The tragedy of a conflicting opinion

You know, theirs no point in convincing another of your view.

In my view the act of debate is nothing more then a game with no victor, neither party walks away thinking they lost the debate.

All that occurs is an argument whose result is either the illusion of winning or the boredom of leaving. Being unable to answer a question has never been a loss.

The act is like magic, those who change their mind do so not because your popularily used arguments were satisfying but because they got bored.

The whole point of debate was to convince the other, but it failed when everyone tried to convince the other without ever planning on eing convinced.

Thus the people cannot be changed from who they are, the left will be who it is and so will the right, they'll never magically become the only victor of a society, you can't change a being whose functions of mind include the rejection of what they aren't like, its unfair certainly, but perhaps their is a solution for those who see past the idea that you have done anything.

Sure, you can commit the act repeated in history, the act everyone claims to want to stop, the one that puts a bad mark on you in history. But thats not the root to anything but itself. The act is slaughter and all it brings is slaughter.

Rather, perhaps we could simply find whats common and set up locations for the differences, instead of expect the entire thing to fit the needs of the currently elected. Who come and go based solely on random intervals of unpredictable nature.

The idea that a society is meant not to change and not to become something it wasn't is futile and the nature of life seems too, like the nature of nature change.

If the world accepted a shift in ideas and permitted differences instead of attempting to make people stand where they cannot stand, perhaps life would be of more comfort, with less of a presence of the thing you don't like.

but in irony, only some will accept such a view, one of difference, instead of identical.

>You know, theirs no point in convincing another of your view.

And you you wrote all of this garbage.

>leaf

Absolutely, because i'm researching it, its also fun to watch people try. I'm aloud to make statements, just like you. Infact I'm only searching for those who agree.

>In my view the act of debate is nothing more then a game with no victor, neither party walks away thinking they lost the debate.
This is only when two ideologues debate/ Besides a debate is not to change your opponent debates are for the audience desu, the audience is who you are trying change

You seem like a well read individual. Please don't cast your pearls before swine. Sup Forumss median age is 14. They look at politics the way teenagers look at their parents.

Political debate should be something as intellectually stimulating as economics or even a hard science. Instead you'll be left with pic related.

>Sup Forumss median age is 14
da fuq is this true?

the audience is going to take the portions of their kind, you change no one.

actually i'm more interested in my research then formal debate, i cast arguments to recieve their opposition, this allows me to level up. By swallowing their sweet sweet dopamine.

only the low IQ, I don't think you understand how debates work or what they are for desu. Besides your ral gripe here is that most of the population are so low IQ they are incapable of hearing a conversation (debate) and deciding positions based on rational ideas but will rather always stay stuck in their illusions. This is nothing new, your basically complaining too many people are not very bright and this is true but those people are never in control of anything anyway so convincing them of anything doesn't really matter it is the intelligent people you are addressing, they are the decision makers

This is a fact. I had this discussion with a friend. The only thing i get from arguing is more mental agility in dealing with attempts to disarm my propositions.

The amount of people willing to have minds change is so small and the subjects within which they are willing to accept change so narrow that it's nearly pointless.

I don't know what to do, because if i lay down my position speaks freely and may even crush me but if i argue they refuse to admit defeat... i guess that's the point of violence and war. Without violence opposing dogma can't ever be silenced. Thus we have discovered the origins of violence.

fixed typo: This is a fact. I had this discussion with a friend. The only thing i get from arguing is more mental agility in dealing with attempts to disarm my propositions.

The amount of people willing to have minds change is so small and the subjects within which they are willing to accept change so narrow that it's nearly pointless.

I don't know what to do, because if i lay down, my opposition speaks freely and may even crush me but if i argue they refuse to admit defeat... i guess that's the point of violence and war. Without violence opposing dogma can't ever be silenced. Thus we have discovered the origins of violence.

Debate always has been and always will be to sway to audience. The debaters are supposed to represent their ideas. The audience is lightly changed by the outcome of the debate.

>a debate is between two parties
>the audience... what is that?

I have seen bystanders get new concepts from debates that were lost, because teachers and media only gave them one definition to work with.

This is why you have debates in public. Your goal is not to change the mind of the person debating you- they are most likely set in their ways, at least in the short term. Your goal is to change the minds of the people watching the debate. Many of them will be on the fence, or on the opposing side but still open to your arguments.

Also your children will one day ask "daddy these communists say nice things, why aren't we commies?" and years of debate will help you eloquently explain why reds are not humans.

heh, did einstein become convinced of quantum mechanics?

Lol maybe just stop trying to change them, give them a place to stay and do different things?

If one polishes a rock is it still a rock?

They felt like loosing that time, based on greater factors, good luck with a major change.

right but everyone pretty much left the same, half do not leave convinced , because if they did they would have literally swapped sides and we'd all go crazy over ever changing minds.

heh, communists can have their place, i probably wont be taking part however. Their issue is mostly the same, don't force it on others.

You're not going to change everyone's minds, obviously. You might change ~10% of the audience, if you are lucky.

>theirs no point
>theirs

dumb leaf

why? :P

Right, so its like casting a magic spell. Convincing people is thus basically a coincedence. This is also why elections are horrifying.

Argument has more to do with not killing each other. It's actually a natural human thing to argue because it avoids conflict. It's just how we're adapted. If I told you, you no longer have free speech and your opinions are illegal what are you going to do? You can't really reason with me and the only alternative to passionate argument is conflict.

Then they build strength until they can overthrow you.

Do you seriously see nothing wrong with that?

I mean sure, but could we just avoid both, cause neither really works. Arguing is dysfunctional and conflict also fails to have any real effect in the modern world.

What? that theirs no point?

...

debating is nothing but a psyop to prevent groups from getting shit done. (((They))) want everyone confused and against each another, so the community can never reach an agreement to meet their needs. In the end they all listen in on the jew who already knows he can get what he wants by demanding what he needs to do divided masses. This is what Jim Jones did in his cult, he made his members ridicule each other in a debate so no one trusted anyone except Jones himself who would give them orders to abide by.

debating is heavily taught in schools and made to be seen as something everyone must do before undertaking some sort of task.

The truth is debating is nothing but feeding the childish need of gaining approval from others and the authority who will ultimately approve the opinion. Its like needing to ask your parents or teacher or whatever that you need to go the bathroom. In a war this would be unthinkable, you don't get approval from the enemy to shell them or carpet bomb them, you just fucking do it.
An adult doesn't need approval, he fucking makes decisions on his own based on his needs and is prepared to take the responsibility for the consequences of that decision.

You're one of those people that voted for Trudeau aren't you? Limp wristed liberals mang.

If something is truly a bad idea it must be confronted. This is why I hate SJWs they shut down speech like it will prevent people from growing their following. It does the exact opposite if the alt-right is any example.

>I'm only searching for those who agree
Gee, no wonder you don't like debating...

Lol maybe we aren't supposed to try and rid the world of what we hate at all. Because its the poking and prying to change a person that causes them to want you gone.

It's there's, not theirs, ya dumb moose jockey

>The act is like magic, those who change their mind do so not because your popularily used arguments were satisfying but because they got bored.

I don't know, usually people may convince me if they present hard scientific fact and I cannot find any holes in their reasoning ... though usually after evaluating I come to some kind of compromise. Ok, if it is about topics where scientific fact may not be easily applied I tend to follow a "live and let live" mentality. But maybe I am just one big exception...

Since you do research on this may you maybe enlighten me a bit about the neurobiological or cognitive basics behind all this? Think this is rather interesting...

Objectively wrong. I've been swayed by arguments on a number of issues.

The thing is, in order to get anything out of a debate, you have to go home and develop the opposing position more than your opposition was able to do in the debate.

If you're smart and clear thinking, you can discover a lot of stuff about your opposition that way

Yeah i did, since then i quit weed, which was the only reason really.

On the other hand, sjw's are the exact opposite of what i'm talking about. Both however are consistently trying to change your mind and remove the other.

>those people are never in control of anything
>He doesn't know how his own political system works

Hmmm? Why should I expect someone who doesn't have any interest in what I have to say, to beleive me?

Well, since most people function based on what they were raised apon, the circuitry in their brain is designed to process information in the way it is used to, due to this they do not usually tend to think in another form. The dopamine and other chemicals are not arranged the same way, so you see people saying I don't understand why they'd think that way. But thats just a theory.

I think the mechanism behind SJW is a cognitively a mixture of social shaming to assume dominance coupled with unmoveable and mostly emotional core beliefs and self gratification ... kind of like religion except without the paranoid-schizophrenic bouts of religious mania or the classical hallucinations of God's voice or spinning-wheel-of-buring-eyes-style angels.

Must have a genetic reason. Have always assumed that the advent of agriculture and stratified society neccesitated some kind of cognitive adaption to provide cohesion of groups too big for true interpersonal relationship.

No you pretty much fit with a prominent SJW I only listen to, to know my enemy. Contrapoints is fairly smart actually in "Xer" arguments. Xhe believes basically the same thing you do. In Xer words it's not about argument, it's about education.

I do that backwards, I listen to the opponents opinion everytime and my opinion is constructed from the entire base of their opinions. That however isn't the point, you may be swayed but thats not necessarily a good thing either.

>The audience
Also, you can seriously debate someone with opposing views, you just need to look into the roots of your and their viewpoints. The one with the more legitimate roots of viewpoint is correct. Or perhaps there is a balance between your positions.

Dopaminergic system may be a good point. Our brain tends to get its kicks if we propagate our core beliefs. Interesting fact, there are different variants of dopamine receptors in humans ... small genetic polymorphisms but with a huge effect. Usually tend to lower the sensitivity of the dopaminergic system and some of them correlate with increased exploratory behaviour and a "curious" mind. No idea if this is related to core beliefs but if they trigger dopaminergic reward maybe these less sensitive receptors allow you to be more flexible with your opinions since you do not get that much of a kick from following them. Damn, I should maybe follow that theory further...

Big question: are people with a tendency for depression more likely to be convinved of other opinions if the facts are solid? I mean not while they are in a depressive episode, then they would most likely not even care...

Hmmm, perhaps, but unity is a bad idea, the means they go through is rather absurd and lacks a certain degree of respect for its opponents.

the root of each is incompatible with the other, in my view you can't truly select a correct view. Only in some views is it considered the right view.

>you may be swayed but thats not necessarily a good thing either.

It is good. The idea that you were born with the correct perspective is nonsense. Everybody needs to learn and grow--- and that requires changing your perspective.
It's only by recognizing our cognitive biases and working against them that we can move towards the truth.

I think discussion is generally a good thing for a society.

I disagree. There are discernible roots to any position, and critically evaluating those roots for validity tends to come to a strong answer.

Take human egalitarianism. We know that great inequality exists within humanity, between groups and individuals. Egalitarianism, however, is based upon platitudes and creationism. Critical evaluation leads to a stronger result.

Actually they can discern your political beliefs from a brain scan 95% of the time. Right wing people tend to have more well developed threat response systems and memory. Left wing people tend to be less aware of threats and are less likely to learn from bad experiences. Don't quote me on that but that was the idea at least. I'm not sure how they could tell from brain scans, it was poorly explained.

Then we come to possible conclusion, political belief may be genetic or environmental.

>Then we come to possible conclusion, political belief may be genetic or environmental.

These represent literally the only two factors that could possibly exist to explain any belief, or any aspect of humanity.

I think stratified societies have one problem in general: social parasites. May be a harsh word but after a certain threshold a group simply becomes too big to directly control and govern the integrity of every person. Genetics dictate that those who achieve the most while investing the least will become dominant ... but that would definitely lead to a total collapse of a society which relies on stratification and complex interaction (agriculture). One misharvest due to a too high number of "social parasites" may spell doom for the entire community and reduce everyone's reproductive success to nil. Therefore, evolutionary pressure extends to the whole group, the whole society.

If such a group of humans then evolves cognitive patterns to effectively self-govern (maybe in case of religion based on the fact that people tend to not act like idiots if they feel like being watched ... and one core principle of modern religion is "God's All-Seeing Eye" in a way) the overall fitness of said group would increase as long as they adhere to their stratified lifestyle. At the same time, group core beliefs have to be strongly defended in order to keep the peace while the few "wayward sheep" whose genetics allow for more flexible mindset need to be actively suppressed else they would realize that going against the interests of the majority may even benefit them. A shift of reproductive success from the individual to a kind of "group effort" with strong mechanisms to stabilize this socially stratified construct.

Ok, wild theory with a lot of holes but I have a feeling there might be something to it...

Being swayed by others' arguments is the whole point of discussion. It absolutely helps you grow. You cannot independently take every conceivable approach to every conceivable topic and evaluate them all accurately. Why not draw from the human hivemind?

Oh yes, I do remember that study! May be tied to the fact that some populations had changed earlier to living in cities. This would give them protection, making threat response less required for survival while the higher population density might trigger constant stress responses in those with a strong threat response, effectively reducing their fitness without a benefit.

Other populations however transitioned from hunter-gatherer directly to semi-nomadic pastoralist lifestyle with lower pop density but a more "dangerous" environment. Sure they have retained more of their inherent threat response than the urban people.

This existence is a kobayashi maru, friend.

Fear would be the explaination i have, because in society we see people use two kinds of arguments, one that is reasonable and one based on fear. Those based on fear scare people into beleiving things they didn't want or previously beleived, the problem with that is that these scary ideas can become the only thing a person sees. Thus you have depression. Note however that certain people are actually comfortable with those dark ideas, but those who do not have that due to their variations do not feel anything but suffering in their new world view.

Thus a way out of that is to learn to become selective in what you beleive rather then simply beleive things due to a blind state of saying oh that makes sense im going to beleive it, which has no true guidance. Sometimes its better to learn some flexibility in mind, based on the things that still make the person happy, basing themselves on the inate over the new ideas that torment them. Thats still hard to do, due to cognitive dissonance and the desire to self confirm a beleif coming from yourself.

Idk if i explained the second part well btw.

I thought environmental only covered exposure to the physical aspects of one's life. Like exposure to chemicals and shit.

Oh, i see. the word is usually used more generally in the context of this discussion

Btw I love you Sup Forums guys, always some Anons around who help me kick my brain into overdrive! Thx for the input!

The correct perspective is nonsense, to say that any specific opinion is correct is like saying rocks are better then trees, its a matter of what you personally are, irrelevent of your birth opinion.

The danger i was referencing is the blind changing of it and that it doesn't necessarily lead to any actual answers.

Right there's also a link to stress and reduced memory. It may be some kind of defense mechanism against depression. Like recalling bad events or stressful experiences may lead to a vast increase in suicide throughout human history. I have reason to believe this is an adaption because it's something that would lead to greater survival and reproduction. This tends to explain most adaptions. There are probably some people who are not adapted in this way though as not all genetics are the same.

Interesting point, would tie in both the threat response and also the "internal social pressure" ... good question what is more prevalent, fear of direct threat to one's wellbeing, meaning the more "primtive" threat response / danger avoidal, or fear of losing social standing which is strongly tied to reproductive fitness.

Btw those "dark ideas" ... kind of resonates Nietzsche's dichotomy of the Übermensch and the "last man". That crazy bastard got some ideas quite right...

Security vs risk-taking, again two different styles to achieve reproductive success. Ok maybe I am leaning too much to the genetic/neurobiological side of this whole thing but hey I actually work in Neuroscience so I tend to explain human behaviour from a biological viewpoint.

right, but its when you try to take it away that it becomes problimatic.

Right so why do we so desperately try changing genetics with words.

Even if you did not kill yourself the constantly increased cortisol levels in your blood would severely hamper your reproduction, especially in women that may lead to huge complications during pregnancy. It is also implicated that high cortisol has a negative effect on your children's IQ.

May sound a bit dystopic but if you know the genetic factors involved you may screen people and determine whether they are core belief adherant or mentally more flexible. What one may do with that knowledge I would rather not like to imagine.

You're wrong about that. There most definitely is such a thing as an incorrect perspective.

--- The earth isn't flat. If you think it is, you're wrong. If you think things around you are happening because the government is trying to prevent you from going to the south pole, you're wrong.

Take what away?

You can't just deconstruct right and wrong like that. The existence of gray areas in certain cases is not the rule. You can say rocks are better for us than trees if you back it up with reason and debunk your opposition.

A better example is that gold is more valuable than silver. It is rarer and more resistant to corrosion. This isn't controversial, but can still be applied to controversial topics.

T. Unaware of Persuasion

I've even changed the minds of government posters and shills. If you know what you are doing, it's remarkably doable. You just need to understand the sleeper effect.

Absolutely, this is your brain on deconstruction. Orange does not exist because the definition of orange is not concrete.

it does work after an time, but they have to want it. most consciences are awful people

Right, but theirs a consequence to inbreeding

I don't think its relevant to the idea that taking away a persons view can only be done through fear or murder and anyways a person thinking the earth is flat actually doesn't really do much if it isn't forced on others.

Right, in a perspective. But this isn't really on the topic, the correctness of an idea shouldn't justify the removal of others because the truth is half subjective.

Both the atheist and theist think themselves the right one, if we justify removal of false ideas then we justify a war between both.

Yes there is but if it provides enough increase in reproductive rate nature usually tends to take the deleterous deal ... just has to get the balance between decreased offspring fitness and total increase in offspring right. Evolution does not aim for anything noble or beautiful. The most cancerous breed usually comes out first except in especially harsh environments were resilience is required.

>taking away a persons view can only be done through fear or murder

This just isn't true. I don't really understand what you're trying to say. I think this is because your idea is incoherent.

You should learn how to debate, plenty of people debate with me and end up convinced of my view afterwards.

This isn't really a sensible approach to the topic. Nobody is threatening their right to think, but people have the responsibility to dispute their incorrect ideas in the public sphere, harmful or not. And this doesn't even go into when people with stupid and incorrect ideas start infiltrating mainstream institutions and wreaking havoc with our society.

Gray area doesn't mean the end of right and wrong. As for the theist/atheist issue, neither can prove the other wrong. That's a pretty exemplary case in which you could say both points of view could be valid because it's pure opinion rather than concretely based. But you could say that it is immoral to bring someone up without some kind of universal moral code.

Contradictions are great

DUNNING-KRUGER EFFECT AND ANOSOGNOSIA MAKE DEBATE IMPOSSIBLE IN MOST CASES.

YOU CAN ONLY HAVE AN HONEST DEBATE WITH A HIGH IQ INDIVIDUAL CAPABLE OF ADMITTING THEY ARE OR MAY BE WRONG.

Never underestimate the power of making someone feeling like an idiot.

But what is it their breeding ? Because the consequence of either increasing or decreasing open mindedness can have adverse effects, in an open mind scenario people have increased rates of psychosis, in a decreased scenario they develope totally different opinions based solely on other variables, selecting the variables would cause inbreeding due to similarity in genes, you could make adjustments but thats not even counting evolution itself ( bacterial infection, environmental change ) plus what do you do about outbreeding and control, is it a brave new world ? Don't even get me started on its internal failures of lack of new discovery, due to dogma on a genetic level.

Better would be to do it semi naturally based on not removing the other forms. Just placing them outside the contradiction.

Heh, you could always have seperate locations for the two oppositions, meaning you have one location where things behave a certain way and another a different way, those no longer interested simply go to the other place. No offense taken, in this way it permits a continues society that doesn't get destroyed and simply vanishes when the peope are done with the world or have transcended to their next one.

That only leads to depression.