Search results

In the PC topic we started discussing transgender people and then we moved on to BLM and from there we moved on to Trump. That's three separate subjects.

I was revisiting some discussions you and I have been having - One of the pitfalls we ran into was changing subjects in the middle of a disagreement. So, for example, one rule could be "We can't change subjects. If we disagree on A we keep talking about A without moving to B or C". To help us...

I don't know, I never used them before :) Also, no point in exploring it if only one person agrees to do it, don't you think?

I thought I'd open a thread dedicated to all things AI. While we're very, very far from Singularity-like scenarios, AI is making considerable improvements in some areas. hide-and-seek machine learning (3m)

Well, "Within my own biases" is one thing we should try and remove from the debating equation. I am sure I have biases as much as you do. I'm sure I ran into a few pitfalls myself when arguing with you. For example, on occasion, I just wanted to make a quick point and used sources without...

@Jon, did you have any more thoughts about this? I'm referring specifically to discussing how people (for example you and I) might go about debating issues where there is a strong disagreement, avoiding the various irrational pitfalls, making a good-quality case, and so on. To be super-clear...

@Jon, if I wanted to write a thread about communication, where would that go best?

I was incorrect when I wrote "There's no one sentence synopsis. " - what I should have written was "there is no easy answer to where the balance lies, because the balance changes according to person and situation". There is, in fact, a segment long just over 1 minute, which gives you a sense...

Or that 5G has something to do with Covid-19!

There's no one sentence synopsis. The video explains the dangers of 'thinking in categories' (two such categories possibly being nature and nurture), and drives viewers towards a much more nuanced approach. There is no simple way to answer it.

I have been wondering about that one for most of my life. Then I came across this

Does it block the Quantcast-type pop-ups that slide from the bottom?

What prompted you to suggest any of the above? Well, this acquaintance of yours certainly seems to have a unique character. Fair enough. I may very well have stereotypical views about "right" priorities. For example, I may consider not being homeless a priority. But you're right - this does...

In the meantime, just leaving this here https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-53610814 Trump's claims are not the only ones that BBC News fact-checks

I don't dismiss that. What about your potential, subconscious objective to convert the "misunderstandings" of the other side, so they conform to your view?

I agree that my prior post sounds more like a thought experiment. I also agree that things are less clear cut in the real world. For example, in the real world there are undoubtedly many pitfalls that two reasonable people debating would have to watch out for. But my point is, in order to get...

@Jon let's have a scenario where person A and person B are two reasonable individuals who disagree on topics X, Y and Z Let's also say that there is a set of facts or data available to an objective observer. Thanks to this data the objective observer can see that on topic X, Person A is right...

Let's pause this conversation for now - it does not seem like we're going anywhere. It is partly my fault. I want to revisit a few things and then propose a way forward.

I strongly believe that when there is strong communication and a desire to get to the bottom of the truth from people who have opposing views, it is possible to come to a better understanding. I will elaborate in the next few days about this.