Persuasion: Difference between revisions
Fractalguy (talk | contribs) (Created page with "Is it better to be technically correct? Or is it better to be heard and understood? What is the point of entering into a debate in the first place if it is not to persuade the other person? And if the point is to persuade, why is the majority of modern discourse consist of people talking past each other? Repeating tired old arguments and reflexive responses like two amateur chess players that memorized the same strategy book. It does not seek to understand, connect, i...") |
Fractalguy (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Is it better to be technically correct? Or is it better to be heard and understood? | Is it better to be technically correct? Or is it better to be heard and understood? | ||
What is the point of entering into a debate in the first place if | What is the point of entering into a debate in the first place, if not to persuade the other person? | ||
And if the point is to persuade, why is the majority of modern discourse consist of people talking past each other? Repeating tired old arguments and reflexive responses like two amateur chess players that memorized the same strategy book | And if the point is to persuade, why is the majority of modern discourse consist of people talking past each other? Repeating tired old arguments and reflexive responses like two amateur chess players that memorized the same strategy book. | ||
The debate of [[science]] versus [[superstition]] and [[misinformation]] is one of the most important debates in human history. It is | Modern discourse does not seek to understand, connect, identify, or resonate with the other person, simply to "win" in the eyes of some nonexistent judge, and gain the approval of the already convinced on [[social media]]. | ||
The debate of [[science]] versus [[superstition]] and [[misinformation]] is one of the most important debates in human history. It is of the utmost importance that enough people are convinced of this before nuclear [[war]], [[climate change]], or some other existential global calamity is caused by [[In-group|humanity's inability to come together as one]]. | |||
Revision as of 12:49, 2 February 2024
Is it better to be technically correct? Or is it better to be heard and understood?
What is the point of entering into a debate in the first place, if not to persuade the other person?
And if the point is to persuade, why is the majority of modern discourse consist of people talking past each other? Repeating tired old arguments and reflexive responses like two amateur chess players that memorized the same strategy book.
Modern discourse does not seek to understand, connect, identify, or resonate with the other person, simply to "win" in the eyes of some nonexistent judge, and gain the approval of the already convinced on social media.
The debate of science versus superstition and misinformation is one of the most important debates in human history. It is of the utmost importance that enough people are convinced of this before nuclear war, climate change, or some other existential global calamity is caused by humanity's inability to come together as one.