 |
|
|
|
|
 |
(309 words)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
(1663 words)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
(197 words)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
(33 words)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
(774 words)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(112 words)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(472 words)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(52 words)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1178 words)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1714 words)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| <<<>>> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Techniques |
|
| Created by Decius at
| [+ favourites]
|
|
|
|
|
The basis of all ideas outlined here will rely upon probable logic to determine what is assumed to be the truth.
And that becomes technique number one - that probable truths must be assumed as the ultimate truth in any given discussion. It becomes the purpose of the discussion, then, to amalgamate all probable premises together to form a probable conclusion, which becomes the truth derived from that exchange of information.
The most common breakdown of communication, by far, is the exchange of a premise that one party finds an unnacceptable or improbable premise.
When this occurs, there is an extremely crucial series communications that must be exchanged between the parties in order for the conversation to continue. On average, it is my experience that 99% of all discussions end or become stale due to the failure of this important step to be respected, encouraged, and understood by one or both parties.
The most common culprit is personal bias. The party who presents a premise that is being questioned by the opposing party is unwilling to accept a probable rebuttal to their premise. In other words, the first rule takes a backseat to personal agenda. At this point, one party is failing to adhere to the rule that all probable conclusions must be accepted as truth within any given discussion. Therefore, if their premise is opposed by a more probable criticism, it must be renovated to fit this new, more accurate form. If it does not, the discussion can no longer continue.
Alternatively, if a probable point is being criticised through unlikely probability, it also becomes a stale argument when the party criticising the other party's premise is unwilling to accept that their criticism is improbable, and therefore, untrue in this discussion.
Both of the above scenarios are one and the same as a criticism towards any premise is in fact the presentation of a probable premise that simply proves the original premise untrue. All that can be argued given two alternate suggestions to one common question is the probability of either being true, and whichever suggestion wins becomes the truth of the discussion.
The probability of any given point is determined by every individual's statistical evidence history. They believe any given fact to be true if they have seen and/or experienced it enough times. Additionally, facts that are assumed to be true for a scientific reason or more probable scientific conclusion generally take precedence over most other methods of determining probability. Namely, the idea of cause and effect. Cause and effect is one of the most reliable and personal models that most observations and predictions can rely upon to determine probability. Given any number of causes, there is a number of effects these causes can create. An individual then determines which is the most likely effect of these causes given what they know of the causes. Determining the most probable effect takes into account historical evidence, scientific theory, and personal observation.
However, most discussions rarely, if ever, become a problem of determination in regards to probable causes and effects. In the cases where the parties do not involve personal bias, there is an almost complete certainty that both parties will come to an absolutely mutual conclusion about what is the truth given any topic of discussion. This serves to be an example of all healthy discussion as both parties will never agree at the initiaition of any discussion, but through the amalgamation of personal probabilities, a joint probability is determined, creating a more universally applicable truth than either party would individually have access to.
Most discussions, from politicians to children and forums, for the large majority (99%) fail to reach the success outlined above due to the inclusion of personal bias. One or both parties take a stand behind one or more premises that they present to the argument and put probability aside. What they put ahead of probability is their desire for that given premise to be true. This desire can spawn from investment, fear or profit. All reasons behind the desire fail to form any support behind the probability of the given premise being true because these desires never are of the same topical nature as the premises themselves. That is to say, one may press the idea that republicans are corrupt while democrats are not for the specific reason that they themselves have voted democrat for the last 10 years, and do not want to be faced with the possible loss of ego or feelings of failure that could follow if they conceded that democrats are indeed as corrupt as republicans. Their desire to feel powerful is completely inconsequential to the question of democrats and republicans, and therefore, has no place determining whether the premise is true or not. The desire for the premise to be true is a completely independant and isolated fact that bears no evidence on the probability of any given premise being true or false. It solely reflects one's desire for it to be true or false.
What is failed in most common debates, and in fact frowned upon, is the inclusion of both parties' personal feelings towards the arguments being presented. Their personal lives, investments, and the drawbacks they may suffer if they agree with the opposition. As is explained above, these facts are extremely pertinent to the nature of the discussion as it becomes a fruitless exercise to attempt to discuss a subject when the basis for most of the premises being presented are not present in the discussion itself. That is to say, if one has a bias, that bias proves to be an important part of the discussion as it forms the basis to a piece of information they are presenting. That bias must therefore be discussed just as any other fact would be in order to determine whether it fails or succeeds in increasing or decreasing the probability of any given premise.
As can be predicted, biases will almost never affect the actual validity of the point an individual is biased towards or against. This is why, the revealing of personal bias in any discussion is a crucial way to avoid any topic or premise that has as its basis for any members of the discussion a biased motive. Such a premise cannot be discussed or argued unless the biased individual relinquishes their bias. Such events are rare, if ever witnessed.
It therefore becomes important for all members of a discussion to ensure that no member of it is biased towards any of the premises or topics being presented. If the bias does exist, it must be acknowledged, understood, and admitted by all the relevant parties. Further, any premises that cannot be discussed due to these biases must be mutually avoided and ignored. As a result, if this is successfully practiced, both parties are able to come to a mutually conclusive truth even though personal bias does exist, making certain aspects of the discussion stagnant. The resulting conclusion will then necessarily be less accurate, but still better than one either individual would have alone. |
|
|
|
|
| Created by Decius at
|
| Comments |
|
|
|
|
