Post by Kyrin Wyldstar on May 30, 2018 17:32:15 GMT
Kyrin's Apprentice Journal
This Apprenticeship was completed under my mentor Senan. This second apprenticeship was started in a third attempt at knighthood at TotJO. The first apprenticeship resulted in me being denied Knighthood and my second attempt at Knighthood under my kamikeedi journal was also denied.
AND SO BEGINS THE NEW PATH… That now becomes one to abandon under its old paradigm.
THE PHOENIX WILL PREVAIL IN THE END HOWEVER...
LESSON 1: Types of Argument According to Brockriede
1. Please share your opinion of which type of arguer you believe is most desirable to be? Why?
2. What type of arguer would you say you are currently? Would you make any adjustments to the way you argue?
3. How can understanding these different types of arguers help you in your interactions with others here in the Temple and in the world in general?
I believe that argument or debate is one of the most powerful tools we possess. It is a form of conflict and conflict is a highly effective tool to evoke growth. Typically in our debates each arguer focuses on the subject they are debating. However there is another component to this as Brockriede describes in his paper. That component is the arguers themselves. He splits their patterns of argument into one of three styles, The Rapist, the Seducer and the Lover.
The Rapist argues from a position of power. They use psychic and physical sanctions, reward and punishment, commands and threats and coercion as the tools of their trade. They consider their relationship with the opponent to be a unilateral one and see them as objects to be manipulated and violated in an effort to gain a position of authority over them. They hold contempt for them and enjoying victimizing them with insult.
The Seducer operates through charm and deceit. They too see their relationship with their opponent as a unilateral one and they are indifferent to their identity or integrity. They use charm and trickery through the use of fallacy, misuse of evidence, withholding info and taking things out of context to provide as evidence for their arguments. They are schemers and plan attacks of deception that limit the rights of others to choose.
The Lover, on the other hand, considers the relationship a bilateral one. They see their opponent as a person and they encourage a power parity. They do not argue against their opponent but alongside them and they are willing to risk their own position to establish a bilateral relationship. The lover avoids the fanaticism of the Rapist or the Seducer and inspire free expression of propositions and criticism of their position so that truths can be established in an open environment. An accepted consequence of the Lover is the possibility that an argument might modify their own position in some way.
The problem with these classifications is that Brockriede spends much of his paper setting up what could be considered a bit of a false trichotomy in the way he has structured these options. He has discreetly attached specific negative traits to two of the options, making them automatically unattractive. This seems designed to lead the reader by the nose to force him to agree with his conclusions. But then in his last few paragraphs he unravels these options by stating that these are not all inclusive or mutually exclusive options and that perceptions of these tactics is a wholly subjective one. In fact he states that all three of these methods can be used to work out the truth of a situation. However, in the end, he back peddles once again by stating that only the Lovers ability to risk themselves allows them to grow and thus achieve genuine interaction.
I can understand what he is trying to get at but I think he has way over complicated it. I see it much simpler than this. Any of the above mentioned tactics can be used in an argument and the only thing that sets them apart is the integrity of the debater. I see it as one of two options, you are either an intellectually honest debater or you are not an intellectually honest debater. I think there is also a valid element in the level of aggressiveness that should be deployed in any debate. For example if a scientist is debating a scientist they will debate as what Brockriede would call Lovers. This is because they understand the level of technical detail involved. However if a scientist is arguing with a layman on a subject, their approach may be more in line with that of the Rapist or the seducer. This is because they are coming from a position of superior knowledge on a subject. So I don’t agree that all the negative connotation that Brockriede attaches to two of these titles is necessarily needed.
I think we can reduce the negative connotations of the Rapist and the Seducer to the position of a debater displaying intellectual dishonesty and the Lover to the position of the debater displaying intellectual honesty. Now whether those debaters are aware of their position or not is another story because I do believe that one can argue from a position of intellectual dishonesty and not be aware of it. People are prone to using fallacies in arguments without even knowing they are fallacies. In that case they may perceive they are trying to be intellectually honest but in fact actually are not. In that case it’s the job of their opponent to point out those committed fallacies as well as the job of the debater committing the fallacy to admit to them and correct them. If they are not willing to do that then they are willfully arguing from a position of intellectual dishonesty.
The tenets of intellectual honesty to me are ones in which the debater honestly attempts to point out errors or omissions in their opponents facts or logic. In doing this the intellectually honest debater does not allow faith to interfere with truth. In presenting their argument, relevant facts and information are not purposefully omitted even when such things may contradict their hypothesis. Facts are presented in an unbiased manner, and not twisted to give misleading impressions or to support one view over another. References to others work is acknowledged and plagiarism is avoided as well as logical fallacy.
This is often times a slippery slope because the more complicated an issue is, the cloudier the facts can be and this makes it all the more easy for a debater to get away with presenting a plausible yet still flawed argument. He does this by actively using fallacy to present an intellectually dishonest argument. They deliberately ignore facts and arguments that would undermine their position or they purposely use misdirection or quote mining or insult to prop up their argument or tear down their opponent. It’s easy to be tempted to pursue incentives more eagerly than higher ideals in this manner. Because of this, critical thinking is one of the most important skills we can possess so we can recognize these flawed arguments and point them out for what they truly are. This is the only way intellectual dishonesty can be consistently avoided. As examples, at the end of this lesson, I provided a link to a list of logical Fallacies.
So having defined things as I see them from this papers standpoint, time to answer the questions of the Lesson!
1. For myself I believe the best kind of arguer to be would be the intellectually honest one, what Brockriede would most likely call the Lover. However I also see no problem with deploying some of the tools of the Rapist or the Seducer that don’t violate the tenets of intellectual honesty. Although the way he has defined those two roles the list is a very limited one. But I can see instances where the use of power, command, charm and planning can be effective tools. A classic example is the one I gave above, the scientist arguing against the layman, but there are others. Times of emergency or war to accomplish a mission could also be examples.
2. I believe myself to be an amalgam of all three types of arguer that Brockriede presents. As to any adjustments I would make to my techniques, of course there is improvement to be had. Debate and critical thinking is no different than any other skill I would acquire. It is a never ending process of becoming better at it over time. The more I use the skill hopefully the better I become at it. That is unless one is abusing the skill as in the case of an intellectually dishonest debater. But I don’t consider myself to be dishonest so I strive to always improve. I make mistakes, get over zealous, stand too firmly on an issue or beat issues to death sometimes. But part of this process is also to review what I have done in the past and make it better for the future. I see the mistakes of my past and I’m constantly working to improve them.
3. Understanding these different arguer archetypes helps to better define desirable traits versus undesirable traits not only in a debater but myself as an individual. Not only that but I need to understand that some of those traits are conditional and not every trait is appropriate for every situation. Finesse and subtlety are as high of virtues as any fact one can present. Diplomacy is not a strong suite of mine sometimes but I continually work on that, both in real and virtual life. I am a very direct and blunt person and that puts people off if they are not prepared for it. I see the world as a beautifully magical and yet utterly deadly place where we have been designed to fight to survive. Those that do it best thrive, others just get by. But this is not to say that I believe the fight is the only aspect to our lives. There is love and compassion and connection as well and in that I strive to shield and nurture those that may be more vulnerable than myself. I embrace all aspects of my emotions to an extreme on both sides. I don’t see a problem with that but I do see a problem with my occasional lack of ability to use the proper tool for the proper job, so to speak. That is where my focus is now and that it what I’m working on improving.
rationalwiki.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy
This Apprenticeship was completed under my mentor Senan. This second apprenticeship was started in a third attempt at knighthood at TotJO. The first apprenticeship resulted in me being denied Knighthood and my second attempt at Knighthood under my kamikeedi journal was also denied.
AND SO BEGINS THE NEW PATH… That now becomes one to abandon under its old paradigm.
THE PHOENIX WILL PREVAIL IN THE END HOWEVER...
LESSON 1: Types of Argument According to Brockriede
1. Please share your opinion of which type of arguer you believe is most desirable to be? Why?
2. What type of arguer would you say you are currently? Would you make any adjustments to the way you argue?
3. How can understanding these different types of arguers help you in your interactions with others here in the Temple and in the world in general?
I believe that argument or debate is one of the most powerful tools we possess. It is a form of conflict and conflict is a highly effective tool to evoke growth. Typically in our debates each arguer focuses on the subject they are debating. However there is another component to this as Brockriede describes in his paper. That component is the arguers themselves. He splits their patterns of argument into one of three styles, The Rapist, the Seducer and the Lover.
The Rapist argues from a position of power. They use psychic and physical sanctions, reward and punishment, commands and threats and coercion as the tools of their trade. They consider their relationship with the opponent to be a unilateral one and see them as objects to be manipulated and violated in an effort to gain a position of authority over them. They hold contempt for them and enjoying victimizing them with insult.
The Seducer operates through charm and deceit. They too see their relationship with their opponent as a unilateral one and they are indifferent to their identity or integrity. They use charm and trickery through the use of fallacy, misuse of evidence, withholding info and taking things out of context to provide as evidence for their arguments. They are schemers and plan attacks of deception that limit the rights of others to choose.
The Lover, on the other hand, considers the relationship a bilateral one. They see their opponent as a person and they encourage a power parity. They do not argue against their opponent but alongside them and they are willing to risk their own position to establish a bilateral relationship. The lover avoids the fanaticism of the Rapist or the Seducer and inspire free expression of propositions and criticism of their position so that truths can be established in an open environment. An accepted consequence of the Lover is the possibility that an argument might modify their own position in some way.
The problem with these classifications is that Brockriede spends much of his paper setting up what could be considered a bit of a false trichotomy in the way he has structured these options. He has discreetly attached specific negative traits to two of the options, making them automatically unattractive. This seems designed to lead the reader by the nose to force him to agree with his conclusions. But then in his last few paragraphs he unravels these options by stating that these are not all inclusive or mutually exclusive options and that perceptions of these tactics is a wholly subjective one. In fact he states that all three of these methods can be used to work out the truth of a situation. However, in the end, he back peddles once again by stating that only the Lovers ability to risk themselves allows them to grow and thus achieve genuine interaction.
I can understand what he is trying to get at but I think he has way over complicated it. I see it much simpler than this. Any of the above mentioned tactics can be used in an argument and the only thing that sets them apart is the integrity of the debater. I see it as one of two options, you are either an intellectually honest debater or you are not an intellectually honest debater. I think there is also a valid element in the level of aggressiveness that should be deployed in any debate. For example if a scientist is debating a scientist they will debate as what Brockriede would call Lovers. This is because they understand the level of technical detail involved. However if a scientist is arguing with a layman on a subject, their approach may be more in line with that of the Rapist or the seducer. This is because they are coming from a position of superior knowledge on a subject. So I don’t agree that all the negative connotation that Brockriede attaches to two of these titles is necessarily needed.
I think we can reduce the negative connotations of the Rapist and the Seducer to the position of a debater displaying intellectual dishonesty and the Lover to the position of the debater displaying intellectual honesty. Now whether those debaters are aware of their position or not is another story because I do believe that one can argue from a position of intellectual dishonesty and not be aware of it. People are prone to using fallacies in arguments without even knowing they are fallacies. In that case they may perceive they are trying to be intellectually honest but in fact actually are not. In that case it’s the job of their opponent to point out those committed fallacies as well as the job of the debater committing the fallacy to admit to them and correct them. If they are not willing to do that then they are willfully arguing from a position of intellectual dishonesty.
The tenets of intellectual honesty to me are ones in which the debater honestly attempts to point out errors or omissions in their opponents facts or logic. In doing this the intellectually honest debater does not allow faith to interfere with truth. In presenting their argument, relevant facts and information are not purposefully omitted even when such things may contradict their hypothesis. Facts are presented in an unbiased manner, and not twisted to give misleading impressions or to support one view over another. References to others work is acknowledged and plagiarism is avoided as well as logical fallacy.
This is often times a slippery slope because the more complicated an issue is, the cloudier the facts can be and this makes it all the more easy for a debater to get away with presenting a plausible yet still flawed argument. He does this by actively using fallacy to present an intellectually dishonest argument. They deliberately ignore facts and arguments that would undermine their position or they purposely use misdirection or quote mining or insult to prop up their argument or tear down their opponent. It’s easy to be tempted to pursue incentives more eagerly than higher ideals in this manner. Because of this, critical thinking is one of the most important skills we can possess so we can recognize these flawed arguments and point them out for what they truly are. This is the only way intellectual dishonesty can be consistently avoided. As examples, at the end of this lesson, I provided a link to a list of logical Fallacies.
So having defined things as I see them from this papers standpoint, time to answer the questions of the Lesson!
1. For myself I believe the best kind of arguer to be would be the intellectually honest one, what Brockriede would most likely call the Lover. However I also see no problem with deploying some of the tools of the Rapist or the Seducer that don’t violate the tenets of intellectual honesty. Although the way he has defined those two roles the list is a very limited one. But I can see instances where the use of power, command, charm and planning can be effective tools. A classic example is the one I gave above, the scientist arguing against the layman, but there are others. Times of emergency or war to accomplish a mission could also be examples.
2. I believe myself to be an amalgam of all three types of arguer that Brockriede presents. As to any adjustments I would make to my techniques, of course there is improvement to be had. Debate and critical thinking is no different than any other skill I would acquire. It is a never ending process of becoming better at it over time. The more I use the skill hopefully the better I become at it. That is unless one is abusing the skill as in the case of an intellectually dishonest debater. But I don’t consider myself to be dishonest so I strive to always improve. I make mistakes, get over zealous, stand too firmly on an issue or beat issues to death sometimes. But part of this process is also to review what I have done in the past and make it better for the future. I see the mistakes of my past and I’m constantly working to improve them.
3. Understanding these different arguer archetypes helps to better define desirable traits versus undesirable traits not only in a debater but myself as an individual. Not only that but I need to understand that some of those traits are conditional and not every trait is appropriate for every situation. Finesse and subtlety are as high of virtues as any fact one can present. Diplomacy is not a strong suite of mine sometimes but I continually work on that, both in real and virtual life. I am a very direct and blunt person and that puts people off if they are not prepared for it. I see the world as a beautifully magical and yet utterly deadly place where we have been designed to fight to survive. Those that do it best thrive, others just get by. But this is not to say that I believe the fight is the only aspect to our lives. There is love and compassion and connection as well and in that I strive to shield and nurture those that may be more vulnerable than myself. I embrace all aspects of my emotions to an extreme on both sides. I don’t see a problem with that but I do see a problem with my occasional lack of ability to use the proper tool for the proper job, so to speak. That is where my focus is now and that it what I’m working on improving.
rationalwiki.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy