That’s an interesting idea, but I’m not sure how to go about acting on it.
Would you just pretend to have the same initial beliefs and then ‘discuss’ counterarguments that you ‘just thought of’?
That method wouldn’t work if the person already knows your position, but it might work quite well if the person isn’t even aware of your position, much less that you hold it.
One time, I found a very opinionated guy with a high opinion of himself—I think he might have been Objectivist, but he scoffed at literally every philosophy he mentioned so it’s hard to tell.
I figured that trying to debate him would just end the conversation early; he’s the type to quickly classify those who disagree as sheeple. So, I copied his conversational style a bit, agreed with him on most points but disagreed enough to keep the conversation interesting and get some insight into his views. I don’t think I was directly dishonest about my opinions; I just positioned myself as an ally (in an “Us vs. Them” sense) and worked from there.
I recommend this to anyone who wants to understand the reasoning of, say, creationists, but can’t talk to them without reaching an impasse of rationality vs. dogma.
Giving someone status now may some times be exchanged for them giving up some equal bit of status later
Thats likely so much more valuable then we all know or care to admit would you do us a favor and give SIAI some spare cash when you have the chance it would drive your point
home and be an education to us all :)
That’s an interesting idea, but I’m not sure how to go about acting on it.
Would you just pretend to have the same initial beliefs and then ‘discuss’ counterarguments that you ‘just thought of’?
That method wouldn’t work if the person already knows your position, but it might work quite well if the person isn’t even aware of your position, much less that you hold it.
I’ve done this occasionally, actually.
One time, I found a very opinionated guy with a high opinion of himself—I think he might have been Objectivist, but he scoffed at literally every philosophy he mentioned so it’s hard to tell. I figured that trying to debate him would just end the conversation early; he’s the type to quickly classify those who disagree as sheeple. So, I copied his conversational style a bit, agreed with him on most points but disagreed enough to keep the conversation interesting and get some insight into his views. I don’t think I was directly dishonest about my opinions; I just positioned myself as an ally (in an “Us vs. Them” sense) and worked from there.
I recommend this to anyone who wants to understand the reasoning of, say, creationists, but can’t talk to them without reaching an impasse of rationality vs. dogma.
Giving someone status on a non-content channel will let you get away with murder on the content channel.
Giving someone status now may some times be exchanged for them giving up some equal bit of status later
Thats likely so much more valuable then we all know or care to admit would you do us a favor and give SIAI some spare cash when you have the chance it would drive your point home and be an education to us all :)