Sociopath Community

Tryptamine said: 

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.

 Or perhaps it's just breaking up a binary thought train by providing additional perspective or, as some suggest, introducing some nuance. 

This is why people ought to focus more on Deontology, rather than Feelings or Ethics. Sticking with a code, even when the results don't seem ideal, is a way to establish consistency and eventually surpass the walls that once held it back. 

LiYang 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

Sounds like you are giving up here.

Sounds more like to me that his aim in discussion is to win, rather than exchanging and compromising opposing viewpoints. 

Logan said: 

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.

 We used the Socratic method at Berkeley and it was useful to people, but I never learned anything that way. People just said the obvious things to get credit for talking. My professors were good at making it work to some extent, but people didn’t read the required reading, so there was nothing deep that people could add. Also, if they did say something interesting, it would be a liberal idea that everyone agreed with, except me. That was annoying, but I shared my view most of the time. 

omg i feel sick

NotImportant said: 

We used the Socratic method at Berkeley and it was useful to people, but I never learned anything that way. People just said the obvious things to get credit for talking. My professors were good at making it work to some extent, but people didn’t read the required reading, so there was nothing deep that people could add. Also, if they did say something interesting, it would be a liberal idea that everyone agreed with, except me. That was annoying, but I shared my view most of the time. 

You went to Berkeley? Cool.

My experiences of Berkeley students: They are homogeneous in their views and have mastered the nod™. Berkeley seems to frown upon anything right-wing in a way that I find fascinating. I'm not surprised to hear about your experience. Places like Chicago U. seem more open to the free exchange of views and ideas. Milwaukee is perhaps too "liberal" in their beliefs.

Did your views get challenged in any meaningful way?

If the students dont have views, as you suggest, then there is nothing to challenge and thus no use for the socratic method.

In teaching, I can see there being potentially other dangers with the method as well. It can lead to cynicism if students assume they can question anything and presume nothing can be ascertained (technically true but not conducive to progress). It can spike hostility if the students don't respect others' views or resort to sophistry (e.g., you finding the Berkeley students' liberal ideas annoying is an example).

I still place it above most teaching methods; I think students should continuously challenge and cross-examine their own views, values, and knowledge because in the absence of said examination they'd only be parroting things they don't really understand.

At any rate, I love Socrates. I have even invented what I call the "socratic troll:"
1. Make a bold, easily refutable claim;
2. Defend the claim, acting like an idiot until the other person feels comfortable enough to start making sloppy claims themselves;
3. Apologize and admit where you were wrong, and then start tearing down their sloppy claims with a socratic dialogue;
4. Observe as they double down out of pride, even if it means claiming black is white and democracy is fascism.
Works every single time.