Dialetic with unreasonable people?

Question

In conversations, people are often more interested in raising their ego, than reaching a valid conclusion.

Using the socratic method to prove them wrong does not work really well, because they make a lot of mistakes and use lots of fallacies, that, to be rebuked, often make them use even more fallacies.

What's tbe key to gain an argument with these people?

Answer 1

do not cast pearls before swine...

n besides, what's even more important than winning an argument is validation of other's feeling's. Just becoz someone doesnt think like us doesnt mean they are wrong! its their life, thier circumstances, their personality that has made them that way....they n their beliefs are as real as you n your beliefs!

there is agony not because there is variety n contradictions...but rather becoz of our inability to accept it!

rather than tryin to correct someone, maybe we could ponder, what makes them that way? Its difficult to see other people's point of view....n ironically, people change when you accept their views rather than when you rebuke them!

there's a saying, a man changed against his will is of the same opinion still! nobody wants an argument, everybody is looking for acceptance....

remember, accepting other's views doesnt mean changing your own...

no matter how different people think, perceive the world differently....they all have the same feelings....your heart can reach out to others, when your mind fails...

Answer 2

99% of people don't know how to have a 'dialectic' argument, which I think just means allowing two conflicting ideas to encounter each other.

Usually these encounters are informal and there is no way to enforce any type of structure. People interrupt, change the topic, introduce anecdotal evidence, get emotional. No one ever changes their mind from one of these exchanges.

If you could, state at the entrence what the question is that is being discussed, and keep bringing up that question. Keep track of all the evidence introduced and whether or not the evidences are themselves in question. Don't let it last too long and then follow up with an email later.

Arguments should be short, and it's best to not argue when too many personal interests are involved. If it gets personal, stop arguing and switch to a different emotional mode, commiseration, problem-solving, etc.

John Taylor Gatto has a good secion on these situations towards the end of his book, 'A different kind of teacher'. I had never thought about why conversations tend to generally suck so badly before that. People get into conversations for vastly different reasons and that generally makes them short lived.

If you can derive what people's needs are, that's kindof like knowing their poker hand by the look on their face, and will give you an advantage towards getting whatever it is that you want, whether it's to actually change someones mind or just attain respect for yourself.

Answer 3

Not even Socrates ever reached an argument with these people. He just revealed how stupid they were. That's why he died.
Why would you like to gain an argument with these people anyway?

It doesn't take any special skills. They are the believers type. They will not listen to reason no matter what.
So you just have to find the foundation of their beliefs and shake it.
Example: If they blindly believe in God it's easier to gain an argument if you say that you heard it from the Pope.
If they believe in science you just say that you heard that this is the latest scientific breakthrough.
I believe you get my point.

Sometimes it's like having an argument with a rock. You will never gain it but it's also sure that the rock will not gain it either.

Answer 4

Passive resistance. You must listen carefully and find the truths in what they say and agree with the truths then differ with what you consider to be fallacies. Never argue as that is counter productive as you have noticed it only caused people to dig in and start looking for a counter point instead of listening.

Answer 5

It is not advisable to wrangle over words as this causes dissension. Make your point. Allow the other person to make their point. Each try to understand the other person's point of view. Agree to disagree if each feel strongly in favor of their view.

Answer 6

so, you want to use the socratic method? well, go ahead, I guess, if you feel the need to bugger goats while debating on line, I guess it couldn't be any worse than other methods I've seen.