I actually react well to combative. Not right away, but it puts me into a “I’ll show you” mood that drives me down a rabbit hole of research. If you’re right, I come out the other side with the data and admit I was wrong.
But I assume I’m not normal.
I do the same thing. I’m also perfectly comfortable saying I was wrong if I was, and most people aren’t. I assume you are the same.
No one person can know everything. But learning and updating the information that shapes my picture of reality is something enjoyable. I’d like it to be as accurate as possible. It blows my mind that many other people aren’t like that at all. No intellectual curiosity whatever.
Though I do prefer more even-keeled discussion over combative tone. It’s just unnecessary and produces bad feels.
I do the same thing and I am not at all comfortable in saying I was wrong if I was, but I generally do it anyway because, well, fair is fair and I was indeed wrong plus it’s better than I discover it and will from there onwards be correct, that that I keep on spouting bullshit, so ultimatelly having been pointed out as wrong ended up as a win.
That said, if the other person was an asshole in our discussion (for example, using personal attacks and insults) I won’t openly admit to them that I was wrong as I don’t want to give them the satisfaction (though I’ll internally accept I was wrong and correct my take from there onwards).
I hate the term. I think what you described is a perfectly valid way to approach conversations, but be prepared to have the term thrown at you and to be accused of bad faith, because a decent part of the internet decided it was because a webcomic said so.
This is a sign of emotional intelligence. When people get emotionally invested in their argument, they don’t want to lose, and they often won’t let themselves believe they can even lose even when they have.
That’s both the strength and horror of LLMs. They are super good at presenting information in a pleasing way to the user… but can you trust that what it says is correct?
To the majority of humans, a pleasing presentation is treated as evidence of truth, despite that being a logical fallacy.
it matters a lot how the information is presented
That’s really it!
If it is a combative exchange neither side will concede.
It’s better to pretend to be ignorant or on their side and then ask questions that lead them to the truth you want them to see.
I’ve done this a few times with trumpets, but they always flip back after they realize what just happened.
Usually end up hearing something like (hunters laptop, Jan 6 was all FBI agents or whatever Xitter bullshit is popular).
I actually react well to combative. Not right away, but it puts me into a “I’ll show you” mood that drives me down a rabbit hole of research. If you’re right, I come out the other side with the data and admit I was wrong. But I assume I’m not normal.
I do the same thing. I’m also perfectly comfortable saying I was wrong if I was, and most people aren’t. I assume you are the same.
No one person can know everything. But learning and updating the information that shapes my picture of reality is something enjoyable. I’d like it to be as accurate as possible. It blows my mind that many other people aren’t like that at all. No intellectual curiosity whatever.
Though I do prefer more even-keeled discussion over combative tone. It’s just unnecessary and produces bad feels.
I do the same thing and I am not at all comfortable in saying I was wrong if I was, but I generally do it anyway because, well, fair is fair and I was indeed wrong plus it’s better than I discover it and will from there onwards be correct, that that I keep on spouting bullshit, so ultimatelly having been pointed out as wrong ended up as a win.
That said, if the other person was an asshole in our discussion (for example, using personal attacks and insults) I won’t openly admit to them that I was wrong as I don’t want to give them the satisfaction (though I’ll internally accept I was wrong and correct my take from there onwards).
Yeah, “normal” people have no time or are too lazy to do that.
Whenever I’ve tried to do this I get accused of “sealioning”
I’ve never heard that term before.
I hate the term. I think what you described is a perfectly valid way to approach conversations, but be prepared to have the term thrown at you and to be accused of bad faith, because a decent part of the internet decided it was because a webcomic said so.
This is a sign of emotional intelligence. When people get emotionally invested in their argument, they don’t want to lose, and they often won’t let themselves believe they can even lose even when they have.
That’s both the strength and horror of LLMs. They are super good at presenting information in a pleasing way to the user… but can you trust that what it says is correct?
To the majority of humans, a pleasing presentation is treated as evidence of truth, despite that being a logical fallacy.
That’s just like your opinion, man
no, it really ties the whole room together
deleted by creator