Signs that your opinions function more to signal loyalty and ability than to estimate truth: You find it hard to be enthusiastic for something until you know that others oppose it. You have little interest in getting clear on what exactly is the position being argued.
Did you just make the fallacy of assuming that Republican Tea Party members are a proper representative sample of all Republicans being represented in that study?
"9. You find it easy to conclude that those who disagree with you are insincere or stupid." ... or mentally ill, or "off their meds". See for example crooksandliars.com.
How can you demonstrate that as an objective definition? I'd argue a debate is where two or more parties take opposing views and argue the points for them (possibly conceding if they think they are wrong or have lost the argument), whereas looking at a topic from different angles to move toward a solution is brainstorming.
Totally on board with this. If A and B are contradictory, then AT LEAST 1 OF {A, B} IS WRONG; the alternative is that AT LEAST ZERO OF {A, B} IS WRONG. When you're trying to be as sensitive to inaccuracy as possible, inconsistency seems to be the fastest possible way to root out a mistake, and so should be tested for frequently.
Otherwise, you end up with thinking that believing the sky (on a clear, sunny day) to be both blue and pudding is more accurate than believing the sky to be gray. I would disagree.
The statement is that if it makes you "uncomfortable" it may be more about signaling loyalty and ability than seeking truth. You may be able to take that position, but still feel unfomfortable about it. If your opinion has consequences, you might be uncomfortable with that risk. Less risk causes less discomfort.
I think you misunderstood about positions of certainty. It's not "of the certain and the uncertain position, you should be willing to accept the uncertain position." It's "You should be able to take the position of being uncertain which of two valid-seeming sides is correct."
You -- the purveyor of an Argument Website! -- succumb to the very weakness you are trying to argue against. Unbelievably, you slander "the average Joe... at a Tea Party gathering" as generally stupid and insincere and, therefore, his/her argument is worthy of dismissal.
Would you agree that the Tea Party movement is, at its core, about economic issues -- anger/concern over the Administration's and Congress' policies that are believed by the movement to be damaging to current and future economic progress?
Would you also agree that an outsized number of Tea Party "Joes" identify themselves as Republicans? According to Gallup, 83% of supporters are Republican or lean Republican, 4% who are pure independent (don’t lean to either party) and 13% who are Democratic or lean Democratic. (Source: http://pollingmatters.gallu...
If we can agree to begin there, try this argument on for size: According to polling on economic issues by the Pew Research foundation (no right-wing organization), Republicans were found to be more knowledgeable than Independents who were more knowledgeable than Democrats.
How's that for your average Joe? But it certainly is easier to dismiss their arguments because they must be "stupid and insincere."
What a wonderful illustration of item no. 9. You should try a bit harder to "overcome your biases."
I am interested in plenty of things I've never had an argument over. Trains for example. And now I will get to argue with people who are now only interested in trains because the gov't is about to spend money on them. Their issue is the money, but they will argue trains to show loyalty. It wasn't interesting to many people before the money was involved, but it was to me.
But doesn't this hold true only if the person you are discussing this with is perfectly intelligent and logical? It is possible that the person who holds the opposing view is holding it due to irrationality or ignorance of the true facts. How would you know which of you is being irrational or ignorant?
For instance, if I described the policies which those who are in favor of teaching both evolution and intelligent design support, I'm sure most supporters would not agree that this is their view. However I believe I am describing the policy position accurately and they are not.
Yes, what we believe is correlated with what groups we are members of, but joining a group does not make many points of dispute true or false! If you had said "belief is a social product", that would be more plausible although I still see plenty of scope for belief with Robinson Crusoe.
I agree #8 did not belong, especially when so many partisan arguments deploy distant examples, invoking Founding Fathers, FDR, Munich, Scopes Monkey Trial, whatever, not always relevantly.
Great post. Lists can be very eloquent, apparently. Congratulations on crossing out number 8 - which I really think didn't belong - showing you do not follow number 10...
Thanking you Kind Madam/Sir.
Did you just make the fallacy of assuming that Republican Tea Party members are a proper representative sample of all Republicans being represented in that study?
"9. You find it easy to conclude that those who disagree with you are insincere or stupid." ... or mentally ill, or "off their meds". See for example crooksandliars.com.
How can you demonstrate that as an objective definition? I'd argue a debate is where two or more parties take opposing views and argue the points for them (possibly conceding if they think they are wrong or have lost the argument), whereas looking at a topic from different angles to move toward a solution is brainstorming.
Totally on board with this. If A and B are contradictory, then AT LEAST 1 OF {A, B} IS WRONG; the alternative is that AT LEAST ZERO OF {A, B} IS WRONG. When you're trying to be as sensitive to inaccuracy as possible, inconsistency seems to be the fastest possible way to root out a mistake, and so should be tested for frequently.
Otherwise, you end up with thinking that believing the sky (on a clear, sunny day) to be both blue and pudding is more accurate than believing the sky to be gray. I would disagree.
The statement is that if it makes you "uncomfortable" it may be more about signaling loyalty and ability than seeking truth. You may be able to take that position, but still feel unfomfortable about it. If your opinion has consequences, you might be uncomfortable with that risk. Less risk causes less discomfort.
I think you misunderstood about positions of certainty. It's not "of the certain and the uncertain position, you should be willing to accept the uncertain position." It's "You should be able to take the position of being uncertain which of two valid-seeming sides is correct."
You -- the purveyor of an Argument Website! -- succumb to the very weakness you are trying to argue against. Unbelievably, you slander "the average Joe... at a Tea Party gathering" as generally stupid and insincere and, therefore, his/her argument is worthy of dismissal.
Would you agree that the Tea Party movement is, at its core, about economic issues -- anger/concern over the Administration's and Congress' policies that are believed by the movement to be damaging to current and future economic progress?
Would you also agree that an outsized number of Tea Party "Joes" identify themselves as Republicans? According to Gallup, 83% of supporters are Republican or lean Republican, 4% who are pure independent (don’t lean to either party) and 13% who are Democratic or lean Democratic. (Source: http://pollingmatters.gallu...
If we can agree to begin there, try this argument on for size: According to polling on economic issues by the Pew Research foundation (no right-wing organization), Republicans were found to be more knowledgeable than Independents who were more knowledgeable than Democrats.
How's that for your average Joe? But it certainly is easier to dismiss their arguments because they must be "stupid and insincere."
What a wonderful illustration of item no. 9. You should try a bit harder to "overcome your biases."
JWHDelaware
Source: http://pewresearch.org/pubs...
great list. typo in 19 tho. at should be a.
I am interested in plenty of things I've never had an argument over. Trains for example. And now I will get to argue with people who are now only interested in trains because the gov't is about to spend money on them. Their issue is the money, but they will argue trains to show loyalty. It wasn't interesting to many people before the money was involved, but it was to me.
Steve, I'm lost on the term "ability" also.
Anno, how is that supposed to clarify? Is ability
9. You find it easy to conclude that those who disagree with you are insincere or stupid.
Does that include thinking those who disagree with you are sincere and intelligent, but biased? Or ignorant?
But doesn't this hold true only if the person you are discussing this with is perfectly intelligent and logical? It is possible that the person who holds the opposing view is holding it due to irrationality or ignorance of the true facts. How would you know which of you is being irrational or ignorant?
For instance, if I described the policies which those who are in favor of teaching both evolution and intelligent design support, I'm sure most supporters would not agree that this is their view. However I believe I am describing the policy position accurately and they are not.
Yes, what we believe is correlated with what groups we are members of, but joining a group does not make many points of dispute true or false! If you had said "belief is a social product", that would be more plausible although I still see plenty of scope for belief with Robinson Crusoe.
I agree #8 did not belong, especially when so many partisan arguments deploy distant examples, invoking Founding Fathers, FDR, Munich, Scopes Monkey Trial, whatever, not always relevantly.
Great post. Lists can be very eloquent, apparently. Congratulations on crossing out number 8 - which I really think didn't belong - showing you do not follow number 10...