Even then it might not work. If you use this “guide” for arguing with your SO, you are in for a bad time.
People don’t want to be refuted, they want to be heard.
That post seems to be missing.
sauerkraus 4 points 3 years ago
In some contexts arguing is synonymous with conflict.
Hamartiogonic 30 points 3 years ago
Covid conspiracy nuts taught me that what wasn’t originally reasoned in can’t be reasoned out. These people don’t play by the rules of logical arguments, so don’t expect your logic to work with them. What they need is therapy, and possibly even some stabilizing medication.
C4RP3_N0CT3M 2 points 3 years ago
What does a "COVID conspiracy nut" believe? I'm just curious.
alvvayson 5 points 3 years ago
And they will only care if you also show you care.
I would say even higher than "refuting the central point" is "extracting the central truth from both sides and finding enlightenment".
Note: this is only useful if the opponent has some redeeming quality in his argument.
If you have a bad faith actor, just find the quickest and cleanest way to exit. If clean isn't possible, prioritize quickness.
ofak 2 points 3 years ago
Also, a general prerequisite: you need to know yourself well enough to be able to identify, and admit to yourself, when you're no longer rational and are controlled by emotion. Imo this pyramid is based on this fact alone, and most people are naturally capable of seeing through the facade of others once they're able to face their own shortcomings (wear it like armor).
SirEDCaLot 62 points 3 years ago
From the bottom up...
Whatever you say asshole.
A moron like you has no idea on how arguments should work.
Your self righteous infographic is just arrogant.
I know how to argue far better than you do.
I get in many arguments and I almost always win them.
You talk about disagreement, but your pyramid only works when both people are arguing in good faith.
You say that attacking the central point of an argument is the most effective, but often the stated central point is not the central point at all, especially with emotion based positions. For example, a more conservative person arguing against liberal changes will state specific objections to these changes, but arguing those objections is futile if the real underlying objection is simple fear of change.
Jokes aside-this pyramid is right on the money.
SirEDCaLot 1 point 3 years ago
Missed a line break but the text was there. Check now?
LemmyRefugee 4 points 3 years ago
No, I ALMOST WIN THEM ALL!
lemmyshmemmy -13 points 3 years ago
Nice
Walk_blesseD 30 points 3 years ago
Ok pissbaby, but you're bad and wrong.
CrabAndBroom 16 points 3 years ago
Refuting the central point: no u
Walk_blesseD 1 point 3 years ago
I… I don't have a truck.
ChickenButt 7 points 3 years ago
Yeah, I usually start at the bottom because it's typically me telling some idiot they're an idiot.
EdibleFriend 24 points 3 years ago
According to this the very base of all argument is name calling.
Cockmonger.
EdibleFriend 5 points 3 years ago
did I ask you to define my words titgoblin?
e033x 1 point 3 years ago
"Titgoblin" :
(noun) : infant, any being that derives sustenance from suckling.
(verb) : sex act. Note: linguists despair over the "verbification" of nouns, and warn that if current trends continue, language will run out of nouns some time in the 2040's. Use with caution.
wolre 23 points 3 years ago
From a logical point of view, I tend to mostly agree. The issue is, however, that many people only really change their opinion when they figure something out by themselves. While, in an argument, they won't be able to come back with anything, they'll often still hold on to their original opinion. If your goal is to change somebody's opinion, it can often be more effective to drop subtle hints over time and make them come to their own conclusion.
afraid_of_zombies2 4 points 3 years ago
What I was taught was try to take their conclusion and see how hard it is to maintain it. For example if someone were to argue with me about the truth of their particular branch of Christianity I should do is show how many assumptions I need to make to get to it. I.e. there is a god, this God is personal, this God favors human life, this God choose one particular tribe, this God waited all that time to send his son down.....
howrar 3 points 3 years ago
"Acting" implies you're pretending. Actually be curious. Ask questions to understand the other party's position. Maybe you'll get to learn more about what life is like in this other person's shoes. Maybe you'll find that there's actually no way that this person can verify that what you're arguing is true and the only way there is to trust someone who has repeatedly broken their trust. Maybe you'll actually learn that you're the one who's wrong.
fidodo 2 points 3 years ago
When I'm in an argument I don't go in trying to prove my point. Instead I ask questions to figure out what our common ground is and then build logically from there. Like we agree with these things so this other this makes sense too right? It doesn't end with agreement but it does always end with us understanding each other and them feeling like I'm being reasonable.
I think that approach does what you're saying because it builds on top of things they already agree with
BastingChemina 7 points 3 years ago
Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon — it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory. The pro-creationist reviewers of this book clearly demonstrate this to be true.
Unfortunately arguing only works if the other party is open to it.
Squiglet 4 points 3 years ago
There must be a desire on both sides to get to the truth. If one of the sides already believes he knows what is truth, then its pointless. It becomes a situation where that person's objective is not to get to the bottom of things, but to convince you he/she is right. Unconsciously I do this sometimes with some of my beliefs, and its hard not to do it. It requires some level of maturity, not getting attached to beliefs, and rather adhere to an uncertainty principle.
Another situation is acting in bad faith. Someone who gives zero shits about truth and its only desire is to advance his position/power.
The 1st example it might still be possible to bring the other around by hard facts, sometimes. The 2nd its hopeless because there is no desire for truth.
sauerkraus 3 points 3 years ago
When I argue in a public forum my goal is directed more to third parties than to an individual who may not be acting in good faith.
Boiglenoight 3 points 3 years ago
So you're saying the other wide argues by contradicting, responding to tone, using ad hominem attacks, and name-calling? 🤓
Kichae 3 points 3 years ago
Yes, but also that those tactics are clearly convincing for many.
And that's not to mention the fact that arguing the facts is repeatedly shown to be ineffective in changing people's minds.
Boiglenoight 1 point 3 years ago
I certainly feel this is the case if I try to argue with someone, particularly in a group with one person convinced of a falsehood and others in varying positions of certainty. And god help you if you concede any point due to lack of info or doubt, which just makes you look weak rather than thoughtful.
ChickenButt 1 point 3 years ago
Don't forget whataboutisms.
b3nsn0w 20 points 3 years ago
put this on the pile of pyramid charts that have nothing to do with pyramids and would have been better expressed in a different format.
like yes, the point conveyed here is not wrong, and i'm not trying to pull a "responding to tone" and discredit it for being a pyramid, but entirely without challenging the point made about arguments here, i find it so fucking stupid to put everything in pyramids. apparently people who like to think they have business smarts absolutely love a structure with few on top and many on the bottom, especially if it comes with a tidy little guide on how to hopefully reach the top. and that shows a worrying mindset, if you think about it for a bit.
ryannathans 19 points 3 years ago
Name calling is the biggest part, got it 👍
bilb 9 points 3 years ago
Because you need to eat more Name-Calling each day than any other type of argument, followed by Ad-Hominem, etc. You only need a little bit of Refuting the Central Point to reach your daily nutritional needs.
BobosGonnaeGetYe6 16 points 3 years ago
Nobody in the real world cares about this though. The only context in which this pyramid has has any veracity is in the extremely rare case where you have a group of people who are interested in useful outcome.
Generally, people argue for the appearance of having won, so will resort to any and all measures regardless of their argumentative quality. In fact, the lower below the belt you can go, the more you will resonate with the layman.
Nepenthe 1 point 3 years ago
Applying that logic would dictate that it's useless to help the poor because most people don't actually care enough to contribute. Being able to both recognize bad arguments and apply good ones is a sorely needed life skill.
Whether or not your opponent listens after that is not really your business beyond making the attempt, but you don't get to complain about an issue you never even put the energy into solving. And, generally speaking, most people will only listen when you listen.
sauerkraus 16 points 3 years ago
For a healthy diet make sure to only eat reasoned rebuttals sparingly. You should get most of your nutrition from name calling. /s
Each level of argument has a purpose. Know your audience and use whatever is most effective. You’re not going to get anywhere calling a doctor a poopyhead just as you won’t accomplish anything by presenting facts to a conspiracy theorist.
Your audience will be most effectively convinced by logic, emotion, or authority. It should be pretty simple to figure out which one to use.
davidgro 4 points 3 years ago
Calling a conspiracy theorist a poopyhead won't help either (they thrive on perceived persecution). The only thing I think Might help (and it's a longshot) is along the lines of Socratic Method.
Or even just avoidance of trigger topics and only talk to them about normal everyday stuff. That's what I try to do with my mom, even if I'm not changing her mind on anything, at least I'm not actively pushing her farther down the pit and away from me/society.
weirdwallace75 16 points 3 years ago
You can only go as high on that scale as your opponent did. For example, you can't refute the central point of an insult or an attempt at shaming without missing the point that it is simply meant to make you angry or meant to make others completely disregard you. Similarly, if the "argument" is incoherent babbling, you don't refute it so much as point out that it's nonsensical.
JoelJ 1 point 3 years ago
True, but seeing it laid out like this can at least help you to realise why you're not able to have a reasonable debate with someone in a particular topic. and even be able to call them out on it. Whether they listen or not, it can at least save you some time and cut the conversation off shorter than you may otherwise do
Th4tGuyII 15 points 3 years ago
This pyramid does present good advice, that diverting further away from the core of the argument not only makes your point less convincing, but encourages the other party to take it more personally.
However, this also relies on the assumption both parties are arguing in good faith, which on the internet at least, is becoming increasingly uncommon, with arguments becoming less of a discussion between two people and more a contest to be won at any cost.
Even I must admit I've been drawn into that competitive mindset before. Something about the way Reddit (and modern social media) works encourages people to be very volatile towards one another.
pec 4 points 3 years ago
A more useful guideline would be something like: how to steer a conversation to be constructive for both parties.
I couldn't get chatgpt to make this into a spectrum like in the pyramid but if you invert the order of the negative impact section and concatenate it after the positive liste you get the text for that pyramid. It does make sense though
Positive Impact:
- Collaborative problem-solving
- Active listening and empathy
- Finding common ground
- Constructive feedback
- Open-ended questions
- Positive tone and inclusive language
- Clarifying and paraphrasing
- "I" statements
- Avoiding defensiveness and judgment
- Seeking solutions together
Negative Impact:
- Interrupting or talking over the other person
- Dismissing or invalidating the other person's perspective
- Using aggressive or confrontational language
- Making personal attacks or insults
- Ignoring or belittling the other person's feelings
- Dominating the conversation and not allowing equal participation
- Stonewalling or refusing to engage in discussion
- Manipulating or twisting the other person's words
- Engaging in passive-aggressive behavior
- Refusing to consider alternative viewpoints
JoelJ 1 point 3 years ago
Yeah I find myself often drawn into these arguments that in retrospect feel more like dick swinging contests than genuine arguments. It seems more difficult in the moment to realise when you're too busy trying to craft the perfect retort
blackbelt352 3 points 3 years ago
Bad argument techniques are not necessarily bad faith arguments.
For example saying "broccoli is bad because I don't like it" isn't necessarily bad faith, it's just poorly reasoned and doesn't consider other perspectives and ideas. If the arguer is willing to listen to other perspectives and ideas and is willing to revise their statement to better reflect reality to something like "broccoli is not for me, because I don't like broccoli but other people do."
Bad faith argumentation doesn't try to consider other ideas and perspectives and will do everything they can to avoid conceding anything to the opposing arguments, and will continue to adhere to the original despite evidence to the contrary.
Both can use bad argumentation, but good faith argumentation reflects a willingness to adapt to new information, and bad faith will only double down on their argument despite evidence to the contrary.
southsamurai 9 points 3 years ago
You're a chiken headed poopoohead!
lvxferre 8 points 3 years ago
EDIT: TL;DR: don't do this if you're trying to convince irrational people; pull their emotional strings instead. And for rational people, focus on logic reasoning and consistency with the observed results.
For rational people*, a better way to handle this would be:
- Showing logical flaws in their reasoning;
- Showing that their reasoning conflicts with the observed results;
- Showing that your own reasoning is logically neater;
- Showing that your reasoning fits the observed results.
Most [all?] things outside those four points are fallacious mush, making shit up, etc.
For points #1 and #3, it's damn useful to know basic informal fallacies. Things like appeal to authority, false dichotomy, non sequitur, etc. You don't even need to remember their names, as long as you can spot them in an argument (including yours, before you utter it) and say "wait a minute this is wrong".
Now. When dealing with irrational people, you're probably better off sticking to the middle of that pyramid, because even if you refute the central point... guess what, the moron will put it back in place using some insane [lack of] logic. In special, fallacies like appeal to emotion, appeal to consequences, ad hominem (more on that later), genetic fallacy (pretending that shit becomes truer/falser or more/less moral depending on who says it) is damn effective to convince those people, even if logically unsound.
Regarding ad hominem. A lot of people confuse it with insults, when both things are completely orthogonal. Ad hominem boils down to "this is false because of the person saying it"; you can do it in a non-insulting way, and you can insult without using ad hominem. (For example: "Alice, you think that the Sun is green? Goddammit you're fucking stupid, here, LOOK AT THE FUCKING SUN! And here's a spectrogram of the Sun's radiation! The only green thing here is your green-stained arse, you fucking cattle" is not ad hominem, even if rather colourful with the insults.)
*"[ir]rational people" in this context should be seen as solely shorthands for "people behaving [ir]rationally towards the subject being discussed". Those are not true categories of people, just a convenient abstraction.
stevep 3 points 3 years ago
Mind you, regarding the sun being green, it's worth noting this observation from https://en.m.wikipedia.org/...
The effective temperature of the Sun is 5778 Kelvin. Using Wien's law, one finds a peak emission per nanometer (of wavelength) at a wavelength of about 500 nm, in the green portion of the spectrum near the peak sensitivity of the human eye.
lvxferre 4 points 3 years ago
The Sun does emit a lot of cyanish green light, but the overall colour from the space is white, as it emits comparable amounts of light in the rest of the visible spectrum:
And, if talking about the colour of the sun as seen from Earth, it should be a yellowish orange (as the atmospheres filters some higher frequency light).
Another detail: blackbody radiation is an approximation. A useful one, but as seen in the graph above, at least for wavelength it peaks around blue or violet. And if you plot it by frequency instead, it should peak the closest to red (counting only visible rad).
I could've used purple in the example too. Dunno why I decided for green.
Brochetudo 2 points 3 years ago
Mucho texto
Kittengineer 8 points 3 years ago
Maybe reasonably but people are very irrational. Wish they had a cheat sheet on how to disarm the natural stubbornness and inability to admit mistake or fault. That’s usually far tougher than actually reasoning.
gravitas_deficiency 8 points 3 years ago
But also, learn how to identify trolls and don’t waste your time on them.
lemmyshmemmy -11 points 3 years ago
And also bots
blackbelt352 1 point 3 years ago
Some advice I got about how to deal with people who like to use euphemisms and bad faith argument to hide their racism/sexism/XYZ-phobia (but it works even when it's not the xenophobia stuff) is to just play dumb. Be like Socrates and keep poking at their underlying arguments and assumptions.
An uncle of mine will talk about "people wearing hoodies" as a euphemism for "thuggish black people" and I'll just play dumb, and ask stuff like "I wear hoddies, does that make me a criminal?" or "What is it about hoddies that makes people criminals?" "It's a piece of cotton, I don't get what it is about hoodies that makes someone a criminal" And just keep asking dumb questions, they'll get to a point that they'll either say the quiet part out loud or just won't say their veiled racist stuff around you.
It's a bit of initial work but after a while people leave you alone because it's just a pain in the ass trying to argue with you.
DessertStorms 3 points 3 years ago
or even something simple like idiot or moron
please don't just swap out one slur for another
DessertStorms 3 points 3 years ago
Thanks for taking it in the constructive way in which it was meant, no one just knows this stuff, we all have to learn and unlearn in order to do better. :)
Aesthesiaphilia 2 points 3 years ago
Also works in terms of time & effort.
DessertStorms -2 points 3 years ago
Maybe read up on why tone policing is not a good take.
Boiglenoight 3 points 3 years ago
Going through a Fine Arts program we had to constantly do critiques of our work--with our peers (practically kids) saying whatever they wanted to about what we spent the past weeks or month working on. Some were nice, others were not, but the process helped us think critically about what was being said while becoming largely immune to how it was presented.
This has helped in other ways including being in leadership roles where you have to listen to negative feedback from team members that often have good points but share them with a bad attitude.
DessertStorms 2 points 3 years ago
That's a really good point.
I think in general paying attention to what people are saying, instead of how is a much better way to communicate.
Boiglenoight 3 points 3 years ago
It helps with stressful situations. I do customer service these days and making the customer feel like everything is going to be okay despite everything clearly NOT being okay. Focusing on what they’re saying and the issue at hand and not on the emotional part of the situation is key to success.
theragu40 1 point 3 years ago
I don't think not understanding this makes you less bright than anyone else.
The idea is that as you go up the pyramid, you are doing a better job conveying your stance by better supporting your argument. You can see at the bottom it's not even making an argument, it's simply yelling at the other person. At the top instead of cherry picking one phrase you're addressing the base argument. The pyramid doesn't really explain this, but the implication is that by being able to address the base argument you have taken the time to understand it. This is a much more effective means of argument or debate because if you understand the opposing viewpoint and still believe in your own you have already considered the superficial things that draw others to the other viewpoint and still chose your own.
thanks for using Leebra!
go to feed...
Fair warning: This only works if the other party, or the people watching the argument care. If the other party is just arguing in bad faith, don't expect to have a productive conversation. If the people watching the argument don't care and just want to see a spectacle, logic ain't gonna work.
save