Sociopath Community

Tryptamine said: 

it's usually more useful to sound right than to be right, which is depressing, but probably obvious. the more sad part is that it's often useless trying to be right

I've found the socratic method to be useful in changing people's opinions.

What is the socratic method? It's a form of dialogue where, instead of arguing against the other person, you adopt their view and ask questions which are aimed to show how their view leads to contradictions.

For example, suppose someone both believes that sexualization is immoral but is fine with promoting nudity on twitter. In that case, one could ask how they can reconcile both those views. This works if the other person is objectively wrong. It can't work if they're right. 

Example from Trevor Noah (4:04, 8:38, 11:03, and 12:00)

Tryptamine said: 

something i run into often, but rarely ever discuss

i follow streaming, and right now there's a lot of girls making donation cash by hanging out in hot tubs or pools in their rooms, basically just wearing minimal clothes. people are upset by this. limmy of old british television fame wrote this about it on twitter:

limmy said:

Selective outrage. That's what this Twitch hot tub thing is, in a nutshell.

Hotshot streamers in the Recommended panel, regularly hitting out with "retard", "fucking bitch", etc. And their chat is a cesspit.

But a woman in a bikini? Who will think of the children?!

people on the livestreaming reddit are eating it up, "the gambling streamers are 100x worse" even though mob opinion has been against the sexualization shit, until everyone reads something they think makes sense and instantly switches opinion, or agrees with something because a feeling kicks on. never mind that two wrongs don't make a right in what he wrote (but who actually cares?)

it's usually more useful to sound right than to be right, which is depressing, but probably obvious. the more sad part is that it's often useless trying to be right

 Very true. Being right means nothing if people dont accept that you’re correct. They like the “truth” that they agree with or can relate to. Not the actual truth. Chicks should be able to make their cash however they want. Showing your body shouldn’t be met with hatred, although I am not into showing my body, I can understand why it is done.

It’s like my Cardi B analysis. It’s empowering because you get money for having and showing your body. That’s not hard work, but guys waste they’re hard earned money on it. People hate because they don’t like that dynamic and they think you shouldn’t cheat the normal “guys win,” mentality as it relates to sex and sexuality.

If the girl controls that dynamic, it makes the guy seem like a tool to be used for the girl’s own benefit. It’s like they’re praying on guy’s only weakness. Exploiting their very nature by using a girl’s natural ability to extract necessary resources from a guy with her sex appeal.

Natural selection at work in the modern world frightens guys and ugly girls because it takes the control from the guys and puts the attractive or shameless girls ahead of the conservative or ugly girls who are supposed to be ahead of the game due to our value system that promotes conservative values and belittles all other ways of thinking and being.

Women are supposed to be innocent, fragile, and hide their bodies from everyone but their husbands. Thus, exposing your body hurts our core values and puts other women at a disadvantage, while exposing the power that women have over men, which is also supposed to be nonexistent because of the patriarchy.

Men rule the world, not women, but this proves that women rule the world or could if they wanted to. It reflects the idea that behind every powerful man is a women who is more powerful because she controls her husband with her desirability. Her looks, her brain and her ability to say no to sex with him. 

I disagree with refusing sex in a marriage, but it’s a commonly held belief that sex ends when you get married because the girl already has what she wants and can use sex as a weapon to continue to get what she wants because the guy is stuck. No sex from her means no sex at all and guys need sex. That’s probably why they watch the chicks in the hot tubs. Just my take. 

Tryptamine said: 

people on the livestreaming reddit are eating it up, "the gambling streamers are 100x worse" even though mob opinion has been against the sexualization shit, until everyone reads something they think makes sense and instantly switches opinion, or agrees with something because a feeling kicks on. never mind that two wrongs don't make a right in what he wrote (but who actually cares?)

Do you think what is happening is that the people are realizing the hypocricy of being against one bad thing while simultaneously being ok with something worse?

If so, then objectively can't they be right by adopting a view that is either OK with both things (their new view), or not OK (your view) with both things?

Tryptamine said: 

it's usually more useful to sound right than to be right, which is depressing, but probably obvious. the more sad part is that it's often useless trying to be right

Sounds like you are giving up here.

idgaf about your constructive conv retard 

Logan said: 

Tryptamine said: 

it's usually more useful to sound right than to be right, which is depressing, but probably obvious. the more sad part is that it's often useless trying to be right

I've found the socratic method to be useful in changing people's opinions.

What is the socratic method? It's a form of dialogue where, instead of arguing against the other person, you adopt their view and ask questions which are aimed to show how their view leads to contradictions.

For example, suppose someone both believes that sexualization is immoral but is fine with promoting nudity on twitter. In that case, one could ask how they can reconcile both those views. This works if the other person is objectively wrong. It can't work if they're right. 

Example from Trevor Noah (4:04, 8:38, 11:03, and 12:00)

The Socratic method is good, but can be pretty difficult to be practical with. Let's say you believe in chemtrails, we could flesh that out with the method ("and so then planes spray chemicals, just like fluoride is in our water, to poison us?")...While this is good in the sense that it feels more non-confrontational to others, it also requires a lot of quality dialogue to get anywhere. The person may give poor responses and double back on a previous answer when they find it leads to some inconsistency, or it might just not be worth the time on your part. I'm not knocking the format—it's a good one—just pointing out why I don't use it often.

NotImportant said: 

It’s like my Cardi B analysis. It’s empowering because you get money for having and showing your body. That’s not hard work, but guys waste they’re hard earned money on it. People hate because they don’t like that dynamic and they think you shouldn’t cheat the normal “guys win,” mentality as it relates to sex and sexuality.

If the girl controls that dynamic, it makes the guy seem like a tool to be used for the girl’s own benefit. It’s like they’re praying on guy’s only weakness. Exploiting their very nature by using a girl’s natural ability to extract necessary resources from a guy with her sex appeal.

My view is that morality is subjective, and a person's behaviors, desires, and morals should be in sync for the sake of their own psychological well-being. I would probably think a person is an overall net negative to society if their job was to market tobacco products to younger people, but it's not like I'm a supreme moral authority. Same logic applies to sex workers, although I don't actually have a negative opinion of what they do.

When it comes to what I brought up earlier (basically selling sex appeal on Twitch), I think it's bad that guys spend their money for crumbs of attention/recognition from these girls, and that parents are paying so little attention to their kids that their money is going to these women in the form of donations. I also think Twitch is hypocritical in trying to look morally upright, while allowing kids to get exploited. But I definitely don't blame the women here.

Logan said: 

Tryptamine said: 

people on the livestreaming reddit are eating it up, "the gambling streamers are 100x worse" even though mob opinion has been against the sexualization shit, until everyone reads something they think makes sense and instantly switches opinion, or agrees with something because a feeling kicks on. never mind that two wrongs don't make a right in what he wrote (but who actually cares?)

Do you think what is happening is that the people are realizing the hypocricy of being against one bad thing while simultaneously being ok with something worse?

If so, then objectively can't they be right by adopting a view that is either OK with both things (their new view), or not OK (your view) with both things?

I don't think the people are seeing the hypocrisy. I think that they seen Limmy's take, and that it was worded in a catchy way and had some sense to it, so they got on board with it. The thinking is like, "oh, that's so true that there are far worse things happening," but these same people rail hard against women blatantly milking sexuality. It's another case of an argument winning based on its appearance rather than its content, in the same way that snarky quips are appealing to some.

Tryptamine said:

The Socratic method is good, but can be pretty difficult to be practical with. Let's say you believe in chemtrails, we could flesh that out with the method ("and so then planes spray chemicals, just like fluoride is in our water, to poison us?")...While this is good in the sense that it feels more non-confrontational to others, it also requires a lot of quality dialogue to get anywhere. The person may give poor responses and double back on a previous answer when they find it leads to some inconsistency, or it might just not be worth the time on your part. I'm not knocking the format—it's a good one—just pointing out why I don't use it often.

I'm not sure that a lot of quality dialogue is strictly required. I think what is required is a well-poised question (example 8:38). However, to propose a well-poised question, it's necessary to understand the other person's view. This is the reason why the dialogue enters the equation -- and you're right that it does often require effort.

However, I'm not sure if there are any faster alternatives? I'd argue that without understanding someone's view it's in general difficult to change their minds (socratic method or not). E.g., pointing towards a meta-analysis of chemtrails is helpful if the person trusts science, but not helpful if they don't.

I don't think the people are seeing the hypocrisy. I think that they seen Limmy's take, and that it was worded in a catchy way and had some sense to it, so they got on board with it. The thinking is like, "oh, that's so true that there are far worse things happening," but these same people rail hard against women blatantly milking sexuality. It's another case of an argument winning based on its appearance rather than its content, in the same way that snarky quips are appealing to some.

That's fair, I tend to agree.