So here's a post he did, which you liked. For me, this seems like exactly the kind of "absolute" statements that is telling people what to think, IMO. For example, if I said: "Scientific Consensus among thousands of scientists say climate change is real. Millions of people deny it anyway. Par for the course." How would you receive that? Do you feel it's "friendly?" Here's another example: I replied with the following as a joke: But for me, a lot of what he says comes across as "I am here to reveal to you the truth!" which basically the spoonfeeding with absolute statements thing you were talking about. ~ Do you think I should speak and present my thoughts more like how DJ does it? Would that be better received by you? ~ Personally, I give him backlash when he doesn't discuss them or ignores us when we discuss what he has posted (or when he makes claims that don't seem to be backed by anything). Perhaps you can give me an example of where you felt he got unfair backlash for including discussion on an article he posted.
So would you say that one should largely use words and raw data, and not graphs, to persaude someone? For me, graphs are just a more clear way to communicate, as raw data is very difficult to read. Again, in my line work, graphs are a mainstay. Without them, trying intrepret the data of users would be impossible, especially when we are discussing mobile games with millions of users. I kind of feel like that the "backlash" against graphs is less about graphs themselves in general but the fact that scientific evidence/data tends to support liberal viewpoints, thus conservative opinion is going to be more skeptical of that presentation. If the situations were reversed, I am guessing I would be skeptical of graphs because they often present conservative viewpoints while you would be less skeptical of graphs. Incidentally, talking about manipulation: (Which also ignores the context that the screening criteria changed and less screenings are now required.) ~ That said, it's true that graphs can be manipulated, and I point this out even on graphs that I post when I feel like there's been manipulation. If I want to use some data in an argument, what's the best way of presenting said data, if not with graphs? Or should we just not use data at all and just use rhetoric?
So what did you think of the information presented? Did the presentation mean you were less skeptical to what was discussed?
Which I think was largely because most people didn't read it, and I also didn't say much about it so no one had anything to respond to, and not because of any inherent virtue in the way it was presented.
I think the main issue with how this pattern goes, is that it then results in everything being thrown out along with the biased aspects, or parts that were "augmented" by the bias. Bias might turn something into a half-truth, but there's still some truth in there that shouldn't be ignored. Acknowledging the bias is vital (we need to know what we're dealing with to deal with it properly after all), but if you just stop there and then don't sift through and think about the basis, the extent, and how it might have distorted a truth into a half-truth (if it even has) than it becomes that defensive mechanism instead of a means of restoring or sifting out the truth of a given statement, article, or even graph. A little while ago a person sent me a very nice article. It's a bit long, so I'll only post the start and end, but I could post the whole thing if requested: Start: End: And I think it makes a lot of valid points and is a worthwhile article... but also completely ignores the large amount of spending by the Left (less so the Center, though this might depend on what people consider to be Centrist in the first place) as well, that there is, in many ways, a propaganda war where both major powers have corporate support and opaque organizations putting out material intended to create and appeal to bias to shape public opinion. By recognizing that bias, one can then still see the truth of the matter, and be able to lessen distortions that bias brings. Or someone can recognize it, and attempt to use that bias as a means of refuting everything in it, discernment be damned. The latter is what Sokolov seems to see and fear, and the first is what I try to accomplish and hope for (though I'm sure I could improve on this point).
Depends on the argument, but, and this is my belief (not necessarily accurate) I think things rooted in truth* tend to be stronger than those rooted in falsehood (this doesn't mean people can't be convinced by falsehoods or reject truth, it's just a tendency). Points that can be looked into and verified independently (even if they are just trying to "disprove it" when they look into it) especially those already acknowledged by people that share a similar general bias to the person you're trying to persuade on a specific point, are also often stronger. For example, he argument that the world is flat is generally less impactful than it being spheroid. While Flat Earthers have been more prominent in the past, there are many more ways to verify the spheroid "theory" in the present, independent of bias. Things which are true will tend to withstand verification processes (and/or witch-hunts) and cut through bias short of self-delusion (intentional or otherwise). Another example is the allegations of cover-ups regarding the attacks on the WTO in 2001. While for many years dismissed as being crazy conspiracy theories (and using strawmen crazies to decry anyone who had questions). Since then we've gotten some answers and there was at least some cover-ups going on, and still some unanswered questions regarding the event. Obviously, more metaphysical arguments will have less in terms of physical evidence for verification. Still, I personally think there are objective truths even within that realm, and even without verification I think truth will tend to stick greater than lie. At the very least, half-truths will.
I don't see it as telling anyone what to think, but rather, inserting his thoughts on the matter. I liked it because it matched my own thoughts(or close enough, at least). Now, I can see how this can be interpreted otherwise, and he likely could have phrased it better, but them's the ropes. I'd see it as a train-of-thought style comment, and, while I wouldn't "like" it (though I suspect guys like gerben or burn would), I don't see it as inherently unfriendly at all. It was a little harder to follow, but it was an okay joke, and I, at least, could tell it was one. I can see how it comes across that way, I tend to see his posts as more train-of-thought style posts, where he's not necessarily asserting anything as fact, but rather presenting his thoughts. Now, it's in such a way that it often comes across as some level of Truth-Bringing to the masses, but I feel like that's largely interpretation, rather than presentation. In the context of persuasion, I would indeed largely use words and raw data, as many people will see graphs solely as ways to push an agenda, whether they are or not. Sure, but this is a very different context of the use of a graph, so it's important to bare in mind that context. Politically, graphs are largely used to push one agenda or another (not that they all are, of course, that would be a pretty difficult claim to make). This might factor in to it slightly, but many people are just distrusting of graphs in general, and see no use for them politically other than to push an agenda, and some of those people will even have examples on hand of graphs showing something that the data doesn't suggest, pushing people towards one political side or the other (note: I am not one of these people). I don't think it should be just rhetoric, as that just makes it a persuasion contest, regardless of who is correct or not. But I do know that a large portion of one side has pretty extreme distrust for information that's already been digested for them(graphs). So you would probably be best served by giving them raw data, yes.
That's interesting that you view graphs within the context of a political discussion as inherently political and biased. I literally just see it as a better way of presenting raw data, which is often unreadable for most people.
I used to see them that way, but I've seen too many graphs used to push one side or the other's agenda that I, at least on a personal level, am incredibly distrusting of graphics in general.
Ok, so... not to nitpick, but I actually agree that GRAPHICS are often inherently agenda pushing. I don't think GRAPHS are though.
Graphics, by design, don't present the full picture and emphasize particulars, while Graphs, if not manipulated, is really just a visual representation of numbers.
I subscribe to this school of thought re: Graphics: http://www.jackhagley.com/What-s-the-difference-between-an-Infographic-and-a-Data-Visualisation
I heard my name and was summoned, what did I miss? ... Hmm. I apologize if you felt like I was nitpicking at that specific term, it was a bit of a knee jerk reaction to the often absolutist terms that pieces like that use. I actually spoke to one of my friends (a chemistry major who actually reminds me a lot of you Sok), and he explained the stuff in some more detail to me. I have a very unique way of looking at things, and he's had the "happy" opportunity to figure out how to explain things to me in a way I understand. I did a little bit of research on it (not much), but was honestly too tired to talk, and felt like I had learned something. So... Yeah, sorry if you felt I was being overly negative. I'm not used to hearing 'absolute' used in reference to scientific stuff, so it struck me as really strange (I took engineering and computer science, absolute has a VERY different meaning in those than from classical science). On another note, I do like graphics*, I just find it very hard to trust them, because I've interacted with enough of them to show me how easily they can be twisted or misused, which makes me sad (because I love learning to an almost obsessive degree).
One of my favorite artistic style bubble poppers--Sabo--doing it again in Hollywood: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/rogue-one-premiere-targeted-by-pro-trump-street-artist-955003 Edit: I came across the article on Twitter, btw. Forum cookie to each peep that fully recognized every human face on the poster. Which person should have been included? And why? I vote Dr. Savage. Motivated millions.
