FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[CookinFlat6]

The rise of the internet has created the ability for anyone with any intellectual leanings to press themselves more than any other time in history. It will be denied by many ofcourse, but the same urge that causes any member of any forum to turn up and present an original opinion is exactly the same urge that created the writers and poets of times past who had no way of testing their thoughts without the huge commitment of writing enough to take to a publisher or printer. So even if they deny it, every forum member who has had the urge to canvass the opinion of the public on their thoughts is submitting to the call of their intellect.

However, as the internet as seemingly produced a brand new medium for people to share ideas and stories, at the same time it has merely arranged an activity that has been established for as long as humans had language and could exchange things that didnt exist. Yup the debate between adults has been around for thousands of years and interestingly nothing much has changed about how it works

For example the basic activity hasnt changed at all in all that time, its just that more people can now do it together. Therefore it is normally a huge surprise to many when they realise that almost everything they come across is thousands of years old. People arguing, leaving never to return to then return, people using the same tactics and tricks for the same motives, Nothing has changed

So like chess can be more enjoyable when the players know the common historical move sequences and strategies, I just wanted to highlight the forms that are thousands of years old in human debate. When I was a student to progress I was required to pass mostly based on the results of debates and crits - basically a soul destroying event where a bunch of people pull apart something you spent ages putting together - anyways this is not common as its more learning and passing exams nowadays

So the debate - someone has a premise and lays it down, others think about it and produce objections, these need to be countered before the premise is acceptable

Sometimes the objections are not rational, i.e they are not logically about the premise, but are fallicies - often caused by bias, pride, bigotry, ignorance or just plain thickness

I think its fascinating that the logical fallicies are recognised by everyone and sometimes deployed by those who really think its the first time the tactic has been used, and would be shocked to discover that the very same strategies are thousand of years old and just like in Chess are well documented.

so the arguments put up that are fallacies, i.e spoilers
Ad Hominem - against the person not his argument - i.e i am not answering because you are this or that, jokes would count also
Ad Ignoration - I dont know about it so I dont need it to argue, what I assume is enough, dont pester me with reality or fact when I am stringing together something
Ad logicam - the classic strawman - you made a spelling mistake so your whole argument is wrong and i have won, or the car wasnt red with blue stripes so i can divert to that, or your explanation or analogy was so extreme I will focus on that instead
Ad antiquitatem - its tradition, its always been done like this, Merc always chew their tyres, Red Bull must win so there, Ferrari deserve because they are
ad misericordiam - oh poor me, or poor workers in China or poor ferrari fans etc etc, i.e stop being logical and lose because things are not fair somewhere
Ad nauseam - I will just shut my eyes and ears and keep repeating it without an ounce of shame, soon you will accept defeat because i am so passionate
Ad numerum - the stats say this, so the context doesnt matter, lets forget this isnt a factual investigation
Ad populum - everyone agrees with be, even if out of ignorance, or because they are my friends or they are pretending so i win
Ad verecundiam - You are bullying me, or you are breaking the rules, I am going to call in the referrees to call off the match, or I am going to point out the rules, or report you
Circulus in demonstrando - the good old circular, where the loser just keeps changing focus until he/she has come full circle in the hope you wont notice
Dicto simpliciter - the sweeping generalisation, the dumbing down, usually with a joke thrown in cleverly combine ad populum, where someone comes to the rescue

So there we have it, we are here to do what has been done for thousands of years, to put forward for public consumption, an intellectual contribution to society, whether in politics or sports or whatever and the outcome is rejection (booing) or cheering. So it makes sense to realise that all the cop out strategies are well known and painfully obvious.
And ofcourse it also means that those who sit on the side lines trying to pluck up the courage to take the plunge only have a couple of theses fallacies available such as ad verecundiam - which is of course the old fashion b!tching and moaning about the activity of the actual debaters as an alternative to producing a contribution

I dont actually expect any responses here at all, as there is nothing to respond to apart from old fashioned ad verecunduiam, the bitching and moaning which is the natural response for some to things that go over their heads. Anyways I hope someone gets some entertainment out of it, I know I did

[What's Burning?]

Fascinating little article. And you thought you'd never get a response, it's just that you've been going about it ALL wrong.

Over the past decade, psychologists have been studying why so many people do this. As it turns out, our brains have glitches that can make it difficult to remember that wrong facts are wrong. And trying to debunk misinformation can often backfire and entrench that misinformation stronger. The problem is even worse for emotionally charged political topics — like vaccines and global warming.

the full story on Vox

[CookinFlat6]

Very interesting indeed. However I know that its a glitch that should be removed by those that have it. Its just another excuse for losers by the psychologists. 'Oh its ok, you dont think correctly, dont worry its not your fault, pay me a big load of cash to show you what you can easily fix yourself if you werent so lazy'
This glitch is the biggest factor responsible for investment and trading loss. The market memory effect when SOME people remember a specific scenario of the past and apply it over and and over to fluid scenarios. everyone starts like that, but the winners are the ones who over ride it and train themselves to be perceive objectively, and have to practice doing so in every aspect of their lives before it becomes natural

I liked this part most in that article

Lewandowsky: One thing that I would point out is that it’s very important for people to be skeptical and anticipate that people will be misleading to the public. Some of the misinformation that’s out there is not accidental. I think there’s quite a bit that’s put into the public discourse in order to have a political effect. It’s supposed to be wrong, but effective.

What our research shows is that if people are aware of the possibility that they might be misled ahead of time, then they’re much better at recognizing corrections later on.

The first sentence is a definition of the useful idiot - and the second is what causes the useless idiots, most evident in the climate change debate, some of whom we are all too familiar with

I bet there are many out there who believe MS was helping designing the helmet camera when he had his accident because 1 media outlet falsely reported this.