My apologies, I must forgotten all about my ultimate goal of nailing you and got all caught up in just saying things because they happen to represent an accurate model of the world as I see it. Where are my priorities?
I know better than to think I know what your motives are. I did hope that you wanted to kick my ass, though. I was merely expressing my disappointment, not an expectation.
Even the simple process of filtering evidence and only mentioning that which favours one’s own bottom line can go a long way toward both winning a debate and making the discussion utterly useless as anything other than a status transaction or political platform.
If I know information that could mean that my position is wrong, it will not be my position, or I won’t start a debate. I would instead begin with “I don’t know whether A or B is true. For A, I have this info. For B, this info.” and so would never attempt to convince anybody of A or B in that case, but just hope we worked it out.
The times when I actually decide to debate with somebody, there’s a reason for it—there is potential harm in them not realizing something. The way you just did with me when you thought I was making a generalization about nerds.
I suppose the reason I don’t lose often enough is because I “choose my battles” very effectively. Perhaps when people point out my flaws I am quick enough to accept them that it doesn’t turn into a debate.
I’m not interested in empty wins. I am interested in convincing people of important things when they don’t get them. Most people are tiring to debate with, for me, although that’s because people who haven’t spent a comparable amount of time on self-improvement tend to give me such a logical fallacy ridden pile of spaghetti code that it’s simply not fun to untangle. I don’t believe that I am using unethical tactics to win. There are times when I know my opponent does not want the full volume of information I have—like in my IT job, my non-IT boss does not want every detail, so I intentionally give him a simplification—but all the relevant stuff that I know he will care about is included. He likes simple explanations better and complains if I give him the technical details. That’s all that I can think of right now, but your question will have me watching out for a while.
But shouldn’t I be confused enough, somewhere, that it’s necessary to untangle me through debate? Or shouldn’t I know someone who makes my mind look like a mess of logical fallacy ridden spaghetti code? That seems to be the experience that I miss—that sense that there’s somebody out there who can see all of this better than I do. There is an imbalance in this that I do not like.
Wanting to lose is about this inequality. I want to see minds that look well-orchestrated. I am tired of what it does to me to anticipate spaghetti code.
I know better than to think I know what your motives are. I did hope that you wanted to kick my ass, though. I was merely expressing my disappointment, not an expectation.
If I know information that could mean that my position is wrong, it will not be my position, or I won’t start a debate. I would instead begin with “I don’t know whether A or B is true. For A, I have this info. For B, this info.” and so would never attempt to convince anybody of A or B in that case, but just hope we worked it out.
The times when I actually decide to debate with somebody, there’s a reason for it—there is potential harm in them not realizing something. The way you just did with me when you thought I was making a generalization about nerds.
I suppose the reason I don’t lose often enough is because I “choose my battles” very effectively. Perhaps when people point out my flaws I am quick enough to accept them that it doesn’t turn into a debate.
I’m not interested in empty wins. I am interested in convincing people of important things when they don’t get them. Most people are tiring to debate with, for me, although that’s because people who haven’t spent a comparable amount of time on self-improvement tend to give me such a logical fallacy ridden pile of spaghetti code that it’s simply not fun to untangle. I don’t believe that I am using unethical tactics to win. There are times when I know my opponent does not want the full volume of information I have—like in my IT job, my non-IT boss does not want every detail, so I intentionally give him a simplification—but all the relevant stuff that I know he will care about is included. He likes simple explanations better and complains if I give him the technical details. That’s all that I can think of right now, but your question will have me watching out for a while.
But shouldn’t I be confused enough, somewhere, that it’s necessary to untangle me through debate? Or shouldn’t I know someone who makes my mind look like a mess of logical fallacy ridden spaghetti code? That seems to be the experience that I miss—that sense that there’s somebody out there who can see all of this better than I do. There is an imbalance in this that I do not like.
Wanting to lose is about this inequality. I want to see minds that look well-orchestrated. I am tired of what it does to me to anticipate spaghetti code.