Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement
Vložit
- čas přidán 14. 06. 2024
- When you discuss a topic and everyone agrees, the conversation often dies out quickly. But when you disagree, you're putting yourself in opposition to what was said and the discussion continues. Paul Graham, a computer engineer, therefore proposed a “Hierarchy of Disagreement” in 2008. Learn at which level you are able to articulate your disagreement. Hopefully it’s not just name-calling or responding to tone.
Go to Patreon and join our efforts to educate teachers and others on how to communicate better:
/ sprouts
DOWNLOAD video without ads and background music 🤫
sproutsschools.com/video-less...
SIGN UP to our mailing list and never miss a new video from us 🔔:
eepurl.com/dNU4BQ
SOURCES and teaching resources 🎓:
sproutsschools.com/grahams-hi...
VISIT our website :
www.sproutsschools.com
CONTRIBUTE by upvoting your favorite topic or suggesting new ones :
sprouts.featureupvote.com/
THANKS to our patrons
This video was made with the support of our Patrons: Andrea Basilio Rava, Angela, ArkiTechy, Artur, Badrah, Brilliant Minds Learning, Cedric.Wang, David Markham, Delandric Webb, Denis Kraus, Digital INnov8ors, Dr. Matthias Müller-Mellin, Duane Bemister, Esther Chiang, Eva Marie Koblin, Floris Devreese, Frari63, Gatsby Dkdc, Ginger, ICH KANN DEUTSCH UND ES WAR EINFACH!, Isabelle, Jana Heinze, Jannes Kroon, Jeffrey Cassianna, Joanne Doyle, Johan Klassen, John Burghardt, Jonathan Schwarz, Jorge Luis Mejia Velazquez, Karen Lewis, Kenneth Natvig, Leonel, Liskaya, Marcel, Marco VanGuff, María, Marq Short, Mathis Nu, Matthias Ruck, Mezes.Macko, Mindozone, Mique XO, Muhammad Humayun, Nicki, Okan Elibol, Paul Hopkins, Peter Bishop, Petra, Raymond Fujioka, Robert Cook, scripz, Sebastian Huaytan Meder, Si, Stefan Gros, Stephen, Stephen Clark, Stuart Bishop, Susan Schuster, Tetiana Gerasymova, The Freudian Centre, Tristan Scifo, Victor Paweletz, Wolfgang Vullhorst, Yohanan Schwartzman, Yvonne Clapham and all the others.Thank you! To join them visit www.patreon.com/sprouts
COLLABORATORS
Script: Jonas Koblin
Script Editor: Morgan Lizop
Artist: Pascal Gaggelli
Voice: Matt Abbott
Coloring: Nalin
Editing: Peera Lertsukittipongsa
Production: Selina Bador
Sound Design: Miguel Ojeda
SOUNDTRACKS
Nice Toy - Studio Le Bus
Guilty Pleasures - Olive Musique
DIG DEEPER with these top videos and articles:
• The Non-Violent Commun...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophist...
SOURCES
www.britannica.com/topic/crit...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Gr...
www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html
QUOTES: WHO SAID WHAT?
“Abortion is legal because babies can’t vote” - Joseph Bonkowski
“No woman can call herself free who does not control her own body” - Margaret Sanger
“Race and skin color are socially constructed, not biologically natural.” - 1st tenet, Critical Race Theory
“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” - George Orwell
CLASSROOM EXERCISE
Visit our website to find out about suggested classroom activities!
CHAPTER
00:00 Opening quotes and statement
00:52 Introduction
01:19 Graham's hierarchy of disagreement
01:32 Level 1: Name-calling
01:48 Level 2: Ad hominem
02:14 Level 3: Responding to tone
02:41 Level 4: Contradiction
03:08 Level 5: Counterargument
03:41 Level 6: Refutation
04:13 Level 7: Refuting the central point
05:05 Benefit of knowing the form of argument
06:06 What do you think?
06:58 Patrons credits
07:07 Ending
#disagreement #communication #sproutslearning #paulgraham #hierarchyofdisagreements
Support us to make more educational videos at www.patreon.com/sprouts.
Cool
I have an argument, I believe people of Reddit will be enlightened and updoot this video if I were to share it with the world.
@@Vayne29 Pls do!
People don't care how much you know until they know how much you care
Even the strongest argument is useless against stupidity.
When finding oneself in a disagreement, proceed with the highest level of argument.
If the presence of stupidity becomes evident in the opponent, disengage.
One's time and energy to that point have been wasted, except for the discovery that stupidity is present.
It would be foolish at that point to waste any more time or energy.
Wise advice indeed. 👍✅🎯👏🏽
Wisdom: 100.
Name calling 1:34
Ad hominem 1:49
Responding to tone 2:15
Contradiction 2:42
Counter argument 3:09
Refutation 3:42
Refuting the central point 4:13
Not All Heroes Wear Capes
What about just ignoring them? Maybe the narrator is not as smart as he thinks.
@Thatoneguy agreed, there's no point arguing with a flat earther.
I find that disagreements are rarely about getting to the truth. A million other things are going on beneath the surface.
when an argument is not about the procurement and dissemination of truth, it is almost always true that someone is being deceptive, that the argument is based on opinion, or that someone is not actually arguing but instead proselytizing.
if you find yourself in such a situation, I would suggest stepping back to discern which is the case.
if the argument is based on subjectivity, point this out, it should dissolve the argument.
if there is deception, further look into what the intended deception is, then confront, it should cause the deceiver to panic and expose their horrid behavior, or disengage.
if the other is proselytizing, find out for what, then confront, the preacher will likely turn to deception as a response.
why do you say that?
I wanted to point out that H. Maturana proposed that if you're willing to start an argument or engage one, you must be willing to change your mind.
@@aidenaune7008who argues about objective things?
Isn't that just what scientists do?
@@PIZZAdayisback firstly, you are using "objective" wrong, it is a relational term, not an aspect. it relates one thing to another, like it being objective that the human body is mostly water. you need two things, a subject and an object, in order to use the term. instead, a better word would be "absolute" or "true."
secondly, how can you know something is an absolute truth without proof of such or an argument as to why? would you blindly believe someone if they told you the sky was green if you had never seen it? you cannot just believe everything told to you, and you cannot believe it is a lie either, you must be able to discern what is true and what is not, and the best way to do so is an argument.
lastly, just in case you misunderstand what I was trying to say, not all arguments are yelling matches. an argument simply means a conversation about a disagreement.
I grew up in a family where conflicts were not resolved but forgotten and ignored. Now it's hard for me to resolve conflicts, I just withdraw into myself, close myself up and pretend that nothing happened, hoping that over time everything will be forgotten and return to normal.
I understand because it's your way of coping!! It's your way of avoiding conflict passively!!! I'm that way to!!! It hurts because you are usually the one who's never heard but hears everyone else. If you ever speak up about a subject to others, then you'll be then characterized as a trouble maker ect..... not the ( sweet little person they can do or say anything to or about)!!!!! Although you finally had some valid input, it's something wrong with you according to them!!!! It's a cycle and you will probably end up retreating back to your quiet shell!!!! You'll will eventually have to navigate when to speak up or when to just not say anything!!! It's tricky and difficult because you aren't the difficult person. Not expressing yourself sometimes isn't Mental healthy for you either!!! Like Kenny Rodgers said" You Gotta Know When to Hold Them , Know When to Fold Them, Know When to Walk Away and Know When to Run!!!" I try to live by that on all subjects!!!!!! It certainly helps!!!!
@@rondasmith4037 Hello! Yes, often in order to avoid conflicts I can just pretend, but resentment remains because of which I can be passively aggressive to others and auto-aggressive.Hello! Yes, often in order to avoid conflicts I can just pretend, but resentment remains because of which I can be passively aggressive to others and auto-aggressive. I hope everything is fine with you!
@@Sintembb Yes, that's so true and I to have had to realize the bitterness ect. . that I have inside for being a doormat all of my life!!! I now have to be aggressive sometimes or voice how I'm not gonna let anyone walk all over me again without saying anything!!! The sad truth is the aggressiveness is just a facade because I really am an introvert who hates drama!! I also have to spend time alone so that I can mentally regroup!!! I help others in needed ways but often neglect myself!!! My diagnosis is Major Depressive Disorder, with other symptoms. I still fall hard! Trying to navigate others with there needs and forgetting my own needs is also depressive!! Thanks for your sharing and concern!
@@rondasmith4037 I often have to show aggression although I'm not a big fan of drama either. I'm sorry that you're suffering from such a disorder, I hope you all get better.
That’s my husband. I can never resolve anything with him because he shuts down or changes the subject which is super annoying. Now I have a tendency then to keep arguing with myself for a sake of expressing my views and feelings and that goes nowhere other than escalating my anger. Can’t deal with it.
1. As we have seen in the abolishment of slavery, voting status is not the deciding factor of who gets basic human rights.
2. Partial agreement. Freedom includes how one uses and cares for your body, but a woman cannot exercise control of her body by gouging out someone’s eye with her thumb. Your rights end where another’s begin.
3. There are known genetic factors that cause a difference in melanin distribution in the skin, as well as facial structure and muscle density.
4. Fully agree. The only way to deal with bad ideas is to discuss them openly without threat of violence or legal repercussions.
This is literally what every discord users need to know xd
Sometimes the arguments is just full of weak disagreements.
No. We do not need more error spread with skill, confidence, and total lack ofcare.
@@TheDavidlloydjones who is this "we" exactly?
@@TheDavidlloydjones Nathanoakley1980, Brian's logic, quantum eraser.
Represent.
I would say even Reddit and Twitter, but is hard to pierce their adamantum skull
@@simonebernacchia5724 If you try to argue with anyone on twitter they'd either cancel you or just dox you
A good rundown of the types of counteragruments however if anyone argues that the Earth is flat, it is certainly not for the lack of videos of the Earth from space. It's that they don't believe those videos are genuine. So using Earth in space videos as an argument in this debate is pointless. Frankly, given the amount of BS being promoted as truth for the last 2 years I myself am starting to doubt a lot of things I thought were settled .
If you think what you saw is BS why do you doubt yourself? It’s like the saying what you repeat a thousand times actually becomes a reality or something like that?
Maybe then show them books that talk about how Ferdinand Megallen made a round trip on a ship around the globe and returned to the starting point.
They wouldn't believe that either, would they?
Good, welcome to real world
Nathanoakley1980, Brian's logic, quantum eraser.
Represent.
keep on doubting, that's how we got where we are (and i don't mean about the shape of our planet) and don't let idiots drag you down. they're idiots. you're not 'cause idiots never have doubts. 😉
Race and colour are an effect of genetics which decides our phenotypes, so clearly, they have a scientific root. However, there is no superior or inferior colour or race. A fish swims, and a bird flies. They are different and diverse. One can't mark a clear superiority or inferiority here. As the bird drowns in water and fish suffocates in air. Everyone is important for the functioning of a society. Maybe there will be a genius fish to invent an air suit and genius bird to be able to go scuba diving.
Yes
I disagree. We do not use race in science, we use gemides(I think I spelled this wrong). Race is real but the decision to make it distinct is what’s socially constructed. For example height and race are the same, we can find very clearly distinct heights all across the world based of Geographical places. Just like race, it happens because of where we live. So we could have had races based on height and they would’ve been equally as true.
@@popsickle3549 sure, there is no strict boundary that segregate people. Just like height we have a spectra of skin colour. If one takes ancestry test, we always find our ancestors from around the world...there is no pure blood as ancients used to believe. We all are humans, with the same number of chromosomes.
@@snowrider9995 I agree
We have scuba-diving birds. They're called "penguins." ;-p
Many might disagree, but I learned this a long time ago when my teacher told me to think twice before responding. Now many people I know have to think twice if they want to understand me.
1 - namecalling
2 - Ad hominem
3 - Responding to the tone
4 - contradiction
5 - counterargument
6 - Refutation
7 - refuting the central point
Paul Graham, 2008
what book is based on this video?
Awesome video! I think it's pretty inoortsnt to know how to debate and argue nowadays, when social networks give us constantly a place to put this hierarchy on trial.
I going to share it on Twitter right now, let's see if people wants to learn about it!
Thanks 🙏🏻
this comment is satirically sublime whether intentionally so or not.
when there is a disagreement in topics, the most open minded and wise thing to do is 1- clarify what others are saying. Repeat it to them to make sure thats the point they are trying to point across. After making sure that you understood their statement, its important to do the 2- and this is the most important thing that most people DO NOT DO, which is , to actually do ask questions from the other person to understand why do they believe what they believe, and if there was no time, or the person is not able to explain clearly, to ask them for more info, for example, if a person thinks earth is flat, the open minded thing to do is to have them send you links to watch, books to read, and completely learn about the topic fully, the same with political sides, and economics, and etc. To understand why people believe the things they believe, its important to actually throw yourself into their world, and learn about other sides that is out of your comfort zone. That is how you become knowledgable, smart, can have interesting and wise debates. I teach this to my daughter, never argue, debate, open your mouth about issues, topics that you have not learned deeply, researched, yourself, instead of listening to tv box.... Everyone has an agenda to push and nowadays its hard to find anything , if you see anything online that has debunk videos, the more curious you should be about that topic! that means its a good info they are trying to hide. If you show flat earthers the google photos of the flat earth, you will offend them, because thats not actually what they believe. thats just an example.
that right there is basically just a description of the scholastic method, developed in the early middle ages and spread though the ancient universities. It was a variant of this that lead to another important thought process: the scientific method, where we just direct it towards nature itself rather then just another person. But in order to have any of that we first need to have an idea that the universe is orderly, something that is uniquely Christian.
The bad and difficult think with the step 2 is that the people have limited amounts of time to invest .
Most discussions takes place in emotions. Thus making it futile. I have often had better results just saying "I disagree", shrug and walk away
Good video! sometime the argument becomes something that you want to win and not about to learn. and in my opinion This Is the big problem.
Can u make a video on opinions. Like how one becomes fixated on his opinion and won't ever change it no matter how much proof or contradiction is given
There's video on defected KGB agent that has the answer to your exact question.
@@dubvc1 Demoralization?
@@puddintame7794 yessir👍
Response to tone is what I've seen a parent do when realising the kid was right but frustrated because it had trouble getting their point across. It's an 'excellent' way to distract the child from the subject just so the parent can continue 'being right', while leaving the child in confusion and supressed anger.
Excellent video! I made notes and tried to dissect what I heard. Made my understanding greater! It even helped me formulate my thoughts on the viewpoint I opposed, which allowed me to make _multiple respectful (and on topic) counterpoints,_ instead of thinking, “That’s wrong, so stupid.” It’ll take practice, it’s extra work, and it’s a high bar to reach but, so worth it. I feel proud of myself rn. This is the content I live for!
Great attitude, man
you haven't much experience with idiots, don't you? 😏
We are educators, and the world is mean
No, implying that the entire world is mean is simply ignorant of the good in the world and is a very simple (and dangerous) way of thinking because humanity's tendency to be negative.
How did I do with that one?
Great work 🥳 Thank you 💜
This is probably one of the only places you will find well-constructed arguments in a comment section
Very interesting, thank you!
1) At the base of this argument there's two ideas : the first is that the woman is putting her needs before the fetus's, but the fetus will suffer if he does become a baby, not if he gets aborted. The second one is that the rights of the fetus are being ignored, however, the most logical reason why the fetus should have rights is that it might become a human being, however that logic is flawed because, although different, there are many situations where everyone would disregard something that might become a human being, sperm, egg cells, etc
2) absolutely true, the control over our own body is the most basic of all rights, so unless the woman can't or isn't in the right state to make an important decision, she should always have control over her own body, even in the case where she would make the wrong choice.
Seems in conversations, when disagreeing. Only Agreements & Contradictions are what i do. Love to know what you guys do!! 😄😄
absolutely brilliant video
Everyone should have to watch this.
I feel happy this video exists
No. Other than their own progeny, the generation before always blames the next, and vice versa.
2. YES. When a predominantly male group makes legislation limiting female anything, they have no common basis for understanding and are therefore wrong.
3. The pigmentation is biological, the reactions to it are not.
4. Absolutely.
It is my right to say it, it is your right to not listen to it.
- BPB.
Thanks
Thanks
The ones that I have disagreement is the firsts two statements, which I consider to be related.
In this sense, is not just a matter of having control of your own body, but also having to deal with the life of another human being. If freedom is inherent to everyone, the unborn person should also be considered for that purpose, regardless the capability to vote, which is, after all, also an act of freedom.
I am not taking a position regarding rather abortion is right or wrong, or if women should have more control over their body, but I believe I am pointing out an argument to effectively oppose the firsts two statements together.
It is a very complex theme discussed around the world by parliaments and even supreme courts of justice.
I welcome anyone who wants to build a constructive debate regarding.
This is what I've noticed with politicians
I agree, if a women doesn’t have control. Her body she is not free, her body is a part of her being, and is she isn’t in full control of it via someone using or taking advantage, means a part of her isn’t free
One more is to be added.(from my perspective) asking questions abt there argument.something like socratic method
I had to get over stage fright, public speaking is not my thing, yet i got over it.
I agree with truth when I discover it. I have nothing to say about incorrect thinking of others.
"I have noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born" - Ronald Reagan
Imagine having to do multiple takes for this one.
"We are educators, and the world ain't round".
You can hear the delivery get slightly hastier the 5th time. Had a good chuckle from that one.
Fantastic topic covered by the way, I was just rehearsing these points to some peers of mine - invaluable insight for clarity.
Bro, I heard 'We are educators and the world ain't brown.' :/
by engaging with them you acknowledge their idiocy. never engage with idiots, it's contagious, time consuming and, mostly, pointless. they're idiots. 😬
I prefer first to let the person explain more his point of view and argue it
I look around the internet and it's all stage on eof disagreement
I am gonna use all of these, in case I'm loosing argument.
However, sometimes rhetoric IS more effective than dialectic. Especially when dealing with the below average side of the bell curve... All of the well crafted dialectic in the world isn't going to get through their lack of cognitive ability, let alone their existing programming.
you, you've met more than your share... 😹
How ironic. Your opinion is outdated. 2012 called and wants it back.
Times have changed, old timer. Nowadays the majority on both sides in the US are easily brainwashed by rhetoric.
I've learned to be an assertive communicator, rather than passive and aggressive.😊😊😊
Awesome video. I do think that you encounter problems when arguing a point when an individual takes that point as personal item or identity. You counter the notion that the world ain't round with various facts and logic, but the person who made the statement now feels that you're attacking them because the belief that the world ain't round is a core and fundamental belief which gives them a sense of identity. They are part of the "educated" group who have higher knowledge, you doubt the sage wisdom they as educators have provided. You challenge the point they have made, but they in turn get offended and start calling you names. What started as a genuine conversation has now devolved into screeching, zealous, anti-social behaviour.
Sometimes, you just can't convince fools.
Yes 👍 👍
This was good
You could say, "If the World is not round then what is it?" So that when you argue you make sure you are not talking about the same thing.
I think it only works if both sides willingly participate in moving up in hierarchy of arguments.
Usually arguments move down, fast.
I'd name the video "The rudest disagreements to the most polite ones". This is the strongest disagreement I guess then.
"if liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear" I agree, I think that all people should have the right to say what they want as long as they don't call for violence, or what they say could be harmful to others, like shouting "fire" when there isn't a fire, but that said people dont't have to listen to them, they simply can't stop them from speaking in the first place, so you can't ban people for saying what they want to as long it isn't harmful.
Yes, good argumentation SHOULD make a better world. But many have arrived at erroneous beliefs through feelings and tribal loyalty. Presenting good argumentation may actually be counter-productive. They’ll dig their heels in.
If you really mean to correct erroneous belief it may be necessary to deconstruct why the believer came to their belief from a social and psychological perspective. “Believing the Earth is flat makes you feel smart, right? You must admire the person who convinced you the first time.” They are probably not crazy or stupid for arriving at their beliefs. Adopting those beliefs brought acceptance from their chosen group.
Excellent video, once again doing a great job at helping people think critically. I would offer a further level of response that is more discursive, rather than merely countering.
Instead of immediately rebutting a statement you disagree with, ask neutral, respectful questions aimed at understanding why they believe what they do, before providing your own view e.g. 'that's a thought provoking idea, what makes you believe that?'. This will help get to the root of the statement without causing defense. If you don't find their statement convincing, your response can be 'how interesting, I personally feel X because Y'. The aim is to take a journey together in pursuit of knowledge and understanding. You might find that you challenge your own preconceptions in the process, or gain greater sympathy for those who disagree with you.*
*Naturally, you could still receive responses that seem emotive and ill considered, but at least this way you encourage others to think critically with you, rather than becoming defensive and more entrenched in preconceived ideas.
Great point!!!
Seek first to understand where the other person is coming from. All disagreements come from a fear of losing something. Find out what they fear losing to understand why they think and feel the way they do.
You left out the concept of Truth. There really is True Knowledge and False Knowledge and lifeforms need true knowledge to survive.
When you engage in a conversation objectively looking to be the winner and as a result making the other party the looser I think you both loose. Part of why political and religious discussions go no where. The most rewarding conversations I’ve came across are when you try to understand the other party. Understand their cognitive processes and why they conclude what they conclude. Understand potential biases you may have and they may have. Are we speaking from emotion rather than logic? Often times if you are overly emotional about a topic you open yourself up to being bias. There’s something to take away from every social engagement. If you want to wrestle with someone for the sake of it. Chess is probably better or jiu jitsu. Food for thought.
I agree!
It seems that all of these statement's were specifically made to be, for most people, morally in the right but not for the right reason, or for a misleading, vague reason. Which is why, in most cases I believe one should always ask for clarification or elaboration on an argument they disagree with.
We are educators and the world ain’t round.
:yes
and run to live another day
1: Disagree. Many dying people cannot vote, but that doesn't mean we can kill them. Black people in the past also could not vote.
2: Disagree. There's a certain thing woman and even man cannot do with their own body, such as being completely naked in public, and we as a society put limits on our own freedom.
3: Disagree. Our race and skin color is biological, but our ways to treat others can be constructed.
4: Agree. Dumb people must be told that they are wrong, and they must change for the betterment of themselves and the society.
5: ??? Who is "we"?
EDIT: on the 4th statement, I don't mean to belittle someone who lack certain information. I forgot to say that we must correct these people with gentleness and graciously.
Thanks Ray
@@sprouts I'm a bit confused on the fifth statement, the video suddenly uses two characters who refer to themselves as "we" 😂. "We" can possibly include me as well, so I object right away.
Nice video, tho! I've shared it to my discord server, so more people can be educated on how to argue well.
Much love 💖Thank you very much!
Lets agree to Disagree.
I disagree your agreement.
I agree with your disagreement
I destroy this thread
Classic 😋
Thanks for sharing this video, much appreciated.
I’m quite pleased that I thought about saying that the world was more like an oval shape. But I thought that that would be a slightly obnoxious response. Although I do understand that it is also a really good response because it’s not connecting the two statements and forming an possibly incorrect assumption about this. The “central point”idea, is such an interesting way of looking at things but - being totally honest, in order to really get a proper understanding of this, I’d have loved to have been guided through each one of the statements. I’d find it difficult to do this on my own after only 8 minutes.
🙂❤️🐿🌈
(6:30) I'm gonna go back to the points listed at the beginning of the video and try to refute them
1. first of all, abortion has to do with unborn fetuses, not babies. Second, children aren't able to vote yet killing them is illegal
2. The same applies to men, so I'm confused by the quote
3. Something I heard about this a few years ago from a trusted source alters how I think about this to the point that I don't know what to think anymore
4. That is incredibly vague. Also, we have dictionaries and can check what liberty actually means
4• limiting speech that we agree with isn't rational [likely], only that with which we are naive, ambivalent, or oppose. 'free speech' is not just the right for one to speak, but also the right for one to hear others speech. if a person is prevented from hearing an idea by a third person or authority, then they have lost a choice of their autonomy. even if the opinion is 'bad' or 'irrational' or 'unsubstantiated,' it could be any listener that would be able to refute it or better formulate it towards a workable solution - if given the opportunity to first hear it. there is no other way to progress except through a conflict of ideas and a negotiated [argued] solution of compromise or agreement. limiting speech only reveals an inability to think or defend one's own opinions. edit:typo
I don’t know the names in english, but those are all sophism which are ‘False claim or reasoning despite appearance of truth’
Sophism which comes from Sophists who opposed Socrate with these kind of answers.
I see many links to Arthur Schopenhauer's dialectics ("Art of Being Right")
I think that
Cool video
LOL!! I can't even!
5• the earth is not round [nor ellipsoid]. circles and ellipses are flat 2-D shapes, they should be saying, "the earth is not a sphere," but the earth is not a sphere, it's an _oblate spheroid."_
however, it is a challenge to make the convincing argument in a room with relying on uncommon experiences such as "the view from space."
"We are educators and the world ain't round" My disagreement: 😡😡👊👊
Gosh if only people had discussions like this...but since even science can sometimes be wrong, what's the solution ? I need to know
If liberty means telling people want they do not want
1 Yes, 2 Yes, 3 Not really, 4 Yes.
Sadly, for most people it doesn't matter how much evidence or reasoning you put forward since they have inner emotional resistances or insecurities that stop them from accepting that information or critically evaluating it in good faith.
I have a question about reactions to higher forms of disagreements.
How do you respond to those with weak egos who lash out at the idea of being challenged at all?
You see this in modern activism.
Feminists calling men victimizers for not bowing down to them.
Vegans calling meat eaters murderers while ignoring that plants are also alive.
There are others. These are just a couple examples.
Seems like Graham is claiming the set of logical fallacies is hierarchical. Instead let's say it's communicating something about the pedagogical system of the survey population.
The truth lies always in the middle: and thus the Earth 'is' flat when you stand on it, but round when you look at it from far away. XD
World-peace activated!
Liberty Vs Freedom?
All disagreements are inherently equal and the idea of them having a hierarchy is classist 😂
I think I'd ask further if someone would claim the world is flat and they are educated. I may disagree, but I'm curious to see where they're coming from.
Yes to 1 and 4 no to all the others
If you want to learn everything about the subject, watch the MP's Flying Circus sketch Argument clinic.
I'm so above these native people
No
We don't discuss with people who say "we are educated and the world aren't round" because either they are joking, or they are too dumb to understand, and it is pointless to discuss with them in either case as in a battle of wit between a sage and a madman the madman wins as he don't understand defeat.
The first explanation I’ve seen covering Critical Thinking that ignores logic and reasoning, as in the 2,000+ year old studio of what makes a valid and sound argument, and what are fallacies.
That could be taken two ways. I wonder which way you mean it?
Could a form of valid argument also be a question, though? In the example, "No woman can call herself free who does not control her own body" that is a vague statement. Control her body in what sense? Control when she urinates? Make the choice whether or not to carry a fetus to full term? Those are two completely different scenarios. Plus, we have addressed why this hypothetical freedom isn't, so then what is it?
I do not argue much, I often just ask questions that allow people to find the conclusion I came to. It probably has a lot to do with me being a teacher, thought.
Agree, Dosagree, Disagree,
I generally try to go for higher levels of disagreement because those are far more productive arguments. However, sometimes, (and I hate to admit this) it’s just more fun and satisfying to go for the lower, infinitely more immature levels of engagement simply to get someone all wound up and pissed off. Especially if it’s a topic I don’t really care about or if I just think the person is a prick. I guess we can’t be grownups all the time..🤷🏻
👌
2• it's unjust to limit the argument to 'women' and 'body,' when no person is free who does not control the fruits of their labor which includes that and also men and what one can do with one's body - ie free will. in any society, with every rule, someone's autonomy is being limited. while not explicit in the comment, the opinion is largely associated with the debate over abortion but except in the extreme and limited examples, the woman has made a choice to engage in the activities that result in pregnancies, and while it grown within her, it is not her body, but another that lives.
I can't really say I agree with any of them, because I'm not 100% sure what any of them mean. All are subject to more than one interpretation, so I would need to clarify what the speaker means through further questioning. Is that a default disagree?
Some would say it is a disagreement because they see it as an argument against what they are saying. There are also people that get very hostile towards anyone questioning them on their ideals or beliefs. Do try to be careful out there since there isn't reliable traits to determine if someone will become hostile when asked to clarify something they said, though some would claim there are traits to indicate hostility towards questions.
no,yes,no,yes, trick questions
We are educated, and the world ain’t round.
There is also the 'Nyahhh, Nyahhh, Nyahhh, I can't hear you' disagreement, which provides a powerful and absolutely irrefutable end to all argumentation.
You may be familiar with one of its more common variants, the 'Fuck You'.
Answer to all 5 at the start of the video:
1. No, voting isn't applicable until you're 18.
2. How do you know men aren't chained by this reasoning as well?
3. Race is a constructed principle, but both it and skin color are directly affected by genetics.
4. I have a mixed opinion and can't give a good answer to this question.
5. No, it's a sphere.
Answer at the end of the video:
The same thing basically, since I couldn't just answer yes or no to the questions without feeling morally ambiguous... I agreed with the first half of each statement, but felt that the logic behind the decisions was faulty and needed corrections before I could consider them seriously.
this video come to me after i get arguing by who call me idiot, yeah my ex friend in game tried to revenge me to joining my What'sup group games. i realized many stranger and weirdos people in game so i think i must stopping playing for a while because shes Must be planning for make my own people far from me
I'm curious. Why are you wasting your life playing video games? For God's sake channel that energy into something to better you life.
Name calling and ad homien arent the same?
Not really, when I would say for example: Your argument is wrong because you are too old to get it right, that's an ad hominem but it's not name calling per se.
@@keesdenheijer7283 i ask bc, în a way, sound similar and i cant Distinguish
they are both ad hominems. Name calling is technically an "abusive ad hominem", where the intention is just to throw an insult that doesn't refute the argument in any way. A standard ad hominem will insult the person in a way that fallaciously implies that their argument is weak due to a character flaw. There's also valid ad hominems, where the attack on the person highlights a valid reason that their argument is flawed (ie they have vested interests, they're a known liar etc.)
1• even if babies could vote, they'd likely distribute into the same camps as everyone else who has already been born and therefore beyond the scope of 'abortion.' abortion is legal because it's an easy solution to a complex problem.
I wish we could do this in politics. On twitter i see so many attacks.on how people look or their intelligence, and nothing about their policies. Im so tired of that.
Only 15K views in 8 days, what is CZcams even doing
I know
just agree to disagree on broken promise arguments
No Yes Yes No Yes