SilverFlame I noticed in your recent post that you described "rhetorical aikido", which you called a Daoist technique. I have studied the Tao Te Ching's text a fair bit over the past few years, and I find its philosophy to be quite useful as a "theme" or "virtue". I've not had the opportunity to speak with others who seem to understand the Daoist perspective, so I thought this could be an interesting opportunity to expand my understanding a bit. lsusr I am flattered you feel I give the impression of understanding the Daoist perspective. I have read only the first sentence of the Tao Te Ching, yet I too find its philosophy to be useful. I thought this could be an interesting opportunity to expand my understanding a bit. SilverFlame In that case, I'll mention some of the things that suggested you understood the perspective to me. I'll repeat the first sentence of the "Tao Te Ching" so that anyone who hasn't read it can see its warning: "Dao called Dao is not Dao." One of the big concepts repeatedly alluded to is that you can't write down what the "Way" is, at best you can gesture in its direction. Some things I noticed in the post: * The process of the rhetorical aikido described immediately felt right to call Daoist, at least according to my intuition * The emphasis on avoiding open assertion of your own perspective aligns with the oft-repeated concept of "the sage does not contend" * Leading the other person into noticing a possible contradiction aligns with tactics the "Art of War" would suggest, where they might not even notice a plan is afoot * The idea that the technique is meant to be used with those who are legitimately curious also matches the principle of "do not contend" > "Welcome to Lsusr's rationality dojo," I replied, "Today is not your first day." This statement also caught my eye, albeit not for reasons of resembling the Daoist perspective. lsusr Yes. The techniques you point to are indeed Daoist. Not immediately stating your own beli