This is an open discussion topic for social metaphysics issues. Below is a conversation log which you can use as an optional conversation starter. It'll give you some leads on issues you might want to talk about.
StEmperorAugustine:
This one is Think Club. They look similar. https://youtu.be/bDTp4yg3XTk?t=396
StEmperorAugustine:
I like this retired Fighter Pilot. Seems to value reason more than most ppl I've seen on this.
curi:
is there something you dislike about reading?
StEmperorAugustine:
I like reading. Why did you say I dislike it?
curi:
why watch a debate like that over reading?
StEmperorAugustine:
over reading what specifically? I like reading and watching debates both. Not one over the other. What I like about debates is watching how people come to hold certain opinions and how they engage in trying to convince the other, or defend their reasoning. Reading I do more if I want to really understand a concept better in more detail.
Justin:
https://fallibleideas.com/books
curi:
You could read more. It is a choice you're making. And there are written debates which are better organized, give more info in a clearer way, e.g. the FI archives.
StEmperorAugustine:
Ty Justin. That reading list is what I am working on already plus some others. Starting with that list tho
StEmperorAugustine:
Reading takes more effort
StEmperorAugustine:
sometimes If I feel like relaxing I watch these debates
curi:
So the answer to the question "is there something you dislike about reading?" is "yes"
StEmperorAugustine:
I like it until I am to tired. I don't want to be misleading by saying I dislike it. I really like it. I like playing soccer but eventually I get too tired to continue.
curi:
you're not being very logical
curi:
you're confusing dislike something about reading with disliking reading.
StEmperorAugustine:
oh no. Where did I mess up?
StEmperorAugustine:
aaaah
StEmperorAugustine:
yes
StEmperorAugustine:
Parts of reading that I might dislike
StEmperorAugustine:
but not as a whole
StEmperorAugustine:
hmm. I don't really see getting tired after a while as the same as disliking it
curi:
you see reading as harder (higher effort) which is a downside which is a problem sometimes
curi:
audio books and text to speech allow you to read by listening. would that solve the problem of making it more relaxing like listening to a video?
StEmperorAugustine:
I have tried it, It helps but it still takes effort to think about the concepts being presented, and I do tire eventually too
StEmperorAugustine:
tho I am getting a bit better at sticking with it longer
curi:
doesn't following a debate take effort? those verbal debates are harder to follow than most books, IMO, because they're poorly organized and inconclusive (lots of loose ends to remember like a list of points that weren't answered).
NikLuk:
I do audiobooks the most. It can be combined with another activity. I like walking outdoors - that is easy to combine with audiobooks.
The negative with this combo is sometimes I get distracted and have to rewind some. I do not think audiobooks on new content are as good as actually reading the same thing, as I tend to miss more listening. On the plus side is I can work through the material faster.
curi:
the debates also lack editing. books are edited to take unclear or confusing parts and make them easier to understand.
curi:
with FI debates, you can easily reread context to check things to help you follow it. with YT debates that's hard.
NikLuk:
Re debates I think most of the time people just talk by each-other and avoid addressing the harder questions.
StEmperorAugustine:
What you're saying makes sense. books should be easier to understand due to editing. It still take more effort to me than to just sit back and enjoy a debate.
curi:
the standard reason for that is people watch debates socially. what they like about it is the social interaction, which is easier for them to follow than the intellectual stuff.
StEmperorAugustine:
so possibly what I enjoy about them is not the ideas presented but how they are presented and their interactions with the other guy
curi:
Adam Friended's body language and voice tones tell a story, a narrative, all by themselves without even listening to any of the words.
StEmperorAugustine:
Yes there's a lot of useful knowledge in just facial expression, body language and tone of voice
curi:
i didn't mean it's useful. i think it's an irrational way of bypassing which arguments are good to manipulate audiences.
curi:
voice tones are not arguments and can be done regardless of whether what you're claiming is true or false
curi:
it's not truth seeking
StEmperorAugustine:
What about useful in the sense of learning to be more persuasive when talking to other people
curi:
by persuasive you mean manipulating them b/c they are persuaded by things other than truth?
Justin:
Social persuasion is not rational persuasion
StEmperorAugustine:
not as a replacement for having true arguements but as a supplement
curi:
so e.g. if you get a more fashionable haircut, ppl listen more? that's irrational and it's pandering to their bad ideas.
StEmperorAugustine:
I think presenting yourself in a certain manner matters. Idk if it is manipulation, maybe in the sense that it might make the other person more receptive to what you have to say, and actually listen
Justin:
What about big tits as a supplement to arguments
StEmperorAugustine:
I think those signal something entirely different than what I had in mind
Justin:
Might make ppl listen more tho
StEmperorAugustine:
Honeslty they probably would listen less
curi:
looking smart and being smart are different things. if you try to look smart, you're playing into ppl's prejudices instead of focusing on truth.
StEmperorAugustine:
what about looking and being smart. Though "looking smart" is also not what I have in mind.
curi:
what's the upside there?
NikLuk:
Does the context not matter here? Say you're in advertising. Using more social would be beneficial, no? Was Jobs not good at the extra stuff making the releases more interesting for many people?
curi:
if ppl like non-arguments, they're wrong. if you want the practical result of more fans, it can work. if you want the truth, it's not helping.
curi:
advertising isn't truth seeking.
StEmperorAugustine:
Let's say I am making argument P. I can state argument P while being nervous, and looking messy, and mumbling etc.. Or I can make statement P with a good projected voice, a good sense of style, and clearly and confidently. The truth of P matter but how you deliver it does matter too. Like in a Job interview
Justin:
Matter for what
curi:
whether P or true or false is 100% separate from whether you looked messy when you said it.
NikLuk:
advertising isn't truth seeking.
Ok. Missed it was only about truth seeking. My bad.
StEmperorAugustine:
yes I am not arguing against that
curi:
so if ppl are focusing any attention on those things, it's bad, it's a distraction from the issues
curi:
it means less thought goes into what's true
StEmperorAugustine:
yes they are getting distracted from P which is what matters.
curi:
so it's bad to encourage that kind of thing, or to like that kind of thing, if the truth is what you value.
StEmperorAugustine:
if P is true regardless. Why is it not objectively better to present it properly and confidently?
curi:
who sounds confident or looks fashionable is a contest, a competition. the winners of that competition may have shitty ideas which then spread.
StEmperorAugustine:
not if the idea is the same
StEmperorAugustine:
in that scenario P is the statement that is true
curi:
the ppl who are best at sounding confident are not the ppl with the best ideas.
StEmperorAugustine:
ok but that's a different argument
curi:
if you have a good idea and also participate in that contest, you may be outcompeted at social stuff by someone with a worse idea. happens all the time.
StEmperorAugustine:
yes that can happen
curi:
competing at social stuff takes a ton of effort. it's a huge distraction. b/c that area is very competitive.
StEmperorAugustine:
well I am not arguing for competing at social stuff. Just at learning proper presentation. Only as secondary as presenting a proper idea.
curi:
and if you play that game, audiences spend some of their time not thinking about your argument, so fewer of them understanding what you said.
StEmperorAugustine:
secondary to*
curi:
what is proper and why is that proper?
StEmperorAugustine:
that I don't know
StEmperorAugustine:
being clear is proper vs mumbling
curi:
the way it actually works is there's no limit where you're good enough and you're done
StEmperorAugustine:
looking at your shoes vs at the audience
StEmperorAugustine:
that kind of thing
curi:
you can get to the 50th percentile or the 70th percentile at skill, or the 99th, and you can still climb higher socially
StEmperorAugustine:
I suppose you could but that's not really what I am arguing for.
curi:
there's nowhere to draw the line
StEmperorAugustine:
The line may be arbitrary but reality kind of imposes on you
curi:
there's no principle that says a certain skill at eye contact is important, but a higher skill at eye contact doesn't matter.
curi:
not reality. other people, and specifically the dumber ones, who you don't have to suck up to.
StEmperorAugustine:
there's so much time in the day, and you spend it building your argument. Once it is built then you can improve at presentation,
curi:
time is a scarce resource
StEmperorAugustine:
Indeed.
curi:
you could always put more time into truth seeking. any time on presentation is lost.
StEmperorAugustine:
I suppose it depends on the context too
Justin:
Augustine if you read FH u might have better understanding of FI view on social stuff
StEmperorAugustine:
Wouldn't your argument then depend on everyone having read FH then Justin?
curi:
you're changing topics a lot
StEmperorAugustine:
If I am presenting an idea and show up all disheveled, mumbled nervously through it, look at the shoes. Maybe the people who read FH are like right on. but somehow I doubt it
curi:
if your goal is truth seeking, what to do does not depend on how many audience members understand social dynamics rationally.
StEmperorAugustine:
that still doesn't tell me why presenting true argument P poorly is preferable than presenting it well. I mean presenting it as stating it in front of someone else or others.
curi:
https://youtu.be/bDTp4yg3XTk?t=3236 there are some examples here within 30s. e.g. Adam says "valuable" in a voice tone, does a shrug and does a voice tone at the end of the section right b4 the other guy talks again. those are just some of the more blatant ones.
curi:
Adam spends more than 50% of his mental effort, during a discussion, on thinking about (mostly subconsciously) what would impress dumb viewers, how to manipulate them, how to pander, etc. This gets more effort than his argument quality.
curi:
This is typical.
StEmperorAugustine:
The first thing people see is neither your personality nor your argument. A good first impression makes a difference. I agree that you should work on making argument P as strong as possible and that should be your focus. Then maybe you can put some effort in presentation. I still don't see the downside, but I do see the upsides. Could even be split 90% argument 10% presentation or move the dials there as needed.
Justin:
Augustine would you disregard someone's argument on some point if they didn't make eye contact etc?
StEmperorAugustine:
Depends on their argument
Justin:
!
curi:
Taking 10% of your effort away from truth is a downside.
curi:
Making eye contact in the socially normal way (an example Aug has given several times) takes a huge amount of effort. This effort is not recognized because the learning time and costs are mostly in early childhood. However, some people don't learn it then, are called "autistic", and are persecuted quite cruelly and extensively. The way people learn it in childhood is by learning to care more about how others think of them than about reality. It's part of a process where they learn not to prioritize truth, that they will be punished for not fitting in and need to prioritize that instead.
StEmperorAugustine:
But what if the truth of argument P is very important. Let's say if people adopted P the world would be a better place. Why would you not want more people to adopt P?
StEmperorAugustine:
Knowing that many do not hold your view on presentation
StEmperorAugustine:
and will judge based on that
curi:
People learn the "proper" way to do eye contact by learning to pay very close attention to the reactions they get from other people and then changing whenever they get negative reactions, and keep making changes until they get it right and get approval. This takes a huge amount of time and effort and the mentality is broadly incompatible with e.g. scientific thinking.
curi:
Aug you keep changing topics, we can't discuss everything at once.
StEmperorAugustine:
I have to go but once again I'd like to continue later.
StEmperorAugustine:
:slight_smile:
StEmperorAugustine:
ttyl
curi:
The things you're saying are everywhere but lots of ppl won't admit or say them in an intellectual context. They lie about how rational they are.
curi:
They're really bad though, but pretending not to think them just makes it harder to change.
curi:
One of the practical effects is ppl spend a lot of time engaging with lower quality material (in terms of ideas and truth seeking) b/c they want to watch ppl compete socially.
curi:
So they learn less.
curi:
ppl seek out material with e.g. facecam b/c they don't even know how to judge what's true, only how to judge social stuff.
StEmperorAugustine:
I've been thinking a bit about our discussion.
It is possible that we may be talking about two different things so I'll try to restate my position.
I agree that truth seeking is important, and that in an ideal world (even then I am not so sure that would be ideal) people would not care about how a message is delivered. But that is not how the world works.
People care about how the message is delivered as much as the message itself. For example, Jordan Peterson sells out large auditoriums in hundreds of cities around the globe. A lot of what he says is quite good, some is okay, other is standard self help stuff that people already know. But he is able to reach a large audience because he is a good speaker.
Another example, Job interviews. Most people get hired based on a 1on1 interview. They already have seen your resume, what they are looking for is how you present yourself. Are you someone they would be okay working with or talking to their customers.
It may be different for you because your job is to write philosophy articles. So you do not need to have charm perhaps. Although, even with philosophy articles you do have to worry about your presentation. Your website has to be readable, easy to navigate. Your sentences need to be clear and follow grammar rules to eliminate confusion.
All in all I think context matters. And as I said yesterday, if statement P is true. I would prefer that statement P is presented in a clear, unambigious, confident manner.
