This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Kwek00 · 41-45, M
Are you like an "Anglosaxon"?
Because I'm always amazed how much english people that share a common ancestry (Great-Britain - common wealth included - and the USA) love their debates. In the English language region these "debates" are a real competition and excersise in schools. A debate puts two opposing sites against eachother and they oppose eachother by argumentation. But one of the characteristics of a debate is that people have to defend their position and that a jury (outsider) decides who won the debate.
This leaves me (an outsider) a bit amazed. Because this kind of conversation has the tendency for people to dig themselves in and barricade their position. Often students need to study a position they themselves don't really believe in, but that's the excersice and the goal is to win it.
Where I come from, "debates" are ussually kept in parlement. Where the outsider (the voter) can make up their mind about what choice they will make in the booth. But in schools this form of conversation is used way less often.
We have more the idea of a discussion. This is less regulated and the goal of a discussion is to reach a higher form of "truth" for both parties. So parties don't have to defend things they don't like, they don't need to win, the idea is to reach a higher understanding and not be bound to one opinion in an almost dogmatic level. This delivers way less "explosive" television to watch, but it creates really intresting conversations and allows both actors to adapt their position to the ideas that the other side represent. In a "debate" this would be seen as weakness and it will loose you "points".
Shapiro is a "debater". He twists and uses rhetoric to trick you into submission. He also doesn't want the person he talks too to really change their opinion, his goal is for the 3th party (you the viewer) to be perceived as "strong". This feeling of "strength" creates the idea that the strong party is "correct" even though there are flaws in logic. People are also not made to think "fast" on serious toppics (read: Kahneman - thinking fast/slow), so in a debate it's quite easily to blow up. These toppics are verry difficult, loads of facets, extremely nuanced... and the person that prepared the best and can hammer the nail in the quickest ussually wins for the 3th party. Because they perceive information just as quickly as the other person uttered it, didn't have the time to really think things trough, and act upon "feelings".
But if you really want to see this "spectacle" (because honestly, it makes up for amusing television) just search on youtube: "Shapiro debates proffessor". And you will get more hit then just one. However, all these things fall into short quick narratives where both parties don't have much time to think about eachothers position. And Shapiro (making a lifelyhood of this) is trained to take the high ground and show strength. It's not about truth, it's about recruiting. It's not about the person he talks too, it's about the people that watch and look up to him.
Because I'm always amazed how much english people that share a common ancestry (Great-Britain - common wealth included - and the USA) love their debates. In the English language region these "debates" are a real competition and excersise in schools. A debate puts two opposing sites against eachother and they oppose eachother by argumentation. But one of the characteristics of a debate is that people have to defend their position and that a jury (outsider) decides who won the debate.
This leaves me (an outsider) a bit amazed. Because this kind of conversation has the tendency for people to dig themselves in and barricade their position. Often students need to study a position they themselves don't really believe in, but that's the excersice and the goal is to win it.
Where I come from, "debates" are ussually kept in parlement. Where the outsider (the voter) can make up their mind about what choice they will make in the booth. But in schools this form of conversation is used way less often.
We have more the idea of a discussion. This is less regulated and the goal of a discussion is to reach a higher form of "truth" for both parties. So parties don't have to defend things they don't like, they don't need to win, the idea is to reach a higher understanding and not be bound to one opinion in an almost dogmatic level. This delivers way less "explosive" television to watch, but it creates really intresting conversations and allows both actors to adapt their position to the ideas that the other side represent. In a "debate" this would be seen as weakness and it will loose you "points".
Shapiro is a "debater". He twists and uses rhetoric to trick you into submission. He also doesn't want the person he talks too to really change their opinion, his goal is for the 3th party (you the viewer) to be perceived as "strong". This feeling of "strength" creates the idea that the strong party is "correct" even though there are flaws in logic. People are also not made to think "fast" on serious toppics (read: Kahneman - thinking fast/slow), so in a debate it's quite easily to blow up. These toppics are verry difficult, loads of facets, extremely nuanced... and the person that prepared the best and can hammer the nail in the quickest ussually wins for the 3th party. Because they perceive information just as quickly as the other person uttered it, didn't have the time to really think things trough, and act upon "feelings".
But if you really want to see this "spectacle" (because honestly, it makes up for amusing television) just search on youtube: "Shapiro debates proffessor". And you will get more hit then just one. However, all these things fall into short quick narratives where both parties don't have much time to think about eachothers position. And Shapiro (making a lifelyhood of this) is trained to take the high ground and show strength. It's not about truth, it's about recruiting. It's not about the person he talks too, it's about the people that watch and look up to him.
Burnley123 · 41-45, M
@Kwek00 Good post.
Kwek00 · 41-45, M
@Burnley123 This debate thing... I mean, for english people it's part of the dominant hegemony. It's normal and certain people look up to it and consider it a source of true wisdome. I'm not saying people that make good debates and arguments aren't smart... but sometimes it looks to much like a boxing match. It also creates this narrative of "destruction". "Person X" totally destroys college students ; Person x annihalates college proffessors. Sometimes I'm watching these videos and I wonder where the cataclystic event actually takes place? But I think it's more of a "believe" because people identify with a side (like a sports-game) and they are just happy that their side comes out as "strong".
How I believe you need to look at a debate (but again my BELIEVE) is to listen to all the arguments. Take your time, listen to them again, take more time, sleep over it, try to figure out if it actually makes sense AND THEN form your opinion and see if you learned something. This "total destruction" thing, for me, is totally unhealthy. It doesnt look for "truth" it's just the enforcement of ideas that are presented by a dominant actor, and people that feel good about being in the same camp. It rarely changes minds on a rational level, but people will switch side because they don't want to be in the "weak"-camp.
For me... if you let this sytem go on for a long time. And you perceive politics as a "boxing-game" where you need to pick a side and your side needs to win at all costs. This enhances polarisation and makes certain toppics impossible to discuss in depth. Sharing of ideas and trying to figure out if you are right, growing, creating new outlooks, ... it all gets reduced to "winning". And "winning" no matter what! Twisting facts, using psychological loopholes, playing on emotions, demagoguery, ... it's just about the trill of being a winner. This polarises things and has the real potential to end up in conflict that might turn extremely violent. If there is no possibility of a conversation between two sides, if the other side has been "perceived" as impossible to talk too, irrational, less them human.... the only way out of this believe-system is to annhilate and destroy your opponent in a physical sense. (this is a concequence of debates, because you can't really engage or have a nuanced opinion, because weakness will lessen the chance of winning and it's about winning. If you dig in deep both sides are impossible to have a conversation, they are just preaching to the crowd) Does this always happen? No... but it creates the potential to do so, and we should all be weary of it. It's not rational, it's "believes" and "feelings.
How I believe you need to look at a debate (but again my BELIEVE) is to listen to all the arguments. Take your time, listen to them again, take more time, sleep over it, try to figure out if it actually makes sense AND THEN form your opinion and see if you learned something. This "total destruction" thing, for me, is totally unhealthy. It doesnt look for "truth" it's just the enforcement of ideas that are presented by a dominant actor, and people that feel good about being in the same camp. It rarely changes minds on a rational level, but people will switch side because they don't want to be in the "weak"-camp.
For me... if you let this sytem go on for a long time. And you perceive politics as a "boxing-game" where you need to pick a side and your side needs to win at all costs. This enhances polarisation and makes certain toppics impossible to discuss in depth. Sharing of ideas and trying to figure out if you are right, growing, creating new outlooks, ... it all gets reduced to "winning". And "winning" no matter what! Twisting facts, using psychological loopholes, playing on emotions, demagoguery, ... it's just about the trill of being a winner. This polarises things and has the real potential to end up in conflict that might turn extremely violent. If there is no possibility of a conversation between two sides, if the other side has been "perceived" as impossible to talk too, irrational, less them human.... the only way out of this believe-system is to annhilate and destroy your opponent in a physical sense. (this is a concequence of debates, because you can't really engage or have a nuanced opinion, because weakness will lessen the chance of winning and it's about winning. If you dig in deep both sides are impossible to have a conversation, they are just preaching to the crowd) Does this always happen? No... but it creates the potential to do so, and we should all be weary of it. It's not rational, it's "believes" and "feelings.