Tip #56 Listen To Yourself Speak
Mar. 27th, 2016 02:18 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
wingedbeastA few of the early tips could be summarized in one word "listen". In addition to being in love with the sound of my own text, I also think that the specific details are important. In addition to taking an active interest in what the people who disagree with you are actually saying, you should be doing the same with what you're actually saying.
By example, a significant number of years ago, back when I was still in college, I got into a conversation on the argument from First Cause. (The argument states that the universe having a beginning means that it had to be caused by powerful, conscious being with volition.) I could go into my position on that particular argument, but for the purposes of this tip, that doesn't matter.
For the purposes of one of the people in that conversation, my position didn't matter, either. Regardless of what was said before, or how many times this person had repeated this phrase, their contribution was always "just because you can't imagine it doesn't mean it isn't true." This can be argued to be the result of not listening to the people who disagreed, because none on the disagreeing side had, even once, come close to siting the limits of their own imagination.
Eventually, we asked why it wasn't possible for the "prime mover" that the First Cause argument claims is necessary couldn't be non-conscious.
"A rock isn't conscious and I can't imagine a rock creating the universe."
Technically, we could posit a belief set to account for this. Perhaps this person believes that, regardless of statement, all disbelief is based in the faulty premise that the limits of anybody's imagination but this person's own are instructive on what is possible. That would be considered, though not well-considered, based on a low opinion of others and a high opinion of their own self.
I find that the more likely explanation is that this person was just saying what seemed like a thing to say at the time. For that need to just say what seemed like the right thing to say, without the need to track the context, it didn't matter, necessarily, that it meant the right thing... or even meant anything at all. It just had to be something they'd been trained to say.
In Orwell's 1984, this is called Duckspeak, quacking things out so fast that you don't even think about them. Having a full understanding of what you're saying isn't necessary for Duckspeak. It also isn't necessary for believing what you're saying when you Duckspeak.
Duckspeak isn't just a pitfall for the faithful. It can be something that happens in any culture or subculture. Different cultures and subcultures will reward it to different degrees. And, it can often be difficult to notice Duckspeak, either in yourself or in others, when what's being quacked out is support for your position. It's something we all have to watch out for.
The key tool for watching out for Duckspeak is listening to yourself when you talk. If for no other reason, so that you can avoid proclaiming the truth of something, with conviction, that you'd just proclaimed false with just as much conviction.
By example, a significant number of years ago, back when I was still in college, I got into a conversation on the argument from First Cause. (The argument states that the universe having a beginning means that it had to be caused by powerful, conscious being with volition.) I could go into my position on that particular argument, but for the purposes of this tip, that doesn't matter.
For the purposes of one of the people in that conversation, my position didn't matter, either. Regardless of what was said before, or how many times this person had repeated this phrase, their contribution was always "just because you can't imagine it doesn't mean it isn't true." This can be argued to be the result of not listening to the people who disagreed, because none on the disagreeing side had, even once, come close to siting the limits of their own imagination.
Eventually, we asked why it wasn't possible for the "prime mover" that the First Cause argument claims is necessary couldn't be non-conscious.
"A rock isn't conscious and I can't imagine a rock creating the universe."
Technically, we could posit a belief set to account for this. Perhaps this person believes that, regardless of statement, all disbelief is based in the faulty premise that the limits of anybody's imagination but this person's own are instructive on what is possible. That would be considered, though not well-considered, based on a low opinion of others and a high opinion of their own self.
I find that the more likely explanation is that this person was just saying what seemed like a thing to say at the time. For that need to just say what seemed like the right thing to say, without the need to track the context, it didn't matter, necessarily, that it meant the right thing... or even meant anything at all. It just had to be something they'd been trained to say.
In Orwell's 1984, this is called Duckspeak, quacking things out so fast that you don't even think about them. Having a full understanding of what you're saying isn't necessary for Duckspeak. It also isn't necessary for believing what you're saying when you Duckspeak.
Duckspeak isn't just a pitfall for the faithful. It can be something that happens in any culture or subculture. Different cultures and subcultures will reward it to different degrees. And, it can often be difficult to notice Duckspeak, either in yourself or in others, when what's being quacked out is support for your position. It's something we all have to watch out for.
The key tool for watching out for Duckspeak is listening to yourself when you talk. If for no other reason, so that you can avoid proclaiming the truth of something, with conviction, that you'd just proclaimed false with just as much conviction.
