= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
David_Gerard comments on The Sin of Persuasion - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (63)
My general defence against this is to be too difficult to actually convince. I nod and smile and acknowledge the quality of the arguments but am not actually convinced to change my mind. I may well have taken this too far. (It certainly frustrates the heck out of people.) It's useful if you know you're fond enough of new ideas to be susceptible to neophilia-induced bad ideas. It's somewhat like being just plain dim.
Ah. It sounds like we have different interpretations of what SarahC meant by out-argued.
I don't believe a clever debater can long-term convince me of the falsehood of something I believe and feel strongly about (sadly, even if it's true), although they might induce me to go along temporarily.
This is, incidentally, not to say that I can't be caught up in cultishness, merely to say that clever arguments are sufficient (or, sadly, necessary) to do it. (ETA: er... I meant, of course, "are not sufficient," which was perhaps clear)