How To Debate People Who Lack Critical Thinking Skills
Вставка
- Опубліковано 13 лип 2024
- Were you ever frustrated by trying to prove a point to a person who lacks critical thinking skills? It is a difficult and sometimes seemingly impossible task - but there is a way. In this video I’ll introduce 7 methods inspired by world renowned critical thinking expert Peter Boghossian on how to debate with people who lack critical thinking skills.
For more videos on how to talk with difficult people click here: • 8 Best Ways To Speak W...
00:00 Intro
00:19 Advice #1
01:11 Advice #2
01:51 Advice #3
03:17 Advice #4
04:33 Advice #5
05:28 Advice #6
07:04 Advice #7
For years I used to have a lack of critical thinking myself. I used to believe many things which had little evidence or truth behind them. These beliefs led me to decisions which did not turn out to my favor. Eventually I discovered critical thinking and changed my life for the better. Now I choose what I believe in with much more care. Make better, more informed decisions and enjoy the results. Yet it doesn’t take much time to see that many people still fail to separate true information from false. That’s why I created the Practical Critical Thinkers channel.
In this channel you will learn what is critical thinking, various critical thinking skills, find critical thinking exercises, learn how to use critical thinking in a debate, learn about the best critical thinking books out there, find critical thinking tutorials what results a lack of critical thinking has and much more.
If you are looking for a critical thinking channel - look no more and let's create a culture of practical thinking together!
#CriticalThinking #Debate #Argument
Which advice do you find most useful? Let me know here in the comments
Finding out how they came to their conclusion rather than challenge their belief. I think it was advice #3. That is so important and may even lead someone to change their belief (not that is should be our goal 😉) but we also learn new info that might change our own beliefs on things. This has helped me change a lot of own assumptions in life.
Every single one. To me this hole video was so simple thank you!
@@egidijusanikevicius5651 Glad to hear that Egidijus!
i think evidence is useful, or atleast the foundation of science and reason 'this is what i believe here is why i believe it [insert evidence]' idk why you say to avoid doing that... if person is unwilling to learn or expand their considerations maybe just avoid getting into an argument with them?
I am told that I don't understand. This nonsense is destroying my family. PLEASE review Esther Hicks please. Does she wreck maraiges? I need this filth out of my life.
Another important thing to do in this kind of cases is to figure out the person's values, aka according to what they measure the world around them. There have been studies about pitching the same (politically charged) ideas to people who valued "equality" vs people who valued "loyalty".
When the idea was presented in the same way to both groups, only one of them was for it. However, when they created two versions, one with wording the emphasized "equality" and the other "loyalty", both of the groups agreed, despite the idea not being changed.
That is a really good point. Peter Boghossian explains something similar in his book that I briefly mentioned in this video, but didn't cover in detail. People who value critical thinking expect others to evaluate information in the same way (based on evidence), yet Peter suggests to identify what type of a belief the other person is holding (whether it's a moral, social, or identity-level belief) and to address each type of belief differently. In other words, a different type of belief will require a different type of argument or approach to reach the person. I find this to be truly fascinating and really interesting to dig deeper into it.
When having such discussions I rarely have the goal of immediately changing the other persons mind. I hope to leave them with ideas and questions to ponder that may cause them to question and investigate further. I try to be open to the same.
👊
I have found that the most important factor in discussing topics with a non critical thinker is to repeatedly expose them to that sort of thought process and have conversations about topics over and over again. I have found that most people tend to revert back to their old views and old ways of thinking if it isnt brought up repeatedly. You could prove your point and have them conceding everything to you and even seeming to understand every step of how you arrived there, but much like a complex math problem, they could completely forget it the next day. Critical thinking is a skill like any other and it must be practiced in order to be mastered. But since its generally not something people will seek to learn on their own, you must essentially force it on them, and slowly rewire their brain over many, many conversations.
from the video description "That’s why I created the Practical Critical Thinkers channel.":
I actually appreciate that this channel is now just the person "Rokas Leonavicius". The keyword of the title in this video is "skills". We can all develop skills.
One of my good friends recently moved from DC to Lithuania to begin work as a diplomat. I often wonder if he can meet and train with you some day. I know you've expressed you are new to BJJ and Muay Thai, but ultimately it's OK to be both a student and teacher. As you've said, everyone is a beast to someone else.
This is an awesome set of tools for any conversation or debate! I'll come back here again when I need a reminder. Thank you 😊🙏
This is the most relevant self defense video I've seen from this guy. :D Good stuff!
😁
This is your best video yet. I like it because it is O Sensei's philosophy. I want to teach something like mindfulness at our dojo in Stockton California because of our Governor's social distancing rules. Hard to do Ikkyo from 6 feet away. I love this approach.
I do agree that this is a very Aiki approach :)
Some people just don't want to believe something so they will rejext anything that ruins their little reality because they don't want changes
When I saw the title I was like "man, the UA-cam algorithm knows me too well; this is something I think about all the time! But hey, I'm already subscribed... OMG IT'S ROKAS!!" I subbed a while ago because you seem like a really thoughtful guy, and I was curious to see where "the journey" would take you. Little did I know you would find your way to a topic so important to me!
#6 and #7 were the most eye-opening for me. I had already hit on epistemology probing as an productive way to engage people, but I ALWAYS have tried to push it too far. I'll often lead them to uncover several contradictions in their justification for belief X, and then make the mistake of going "BY THE WAY, here's all this evidence that also shows you're wrong" or straight out asking point blank "so do you still believe X?". Part of me still wants "to win" discussions...
Hey Mr. Gamgee! So cool to know that you like the new content!
Indeed, it's so tempting to want to "win" the discussion and difficult to resists that urge. I think though the first step is knowing that it's not the best strategy. Then it's starting to recognize and catch ourselves when we do it (often catching ourselves too late). Then starting to catch ourselves earlier and earlier and eventually starting to gather empirical data of experiencing and noticing success in applying this new method, what creates more trust in it and thus becomes easier to practice. Still, it's probably always going to be challenging to do :D But practice is super important I think
@@Rokasleo I absolutely agree, practice is super important!
I was wondering, what do you think about debates with people who do have good critical thinking skills? I did competitive debate in high school, and even today I have some friends who also enjoy having adversarial arguments. Even though it's always civil, and the quality of argumentation is high, it's rare for people to concede because we treat it like a competition.
I find such debates very fun, and sometimes informative, but I have to admit the approach in your video is probably more productive, even with strong critical thinkers. I worry that competition leaves my conversation partners more entrenched in their beliefs. I'll usually revise my position afterward when I'm reflecting on the debate, but if they're not in that habit, then a competitive debate is at best a fun but useless game, and at worst, actively harmful to the participants' critical thinking abilities.
@@mr.gamgee3582 That's a really great observation! I actually never had much experience in competitive debates. I have a feeling they can be great at developing ability to make arguments and counter arguments, to seek flaws in the argument of another, but your point is really great that it has a very competitive atmosphere and also all people involved are ready for such a talk. It's a great question if the same approach has value in a discussion with someone who's not a critical thinker. I think it's important to recognize the actual difference between debate and discussion. As one of the points in the video: if you want the other side to be open to come to the conclusion that they are wrong, you have to be open to do the same as well. If everything on a person's radar is about winning, will this person really have a good discussion?
@@Rokasleo You're right; I found competitive debate to be great practice for argumentation. And I find it useful to subject my views to rigorous opposition, since it helps me refine my position. But I think you're right that such an environment is not very conducive to changing your "opponent's" mind, unless they are in the habit of rigorous self-reflection after a debate. I do have a friend who says debating with me changes his mind, but he never admits that during the debate, and I would guess he is the exception rather then the rule, as he is a person who really values self-reflection and evidential reasoning.
On the other hand, when I have softer discussions where I attempt to change people's minds, my own views are subjected to less scrutiny, since I'm spending the whole time asking questions about my partner's epistemology. So if you recognize your own fallibility, maybe debate is better for changing one's own mind, discussion better for changing another's?
First, before asking how, ask why? Or should I debate a particular person?
Didn’t you interview Peter Boghossian a few years back? Portland?
Yes indeed! Here is our talk: ua-cam.com/video/Gmt2Bz9tqVc/v-deo.html
We also played Dungeons and Dragons together 😁
I'm planning to invite him for another recorded conversation soon enough, once this channel picks up :)
My dream/plan is to feature some of the greatest critical thinkers in the world on this channel with time
This is genius,
To be honest, as people, we are generally have right and wrong.
If I understood your point correctly, I definitely agree with you. What we thought to be true five years ago, many of these things we later realize were wrong. Our opinions change all the time, but at the moment we are so certain we are right. I think it's so important to recognize that no matter how right we feel, there's always something we don't understand
I am certain that i'm wrong. I'm only uncertain, where exactly i'm wrong.
But when someone just offends me and calls me dumb because they simply don't want to change their reality?
Imagine speaking with someone who lack critical thinking skills and know they can build them but don’t.
Bro, have you ever watched the videos of Cross Examined by Dr. Frank Turek?
I took a quick glimpse into it after reading your comment. It seems interesting 😯 How would you describe what it's about?
Wait bro, consider watching the UA-cam channel named Naga Seminarian, Dr. Ravi Zacarias is mostly the content, Him and Dr. Frank Turek were allies, though they have opposite ways on answering questions 🙂, if possible I hope u will take time to watch as many as you can from their videos
it should not have to be like this where you saying that someone is wrong and giving evidence will make them more defensive and hunker down. literally not a single person has an open mind nowadays and will literally try to justify an incorrect opinion rather than keep an open mind and be open to changing their opinion. lowkey pathetic
I understand your sentiment, but I would encourage to apply critical thinking in the statement: "literally not a single person has an open mind nowadays and will literally try to justify an incorrect opinion rather than keep an open mind and be open to changing their opinion.". Is it really a situation which is literal? Is it really not even a single person? I'm a single person (well, I have a girlfriend, but I am a literally single individual) and I am more than happy to change my opinion if proven wrong :)
Well is it possible that you are the one that is wrong and that the evidence you provide is for example just main stream media lies and the lies of corrupt experts paid to lie ?
On this subject and if you want to further your knowledge of Street epistemology (that's the name of the method Bogossian started) check Antony Magnabosco channel on youtube there is a lot of conversation on diverse subjects. Try also Reid nicewonder. Thanks Rokas once again.
Non of these advices work when the person you speak with have a RELIGIOUS or cult type of conviction not based on logic and facts but ideology and belief.
Good advice, but those only apply to people already have at least some critical thinking skills. For people without such skills, it is useless try to change their view.
Example: many years ago, I had an interesting talk with one of supervisor/team leader (not directly my supervisor) in my work. He was obviously smart enough to do a good job in work and making money outside of work, he was also intelligent as we work in IT (on technical side) and he had pretty good general science knowledge.
On the topic of religion, he was asking me why I don't believe in God. I don't believe because there is no evidence to prove god. He is a deeply believer, and he actually agreed with me on almost all of the scientific view/evidence/fact, etc. But his reason to believe in God is 100% unmovable: because god made the universe this way. When god made the universe, it was made as billions of years old, with all the things as we know now.
From there, I knew there is no hope for humanity.
How can you say there is no hope with just his belief?
Time cannot be infinite if it were there would be a infinite number of days before today therefore it would never be today therefore there must be a force outside of time capable of causing time.
@@saitama3294
People in general are stupid (including this one typing this message). But there is hope if the situation is just lack of education or bad education (which can be addressed). But when people are willing to accept all the fact, but willingly make up new stupid reasons to fit facts into their illogical view, you know there is no hope to ever address that.
Anyway, as someone wiser said: "Think of how stupid the average person is, and realise half of them are stupider than that."
Try again with something less deeply held than religion. Religious belief is far too complex to be subject to analysis as simple as you present.
From what you wrote it sounds like you didn't use any of the techniques in the video and even did some of the stuff he said not to, so I don't really think this is a good example to debunk the video.
You cannot satisfactorily in any way.