scrape_r_rational/data/cache2/2es58d.md

[D] I Am Smarter Than You Are - Essay on argument and discussion by /u/tundranocaps

• Author: u/None *

• URL:

• Score: 0

• Created: 2014-08-28T01:24:05

Post:

Link to content

Comments:

u/blazinghand [+15] Chaos Undivided (8 hours later)

In general, this was an awful read. I am writing this post because I want people to not waste their time as I did. This guy may well be very intelligent and good at discussion, but I can't imagine how cruddy the discourse must be on that subreddit that this post actually improves things.

Here's a summary of what he says, as far as I can tell:

1. If you disagree with people, they don't like that.
2. If you have a discussion that's about asking questions and sharing ideas, it makes people less mad, which is good.
3. By asking questions instead of disagreeing, you learn more about the other person's ideas, which is good.
4. If, after learning someone's position, you still disagree with them, you can agree to disagree, which is good.

u/Nepene [+7] (12 hours later)

While he's apparently smarter than that person he is also abysmal at writing long posts and has a lot of irrational arguments dotted around here and there.

Let's summarize, paragraph by paragraph.

1. I am smarter than you.

2. This is relative, in that you are more stupid and I am more smart.

3. The typical exchange is a smarter person explains stuff to a stupider person who can't reason through stuff.

4. If the gap is too large you can't educate.

5. I deliberately riled you up.

6. This is what I imagine goes through people's mind when others explain stuff.

7. This is why people like appeals to authorities, because it makes them feel good,and why people hate them, because they can't attack them.

8. I can't teach you how to have a discussion despite being smarter, it took my entire life (first really iffy proposition, you can certainly pass on tips...)

9. Why am I doing this? I've had bad discussions on this subreddit.

10. Discussing stuff to sharpen your wits indicates you are immature. (as a mod of /r/changemyview I disagree, immaturity is independent from your purpose in a discussion, I haven't seen any real correlation).

11. Devils advocates are bad. People who believe conversation is for consensus are bad.

12. They are uneducated as research shows that arguments just entrench your position (not really a full and accurate view of the research. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2011.01210.x/abstract;jsessionid=8923C5D3BA24331DCE7025FC9F05406E.f03t02?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1981-01285-001 people can be and are persuaded by strong arguments when they have personal involvement and time to consider. They don't change their mind on short timescales though without emotional involvement.

13. People are clueless because you can't have debates while arguing over semantics.

14. Discussions are there to express your view, not to win or lose arguments. (this varies massively from person to person, the whole next part of the discussion is mostly personal view).

15. Devil's advocate viewers are cheating as they aren't expressing their view and he doesn't like this.

16. Devil's advocate viewers use imaginary internet points to win and so are frustrating as they just try to find the best argument to win imaginary internet points and massage their ego.

17. Err... what is he trying to say here? Something about discourse helping you? He doesn't really define his terms despite his self admitted purpose of sharing experiences.

18. Devil's advocate arguers are young and frustrating and get mad easily and eventually get bored and stop being devil's advocate arguers. They also don't address your arguments.

19. They are shitty to debate with because they are selfish and lack empathy.

20. To be a devil's advocate person requires empathy and knowledge.

21. To change views ask questions rather than imparting knowledge and respect people (yeah, that's vague)

22. Agree to disagree is good because you don't waste your precious resources of time and will.

23. Why write this? Hope springs eternal.

24. I hope this improves things.

A long rambling and disorganized post that is mostly focused along a stereotyped view of devil's advocate people as young, annoying, lacking empathy and knowledge and some false research.

u/AmeteurOpinions [+1] Finally, everyone was working together. (12 hours later)

Huh. Well seeing this was still worth posting it here, I guess.

u/Nepene [+4] (13 hours later)

Thanks. I do think it's important that we reject some things from /r/rational . A subreddit that can explain why anything is worth submitting isn't a very discriminating subreddit.

u/Newfur [+2] Crazy like a fox. Literally. (2 days later)

This was a terrible read, and he has basically scrawled "ASSHOLE" in neon orange ink all over his face. It does not help to deliberately piss someone off and then say "Hah, see, I got an emotional response out of you, look at me. Also, I take that thing back about me being necessarily smarter." and then later on say "No, seriously, I'm smarter than you, so nyah.". In sum: Ban this sick filth.

u/AmeteurOpinions [+0] Finally, everyone was working together. (a minute later)

Figured y'all would appreciate this.

u/eaglejarl [+9] (7 hours later)

I gave up on it partway through. He started off being deliberately offensive in order to make a point, then immediately showed that it wasn't just a literary device by saying:

Now, let me be frank; I'm probably more experienced than most people who speak regularly around here with making arguments, and arguing, whether it's to dismantle the other's points, to show them points they did not consider, to try and have a dialogue, or just to win by "points". I may be smarter than most people, but I'm not smart or experienced enough to teach all of you how to actually have a discussion.

He then goes off on a long ramble in which he tries to teach us how to have a discussion, but there's no framing -- I don't know where he's going, although it seems like he's restating his initial, deliberately offensive, point in wordier and less directly offensive but more patronizing language.

After a few paragraphs I gave up. Did he eventually get to a point, or did it just boil down to "if you want to have a productive discussion you need to be nice to each other, willing to really listen, and willing to admit that you're wrong"?

u/JackStargazer [+2] Primordial Apologist (16 hours later)

It's not even that. It eventually gets to "You'll grow out of being 'edgy' devils' advocate arguers you arrogant 13-23 year old males" and "You shouldn't try to convince people of things with argument and evidence, it doesn't work even on the audience". Nepene's summary above is accurate.

It's just written so badly that it is hard to read.

u/AmeteurOpinions [+0] Finally, everyone was working together. (11 hours later)

Hrm. Maybe I set up a wrong expectation, but your last paragraph is about what they were getting at.

---