zurew

I think thats true, if we are only debating if we want the other party to change their position. Lets say if we wanted to have a debate for other reasons too like trying to improve our knowledge about a certain topic and hoping to hear good arguments from the other side, so we can deepen our understanding that could be also a point to have a debate. Of course, we have a debate assuming that the other party is good faith, and maybe able to change his position, but yeah Leo is right that in the vast majority of the cases, debates are about winning and about dick measuring.

Yeah i agree with you. I just pointed out that sometimes it can be misleading, especially when two layman having a debate and both of them relating to the same dataset and ignoring the conclusion of that data-set and trying to make their own interpretation of it just to be able to make an argument. Just to be clear, i don't think we disagree, i am not saying that the data itself is incorrect, but the interpretation of it could be incorrect or misleading when some layman try to do the interpretation him/herself alone (I am not talking about studies, but only raw data where there isn't any conclusion provided from anyone). When we are talking about peer-reviewed studies as a layman it would be really dumb for me to try to come to a different consclusion compared to what a paper/study says. In my vocab i would say thats not raw data, but thats a conclusion from a study where they collected a set of variables , used a certain method and then they concluded what you just wrote above. In this instance, lets say the raw data would be a dataset about people who smoke tobacco and about people who don't smoke tobacco and thats it ( lets say there would be 4 different kind of health variable included too in that raw data). Now to come to the '90% of tobacco smokers develop lung cancer at some point in their life' that would be called a conclusion and the raw data would have to be processed to come to that consclusion. So you would have to use a method to evaluate that raw data to come to your conclusion.

There is no such thing as objective factor in an of itself. The 'objective factor' only comes when we start to use some kind of a methodology to make sense of that data. Also, i didn't assume that all interpretations are at the same level. I made a point, that some people use that tactic in debates to say that the raw data says this and that, which is incorrect. Data collecting is one thing, but making sense of that data, or creating your interpretation of that data is different. Depending on how manipulative one wants to be about it , if there is a big enough data-set you can make multiple different kind of narratives (which are all factually correct based on the data-set) and interpretations about it, because you can cherrypick from it, exclude variables from it etcetc. For instance,if you wanted to make an argument about a drug being safe. You could use a big data-set you would lets say focus on 4 different kind of variables and ignore all the other ones purposefully. You could make an argument that based on those 4 variables the drug is 100% safe and it would be factually correct, because you used a raw dataset, but at the same time misleading, because you excluded things from your estimation. In this instance, you could be the one , who would purposefully only create a data-set and collect data which includes only those 4 variables ,so it is impossible to make a counter argument about your drug, using your own data-set.

When i say having a debate, i am not talking about hardcore debate bro conversations but debates where you ask geniuine questions to the other side to understand it better and then you counter back why you don't agree with the other side's points (we could say having a good faith convo). I agree with this. Depending on the topic it requires having multiple debates/convos to get to the root and to get a real understanding of the other side. I also agree that nowadays most debates about showing off rather than actually arriving at a deeper truth or getting a better understanding about a certain topic. But i would also like to add, that when we are talking about a sensitive or a highly polarized topic,then there will be a lot of friction between the two sides no matter what. Having some level of friction is not necessarily bad but it can destroy the productivity of the conversation. Yeah i get that it is a problem, but if you want to make a change nowadays you have to be articulate. Especially, when we are talking about sensitive and highly polarized topics where the other side is almost completely closed to your side and waiting for any opportunity to point out that you are dumb. You can't really make a good strong position without understanding both side's best arguments. If you can't counter back to certain points it shows that you haven't really thought it through from the other side's lense -- So you position is weak and that is a feedback that you should study the other side more ---> doing that you automatically get a better understanding of the other side. I think no matter what side we are talking about, there are always some set of people (of course this is a minority) who are indecisive enough to be able to be open to change their positions if they get good enough points.

This is interesting. There are a lot of talks and debates when a person says "the raw data suggest x and y" when in reality the raw data doesn't suggest anything in an of itself, unless you try to make sense of it somehow. The process you use to make sense of the data will determine everything. ( and here i didn't even talk about from where and how do you collect that raw data ) You are totally right.

What do you think would be a better approach to challenge ideas and to find some ground, other than debating and talking about the best possible arguments and also understanding the other side's best arguments as well. If there are no intelligent debates how could you steelman the other side's arguments? Of course you could contemplate about it yourself, but because of your blindspots you wouldn't be able to collect all the best arguments the other side could offer. Also you can't really be a good debater without understanding the other side's best arguments because you will be suprised and crushed. If there is a deep disagreement, that won't be resolved if we ignore it or if we just mildly talking about it. Of course debating only works, if both sides are open minded enough to change their positions.

When you say something like this, we have to get nuanced what do you mean by it, because this can be super misleading. "Very small percentage of young people die from the virus" Thats great, but when we are evaluating things ,we are not just focusing on one group and how it will affect one group, but we should think about it as a system (If we can lower down the spreading rate that can be huge --> for instance less people are occupying hospital beds) There is a ton of statistical data that shows a big difference between being vaxxed and not being vaxxed. Now, we can say that everyone is either lying about it or that the statistics are right and vaxxing works. Also its seems little bit funny to me, that now a lot of people require documents and stuff, when they don't even trust the ones who do the studies in the first place. So why bother saying "i want to see the studies", when you don't trust even a little bit the companies and the people who do the studies? Or if you do trust the studies, then why not look at all the other studies as well, that shows that vaxxing works?

Yeah i understand that, but as an outsider I can't possibly know how someone identifies him/her-self as. The only thing i can do, is to assume based on a certain set of physical characteristics. In the past,gender pronouns were used to indentify and categorize sexes and not how someone identifies him/her self as.

Even though it is impossible to make an absolute definition of a woman, labeling and making categories can be useful depending on the context. We could say that money is a social construct , even though we know that, we still collectively play a game where we project some value on it.

Yes, but even if we were to use this definition it would be problematic, because what about woman who can't get pregnant because of some biological factors. It's not always the man's sperm quality why a woman can't get pregnant. It's almost impossible to define what is a man or what is a woman , because there always will be some outliers. Even if we were to use the 'having 2x chromosome' definition is problematic because of this: Also:

Muscle memory is a huge thing. Good job.

In that case,i agree with you. Yes but that systemic/structural problem is not exceptional to logic. I could argue, how do you want to verify if direct experience is valid? Through direct experience? You can't test a method without using the method. The method itself creates a structure and using the method means you can test content within that structure. The structure cannot be validated/tested by the same structure. Every method/investigatory process has a certain baked in limited epistemological foundation in it. Direct experience can be used to test relative and absolute domain problems/questions but even direct experience is limited when it comes to relative domain problems. I don't think you would want to rely only on your anecdotal evidence, when it comes to relative domain problems. So we can (and i think we should) recognize the limits of a certain structure/method and then we can decide what method we want to use depending on what kind of problem we want to solve or what kind of answers we want to find/get.

I don't think you could make a text that could be copy pasted to any stage blue person and he/she would be able to comprehend it without any more further explaining. I think the vast majority of stage blue people don't believe for instance in the Bible, because they find the Bible the most rational way and view to have, but because they got indoctrinated with it early on in their life. Also,most people believe in things out of fear. If you want to target such stage blue people who believe in whatever they believe in, because they find that the most rational way to explain reality and they find that particular thing the most accurate view to have, then you could debate those people and they might change their positions. But i think such stage blue people are rare, and there is no one way to do this. You should engage with that particular person in a convo or in a debate where he/she can be challenged and also he/she can ask questions to you and you can clarify your position and shake his/her position. It should be a dance between you two, because your vocabulary and the other person's vocabulary will be vastly different, especially around concepts like God. One thing you should be aware of ,is that you shouldn't use the 'circularity' argument, because of the nature of language and the structure of arguments will always be circular. Even talking about God and nondulality will be circular so don't use that argument. ( you either make a circular justification or you have to justify your justifications to infinity) You could use the "having the least amount of assumptions in my view argument". I think that you could argue why having solipsism as a view, is the best if you want to have a position where you can find the least amount of assumptions. After that you could explain that it shouldn't have to be only theoretical to the other person but she/he can validate it through direct experience. But at the end of the day targeting stage blue people, i think not the best idea for this. Its too much big of a jump for them imo.

I think this would be one of the strongest arguments in favour of not letting people to commit suicide. I still don't think laws would lower down suicide rates, and i also wouldn't want to force someone to live, when they don't want to. Why would anyone be afraid of a law, when she/he will be dead anyway? Also lets say they would be punsihed for an unsuccesful suicide attempt in that case, they would be even more motivated to try to commit suicide again, so they don't have to suffer even more and longer. A better support system would be better, where they talk with suicidal people more, try to convince them to live, but at the end of the day suicidal people should be the ones to decide if they want to live or not. It seems pretty immoral to force someone to live, when he/she doesn't want to anymore. We can say that they are selfish because they can possibly cause even more suffering to their loved ones, but that would be about their morality not ours. Also i think with a better support system, most people who are indecisive about suicide they could be convinced not to do it, and only a much smaller number of people who really wouldn't see any other way, would choose suicide.

No, we shouldn't. We should rather create a society where most people are happy enough with their life, so they don't want to commit suicide in the firstplace. If someone really want to kill him/herself, then he/she will do it regardless if its legal or not. The difference is that if there is a legal way to do it, they have a chance to choose between methods, and their body could be taken care of after death immediately. With there being a legal way to do it, i think there is a lower potential that more suffering will be created.

Thats what an ENTP would say.

@Carl-Richard We might agree , we just may use different definitions for the word intuition. I don't know if its necessarily less biased, its just not groundable and because of that groundlessness, we don't know what are the biases. On the other hand, you are right that when we are using logic we are judging based on preconceived notions. However, in the case of logic we can know exactly our limitations, because we can choose our biases and we can be aware that if we use x set of biases or axioms then its going to be limiting in this x way. Because making a certain structure is creating a set of limitations. So i think our disagreement right now is somewhere around here: I think just because we can't point out the biases that are the ground for some of our intuitions, that does not mean that an intuition contains less or no bias. I don't think we can decouple intuition and the ego, unless we are talking about a transcendental state. Also, feelings can be manipulated and artifically created based on a certain set of outer environmental factors. So getting back to my previous post , it is sometimes hard to distinguish between pure intuitions and unconscious feelings ,instincts. But when we are talking about everyday life, we don't just let intuitions to just be without any touch or sensemaking process involved . We try to use them and we try to make sense of them. Even if we receive a very pure intuition we use it for something. We use it either to make a conceptual understanding of it because we like to ground things or we try to make our decisions based on that intuition. In both cases we filter them through our minds, its very rare when intuitions don't get filtered at all.

Intuition can mislead too. I would even say, that your most deep biases can manifest themselves through your intuitions. Lacking a necessary rational foundation can be really problematic and having an overly rational attitude can be limiting and problematic too, based on the given context. Both logic and intuition have their own place and limitations. I assume when you say intuition, you are talking about something that transcends logic. I would agree with you there, however it can sometimes be cloudy and foggy to be able to distinguish between intuition that transcends logic, and 'intuition' that is just a bias you have.

@Someone here Both choice has their own pros and cons. But there is a meta question to this, who should choose which answer is the best for your question?

I would disagree, but i would say that it kind of depends on the person. There are some naturally beautiful girls and women out there, but i think in most cases low level makeup can help a lot. Too much makeup can also be a turnoff, because it radiates low self esteem and also it doesn't look good.

If we were to take this kind of reasoning , then we wouldn't be able to do any science. Because ultimately everything is relative, but that is irrelevant in this context. There are claims that can be investigated and falsified, we don't have to make the 'absolute argument' and forget all the nuance. Not just up to me, do you disagree that not all studies have the same level of reliancy? Yes thats a good point, that for example cutting edge stuff wouldn't be able to go through. But cutting edge stuff don't need to be on a social platform, that stuff need to be discussed by academics and if the cutting edge people can pass through their stuff than they can change the way things and structures work. Also, i said in my previous post (not to you , but to yarco ) that you could label and tag your post if you share information that you not necessarily know that it is true or not. That way you could share information without getting banned for it. Also different platforms can have different set of rules.

Misinformation only make sense when we are talking about falsfiable claims. If you make claims that are falsifiable and they turn out to be false, then you shared misinformation. This just won't happen. Not every study hold the same level of reliability. There are peer reviewed studies and there are not peer reviewed studies. There are studies that are checked by multiple different kind of parties and there are frash new studies that are not checked by third parties. But at the same time making claims that are not falsifiable can also be some kind of a misinformation. When someone make very confidently such causality claims that are impossibble to disprove or to falsify that also is damaging to the global sensemaking. THe question comes up :Why talk about stuff that you yourself can't prove?

So you would draw you own line somewhere too. That line wouldn't be exact in every instance so even in your case there would be some instances where the ban is up for debate ( if it was justified or not ). But it seems that you would be okay with a few unjustified or 'blurry' bans, because you know that drawning your line somewhere overall would do more good than bad. I assume you would be also okay with some authority figure implementing those lines and regulations ( if you are not, i am curious what other system you can offer how it should go down and how the bans should be implemented) [when i say authority figure, i am talking about the site's owner] . My question would be then, why do you okay with the things i mentioned above, but you are not okay with restricting the sharing of misinformation? I assume your biggest problem with it , that the term 'misinformation' in not defined and exact enough and you fear the people will be banned in an unjustified way. I think the rules should be based upon a few really clear, precise well defined principles.If anyone has counter arguments against the use of principles please share it. Principles could be used as a system or as a tool, if you put your input into it (for example your post) you should be able to evaluate in the vast majority of the cases what the output will be (output in this case would mean if your post is banworthy or not). Of course this is begging the question what principles should be used. It would depend on the site or on the platform, but i think using principles would be a good structural solution. I guess there are certain principles that are being implemented already, but there could be more used. I have an idea for the misinformation regulation too. If you are unsure about your post or about your article, if it contains misinformation or not, you should put a label on your post (this would be a new mechanic that could be implemented) . If you don't put any label on your post, then the moderators will assume that you know, that if your post contains misinformation you have a high chance that you will be banned. With that being the case, other people would be able to see the label on your post and they would either avoid it or would be reading it with caution. I know this mechanic could be weaponised just as anything else ( because you would be able to post any shit without any punishment if you label your post ) but on the other hand, it would do more good in my opinon than bad. I would add here, that the algorithm would mostly show the posts and articles that has no label on them. With that dynamic being used everyone would be massively incentivised to post articles and posts without labels [which means that they must be factually correct]. I think that dynamic would be massively beneficial for everyone. But the implementation has its own problems with it, but i think the idea in an of itself is not that bad. It would motivate people to be more factually correct before they want to post something Other people could consume articles and posts and information easier and in a more conscious way ( because they could see the labels) So overall our global sensemaking would be much better.

Language is something that is invented. The purpose of any language is to represent something. That something can "exist" , however the pointer (the language used) is invented. You can attach any meaning to any symbol. The underlying meaning that matters, not the symbol. The symbol is just a pointer or a tool to point to some underlying meaning/factor. But the symbol itself can't represent fully the underlying structure, just in a finite way.