10 Signs of Intellectual Honesty

page: 2
39
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by burdman30ott6
I still disagree with anyone who says there's no suitable place for what have become known as "ad hominem" arguments. A man is judged largely by their character and, as a part of that character, by the company they keep. Let's look logically at it using "The Boy Who Cried 'Wolf'" as an example. If the boy had already set the precident that he was a known liar, then isn't it reasonable and fair to place the onus of proving anything he claims in the future as being true before we can expect anyone to not initially discredit his opinions, saying "The boy is a proven habitual liar." Technically speaking that is an ad hominem attack, but it could also be called a prudent intellectual strategy. It is also one of the philosophies behind a site like ATS banning a user proven of committing a hoax.


if a person is a habitual lier and their statements happen to be lies at a given time, then what purpose does it serve to attack the person's character as opposed to attacking the statements themselves? Seems like attacking the statements of a lier should be like shooting fish in a barrel.

Before anyone replies, the same goes for attacking a person's spelling, liar or not.


-rrr




posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 05:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheOneEyedProphet
The thing here is, that those guidelines should be the mantra of everyday human to human interaction.


I fully agree with TheOneEyedProphet. These 10 point should really be the basis of every person's interaction bon tone. In the case of forum posting I whould however add another point, though it doesn't necessarily reflect on intelectual dishonesty.

Do not post for the sake of posting i.e. don't speak if you have nothing constructive to say.


I hope I haven't broken my own rule just now



Cheers



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by The All Seeing I
6. Demonstrate consistency. A clear sign of intellectual dishonesty is when someone extensively relies on double standards. Typically, an excessively high standard is applied to the perceived opponent(s), while a very low standard is applied to the ideologues’ allies.


As soon as I saw that bit, I instantly was reminded of Ron Paul's interview on the Daily Show. Jon said something like

"Dr Paul er- you have shown great consistency in throughout your political career... Americans don't usually go for that."



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 11:10 AM
link   
All of this is well and good...but personally I've found that often when I'm having "arguments" it's not for the benefit of the person I'm arguing with, but rather for the benefit of the audience listening to the discussion.

And...unfortunately I've found that there are an awful lot of people who are easily swayed to believe the person who follows these rules instead:

1) Always overstate your opinion. There's no reason for something you say to only "probably" be true, if it can be "so undeniably true that only an absolute moron would even think to question it."

2) Insist that your opponents facts are wrong. It will waste his time trying to find a source. You can use that time to continue to beat him into submission. When he does find a source, just ignore it. Don't even respond to it. If you spend ten minutes telling him he's wrong, and he spends one sentence showing that he's right, most people will remember the ten minutes over the one sentence.

3) Make up facts that suit you. Odds are good nobody will check on them. If they do, twist it your your advantage. If you claim that 7 billion people die in wheelbarrow accidents every year, and somebody actually finds statistics saying that only five did in 2005, simply respond that 2005 was a low year, and that the 7 billion figure is an average. Thank them for finding the 2005 figure, and then point out that this proves that your position even more strongly than you had, since obviously if 7 billion is an average, and only five died in 2005, that means that in most years the numbers are really much higher than seven billion.

4) Always attack the least important and most trivial nuances of what your opponent says. If there's anything he expresses doubt in, or allows for the possibility that he might be wrong, monopolize on it. Ignore the strong parts of his argument. Only acknowledge the weak ones. Then tear them apart with both fact and fiction. He already doubts them, and if you can trick him into only trying to defend the parts of his argument he's unsure of, it will make his entire position look weak.

5) Insult your opponent at every available opportunity. It will disrupt his thinking, and if he tries to defend himself he'll be focusing on that instead of the points he wanted to make. And if he doesn't defend himself, obviously it's because what you're saying is true, and everyone listening will want to believe you because nobody wants to be on the side of a loser who simply sits and takes insults.

6) Don't waste your time on logic. Simply repeat your position over and over. Logic requires thinking, and most people aren't interested. They want reality in small soundbites. Give them what they want. Also remember that most people respond well to reinforcement. If you can say something a dozen times in one minute, that's far more convincing than saying something once, and then spending the rest of a minute justifying it. People don't remember reasons or rationale. They remember conclusions. So give them conclusions. Repeatedly.

7) Appeal to their emotions. Find a way to connect your opponents position to something that will generate an unpleasant emotional response in your listeners. It doesn't matter if it has any connection to reality. It doesn't matter if it makes sense. Simply make the connection. If you can make people feel a negative emotion while thinking about your opopnent, they'll remember that more strongly than anything you or he says. Also, connect your position to happy, pleasant emotions, for the same reason.

8) Associate both sides of the argument with things that nobody could possibly argue with. For example, your opponent clearly is not thinking about children, and what effects his position would have on them. Therefore he is clearly against children. And puppies. And his position will support terrorists and child molesters. Reality is not a factor. Simply make these connections. Your position, however, is very much helpful to children, puppies, democracy, and anything else that your audience feels good about.

9) Site authorities who agree with your position. Most people are too timid to think for themselves, and seek authority figures to make their decisions for them. Fortunately there tends to be authorities in support of just about any position imaginable. Find the ones who happen to agree with you.

10) Make it clear that you're higher on the pecking order than your opponent. Most people are very affected by this. If your audience perceives you as the alpha male, and your opponent as a mewling kitten, it won't matter how well thought out or logical his argument is. If the discussion is in person, speak more loudly and regularly interupt him mid-sentence. This will establish your dominance. If he objects to this, laugh at him and tell him that if he can't handle the discussion to not waste your time. Very few people can deal with this sort of treatment, and if they get angry, or if they choose to not continue the discussion, then clearly you've won, because you made them back away. An audience will remember this more strongly than anything that was said during a discussion. And, if they literally disengage themselves from the discussion, you now have a captive audience listening to only your side of the argument.



If we'd all make an asserted effort to fight/play fair and follow some simple rules of respect and common decency, many more of our discussions would deliver more understanding for all involved in the mix and bystanders alike.


You have to understand that there a lot of people who are simply not interested in "playing fair." Nor are they interested in delivering understanding to anyone. They're interested in power, control, and promoting their beliefs. These people simply seek the most effective and efficient ways of furthering their agenda. Playing "fair" does not help them, and it's silly to expect or try to encourage them to.


[edit on 28-10-2008 by LordBucket]



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by LordBucket
 


Those are NOT "10 Signs of Intellectual Honesty."

Those are "10 Rules On Winning Any Argument."

LordBucket somehow must have simply snatched those pages directly from the NWO playbook and posted them up. They are brilliant. Brutal, punch you in the face type stuff...but with words. I love it. I will be copying those to my clipboard for future battles...after I commit them to memory first.

The OP is clear enough to determine who is intellectually honest. That is all we can do regarding others, for ourselves it must be adhered to by ourselves in an effort to continue educating each other in any discussion.



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 02:55 PM
link   
Excellent points, this guideline can easily be twisted/flipped in the service of ego, much like religion and law has been used throughout history for selfish gain at the expense of others. Which makes these mechanics even more important for us all to be aware of, so we may collectively raise the bar.

I have seen way too many great topics/issues/threads get derailed and distorted, by the likes of narcissistic "fighters" and other sorts of characters that roam our beloved ATSland, looking for opportunities to stroke themselves.

There are many traps/tricks that are employed in such deviant/demented objectives. We all need to master the mental equivalent of Aikido in our deals with such destructive forces.

For those who seek further understanding...
i highly recommend cashlink's thread "Twenty-Five Ways to Suppress the Truth

The speed and numbers of posts this thread has received in such a short a mount of time, reveals how many of us are thoroughly feed up with the bull. Thank you, to everyone for your input... very insightful and thought provoking points.

[edit on 28-10-2008 by The All Seeing I]



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Manawydan
 


I totally agree. We live in the age of dehumanization, we argue like children and react like fools, the dumbing down of our society is more clearly seen in the land of intellectual anonymity.

Specially what you mention, posting and commenting just for the sake of it, hundreds of topics get derailed and forgotten just because of that, and they come in a lot of flavors, the sarcastic comments, the personal attacks, the fake callers, the wise asses...

One must learn to cope with them, but it would be nicer and much more constructive if we just behaved like real human beings...

Don't get me wrong people, some of those comments are actually funny, some are plain annoying.

well, heres hoping for a much more mature and fluff free ATS!



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ian McLean
Well, then why is the exact opposite of many of these point practiced, and practiced effectively, by politicians and the mass media?

There's a divide being established: a decreasing middle ground between rational debate, and 'slammin down' your opponent.

And guess what? The easy route of 'gestalt dominance' via rhetorical sound-bite is winning the day, with the public at large.

You can't compete by despising and discarding these tactics. The way to bring reason to the table is to apply reason, logically and from result of 'contrived' rhetoric. Bridge the gap.

Emotional appeal and glazed superficial argument is most often used to conceal a lack of reasonable substance. But, there's nothing that say it can't be used, honestly, to enhance and lead to a genuine, logical argument and point-of-view.

Face it, in many ways, the public is hypnotized. Don't discard the type of rhetoric that actually reaches them, use it for good, to reach, learn, teach, and communicate.


Yeah well you are a stoopid doody head.





posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by asmeone2
 


Are you inclusing science as in ALL science, or science as a principle. Because practically everything that is considered a science today is a paradigmical theory and pseudo science under the maquerade of scientific method.



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 10:25 PM
link   
reply to post by caitlinfae
 


The website has a bit on what it thinks critical thinking includes if you are interested. Follow the internal link in the text. I saw this a few days ago as a reddit post and checked the source because of the unusual way it was worded. I note that the site is touting an Intelligent Design book and the wording prepares you for such arguments. Of course, if the Intelligent Designer were really good, all could be set in motion at the moment of creation with no fake dinosaur bones to confuse the hapless scientists and pre-transmuted uranium so that the earth could fit the 4,000 year old timescale.



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 11:03 PM
link   
To OP. I appreciate the points you have made, at least the ones that have words I understand. I am not an intellectual, just a seeker of truth. I have long believed that if you want to reach the average person then you must speak to them in words that they can understand. Otherwise you are just impressing others with your intellect. There is no disrespect meant with that comment. It comes from personal experience. Then I may be in a forum that is way out of my league.

In my journey to find truth, I have found many things I once thought were true but the preponderance of the evidence says otherwise. So in short, I know a lot that isn't true and next to nothing that is true.

[edit on 28-10-2008 by liveandlearn]



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 11:46 PM
link   
If most people followed even half of those guidelines within

- Politics
- Workplace
- Relationships
- Social interaction

The world would be a much better place.



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 11:56 PM
link   
Great post!

It should be a requirment to read and sign this before most of these threads



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 12:39 AM
link   
I know it may sound weird, but it's time to come together under this list ... on a face to face level. I find myself to think like this, not to sound cocky or anything. But I feel like there must be a god, but I'm not exactly sure, so maybe there is, maybe there isn't. We must all assume that any answer is correct. That's just an example.

On the face of politics, we must look at the world as if it is a work of art in motion. If we see a still piece of art, it remains the same forever. However, people change, times change, the environment changes. Everything changes. We need politics to become more like an animation, a work of art in motion, maybe a film, if that fits you better. One answer is not always the correct answer. It's good to have a governing set of rules, such as the Constitution, but it should be mendable, and we should not always follow one mindset, be it liberal or conservative, or one of the many others never mentioned.

What I mean to bring it face to face, is we need to come together, a big group of people who believe in the alternative news sources, that there are conspiracies, that the main stream media is full of it. All of us here and from other places need to commit on a real face to face level and create an organization of people who will bring the alternate stories to the world. It's fine for us to exist in our own little internet world here, but how will that change the world? We need to maybe put influence on little groups of people in our own areas, and thus bring it all to one huge group of non-believers, or believers, depending on the situation.

Yes, I had a few beers and I'm talking crazy, but I feel this is the only way to change the world. And I'm ready!!!



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 12:59 PM
link   
As i further reflect on the collective here, i am reminded of a clever insightful essay that was read on the floor of the U.S. Senate, from the hardcover edition of "All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten: Uncommon Thoughts on Common Things"


All I really need to know about how to live and what to do and how to be,
I learned in kindergarten.
Wisdom was not at the top of the graduate school mountain,
but there in the sandpile at Sunday School.
These are the things that I learned:
Share everything
Play fair
Don't hit people
Put things back where you found them
Clean up your mess
Don't take things that aren't yours
Say you're sorry when you hurt somebody
Wash your hands before you eat
Flush.
Warm cookies and cold milk are good for you
Live a balanced life; learn some and think some
and draw and paint and sing and dance
and play and work every day some.
Take a nap every afternoon
When you go out into the world, watch out for traffic, hold hands, and stick together
Be aware of wonder
Remember the little seed in the Styrofoam cup ;
The roots go down and the plant goes up and nobody really knows how or why,
but we are all like that.
Goldfish and hamsters and white mice and even the little seed in the Styrofoam cup
They all die
So do we
And then remember the Dick and Jane books and the first word you learned the biggest word of all
LOOK
Everything you need to know is in there somewhere
The Golden Rule and love and basic sanitation
Ecology and politics and equality and sane living
Take any one of those items and extrapolate it into sophisticated adult terms and apply it to your family life or
work or your government or your world and it holds true and clear and firm

Think what a better world it would be if we all - the whole world - had cookies and milk about three o'clock every afternoon and then lay down with our blankies for a nap. Or if all the governments had as a basic policy to always put things back where they found them and to clean up their own mess And it is still true, no matter how old you are... when you go out into the world, it is best to hold hands and stick together.

-Robert Fulghum


mini bio from publisher: "Robert Fulghum is a writer, philosopher, and public speaker, but he has also worked as a cowboy, a folksinger, an IBM salesman, a professional artist, a parish minister, a bartender, a teacher of drawing and painting, and a father."

Now that's what i call credentials; better then any ivy league or prominent title.


[edit on 29-10-2008 by The All Seeing I]



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by LordBucket
 


Originally posted by LordBucket
All of this is well and good...but personally I've found that often when I'm having "arguments" it's not for the benefit of the person I'm arguing with, but rather for the benefit of the audience listening to the discussion.

5) Insult your opponent at every available opportunity. It will disrupt his thinking, and if he tries to defend himself he'll be focusing on that instead of the points he wanted to make. And if he doesn't defend himself, obviously it's because what you're saying is true, and everyone listening will want to believe you because nobody wants to be on the side of a loser who simply sits and takes insults.

If we'd all make an asserted effort to fight/play fair and follow some simple rules of respect and common decency, many more of our discussions would deliver more understanding for all involved in the mix and bystanders alike.

I believe that it depends on the situation in hand, If a person shall defend himself or not. In particularly if the person insults you, only to provoke a reaction so he/she will come forward with another insult, maby already planned from the very start.

If the opponent is a liar and you're not, it's as same as playing a poker game where the one participates by own rules, and the other part is restricted by the rules. The unfair player will win. Will be the public winner, in the bystanders eyes (if they get blinded)
In some cases a liar get court because of own contradictions. Get trapped in his own fishnet so to speak.
Maby people who play unfair always seems to get things how they want, and sometimes can make honest and fair people think, that its not worth if.
Its just so hard to get from A to B...

People can lie to others, but at the end of the day, in the long term, can they really keep on lying to themselves ?. Can they really enjoy facing themselves in the mirror everyday ? Can they really keep on feeling the joy of winning ?

Actually i don't think unfair people gets better persons. I belive that whose who get "stabbed" sometimes end up getting even better and more patience persons, if they make it to the other side... But stucked in the middle of it, ain't funny at all...

Well i think one must decide how to act by their consciousness. One has to live with themselves rest of life.
counting to ten somtimes helps


source : my private investigations. Not public








[edit on 29-10-2008 by flymetothemoon]



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by flymetothemoon
People can lie to others, but at the end of the day, in the long term, can they really keep on lying to themselves ?. Can they really enjoy facing themselves in the mirror everyday ? Can they really keep on feeling the joy of winning ?


Whether they can or cannot does not prevent them from lying and/or continuing to lye. If they are good at it (lying) then they keep winning the argument, and if they keep winning the argument, then they may feel good about it. Either way it is counterproductive.


Originally posted by flymetothemoon
Well i think one must decide how to act by their consciousness. One has to live with themselves rest of life.
counting to ten somtimes helps

[edit on 29-10-2008 by flymetothemoon]


I agree completely. This is where it all begins. We can choose to associate with similar "honest" people and can choose to disassociate with the "dishonest." But again, one must decide for themselves. You can't make me and I can't make you. Some people we can't choose (business clients, family, etc...) so must we just "deal" with them?



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 10:49 AM
link   
I find in most cases that the lies are not deliberate. Since the individual is operating from the core belief in a lie they can't help but perpetuate the lie as a truth. The resistance to be receptive can be attributed to what Springer has cleverly coined the D-EGO.

The commonality in which we encounter these shameless proselytizers of fallacy can be attributed to the mix of anonymity, blind-faith and an unmonitored ego.

In the thread Debunkers - Their Tactics and some Tips on How to Deal with Them, Pharohmoan reveals some of his observations on the behavior/character this personified phenomenon:


...From experience I have found that most debunkers (D's) will often attack a thread with their very first post. They will be quick to pick up on any grey areas in your thread and often misquote you or having not fully read the whole thread will often interpret content out of context. Often they will come in during key/interesting parts of a thread in order to cause maximum disruption. This is especially so when certain truths start to imerge. Also beware, you will notice they sometimes travel in packs, don't ask me how or why. When this happens be short with your replies to them, remember for the most part they are not there to contribute they're there to refute...


The closest i have come to a label in kin would be what we commonly refer to as "troll"... though i think in many cases we misinterpret the intentions behind the infowar as such. In an effort to uncover and investigate these intentions further, i have dived into this matter deeper with the thread Psychology101 to Psychology911.

[edit on 12-6-2009 by The All Seeing I]





top topics
 
39
<< 1   >>

log in

join