How to recognize an idiot during a discussion
Everybody complains about his memory, but nobody complains about his mind.
La Rochefoucauld
La Rochefoucauld
First of all, the author would like to express his gratitude to numerous interlocutors, both in real life and on Internet forums, without whose help this article would never have seen the light.
In time to identify an idiot during the discussion is extremely important, as this will save you considerable effort. Of course, sometimes you can change the opinion of an idiot without relying on facts and not using logical arguments, but this article assumes that the discussion is conducted for exchanging logically consistent opinions and getting new information from each other, and not for recruiting supporters of your idea of idiots. If you set yourself such a goal, then you had better turn to my other article, namely “How to create your own sect”. Before proceeding to the analysis of signs, with the help of which you will be able to determine that this person participating in the discussion is an idiot, we will explain what is meant in this case by the term idiot. Naturally in this case, the concept of "idiot" is not a medical term, but rather characterizes a person’s intellectual abilities.
We now proceed to consider the signs that you are arguing with an idiot.
- 1) Rudeness and / or lack of any substantiation of factual or logical when giving an answer or approving something
Examples: Everything you say is bullshit! Nonsense! The land is flat and stands on three pillars and do not dare to say the opposite! Etc.
Explanations. If the interlocutor is unable to provide any logical or factual arguments in support of his opinion, then he has no choice but to be rude and categorically and without proof to repeat his own. The inability to substantiate your opinion suggests that the idiot is arguing with you with a fairly high probability.
Reliability feature: not very high.
An example explaining the reasons for possible unreliability: For example, in a discussion of two intellectual and erudite interlocutors discussing Napoleon, his policies, etc. another person intervenes. "And Napoleon, by the way, is a Jew and an agent of the Mossad and his task was to establish world domination of the Freemasons," he says. The course of the discussion in the future depends on the strength of the nerves and pedagogical inclinations of the first two participants. If their nerves are strong and they are not alien to pedagogical talent, then they can try to enlighten the new participant in the discussion about historical realities of Napoleonic times. It is impossible to say in advance whether they will succeed or not, but it can be assumed that the probability of this is relatively low. Since, if a person is really interested in the issue and is capable of learning, then he could probably find some more or less acceptable literature about this period and would not carry such nonsense. Consequently, if the first two participants in the discussion are not too restrained, they are not inclined to study for free the one who wedged into the discussion, then it is very possible that one of them or both of them will say to the new interlocutor something like - "Get out of here! Moron!" without arguing for his answer. And this their statement quite falls under the above sign of idiocy, but, as it is quite obvious from the given example, in this particular case this sign works incorrectly, since those who made this statement are by no means idiots. So it is advisable to use it only in conjunction with other features.
- 2) An attempt to convince an opponent not by logical arguments and facts, but by repeating an unsubstantiated statement
Example: Consider all the same interlocutors mentioned above discussing about Napoleonic times. Suppose that after sticking into the discussion stated to them - “And Napoleon, by the way, the Jew and the Mossad agent and his task was to establish the world domination of the Freemasons”, they did not send him to hell immediately, but thoroughly and with evidence from authoritative sources they began to explain to him that Napoleon could not be an agent of the Mossad, if only because at that time Israel did not exist as a state of Israel, much less such a special service as Mossad. And Napoleon was not a Jew, but was a Corsican. After that, speaking with such allegations, he waits for a while, and then reappears with the same allegations that his interlocutors disproved. Further actions of debating with a similar character depend on their patience, and on his part, the issuance of such many times refuted statements becomes cyclical.
Note: It is obvious from the example that the person behaving in a similar way is either unable to hold the arguments against his assertions in his head for more than a relatively short period, or he believes that the repeated repetition of some assertion despite the fact that it was logically or actually disproved, nevertheless, gradually makes it true either in general or in the eyes of interlocutors
Reliability of the feature: very high
- 3) Unreasonable generalizations and extrapolations
Example: When someone claims, for example, that all Finns from music listen only to Frank Sinatra on the grounds that he was familiar with only two Finns, and they did not listen to songs of Frank Sinatra or that all Frenchmen wear triangular hats and dream of conquering Russia, since he read somewhere about Napoleon and extrapolated this information to all the French.
Or give another example of an erroneous extrapolation by Bobby Henders (for more on this in the Wikipedia article Flying Spaghetti Monster)
Pirates and global warming
The influence of the number of pirates on global warming as an illustration of the fact that the relationship is not equal to causality (Latin: um hoc ergo propter hoc - after this, therefore, because of this). In this letter, Henderson develops the argument that "global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes and other natural disasters are a direct consequence of the reduction in the number of pirates from 1800." The chart attached to the letter shows that with a reduction in the number of pirates, the global temperature rises, thus illustrating that statistically related things, however, are not necessarily interrelated.
Explanations: From the above statements or the like, it can be quite clearly stated that the person making them has no idea what constitutes a representative sample and that far from any extrapolation makes sense by itself.
Reliability of the feature: very high
- 4) Attempt to refute statistics with single examples.
Example: When someone responds to a statistical study that shows that the average standard of living in the US is higher than, for example, Belarus declares - “Lies! I was in the US and there I had a homeless man begging for food! Is this a high level of life ?! But in Belarus, my brother lives and he has his own villa, the Jaguar machine and in general he is almost a millionaire! So all your statistics are lying about the fact that in Belarus the standard of living is lower than in the USA! "
Explanations: In principle, explanations are superfluous in this case.
Reliability of the feature: very high
- 5) Attempt to attract arguments (to refute or confirm allegations) from a field that is not the subject of discussion (lynched blacks, etc.)
Example: Someone say in the discussion about what country the average standard of living above states "Here you claim that the standard of living is higher in the US than in Somalia. And the United States, by the way, dropped a nuclear bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki! A lot of people died there ! " etc.
Explanations: In this case, the person does not understand that The subject of discussion is a comparative standard of living across countries, and not what image a country has, what methods a high standard of living was achieved in, etc. Therefore, although his statement is absolutely true, in the framework of the above discussion, it is absolutely meaningless, because in no way disproves or confirms that the average standard of living in the US is higher or lower than in Somalia.
The reliability of the sign: not very high
An example explaining the reasons for possible unreliability: If the subject of the discussion is not clearly stated, and this is not a rare case, then one of the interlocutors may simply decide to expand the scope of the discussion by giving arguments from related and interdependent topics with the discussion of other areas. In such a case, such an opponent will not be an idiot. He will be an idiot only if the topic of the discussion was specified quite clearly, and despite this, he will try to push arguments that do not fall under this topic into the discussion.
- 6) Selective application of data and logical reasoning
Example: If a Mongol proves to all, citing a lot of historical information, that Chaka (the founder of the Zulus state in South Africa) was a bloodthirsty savage and aggressor, but is terribly insulted and refuses, based on no less data and following the same logic, the savage of Genghis Khan, thereby demonstrating the selective use of logic and the desire to ignore those data that do not fit into his ideas.
Explanations: Actually explanations in this case are unnecessary.
Reliability of the feature: very high
- 7) Misunderstanding of the unequal value of different sources of information
Example: If a person does not understand that an article in the field of physics published in the journal AIDS-Info has much less weight than an article on the same topic published, for example, in such scientific journals as "Nature" or "Physical Review Letters" or ceteris paribus information reported news agency Reuters, enjoys more confidence than information from a source such as the same AIDS-Info, then this in itself is very significant.
Explanations: The area of assessment of the credibility of various sources of information is still rather poorly formalized, which does not negate, however, the possibility of grading these sources according to the degree of reliability in an empirical way. In the same areas as science, quite workable methods of assessing the credibility of scientific articles like the citation index are already being developed.
Reliability of a sign: rather high
An example explaining the reasons for possible unreliability: Despite the above, nevertheless, it should be noted that hF> The experimenter repeats the task.
Subject The village headman was not angry that day.
Experimenter. The village headman was not angry? Why?
Subject Because he doesn't like Flumo.
Experimenter. He doesn't like Flyumo? Tell me why?
Subject Because when Flumo drinks cane juice, it's bad. Therefore, the village headman is angry when Flumo does this. And when Yakpalo sometimes drinks cane juice, he does nothing bad to people. He goes and goes to bed. Therefore, people are not angry with him. But for those who get drunk on cane juice and start fighting, the warden cannot tolerate them in the village. "
The subject has in mind most likely some specific people, or simply invented them. He discarded the first premise of the task and replaced it with another statement: people are not angry with other people. Then he entered into the task new data concerning the behavior of Flumo and Yakpalo. The subject's answer to the experimental problem was incorrect. But it was the result of quite logical arguments based on new premises.
To analyze the problem posed in the first experiment, we reformulate it so that the logical connections of the statements are revealed: “If a spider eats, it also eats a deer; if it eats a deer, it also eats a spider; a spider eats; consequently, a deer also eats”. The buildings of people of different cultures, clearly show that most often the reason for the difficulties is that the reasoning pattern, its form, does not stand out in its pure form. To address the issue of correctness of reasoning, some irrelevant substantive considerations are involved instead. They are usually associated with the specific situation described in the argument.
Here's how to describe the course of one of the experiments conducted in Africa, M. Cole and S. Scribner in the book "Culture and Thinking".
Experimenter.
One day the spider went to a holiday dinner. But he was told that before he began to eat, he must answer one question. The question is: "The spider and the black deer always eat together. The spider eats. Does the deer eat?"
Subject Were they in the forest?
Experimenter. Yes.
Subject Did they eat together?
Experimenter. Spider and deer always eat together. The spider is eating. Does a deer eat?
Subject But I was not there. How can I answer this question?
Experimenter. Can't answer? Even if you were not there, you can answer this question. (Repeats the question.)
Subject Yes, yes, a black deer eats.
Experimenter. Why are you saying. What does a black deer eat?
Subject Because a black deer always walks all day in the forest and eats green leaves. Then he rests a bit and gets up again to eat.
This is an obvious mistake. The subject does not have a general idea of the logical correctness of the conclusion. To give an answer, he seeks to rely on some facts, and when the experimenter refuses to help him in the search for such facts, he invents them.
Another example from the same study.
Experimenter. If Flumo or Yakpalo drink cane juice, the village headman is angry. Flumo does not drink cane juice. Jakpalo drinks cane juice. Is the village elder angry?
Subject People are not angry with other people.
The experimenter repeats the task.
Subject The village headman was not angry that day.
Experimenter. The village headman was not angry? Why?
Subject Because he doesn't like Flumo.
Experimenter. He doesn't like Flyumo? Tell me why?
Subject Because when Flumo drinks cane juice, it's bad. Therefore, the village headman is angry when Flumo does this. And when Yakpalo sometimes drinks cane juice, he does nothing bad to people. He goes and goes to bed. Therefore, people are not angry with him. But for those who get drunk on cane juice and start fighting, the warden cannot tolerate them in the village. "
The subject has in mind most likely some specific people, or simply invented them. He discarded the first premise of the task and replaced it with another statement: people are not angry with other people. Then he entered into the task new data concerning the behavior of Flumo and Yakpalo. The subject's answer to the experimental problem was incorrect. But it was the result of quite logical arguments based on new premises.
To analyze the problem posed in the first experiment, we reformulate it so that the logical connections of the statements are revealed: “If a spider eats, it also eats a deer; if it eats a deer, it also eats a spider; a spider eats; consequently, a deer also eats”. Here are three packages. Does two of them follow: “If a spider eats, a deer also eats” and “Spider eats” the conclusion “Deer eats”? Of course. The reasoning goes according to the scheme already mentioned: “if there is one, that is, there is a second; there is one, which means there is a second.” It is a logical law. The correctness of this reasoning does not depend, of course, on whether everything happens in the forest, whether the subject was present, and so on.
The second problem is somewhat more complicated: “If Flumo or Yakpalo drink cane juice, the village headman is angry. Flumo does not drink cane juice. Yakpalo drinks cane juice. Is the village elder angry?” Distracting from the specific content, we reveal a pattern of reasoning: "if there is one or second, that is, the third; there is no first, but there is the second; therefore, there is a third." This scheme is a logical law, and, therefore, the reasoning is correct. The scheme is close to the previously mentioned scheme "if there is the first, that is, the second; there is the first; therefore, there is the second." The only difference is that two alternatives are indicated as the “first” in a more complicated argument, one of which is immediately excluded. ”
Explanations: Actually this feature is cumulative and in fact includes all the other features mentioned above (they were considered separately only for greater clarity), and therefore is the most reliable. All the many logical errors that can be made cannot be considered, since they, like human stupidity, are endless and therefore the above are just a few examples of such errors. As for the rest, applying this sign you just need to check the line of reasoning of the disputing person for compliance with logic.
Reliability of the feature: extremely high
What else to remember when discussing with an idiot.
As a rule, an idiot thinks that he won the discussion if you stop discussing with him first, i.e. respond to his idiotic remarks and refute them. And you are more likely to stop doing this first by virtue of Shapiro's law, which I modestly named after me. And this law says that "the statement of an idiotic statement requires an order of magnitude less effort than its consistent and reasonable refutation and moreover, sometimes this refutation is impossible at all." To understand why this is so should refer to the famous 'Russell Teapot'. In 1952, Russell wrote: "If I assume that a porcelain teapot flies around the Sun in an elliptical orbit between Earth and Mars, no one will be able to refute my statement, especially if I carefully add that the kettle is so small that it is not visible even with the most powerful telescopes "
Can you imagine what efforts the refutation of such a statement would require and that it is impossible to implement this refutation at the present level of technical development? And even in cases where a refutation is possible, it requires an incomparably monstrous effort compared to the effort required to make an idiotic utterance, which is required to be refuted. Therefore, the option that you simply can not physically refute the statement of your opponent, an idiot, and you will have to stop the discussion is very possible. And it will not help you at all if you decide to demand from an idiot opponent that he himself has proved the truth of his delusional claim, since it is elementary in the proof of its delusional assertion will result in equally delusional reasoning and proof, and this in turn means that you have to refute them as well. And this is not to mention the fact that an idiot can easily use the method I mentioned in the second sign of idiocy ie constant repetition (sometimes slightly modified) of their already refuted statements. Based on this, an idiot, according to his criteria for victory, always gains the upper hand in the discussion. So, isn’t it better to reveal an idiot with the help of the signs given above by me to immediately send him to far away? So you will save a lot of time and effort.
Information