Lack of understanding as a debate tactic

[Ghost of the dead horse]

Do you you give your debate opponents a false image that you don't understand what they say?

Does it satisfy you to have your opponents point of view dismissed on those grounds?

Do you have such a confidence in your ability to understand, that when you don't understand something, it's the other guy's fault?

What steps do you take to ensure you've done enough to try understand the opposite side?

Have you considered that perhaps you're just plain old stupid you should take a cup of STFU instead of complain about the complexity of the opponent's thought processes?

(pause)

.. now that you've read something insulting, answer this: do you notice when the opposition has actually insulted you, and when you don't understand something and you feel like having been insulted?

Is it an insult for you for the opposition to provide such a convoluted answer that you don't understand it?

Do you feel the need to insult someone who provides convoluted answers?

I'm welcoming a free-form discussion about these topics where understanding and lack of it affects the debate dynamics.

 

[ceecee]

I notice there is a certain type of person that uses the - I don't get what you're saying - as a debate off ramp, yes. And then they turn around and accuse you of being condescending or some other butthurt fueled insult. These people are usually vague as shit and then try to rely on MBTI or some other ridiculous reasoning for not being able to intellectually grasp what you are saying to them. Your MBTI type of course. Not theirs.

Some people - after claiming to not get what someone is saying - then frequently turn around and use some nonsense argument to prove a point they haven't and can't make.

Dan Arrows is one of my favorite people to illustrate topics like this.

 

[Lark]

Do you you give your debate opponents a false image that you don't understand what they say?

Does it satisfy you to have your opponents point of view dismissed on those grounds?

Do you have such a confidence in your ability to understand, that when you don't understand something, it's the other guy's fault?

What steps do you take to ensure you've done enough to try understand the opposite side?

Have you considered that perhaps you're just plain old stupid you should take a cup of STFU instead of complain about the complexity of the opponent's thought processes?

(pause)

.. now that you've read something insulting, answer this: do you notice when the opposition has actually insulted you, and when you don't understand something and you feel like having been insulted?

Is it an insult for you for the opposition to provide such a convoluted answer that you don't understand it?

Do you feel the need to insult someone who provides convoluted answers?

I'm welcoming a free-form discussion about these topics where understanding and lack of it affects the debate dynamics.

I dont think the kind of communication you're describing would be something I'd have much time for.

It sounds like its full of bluff, double bluff, duping, trojans, all kinds of notional "hacks" of human communication and behaviour. Most of the time when I encounter that its born of people with a mess of insecurities who're liable to approach any communication as an exercise in manipulation or games playing. So you're talking about someone who is inclined to see any interaction as "win/lose", any at all, let alone "debate", which for a lot of people definitely is a win/lose activity.

I'm not sure there's a lot to be gained from those kinds of interactions.

Feigning stupidity in order to avoid seriously engaging with ideas, for whatever reason, is a thing, it just deserves to be dismissed as a wind up tactic. Its no basis for communication. As such all you need to know is right there. They dont want to talk to you. Why bother?

 

[The Cat]

I notice there is a certain type of person that uses the - I don't get what you're saying - as a debate off ramp, yes. And then they turn around and accuse you of being condescending or some other butthurt fueled insult. These people are usually vague as shit and then try to rely on MBTI or some other ridiculous reasoning for not being able to intellectually grasp what you are saying to them. Your MBTI type of course. Not theirs.

Some people - after claiming to not get what someone is saying - then frequently turn around and use some nonsense argument to prove a point they haven't and can't make.

Dan Arrows is one of my favorite people to illustrate topics like this.

Awesome. "It was a world war." This is one of my favorite lines of anything ever. the inflection is perfect.

 

[Lark]

I notice there is a certain type of person that uses the - I don't get what you're saying - as a debate off ramp, yes. And then they turn around and accuse you of being condescending or some other butthurt fueled insult. These people are usually vague as shit and then try to rely on MBTI or some other ridiculous reasoning for not being able to intellectually grasp what you are saying to them. Your MBTI type of course. Not theirs.

Some people - after claiming to not get what someone is saying - then frequently turn around and use some nonsense argument to prove a point they haven't and can't make.

Dan Arrows is one of my favorite people to illustrate topics like this.

Its just another way of closing down communication.

In other contexts people use jargon or inclusion/exclusion/diversion to specific topics in a similar fashion too.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

"Playing dumb" is a rather established game. When I detect a game is being played in a debate I bow out, which can be seen as losing the debate I suppose. I've seen enough circular debates to know it is a waste of time. After about four exchanges it becomes apparent whether or not the debate is a game. You can see if it is going in circles or progressing.

When there is a post that goes over my head with a lot of technical information, I don't generally attempt to debate it, but will read other posts of people who have a comparable knowledge base to discuss it. A good example would be a detailed debate about a medication with exhaustive description at the molecular level.

There are times I don't understand other posts, but that is often because they have a social game component. Also, people will sometimes have a form of humor that is unfamiliar to me, so the post doesn't make sense to me, but it does have an ironic meaning or something. If I think it could be a joke or an insult, I'll sometimes say I don't understand it to find out.

Making ideas too simplistic and absolute it another game that is connected to straw man arguments: "I think this absolute, so you must think the opposite absolute".

People also do a game based on opposites that is often used when debating a moral issue. There are statements about doing good, but also doing bad and when the statements that are harmful are pointed out, then go back to the statements about doing good. It is like slapping niceties on the side of a negatively fueled argument.

Playing dumb is a way to keep an argument from progressing. I think people do it so their opponent is stuck at repeating themselves in as many different ways as they can think of without being able to move the debate forward.

 

[The Cat]

"Playing dumb" is a rather established game. When I detect a game is being played in a debate I bow out, which can be seen as losing the debate I suppose. I've seen enough circular debates to know it is a waste of time. After about four exchanges it becomes apparent whether or not the debate is a game. You can see if it is going in circles or progressing.

When there is a post that goes over my head with a lot of technical information, I don't generally attempt to debate it, but will read other posts of people who have a comparable knowledge base to discuss it. A good example would be a detailed debate about a medication with exhaustive description at the molecular level.

There are times I don't understand other posts, but that is often because they have a social game component. Also, people will sometimes have a form of humor that is unfamiliar to me, so the post doesn't make sense to me, but it does have an ironic meaning or something. If I think it could be a joke or an insult, I'll sometimes say I don't understand it to find out.

Making ideas too simplistic and absolute it another game that is connected to straw man arguments: "I think this absolute, so you must think the opposite absolute".

People also do a game based on opposites that is often used when debating a moral issue. There are statements about doing good, but also doing bad and when the statements that are harmful are pointed out, then go back to the statements about doing good. It is like slapping niceties on the side of a negatively fueled argument.

Playing dumb is a way to keep an argument from progressing. I think people do it so their opponent is stuck at repeating themselves in as many different ways as they can think of without being able to move the debate forward.

Out of curiosity, how do you measure progress?

 

[Peter Deadpan]

I don't understand what you are saying.

 

[Lark]

Out of curiosity, how do you measure progress?

I think that's a fair question.

Personally, I consider it in terms of life, longevity, health and opportunity.

In terms of opportunity I think in terms of both positive and negative freedom. Positive freedom has got to involve some measure of shared prosperity, the proper balance of privacy and participation (or social responsibility and personal responsibility to put it another way).

Edit: I also have to say something about life having more to do with design rather than accident or plan rather than chance, I mean individually or collectively, and laws, both as procedure and in the sense of scientific order, rather than caprice, superstition and haphazardly.

 

[The Cat]

I think that's a fair question.

Personally, I consider it in terms of life, longevity, health and opportunity.

In terms of opportunity I think in terms of both positive and negative freedom. Positive freedom has got to involve some measure of shared prosperity, the proper balance of privacy and participation (or social responsibility and personal responsibility to put it another way).

Edit: I also have to say something about life having more to do with design rather than accident or plan rather than chance, I mean individually or collectively, and laws, both as procedure and in the sense of scientific order, rather than caprice, superstition and haphazardly.

That is good to know, but I meant more in the sense of how does one measure measure the progress of an argument?

 

[Ghost of the dead horse]

So you're talking about someone who is inclined to see any interaction as "win/lose", any at all, let alone "debate", which for a lot of people definitely is a win/lose activity.

That's a fine point right there

 

[Lark]

That is good to know, but I meant more in the sense of how does one measure measure the progress of an argument?

Oh, I thought you meant "progress" in some sort of abstract sense, I tried to make my definition as universal as possible as I dont think the left and right wing ideas of what may constitute progress are actually any good, they are pretty remote from what anyone may have meant at the time that idea was first produced.

I would agree that there's no real way to determine the "progress" of an argument or debate per se, like does it progress towards deadlock, divergence, extinction, exhaustion? What?

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

Out of curiosity, how do you measure progress?

Ideally I see progress as some sort of learning taking place. If people have to keep saying the exact same things over and over it's not progress. You could set up two pull string talking dolls and achieve the same effect. It's what I do when I lose internet connectivity.

 

[ceecee]

Its just another way of closing down communication.

In other contexts people use jargon or inclusion/exclusion/diversion to specific topics in a similar fashion too.

I think it's a bit beyond just closing down communication. I think it is a way for them to maintain their beliefs without the threat of new information that may be considered (by them) seeping into their consciousness. I know liberal people that have a bit of a meltdown when they learn what's really going on. Right wing conservatives, it's a mental death sentence. So they ignore it.

 

[Maou]

Do you you give your debate opponents a false image that you don't understand what they say?

No, the opposite usually happens. OR they assume things.

Does it satisfy you to have your opponents point of view dismissed on those grounds?

No, if something is being dismissed it is because someone changed the topic of debate intentionally. Or there is a disagreement on source.

Do you have such a confidence in your ability to understand, that when you don't understand something, it's the other guy's fault?

I would say both parties are equally at fault for not talking in a way that is understood, and the other person being too ignorant to understand.

What steps do you take to ensure you've done enough to try understand the opposite side?

I almost always understand everyone's positions and reasoning. If I am debating, it is because I have a different perspective about it, or I disagree with the method used to tackle it.

Have you considered that perhaps you're just plain old stupid you should take a cup of STFU instead of complain about the complexity of the opponent's thought processes?

I frequently doubt my own intelligence, and that is more than most people would say. I am definitely not the brightest, but I am not retarded either. Sometimes people are unnecessarily convoluted and elitist.

.. now that you've read something insulting, answer this: do you notice when the opposition has actually insulted you, and when you don't understand something and you feel like having been insulted?

I notice all the low key insults people throw at me, I just ignore them. I do hate it however, when people assume things about me the most. Not that they insulted me for not understanding. I am also like, "what is the point of debating if you just get mad and hate anyone who disagrees with you?" Seems like a waste of time.

Is it an insult for you for the opposition to provide such a convoluted answer that you don't understand it?

IF it is convoluted, I usually ignore it. Not point. The debate is over.

Do you feel the need to insult someone who provides convoluted answers?

Depends on how they post it.

 

[Jaguar]

Have you considered that perhaps you're just plain old stupid you should take a cup of STFU?

Have you considered it? What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

[Earl Grey]

It's brain-deaddening to see anyone partaking in an argument dressed as a debate; happening so much that 'debate' is now synonymous with a cockfight sometimes. Anyone that does anything specifically to prevent the other party's capabilities to understand and respond isn't debating. Not laying everything out defeats the purpose of a debate, it's just conversational pummeling.

Do you have such a confidence in your ability to understand, that when you don't understand something, it's the other guy's fault?

These don't necessarily come together. You can have the confidence in your ability to understand without assigning blame when you're missing pieces of information; only doing this when warranted.

What steps do you take to ensure you've done enough to try understand the opposite side?

Ask them what they mean and make sure I understand, and that they understand that I do understand what they mean, and that we're on the same ground/talking about the same thing.

Some people with good points and valuable points of view may genuinely have a hard time explaining themselves and putting things into words. If you don't make efforts to make sure you have all the pieces of information and opposing views on the table are you really doing this to gain information or are you interested conversational brain swagger?

Anyone who has trouble explaining themselves; just because you have difficulty making a point doesn't mean you don't have one. Anyone who pretends otherwise isn't interested in the intellectual exchange and only want to make you look stupid or try marshall an end decision with extra steps to make it look as if they've tried to make it fair and that you're too intellectually incompetent to get a word in and have nothing to say and thus diminishing your contributions and position in the issue that is being debated on.

 

[Lark]

I think it's a bit beyond just closing down communication. I think it is a way for them to maintain their beliefs without the threat of new information that may be considered (by them) seeping into their consciousness. I know liberal people that have a bit of a meltdown when they learn what's really going on. Right wing conservatives, it's a mental death sentence. So they ignore it.

what's "really going on"?

NB I do agree with you, its particularly pronounced among "evangelical" individuals or groups, ie those who are at particular pains to find others think as they do.

That whole outlook hasnt been restricted to religion for a long time and its a major hangover in ex-religious or pseudo-secular cultures too.

 

[Coriolis]

Ask them what they mean and make sure I understand, and that they understand that I do understand what they mean, and that we're on the same ground/talking about the same thing.

Sometimes the other person is unable or unwilling to explain what they mean. They might even say they already have explained enough, or insist that it should not require explanation: "anyone else would understand; if you don't, the fault lies with you". How do you handle this?

Anyone who has trouble explaining themselves; just because you have difficulty making a point doesn't mean you don't have one. Anyone who pretends otherwise isn't interested in the intellectual exchange and only want to make you look stupid or try marshall an end decision with extra steps to make it look as if they've tried to make it fair and that you're too intellectually incompetent to get a word in and have nothing to say and thus diminishing your contributions and position in the issue that is being debated on.

On the flip side, if you expect someone else to understand your point, you must put the effort into explaining it, even if you are not good at it, and even (especially) if others misunderstand. It helps to think before you speak, to check your remarks for assumptions or loaded words that can spawn misunderstanding. It also helps to be patient with questions, to take the time to restate your views in different words, or provide additional details if asked. Of course this assumes the other person is questioning with the goal of understanding and not just posturing or making you look dumb. It takes two to tango, and each person shares responsibility (or blame) for how the conversation goes.

 

[Lark]

That's a fine point right there

Its not what I understand debate as being meant to be, there are a number of different styles, purposes and types of debate but it should be about discussion and dialogue.

JS Mill has written about it a lot in On Liberty and I couldnt fault his perspective, its not widely known though.