.
I appreciate your insight, it gave me a lot to consider and think about. Wishing you a good day man!
Reading@@nagsterthegangster 's response:
This guy gets it!
@NagsterTheGangster Exactly! It is impossible to debate, let alone have just a simple conversation with someone who can be presented the truth...but who won’t then “see” it because of their own preconceived notions, arrogance at having to be right, or their alternate universe they choose to live in. There are none so blind as those who WILL NOT SEE.
@@45auto82 Yeah man its super frustrating at times. Cuz theres literally an INFINITE amount of reasons that are wrong about why grass is green, but only one correct answer. If you compete in this kind of debate, they have an infinite amount of reasons To debate against you (all being wrong but apparently that doesn't matter anymore) and you only have the one, real reason.
The panic part I think is because, for a lot of people, their beliefs are part of their identity, so an "attack" on one is an attack on the other. The panic sets in when you realize the flaws in your beliefs, which then turn your identity upside down. So of course logic won't work on such an existential threat.
That’s basically the majority of belief systems on the planet. Especially atheism as they claim to know 100% sure there is no God or else they would be agnostic at the least.
We all know it’s not possible that nothing can make everything, but especially DNA code write itself by assembling itself by random molecules combining together only by struck of luck and that it starts working all together to create metabolism and copy itself for no reason.
@@godloves9163 if you want to know how the whole dealio with DNA works, you can look into the field of biology and genetics.
DNA is no wizardry
@@derda1304 never said it was. It’s more advanced than any software humans have ever created by far!
OP : Well said.
@@derda1304 Clearly you’re clueless on how it works because if you would, you wouldn’t believe nothing made everything wizardry. That’s the worst belief system ever!
It’s easier to fool someone than convince them they’ve been fooled. Mark Twain
Can you source where Mark Twain stated or wrote this? I couldn't find it.
Perhaps you meant, "How easy it is to make people believe a lie, and [how] hard it is to undo that work again!" -Mark Twain
@@ironocy496 perhaps you’re right. I only heard it from a third party
This is the problem with regurgitating misquoted catch phrases then peppering the internet like ammunition shells ...it becomes a bunch of meaningless irrelevant word litter.
@@ironocy496 well a lot of voters fell for the Biden lie, and now we're stuck
This is,,,, a lot of work. I'd rather not get into arguments with someone who won't listen, that's utterly exhausting. Especially when you throw in mental health matters, gaslighting and stubborn illogical narcissists.
Yes, organized religion adherent enters our chat and it’s all downhill from there😂
You must have met my ex! Thanks for the validation.
“Truth persuades by teaching, but does not teach by persuading.”
― Quintus Septimius
This quote should be more widely known. Then again, the very fact that you’ve commented it means it now is. So thanks 🙃
What does that mean?
@@boomshine87 you have to teach the truth because truth isnt always goin to be persuasive itself.
@@boomshine87
Anything can teach you by means of persuading you to believe it, but that doesn’t mean it’s true. Truth’s power of persuasion comes simply from teaching it because it can speak for itself
Whos that guy?
It's hard to argue with someone that cracks good jokes. Comedians would destroy in political debates.
Check out the old Ronald Reagan videos. He was one of the most loved Presidents and told jokes every time he spoke to the public and really great ones during debates.
Watch "Man of the Year" with Robin Williams.
SO true!! haha!
I can see that. Over here in the UK, we have a comedian, who edits a satire magazine called Private Eye. His name is Ian Hislop, and he is the master of the put-down.
I think I can work out why comedians would be devastating in a political debate. They're trained in responding to hecklers without missing a beat or breaking into a flop sweat. Someone heckles them - they clap back.
So the other guy's arguing, thinking he's winning a debate, but he's not reading the room: the comedian's responding as though he were on stage, and he's facing a tough room of precisely one heckler.
@@AlexGreeneHypnotist I've laughed at Ian hislop alot over the years but have I got news for you is the WWF of political debates
I have doctoral degree in psychology and 30 years of studying human communication, relationships, and personality . . . this kid is SPOT ON . . .
Is he? I’d say you’re both suffering from egotistical inflation.
@@growbydoing7290 mmmm looks like number 6 in action
@@brantcua5628 No clue, not a numerological minded individual.
@@growbydoing7290 So you are saying you can't count to 6 and see the statement attached to that number?
@@growbydoing7290 … You’ve not watched the video at all, have you?
The big problem is knowing a particular subject quite well and arguing with someone you love who knows just enough to develop a misinformed position, but defend that position to the point of anger and the informed person just backs down because correction would not be taken well.
"Expertise" can also be a self-snaring trap. Expertise of a subject can actually make us MORE close-minded in
an argument because we arrive at supposed mastery of a subject by a specific method which can, by it's very nature, lead us down an illogical path. It's actually better to take the position of self-awareness that you DON'T know as much as you think you do and be more open-minded and desiring the advancement of learning.
@davestang5454 Expertise in one particular subject or even more so to a certain aspect of that subject should include the knowledge of alternate theories pertaining to that subject. So yes, an expert can have an entrenched view of a subject and may dismiss out of hand a different view, not because they are arrogant or close-minded, but because they already explored that line of thought which turned out to be incorrect. I can see an expert in one area pontificating on a different area using their specific method of learning and inquiry to present an opinion as being correct even though they have not explored other lines of thought. My question revolves around knowing an accepted truth like the round earth versus the flat earth. Both sides of that argument have their zealots that will go bananas if you even mention the opposing theory. One side is backed by verified facts and physical evidence, while the other side has equally compelling evidence and facts supporting their view. Neither person can travel to the moon and see with their own eyes whether what they've been taught is true or is a lie. How do you argue your position to someone you are very close to and don't want to sacrifice the relationship with, to realize, or at least be open to the correct line of thought? When it comes down to it, there is a true side and false side to every argument. What I'm asking is how to argue the true point versus the falsehood supported by flawed logic that seems not so flawed. And still have a close valued relationship.
The “so you are saying” done correctly works wonders in arguments, they feel understood. Try it! With enough practice, you can ”win” arguments with only questions.
Read "Never Split the Difference", it has a lot of examples about it and is one of the techniques discussed.
Yes but at that point you're not winning arguments, you're trying to sell them your point of view with the same tactics used by salesmen to try and lock people into sales they otherwise would have never made on their own. The only difference being you're trying to get them to concede to a different way of thinking vs trying to get them to buy a product. It's still a manipulative practice even if the intent is good.
To me the best arguments are not the ones were you're trying to "destroy the competition" and do everything to convince the other person your position is the right/correct one, but instead when both treat each other like the person in front of you is trying to teach you something, like you're on class and you say to your teacher "so you are saying..." because you want to be absolutely sure you understood the idea correctly, but not as just one sided thing but more like they both treat each other the same way when the other person is speaking and expressing their ideas. To me thats a win/win situation for both parties. Using the "so you're saying..." the wrong way, that is, to try to ridiculize or take out of context the idea someone is trying to say it's basically just sarcasm, basically when used the wrong way, you're basically telling the person in front of you that you don't care about the discussion, you don't care about what they're saying, and a serious/adult discussion that has idea as a foundational stone to start a discussion is no discussion at all, serves no purpose and it's a waste of time for everyone.
I basically argue my point and ask questions as well. Especially with my family. It’s actually I apologize for winning arguments. I love arguing 🙂
Exactly! All I need to do is question someone and make them clarify themselves to break down their own argument.
Try it with a narcissist. That is possibly the most volatile cognitive dissonance you will ever see. This video is excellent and I thank you for it. Have a lovely Christmas ❤️
Yeh that’s why I clicked it. My dad is one. There’s no reasoning with him. Had to completely shut him out of my life because you can’t reason with him.
As an introvert person that i am , narcissistic people tend to overpower me and are entitled, so i want to understand them more and or perhaps put them out of my life if being nice to them is not enough.
The only way to get an healthy relationship with a narcist is not having one with him/her at all.
@@kristinasanchez8510 There is no "understanding" a narcissist which will bring your relationship with him/her to a state of normalcy and mutual benefit. Narcissists are always looking for an angle, and they are brilliant assessors of personalities and will learn to control anyone. Just stay away. Abandonment is a good tactic. You will sleep much better and have a happier, peaceful life.
@@AA-bk1jr pretty much the same story here
A conversation needs two people who are both willing to listen, adjust and speak and give eachpther time to speak.
I'll make this simple. You can't reason someone out of a position they never reasoned themselves into.
As an introvert who talks less and have poor social skills, you are a blessing. Thank you.
I'm also an introvert 💙
Change your name
Gaurav Mishra I am an introvert too. I just sit back and observe.
@Joel Roy
isn`t everyone by turns intro and extrovert depending on mood and or company ?
Gilliman maybe. I’m much more vocal when surrounded by family or close friends.
My recent experiences with cognitive dissonance are when someone asks me to show my evidence or pull up what I’m talking about, and then when I show them the law or whatever evidence it is on my phone they say “I don’t want to talk to you anymore,” and walk away. They’re scared of truth.
Don't do it anymore. One out of a thousand will accept the evidence
You're butting up against their subconscious which is protecting the worldview that they've developed and relied on for their lives up to that point.
Often that worldview in their mind is "common sense" and yet nothing more than unchallenged, passively-received opinions.
Evidence that most of us are fancy apes.
A lot of people also just ask for evidence as a defense mechanism. They don’t actually care about your evidence or your point.
I had the same experience. When I asked if they had considered a particular point, they emotionally attacked me twice before I could say anything else. Not willing to continue like that, I simply commented "Thus ends the rational discussion" and left.
Had a similar experience. I was asked for a "source?" to the information I shared. They claimed to want evidence. When I listed a number of channels and videos on UA-cam, instead of being willing to watch the videos or check out the sources, they simply said "youtube's not a reliable source". When I listed another website and source, they said the same thing. It's infuriating but it also clearly reflects these types of people are ultimately not interested in truth. What I struggle with is maintaining compassion for these brainwashed individuals, it's easy to fall into anger and resentment. By the way, for anyone reading this comment, these were people who will literally believe ANYTHING the mainstream media tells them. In their mind, if the MSM says it, it's unquestionably truth.
No matter who you are, you'll never be able to change someone's mind. No matter what. The best you can do is "help" them change their own mind.
I don't agree, rational thinking people are open-minded when arguing with someone and will listen attentively to their arguments. He will analyze objectively the arguments of both sides and change his starting opinion if the other person brings more rational and sane arguments to the table.
@@alexdussault_ I know you said you don't agree but... I'm glad you elaborated that you DO agree? xD
So other than helping someone change his own mind, what is the other thing you can do, change it forcefully? Like washing their brain or something?
Dumbest comment I've seen there
never say never. someone might gain the mind control ability or place you in a dream like state where you end up believing the dream is real and your stance within the dream will be dictated by them (or the if you fall asleep with it on TV ;D )
I liked this video. No one wins an argument. Everyone wins in an exchange of ideas called a conversation.
“The argument is never the argument.”
People usually hold a viewpoint strongly because of deeply personal reasons or past experiences. A sommelier won’t be able to sell a fine wine to someone whose dad was a raging alcoholic and beat her with wine on his breath, no matter how fine that wine objectively is.
Usually just listening to why someone thinks or believes as he or she does will build rapport, trust, and respect, all being necessary foundations for actually being able to come to the table with good will and have a challenging yet mature and fruitful conversation.
Yeah good luck with that one
Absolutely!
Absolutely and each of us having our own opinions and beliefs is absolutely fine Even sharing those beliefs with others personally I consider myself Christian and I have heard many individuals say to me it's nice that you have your belief system just don't share it with others I find that statement interesting considering that's exactly what they're doing with me 🙂
@@brick2392 haha, this is true!
this. I have to listen to alot of unreasonable talk. I debate religion and ethics/culture differences alot. Basically you have to almost agree with the person, then start asking questions.... "well, thats cool. Have you ever been in that situation?" or "I wonder if that person ever thought of this". Hell, last argument I had with my christian buddy, I made a joke about the bible being a conspiracy for control over the masses by the church. Ironically he uses the king james bible. But I went into some crazy detail on what might have happened at the actual crucifiction and w/e. When you out-crazy the crazy person, it has an interesting affect.
the most effective way to approach someone is not by shaming them for believing something or overwhelming them with counter-evidence but to try and be empathetic, meet them where they are, and nudge them to make them think a bit more critically.
Yeah normally I agree but some peoples beliefs are actually so frustrating, but I find those people rare. Most people, I find, at least want to think they're the good guys and in the right
Tried that a lot of times, and I don't remember it working. Most people don't really want to change what they think.
But it is good advise nonetheless, antagonizing for sure never works.
Usually works, but i once met a dude who was the perfect example "give him an inch, and he will take a mile"...
I being more empathetic
They being more arrogant and aggressive and think that proves them right
Awesome advice.
Life isn’t nearly as complicated as we make it seem. We’re constantly going back and forth, lying to ourselves and (eventually) recognizing, then addressing our own BS
Couldn't agree more!
I've been on that loop for a long time until some people (so close to me) left because they thought I was being toxic around them.
It was a heartbreaking experience but it has finally awaken me
@Diego Jerez I mean how complex is it if literally every human that ever lived goes through it🤷
Anarcho primitism is way to go.
I like how Professor Jordan Peterson pointed out that we need to listen to that still small voice within us that encourages us away from bad thoughts and behavior, and into better modes of thinking and living. That has worked for me, but can be really hard to follow through with it; it can require a lot of effort depending on which personal flaw we're being encouraged to overcome.
I actually like the Cathy Newman example because she handles it so well. Many people would actually backtrack the argument to familiar ground and assert some other point, but she was quite candid.
“Don’t argue with a fool , they will bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
"when you entertain clowns, you become part of the circus"
Nathan White
Good one!
💯
@ Ykc Love that one! 😀
Define fool.
sometimes you have to argue to change their minds
I hate cognitive dissonance, especially in myself. So when someone points out my cognitive dissonance, I do my best to get to the bottom of it right then and there. I even ask them to help me straighten out my own thoughts. I don't want to stop until I've updated one of my positions to be in line with the other, or abandoned one completely. On rare occasions, I'll suggest that we may be unaware of another angle or more information which could ease the dissonance, and insist we come back to the topic later.
It's a natural survival mechanism, embrace it and refuse to change reasonable believes, without concrete evidence. Even scientific theories have exceptions , so it depends a lot on context too . If people want to be understood or heard they have to meet you halfway.
Rare bird. Introspective and wanting to know more, be better...rather than be "right", "win", posturing.
We all would do well to take a breath, (or 10), pause, zoom out, realize a tiger isn't chasing us (as it's our fight/flight, sympathetic nervous system activated) and try to get our prefrontal cortex online.
No one really comes out on top, by doubling down on beliefs built from various conditioning, biases, cognitive distortions and so on.
When we can look at all that, and decide how we want to think, what we want to believe...then we are empowered, vs our thoughts controlling us.
You are one of the rare ones. Congratulations on challenging yourself
Same. That's why I always push for good faith arguments. I want my position improved quickly
Cognitive dissonance is easy to find with in yourself
You just have to realize it's not a risk to indulge new beliefs
When you feel like you are losing the connection to the other person, say "Please help me here." And then something like "The problem I have right now is...".
_"...my wifi is cruddy, the video is glitching out and the audio is buffering, so I can barely make out what you're trying to say."_
@@CadetGriffin ...and I´m driving into a tunnel and I'm hanging up.
Lol, I’d agree with that people love to help others. Gives a sense of worth and develops a connection between people.
@@Spicyfeathers It's a scientically proven truth! People like to help and they think that the person is worthy for their help. I was in both situation and people mostly give me whatever I ask if they can. On the other side I use my power to find a solution for the problem if someone ask for my help.
Stated positively:
1. Take new information into account
2. Accurately summarize the other's perspective (and they agree you stated correctly)
3. Assume good intentions on their part
4. Be consistent with expectations of others' behavior
5. Speak calmly, without anger
6. Build up the other person and show respect
7. Say when they are right or have made good points
Also, establish good rapport by cracking a joke that doesn't put them down.
Three additional tips:
1. Maintain equality even if they change their mind
2. Give them time to change
3. Hold them accountable for current behavior and views, not past views
After studying the art of the argument and being in a family with a lot of lawyers, I'm a strong believer that arguments can never be won. And they shouldn't be won. They should be yielded.
Can you expound on that?
Objection, hearsay! /j
Gwidogido finally got tired of being owned, huh😆
Nobody wins an argument. That's an adage old as the hills. True too.
This shows that facts truly do not matter. What matters is who has the stronger manipulative skills.
That is the Best statement describing what is happening in our so-called society today. Bravo 👏 thank you
That is unless you want to create actual change. In that case both matter.
*facts don’t matter to people who don’t listen.
If both sides start the debate with a criteria based upon facts, then it clearly matters. If you are having an argument with people whose lives are effected by the facts, then it does clearly matter.
In politics and society, we talk about topics that may not matter much to the politician or the blabber mouth who isn’t involved and so conversation can easily be like talking with a deaf person. At that point it is true, the most manipulative or witty person wins the entertainment of the hour.
Most people have manipulated themselves so much you have to work hard to un manipulate them.
Cause of many divorces.
Why are 70% of these comments saying just not to argue with them at all? I understand the frustration, but this video is literally giving advice on how to deal with it properly.
Sometimes it is not worth the time to argue with someone who will inaccurately address your arguments, or try to fit their own narrative,etc. Its takes lots and lots of time for people to realize their mistake, especially cognitive dissonance. We can also take into account that you in most arguments have the agency to leave. It is very difficult to change someones values and beliefs if they don't want that thing to change.
They lack self awareness and ARE the people described in the video. That is why.
Cause they dont like the idea of expressing their opinions to people with opposite thoughts. They only wanna talk to people who think like them
@@HeroOfJusticeYT sup, emiya
Hey I would love to have an honest open discussion with anyone on the ethics of eating meat if youre down for it! Are any of you against animal cruelty? In addition to that do you feel that you can be against animal cruelty while also paying for animals to be killed for your meal?
If one person says the sky is blue and the other insists it isn’t, there’s nowhere to go from there. Sometimes it’s best just to cut your loses.
Superiority = pride
Let go = courage
*Never win through arguments
What. How does one get someone to listen without seeming like it's from a place of superiority? When cognitive dissonance occurs there immediately on the defensive which must mean you're on the offensive and therefore superior. The accusation that you're coming from a place of superiority is a defense mechanism on their part. How does one dismantle this
Win through your actions law #9
“If you knew how ridiculous that statement was, you wouldn’t have said it.”
That's a good quote! Who said that?
@@itsshrimp91 04:31 into the video
Read this statement right when he said that
And then he moves on in the conversation! LOL
@@itsshrimp91 I believe andrew neil
This is a really good tool for self reflection. More so than how to “win” an argument, I’m learning when this cognitive dissonance starts and how not to let it take over. Kind of embarrassing to notice these same patterns in myself but also super useful. Thanks. Keep putting out quality content.
Nobody is immune to cognitive dissonance or other types of cognitive biases or logical fallacies. But knowing when they're effecting your thinking is huge.
You shouldn't be ashamed to find weak points in your perspective - the very fact you realize it demonstrates that you are examining your own beliefs from a honest perspective.
We're all human, man. Forgive yourself. You're learning.
Humility is a superpower that we can all attain. It’s simple, but NOT EASY
I gave up on arguing a long time ago. You have to give a crap what the other person thinks, and you have to believe the other person actually cares what you think.
tru dat. sometimes i think there r folks who just like to argue so they can push thr opinion. if u didnt answer they would b happier.
0:00 Sometimes people won't listen to reason even when they're smart
0:20 Cognitive Dissonance
0:56 People use logical beliefs to justify illogical behavior
1:37 The worst thing you can do is to continue with logical argument
1:48 Seven tells that someone is going into a cognitive shutdown and you need to tread carefully
2:12. Being stunned by new information without adjusting perspective
3:00 Inaccurately summarizing the other side's perspective
4:01 Mindreading nefarious intent of the opposing side
4:41 Regularly moving goalposts
5:35 Yelling or getting angry
6:12 Attacking a person's character instead of their argument
6:33 Retreating from a point without any concession
7:08 Re-establish rapport (Crack a joke that does not insult the other side)
8:03 3 key mindsets to change their mind
8:10 Demonstrate no superiority if they come to your side
8:32 Do not force people to immediately live out their values
8:49 Do not hold past inconsistences against people
9:05 The most dangerous cognitive dissonance you will ever encounter will be your own
9:35 Connect with your body
Thanks
Thank you ! 🌸
Thank you.
@@virtualworlds8081 is it though? I like using bullet points very much, and I happen to identify as male. He/him pronouns and everything.
Brenda ☝🏼 on the other hand 🤷🏻♂️ hard to say...
Brenda thank you so much to summarize the content of the video it helps a lot.
I felt so bad for Sam Harris there. The fact that Ben Affleck's tone of voice alone was enough to win the crowd when he wasn't even having the same argument.
Yeah Ben Affleck like most of Hollywood is an irrational archetypal moron
Bill Maher crowd are a bunch of sheep as one famous Rick said "Oh please boo me if you want, I've seen what makes you cheer" getting cheers on Bill Maher is like getting a participation trophy.
@Liz Lee Affleck just didn't listen, there's nothing more to it. His pre assumptions took control and he comoletely missed the point. Not bad intention, just stupidity.
@@mardy3732 maybe not stupidity. Arrogance, or moral superiority perhaps.
I watched the whole discussion, and Affleck did not come out of that looking good. Sure some people cheered right then, but he didn't have Maher fooled for one second. He eventually calmed down enough that Harris was able to explain. I'm not sure how well Affleck absorbed it at the time, but when all was said and done it was pretty clear who was making sense.
If you're arguing with a fool, they're probably doing the same.
Woah, that's good! Is it yours? (Don't read my comment sarcastically)
goddamn genius
mah man , that's Genius
Great insight, but readers beware. This can be taken 2 ways. 1 moves forward and the other moves back. The easy way to read this is to think that a smart person doesn't argue with someone who he deems a fool... However, the correct answer is that if you think the other person is a fool... then you are the fool. The 2nd way to read it is to think that if I am not skilled enough to bring us to a meeting of the minds, then I actually am not as skilled as I thought I was going into the argument and therefore a fool. The latter will cause you to improve yourself and actually move yourself and the team forward.
@@incrediblee3688 Brilliant analysis, I agree with everything you've written.
To add to what you said:
On the first way to read it, I guess you could say that "the unseen Dunning Kruger is the deadliest", as in a lack of self-awareness will turn even the most gifted into a fool.
The second point you made was even more interesting to me, because it is the reverse; through humility and self-improvement we may eventually overcome our foolishness by realising what fools we were in the first place.
This is the second video of CoC I have watched and I know I'm going to love watching all this channels content. I will be, on paid day of course - come on we ain't all successful UA-camrs millionaires, be setting up a Patrion account to help this channel.
Side note: the lessons I learnt in the first too are going to literally save lives! I won't go into why or how, but me being able to teach this to countless others, due to work were I work with the demographic of people who always end up with someone getting physically hurt and all too often killed.
Me right now after I press send: Starting to watch the rest of these videos.
THANK YOU Charisma on Command!!!
People who weren't reasoned into a position can't be reasoned out of it.
ALL HUMANS ARE HYPOCRITES. It's their nature.
This is just wrong. People leave religion all the time through being convinced by reasonable arguments, it's how I became an Atheist myself
@@Ben-Rogue Great point. Reasonable is reason-able; ie, processing information one has accumulated at any given time in one's journey of education and experience. Point #1 on list of cognitive dissonance is being stunned by new info w/o adjusting perspective. This is true no matter what the ism is.
100% agree. Love your name and pfp.
Then thank you for letting us know that you are not worth debating when we put that profile photo in consideration.
The default debate tactic for many now seems to be just stand and scream. It's not just that they won't listen, they refuse to even hear.
Sadly journalism has been reduced to clickbait and gotcha moments. I doubt many of them find their jobs rewarding in this way. Larry King (rip) was able to have long open and honest conversations with his guests and was to many the pinacle of great journalism. Without clickbait or gotcha moments.
Have you noticed in Universities, free speech is gone and if you are at an event that is right leaning just forget about it.
It’s always hard to debate/argue with someone who won’t admit to gaps in their knowledge, gotta be willing to take new information in to make sure your opinion is an informed one. If you’re basing your beliefs off something with only 50% or 70% of the picture then your not really forming an opinion on the same thing as someone viewing the whole picture
It's rare for people to have the full 100% of info. Usually when you discuss difficult matters with someone, then both don't have all the knowledge. Likely both have different info and or vaule the infos they got differently.
If someone just knew it all, then discussion wasn't needed. That conversation would be called "lecturing".
If you think you know 100% about a difficult matter, maybe that's your own cognitive dissonance preventing you from staying open minded.
Don't get me wrong, I've had my fair share of discussions with hard headed people. I know that you don't need to know it all to realize how shallow some people are, but I think this self awareness is kinda important to have, whenever you put yourself "on the high horse".
In my experience it is also not recommended to further discuss the matter with such hard headed people. Yea, you can crack a joke to lift the spirits, but then you gotta move on to an other subject. Otherwise you just end up in the same corner again almost instantly.
I usually hope, that I was able to set the seed of doubt in peoples minds and them getting out of their comfort zone to research the matter further themselves.
If you don't have to just don't.
If you have to I suspect it's close friends or family.
Then you can try to wear the stone with constant dripping. Don't push the matter when they shut down. Use data, bring it to the discussion share the links/ source.
Encourage them to educate themselves and give them the tools to do so.
But don't be pushy. They have to want to do it themselves.
Other than that, check out how cults manage to find followers to their ridiculous beliefs. They do the same thing you desire to achieve, it's just the other side of the coin.
@@crankpatate3303 Idek if I’d say it’s rare, most of the time it’s improbable that someone would know 100% of a subject, there’s always something new to add, wether it’s perspective or some detail
I want to show this to someone I have these issues with, but their cognitive dissonance is extremely high. To the point that they'll say "That just something you saw on UA-cam"
A lot of times the biggest problem is getting people to realize that they DONT have all the facts. People are very proud and hate admitting they are wrong about something, even if that thing is the idea that they don’t have all the facts or that they should be digging deeper into another’s perspective. A lot of times they don’t want to do this because they’re afraid if they do dig deeper, they actually will be proven wrong and will have to admit this and change their entire worldview, which can be daunting for some.
I do not know a single person who will automatically concede his/her opinion, no matter how flawed and grossly out of reality because they attach their ego to it.
I do the same and have been very aware of this and am changing. I think humans entangle a lot of things that aren't an identifier (for example, politics) to the very foundation of their identity.
If you could take away your ego and emotional attachment and look at what you hold as sacred and true, much more can be accomplished.
I remember debate class and I always thought it was so strange that no topic or point of view was considered more valuable than another, the focus was always on the debate itself.
While I see the point in that to a certain degree, the idea that one view or idea is as good as another is obviously VERY dangerous. Ideas have consequences.
Beliefs drive action, or inaction.
It's good to give people a chance to defend their viewpoint, because nobody has the authoritative truth. If their viewpoint makes sense, it will hold up. If not, it will fall apart under scrutiny.
Debating class, lol. Call it out for what it really is; arguing.
Completely agree. The belief that all views are equally valid has almost destroyed acedemia. Everyone has a right to their views, and a right to express them, but just because you can argue something doesn't make it right, true, or relevant. Trying to stay self-consistent while arguing a position divorced from reality is an exercise in futility.
@@holl0918 well said 👏
If believes drive action don't you agree the believe your believe is better drives action as well?
"Seeking to understand before seeking to be understood." Very hard to do.
This is true bliss. We humans are on a loong span of range in behaviour and spiritual development. Some of us are very enlightened, and can listen in any time and place. Some listen not at all. Some listen if a person they like or know is saying something. We are all here to learn our personal stuff.
I am not perfect, but I seek to understand and I yell sometimes, and I get angry for wrong reasons sometimes, but I still work on trying to overcome myself. I've found out this is exactly the kind of person I want to be.
Meanwhile, a lot of people have gone all their lives to their graves without overcoming obstacles they've been stuck at for perhaps 50 years or more. I think a solution for this (or atleast one of many solutions may be), that one asks oneself, when you are all alone, before you sleep for example; these very questions. Am I listening? Am I learning? Am I doing the right thing? Do I know this? Do I know that? Why do I know that? etc. :)
A line I sometimes use to bring down someone's guard and it also works in sales.
"I also, not too long ago thought that too, but once I learned about this... I changed my mind."
I've used that ploy. The we're on the same side move.
i like that at the end he said that if you have enough self awareness check yourself for these tell tails, soo many people (including me) go under the assumption that we are right and the other is just confused and never try to think about if we are wrong.
I think "mindreading" someones intentions can often lead to assumptions, which could lead to more problems in the argument.
It can depend on how honest each side is. If you nail it and they say no that's not what I meant, then proceed to speak and ask questions that support the very read you had on them...its disingenuous on their part.
That starts with preconcieved notions. This stems from closed mindedness and lack of acknowledgement of biases.
@@johndurrett3573 - Exactly! Some people actually are good at accurately mindreading. But the thing is many others lack the self-awareness to even know their own minds.
You are absolutely correct, and this video is in fact terrible advice in some occasions.
@Alex Caram I came here for this comment.
My brother and I say this all the time "you cannot speak logically to someone who thinks illogically"
There is absolutely nothing wrong with that statement, however, figuring out what is logical isnt always easy. Im not trying to spark an argument, but in the pro oife/choice debate, which side is the most logical. The side that believes that a fetus isnt life, up to a point, or the side that believes that a fetus is a life from the very first second, and views all aborts as murder? I for sure dont quite know what to think about it.
@@wrath-2187 The thing with the pro-life/choice debate is that it's a morally based debate, therefore it's harder to apply logic to both sides as it's all subjective in the end. Of course I believe one side has more logic than the other, which is why I'm pro-choice personally, but that doesn't mean I don't get where the other people are coming from morally, and that doesn't mean I think they're completely wrong in every scenario, as I wish pro-life people view some of our scenarios and arguments as valid and moral reasons to get an abortion.
And I truly think most people view it in a healthy way, at least, I hope so.
@@LoreCatan yeah i agree i suppose, but my point was just that sometimes its easier to attempt to apply logic to something instead of morals, as morals change and its expectations, but logic is unmoving amd yet its jard to apply logic to the abortion debate unless you have the cold hard facts: and people cant even agree on what is fundamentally right..
@@wrath-2187 with the pro life and choice thing. I personally will find other things that work the same. Like let's say if I know someone who is pro abortion. I'll ask before if they see how scientist found life on space on single cell organism and of they agree then I say how is a fetus not life then? If a single cell organism on another planet counts as life then the same must be said about when a baby is conceived.
@@shoepuffwilliam560 well, i guess im not considered a murderer for using alcohol to clean my hands, because, you know, i terminated millions of bacteria and other similar life forms. Theres a million arguments for and against everything, i feel like its best to just pick your poison.
One strategy I’ve used in getting ppl to come to my side is present my arguments as not my own ideas so a concession on their part is not felt by them as a submission to me. “These aren’t my own ideas. I’ve learned these from doing reading and listening to ppl much smarter than me.” That works well for winning arguments.
And they reply with “I’m smarter than you! So you better listen to me as I’m right and you’re wrong!”
Thats great, but doesn't work with the "free thinker" type (those who think only they can think for themselfs and everyone else is sheep)
This is called "third party credibility"
Unless you’re powerscaling characters
That also doesn't work. For example, if you tell me the earth is flar and say that “These aren’t my own ideas. I’ve learned these from doing reading and listening to ppl much smarter than me.” I will still think you're insane.
Not to mention, how am I supposed to trust that statement of yours? Who are these people who are much smarter then you? Anyone can publish a book if they have enough money, what were there sources? etc. I might be understanding you wrong, but I don't think that is a smart thing to say.
#3 yes! Grace for past mistakes. This is something we miss so much in this society
As a friend of mine once said: you don't hammer a screw
Sure but you can hammer a nail to put in a screw. Starter hole when remove nail to put in a slightly bigger screw.
You could for a starter hole if had no nails to later put in a bigger screw.
@@hydrolito Think you're maybe over-analyzing the metaphor?
Doesn’t matter when the screw identifies it’s a nail, Bc science!
Well it certainly doesn't work in reverse
“The art of arguing and convincing is one of the most importance and useful skill of civilized human life”
@Khfir - mM! Most politicians are corrupt & obsessed with personal power rather than being civilised - deep sigh !
I look for civilized life and rarely find it.
@@j.dragon651 dog fights everywhere
討論をする時、何を目的とするかによって言い方は変わって来ます。
相手の論に対して勝つ為か、相手を納得・説得する為か、相手からこちらが望む答えを引き出す為か、などいろんな目的があります。
結局のところ、相手がこちらの言う事を聞く聞かないは1番の問題ではありません。
When you have a discussion, the way you say it will change depending on what you are aiming for.
There are various purposes such as to win against the other party's argument, to agree with you and persuade the other party, or to draw out the answer you want from the other party.
After all, whether the other party listens to you or not is not the number one problem.
People aren't going to be honest if the result of being honest is devastating to their survival.
@Terry Thompson Or to their point of view.
@@bruhmoment8090 If it's so obvious, then why does society still expect honesty from people? The society rewards lies and punishes truth.
@@terrythompson7535 Because it doesn't. Most of the time, you can tell the truth and not suffer dire consequences.
@@fellinuxvi3541 I hope you will pardon me if I find your response to be odd, but when you start out with the word "because" it sounds as though you are answering a question that I never asked. As for the "dire consequences", to the general public the consequences of honesty means they run out of money. So the lying will continue because people would rather be paid liars than honest homeless.
@@terrythompson7535 I was specifically answering "why does society keep expecting honesty?" question.
The thing is, I don't think you're right, politicians lie to different extents and their earnings don't correspond directly to their dishonesty. I think there's definitely some spaces in which modern society incentivizes lying, but I don't think it's as ubiquitous as we might believe.
"Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit." Proverbs 26:4-5
Exactly. Smack them (gently and lovingly) with truth and walk away. Let them stew in their anger. Or, they can take the bait and grow as a person. Either way, you have done your job of kind-truth-telling. NEVER plow into the gritty, slimy muck that is an argument. You only show how unwise you are and hurt people. That's why Neil Degras-Tyson (and a great many others including myself) never engages in debates. Too messy with too little reward. Better to teach and let as many as want to understand, understand. People who love to argue are not interested in truth, just arguing. It is an addiction!
That line was a tough one for me to think about, but I got there.
@@commandingnationsintl7792 watch Neil on the Joe rogan experience... he gets into a debate and handles it very poorly
Neil Degras-Tyson is an overinflated windbag only interested in hearing his own personal views regurgitated back to him.
He refuses to hear, and often very rudely dismisses anything other than his own personal world views and opinions.
Don't believe it?
Merely quote some proverbs to him. He'll tell you his (many) offensive personal opinions regarding any sort of religion or God before you know what hit you.
That isn't any sort of greatness on Tyson's part.
That's just him displaying another type of intolerance, ignorance, and even outright stupidity.
@@Druunah69 I dislike him as well, and I am an atheist. It seems he didn't learn enough humility from his mentor Carl Sagan, who is one of my heroes.
I'm officially ending every argument from now on with _"tell us about the lobster."_
It seems to hold some type of power :0
Haha
About 15 years ago I took a psych 101 class, and when speaking about cognitive dissonance it was explained in the sense when someone is experiencing cognitive dissonance they can have feelings of anxiety, guilt, and a sense of unease, and individuals may try to reduce or resolve it by altering their beliefs or behaviors in order to create consistency.
It's not so much that this feeling is a show stopper in the discussion, to the contrary, it is the precipice of changing one's mind.
This is similar to what I learned in educational psychology, but the main takeaway was that it takes being exposed to the new info more than once in order to internalize it because our brain is going to fight to restore balance.
You can’t use logic to defeat a position that’s NOT BASED ON LOGIC.
aka: You can't reason with the unreasonable.
@Liz Lee This. People who are hyperfocused on "logic" get lost in the semantics. They think they're smarter for this, but it shows how tone deaf they really are. Real life is not a series of yes and no's. The people who think like this were the same ones who couldnt accept that someone who threw logic out all his debates won the White House in 2016.
Watch me repeatedly fail.
Liz Lee
Be Shapiro makes very logical arguments, many times I see his point, but I think he gets kind of lost because he's always on the defense!
Conservativism in a nutshell.
Probably the worst thing in an argument is having it framed as "1v1 me bro" where the goal of both sides is to "win". The only way to actually get results is have it framed as a learning experience for both parties where solutions for problems come out of it. However the biggest problems with this are that 1. both sides have to buy into this system, otherwise one side will just talk over the other and 2. for talk shows, the drama of "schooling the other side" is way more entertaining than "two sides learning about each other and finding out ways they can help one another"
Exactly. Arguments should be made to find out what might be correct or incorrect on EITHER side and to perhaps work out a possible solution.
Your comment is like a crystal: clear, has a point, and very rare, lol.
Totally agree
Allowing space to separate honesty from integrity is so much grace, thank you for saying that Charlie.
I've seen all of these hundreds of times in the UA-cam comments sections. Just arguments that drag out and almost never end up with either person being persuaded. The exchanges almost always end up with snide and snarky remarks and personal insults. And that occurs generally within the first few replies, which just means that many people aren't there to truly discuss or respect another person or exercise good manners. They are there to quickly convert, shame, or to "win".
That's honestly one of the biggest challenges in life 😂
Thanks for getting me inspired into self development btw!!
Hey brother are you against animal cruelty by any chance?
Being a good listener is hard too, especially in this day and age where everyone just wants to be heard.
I’ve been watching you for a couple years now and I have to say.. this is probably the most important video I’ve seen you put out. The growing difficulty for people to communicate their perspectives with one another on difficult topics is making people become more and more resentful towards one another. These skills you’re teaching, and the ability to have a productive, or at least cordial, conversation is undoubtedly one of the most important social tools in any aspect of life. Thanks for the vid man👌🏽
Haha Ben affleck on Bill Maher was great he’s never been on the show since
One thing! Just one thing! Please tell IT to me: WHY tf do I have so many fans even though no UA-camr is unprettier than I am? WORLDWIDE!!!! WHY??? Tell me, dear rock
UGH He was so ANNOYING on Bill Maher
@@surenyanmaya1451 agreed it was great seeing Sam Harris smack him down over and over. He’s a Just a virtue signalling actor
I’ve had a difficult time watching him in anything since that. Ben made an absolute fool of himself.
I have no evidence except for the fact that he went to rehab, but I’m fairly certain that Ben Affleck was drunk or otherwise inebriated on that show. I think it was very embarrassing for him so I don’t think he would repeat that visit even if Asked
I love your videos and watch them regularly. One thing that isn't mentioned that perhaps should be when considering our own cognitive dissonance is the need for humility. A strong understanding that we don't know it all goes really far in our willingness to give up any dissonance that creeps into our lives. Without this, we are setting ourselves up for continued self-deception.
"If you don't do this you'll find yourself in a near perpetual state of shock and outrage when the world doesn't match your predefined expectations and worse, you'll be poorly equipped to do anything about it."
Wow.
Passion cannot be confused with yelling. Yelling can happen for many different purposes and can arise from different origins.
if you yell in an argument, you're the problem
@@HollyWho-sh1dx So if somebody tries to tell me I should be stoned for things I can't control, I can't yell at them? Getting emotional in a debate isn't bad, especially if it's a topic close to you.
Thing is people react differently when it comes to passion so the ben vs sam was actually ok
Replace responding with "so you're saying" with "let me see if I understand what you're saying" and it'll be a game changer. The former is often perceived as an attack while the later is akin to a deceleration of intent to understand.
"SO YOU'RE SAYING" is a TOTALLY LEGIT TOOL.
That doesn't mean many ppl don't use it dishonestly.
I USE IT OFTEN:
to any conservative:
"SO YOU'RE SAYING THE PRESS, OWNED BY WALL ST.... IS A BUNCH OF SOCIALIST LIBERALS.....WHO HATE MONEY AND CAPITALISM?"
They have NEVER say "that's not what I said!"
They ALWAYS rebut with "get lost you libtard!"
ANd....CHECKMATE.
@@dumpygoodness4086 "SO YOU'RE SAYING THE PRESS, OWNED BY WALL ST.... IS A BUNCH OF SOCIALIST LIBERALS.....WHO HATE MONEY AND CAPITALISM?"
See, that would just indicate to me that you really don't understand what they're saying. There's great value, if you're already wealthy, in ending the ability to be upwardly mobile. It means you keep your position and nobody can really threaten it. You get to stay rich while others stay poor. Do you really think Putin, Kim Jong-un, and Maduro, who are vastly wealthy, want Capitalism? And then I'd attack your claim that "Wall Street" owns the press. The majority shareholders might very well be using capitalism to get themselves wealthy, and then use the things they've acquired to try to put an end to it. Having money, or being involved in a financial system doesn't preclude your hatred for that system. One could make a very strong argument Goldman Sachs has absolutely no desire to play by the rules of capitalism, which is why they asked for a ridiculously large bailout that screwed the average working American. Corporations like the MSM today operate much more on cronyism than actual capitalism. They're the very danger Ayn Rand was pointing to in Atlas Shrugged.
I have seen hundreds of psychology videos this one is one of my favourites, while the first video im watching from this channel. Keep up the great work and save the world from ignorance.
I remember arguing with someone a few months back, and looking at it now, I was so wrong, after looking at the whole discussion, I was mad, in panic and wasn't willing to listen. Yikes, it's embarrassing tbh
This comment made my day. Thanks for sharing the self-reflection. Wholesome, and hopeful. :)
Having read your post, I'll try to keep a pulse on my arguments too. I often avoid confrontation in general, but I'm sure I can improve
Stay solid mate
@@phasein5413 🥺 glad I made your day
Don't feel too embarrassed. We've all been there. Including the person you were arguing with. 💝
yikers
I wish my friend was like this. But he won't change :(
The Cathy Newmans interview with Jordan Peterson is legendary
A lot of milage out of that one
So what you saying is only men can be legendary?
Jordan Peterson is a Might Makes Right closet misogynist, who attempts to explain it away using flowery language, speciesism, cherry-picking appeals to Christian scriptures that speak to the worst of human baseness and irrationality (he is not a Christian: just uses those to buy the Christian vote) and not bothering to do better than the status quo or to seek to improve upon it. It's easy to see that after reading "12 Rules For Life." I don't know why you think she didn't have valid points in this interview. She did. He refused to tell the audience about the lobsters example (where in his book, he decided that humans ought to live like lobsters, because of the following: "One lobster determines he can physically beat this other lobster up for gain, so he does, because then the other lobster will become meeker and conform to being like the first lobster." The only cognitive dissonance I saw in the room was with him: she was stunned at his level of cognitive dissonance.
Please tell me why you believe this interview was legendary.
TL;DR
(Too Long, Didn’t Read) lmao
@@aerialrose I am not native english speaker but I some points I understand what you're saying. It's normal to disagree... However I like Jordan Peterson for saying how world for young mens are dificult too. Not only for women as many feminists and even other women think. The dominance "Lobster hierarchy" is just one of his many metaphors. I think he means it like this.. man has higher value when: he is rich, muscular, masculine and maybe some more I couldnt think of rn. I am atheist btw so idc if he is christian, muslim or any other religion. I think he just just genuiely good person who is trying to help young men in this world and become better person. I am not saying Cathy Newman is a bad person either. As Jordan said perfectly once again xd. Sorry for that :D She is just doing her job.
Well, despite many of these, they still think they’re right.... so fastest solution is just let them think they’re right and use your time on something productive or fun.
In a public forum like TV, I think there's some value in arguing your position. It gets other people thinking
The smile and "you're right".
It's only a 'solution' if nothing bad happens by losing the argument. If you're on the street arguing with antifa, or in a courtroom, or a senator trying to keep a ridiculous and dangerous bill from passing, you need to win the argument.
@@jameseverett4976 I'm a very hard arguing guy, but when I step back, I realize most of the time I was being too harsh, I was trying to "win". There is no winning when both people harden up and say they're right. You have to be open to have a productive conversation.
@@jameseverett4976 yeah, but those situations can be avoided by not engaging ignorant people in an argument in the first place 🤔
no one is truly persuaded by logic. Its only charisma, and emotions.
The best part of this video is the comment section showing exactly the kind of CD that you spoke of. Priceless.
I like that it points out that everyone is guilty of this sometimes
Usually if this happens either to me or the person I’m debating with we take a break and talk about again some other time or if it’s something the person keeps doing then that generally isn’t someone you want to debate with if you’re trying to keep a reasonable head
As an extremely emotional arguer, and someone prone to cognitive dissonance myself... I may need to watch this a few times!
This reminds me of a statement from Thomas Paine where he is quoted as saying, "TO ARGUE WITH A PERSON WHO HAS RENOUNCED THE USE OF REASON IS LIKE ADMINISTERING MEDICINE TO A DEAD PERSON".
Good point...or counting dead people votes...lol
@@pjj9491 you ran head first into the point and still missed
I got a better quote:
"WHO IS MORE INSANE? THE PERSON WHO BELIEVES IN INVISIBLE SKY DADDY..... OR THE PERSON WHO TRIES TO REASON WITH A PERSON WHO BELIEVES IN INVISIBLE SKY DADDY?"
GOTCHA!
@@pjj9491 no dead people's votes. you're just parroting a talking point.
but it did come out that Trump sent a LOT of stimulus checks to dead people! Google it!
Not bad. Do you have one on "How to argue with someone who has anger issues and a poor grasp of reality"?
Hey man are you against animal cruelty by any chance?
Dont 🤔
@@dm7630 bro who isnt againt cruelty of any kind?
Sleep on your sofa, that night.
Well, there's 357, 45, 556, 762, 9, 3006, 3030, 4570...
If you want to win an argument then ask more questions than giving answers.
Well, at least you can't loose it. If you ask a question, it's hard to be wrong, because it'a a question.
But the person that may answer you may answer something wrong, then you can correct it and kinda win the debate. Or he cansay something that doesn't match with a precedent answer. So, you just have to show his answer are inconsistent.
@@xyos7647 *lose
@Mez "doesn't work"
Why do you say that?
@Mez How is it unrelated?
They end up criticizing you for asking questions to narrow the argument as just a tactic
I can speak from experience... the worst thing you can do is use reason. They just dig deeper and deeper. It's really quite amazing
Ah, you did this in preparation for everyone’s Thanksgiving Dinners.
Well Played!
Pro tip: frame your argument in a way that insinuates the other person already agrees with you. People hate to be wrong, just skip the part where they're wrong and you'll find people are more willing to agree with things they otherwise wouldn't be.
I think people just shut down at that point, it gets harder for them to disagree publicly but you don’t change their mind
@@SuperMysticflower that's a fair point. Creating the narrative is the first step though. This technique is used on a large scale throughout the west. It's social manipulation. It's like how it's become taboo to be a trump supporter so trump supporters most of the time hide the fact they're trump supporters so leftist won't shriek and attack them. It might not be effective for immediately changing the person's view on the subject, but it creates a social pressure that can easily convert 3rd parties when they see everyone agreeing.
@@alexhurt7919 I get what you mean. But, isn’t it kind of dangerous? It might hinder free speech and rational discourse in public, driving people into more extremist online spaces. Neither side is right about all issues, surely
@@SuperMysticflower that's really irrelevant isn't it? It's a practice already in use so the best course of action is to put it in everyones hands. It's like guns, now that they exist it's better if everyone has one.
@@SuperMysticflower it is dangerous and big media outlets use it very often. Look at all these college kids who have sincere believes and are almost radical, yet they cannot explain why they believe in them