That's really insightful. Lately I have been getting into a few more debates, religious and not, because of decreased tolerance to flawed ideas. I got stuck on “That which can be destroyed by the truth should be." loop, convinced I was right in a discussion with my mother, actually.
Still trying to figure out how to become more truth-seeking, but it's hard since I'm not nearly rational enough. I wonder what the best way to act is, if I don't want debates, or discussions, but feel compelled to give a hint at my own opinions. For example, a friend thought the best way to make things better was to pray for me, which sparked a pretty heated argument, something I didn't want.
I'll just try to get my head out of my arse, but I still find it frustrating how obviously wrong people (including me) can be.
What sequence would you recommend if I repeatedly approach this from the wrong angle?
Does an external link work instead? Because I found Paul Graham's essay Keep Your Identity Small to make the point a bit more succinctly.
I don't think anyone here is perfect, though a lot here is simply brilliant logic. Though, as humans, we're automatically biased for or against something, at times for the wrong things and reasons. No bias at all isn't something we're equipped for, and to me sounds quite dull. Some things we have to believe, even as with our limited lifespan it would be very hard to learn everything.
Anyway, on to my actual point: How often do you realise you're biased for the wrong reasons, and you argue more for winning than being right? Also, what irrationality can you point out, and how to fight it? This could apply to you, or those around you, doesn't matter as no one's perfect. But as usual, we should try to at least be better.
Right now I'm trying to figure out how to best deal with unreasonable demands. A theological debate which eventually went "Well, if science can't do X, it is flawed, and we should accept that some questions are unanswerable.", and I'm working out the most efficient counter-argument (leaning towards "that's why we should try to see if it's impossible or not"). Anyway, share your thoughts on this, how to be efficiently rational, though if you try to help me, I'd like more questions instead of answers. I value the process of rationality more than straight-up answers, even though it's frustrating as it is.
Basically: Flaws you encounter and how to fight them efficiently, maybe [Bayesian Judo style](http://lesswrong.com/lw/i5/bayesian_judo/).