The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Peer pressure as an argument technique
Phoenix-D
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
A sort-of split from the abortion/Habitat For Humanity thread:
Not picking on WonderHippie specifically here, but I've noticed this sentiment popping up a lot in various threads, and I'm wondering why in the world people think its a good idea.
I mean, the urge to mock and/or scream at people can get overwhelming at times, BUT that doesn't meaning doing so is a good idea.
If you sincerely want to convince someone they're wrong, the fastest way to fail is to call them AN UNEDUCATED FOOL WHO DOESN'T KNOW WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT AND PROBABLY FUCKS UNDERAGE PIGS. You get ignored at best, ranted at and used as an excuse to not change their mind at best. (Oh, X's supporters are assholes, I could never join THAT group).
"Peer pressure" is a useless tool. If you're right, so be it- but many situations the group is not right, and any attempt to apply pressure like this just makes it more difficult for the truth to be found.
Example: I was called for jury duty. The judge asks some basic questions at the start of the process. One of these was: "Right now, with no evidence presented, would you find the defendant innocent or guilty?"
I was the only person who didn't answer guilty. Granted, some of these jackasses were doing it to get out of jury duty, but a good portion were sincere- and shooting me dirty looks. And all through the trial, I had the same issue. Would you have preferred "peer pressure" or objective argument if YOU were the accused in that situation?
Wonder_Hippie wrote: »There's really little reason not to be civil with someone. If you can't be persuasive without using inflammatory language and/or belittling those who disagree with you then you probably shouldn't be arguing.Wonder_Hippie wrote: »Good lord, why are people so insistent that others respect their opinions? If you've been shown to be wrong and the person was "disrespectful" (I question what value this word actually has), you're still wrong. It's such a "poor me" appeal it's sickening.
This falls under the "don't be a dick" rule. Also, something about catching flies. Pretend you actually want to catch flies.
Vinegar is more effective at catching flies, actually.
I know what you mean, but sometimes people just need to be laughed at by a whole bunch of other people. Peer pressure FTW.
Not picking on WonderHippie specifically here, but I've noticed this sentiment popping up a lot in various threads, and I'm wondering why in the world people think its a good idea.
I mean, the urge to mock and/or scream at people can get overwhelming at times, BUT that doesn't meaning doing so is a good idea.
If you sincerely want to convince someone they're wrong, the fastest way to fail is to call them AN UNEDUCATED FOOL WHO DOESN'T KNOW WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT AND PROBABLY FUCKS UNDERAGE PIGS. You get ignored at best, ranted at and used as an excuse to not change their mind at best. (Oh, X's supporters are assholes, I could never join THAT group).
"Peer pressure" is a useless tool. If you're right, so be it- but many situations the group is not right, and any attempt to apply pressure like this just makes it more difficult for the truth to be found.
Example: I was called for jury duty. The judge asks some basic questions at the start of the process. One of these was: "Right now, with no evidence presented, would you find the defendant innocent or guilty?"
I was the only person who didn't answer guilty. Granted, some of these jackasses were doing it to get out of jury duty, but a good portion were sincere- and shooting me dirty looks. And all through the trial, I had the same issue. Would you have preferred "peer pressure" or objective argument if YOU were the accused in that situation?
Phoenix-D on
0
Posts
2) It can work for good and for bad.
3) There.
Truth.org.
Using peer pressure to cow someone into not being a necrophiliac or pedophile or pro-lifer has a good end-result. Are there better means? Yes. Does it make me feel bad as a person? Yes.
The other end also happens though, and obviously we're not fans of using peer-pressure to convince people to join the KKK.
It's a crude, but effective tool that's used by both sides of an argument. On the internet, or in real-life with friends, it's used a lot just because some opinions are too stupid to be easily dignified with a logical response. It just kind of makes you feel dirty to have to explain to people why opposing reproductive rights or fucking children is wrong. Things like that are so obviously wrong that it just physically hurts that people don't automatically know it.
Often people give away to peer pressure simply because don't care enough for the argument that is being forced on them or are completely ignorant on the matter. It's still irritating though. The tactics of repeating some well known BS until everybody accepts it works too well. In many countries where 99.9% of the population pretty much haven't seen in person any other race but Caucasian white, peer pressure is the driving force for racist statements and "feelings".
On personal experience, I'm more inclined to put it into the "Can do without" column.
Rational fact-based argumentation is always to be preferred, but unfortunately you can't reach everyone that way.
Good luck if you ever hope to work together with that person in the future.
Which segues nicely into Part 2: You can't peer pressure anyone over the internet anyway, they just flame you back, put you on ignore, get banned, or run away to an insular site where everyone parrots their views.
You can get away with it real life...in some situations. Which still doesn't mean its a good idea.
I must contend with not being able to peer pressure someone over the internet as there are more than a few people who rely on the internet for social interaction to the point that it IS real life to them.
So, it's possible.
It doesn't seem like your example is actually talking about peer pressure though.
Obviously not everything I believe is easily promoted through "peer pressure". When unpopular and in the minority you have no choice but to do the best you can with reasoned argument. But when facing down reactionary hold-outs and other dead-enders, sometimes less "subtle" methods can be useful.
What the fuck is this, of course there is peer pressure on the internet.
And on forums you carry a reputation, and if you don't conform to the clique you will be outcasted and you will be fucked with, sometimes for no reason at all. Look at D&D. These motherfuckers are xenophobic as hell.
This sounds good in theory, until you hear what makes the definition of a "backwards, cruel or reactionary belief".
Effective peer pressure, then. I'm not arguing that you can't try, just that it doesn't change anyone's mind.
No, it changes peoples minds.
if tweens count as people
Most peer pressure in D&D is in reality just band-wagoning as a means to one's own popularity - especially if they happen to be siding with some of the more popular regulars.
I'm with the "How the fuck can you apply peer pressure on an internet forum crowd?!!!"....wait......oh shit.....
I am not going to get into details because I don't want to get banned.
Some of the positions are, in fact, retarded and it's not even a matter of subjectivity. They should be beaten to death using whatever methods are available, rational or peer pressure or otherwise.
There's a time for civility and rational discourse, but there's also a time when something just doesn't warrant a rational response. I'm just not going to put too much energy into debasing a completely insane idea. It doesn't seem worth trying to me. The very act of rationally approaching irrationality seems to give the irrationality creedence where absolutely none is due.
I think that applies to a lot of places, not just D&D. Being part of an out group is generally (exceptions abound) regarded as being undesirable.
Then don't respond to it.
Not responding to an insane idea > responding to it with bandwagons of ad hominem.
I'm of the firm belief that you can't let shit just slip by unchallenged.
Silence speaks louder than words.
If you noticed, people on the Internet rarely admit that they are wrong. When you respond to a shitty idea, you are essentially validating it, whether you are agreeing with it or not. This is why not responding to shitty ideas is better than responding to them with venom.
I'm with you. Having a position of authority in a group when somebody says something outrageous and the person obviously lack the capability of understanding(not accepting, just understanding) the rationale of why (s)he's wrong is worth gold. Fallacies be damned.
That's pretty funny, because in D&D one is rarely in what normal people would consider a "position of authority."
Shinto once put it wonderfully: this forum is little more than a bunch of non-experts arguing about expert topics like they know shit about them.
In person it can. More than a few times I've simply titled my head and furrowed my brow at people. The internet operates differently. And since :roll: doesn't work anymore, there are other measures at our disposal.
I don't know if I buy this at all. On the internet, when somebody doesn't respond to, say, an ongoing altercation or discussion, I'd be willing to bet that the person on the other side of the argument assumes they've won.
So challenge it rationally.
woa woa woa!!! I was talking real life here!
Edit: The fact that you could even assume I was talking about D&D is what's pretty funny.
Edit2: And also, seeing an "expert topic" on D&D? Our definitions of expert may differ. Most topics that are discussed are pretty much "concerns for the masses" or random musings.
I'd rather have them think they've won a temporary victory than have them become even more entrenched in their (presumably) wrong position.
I mean I don't know. I've always thought that the only thing stuff like band-wagoning and ad hominems do is bring down the quality of discussions in D&D. Sure, you're pwning someone in debate. But most of the time you do it with such hostility and fervor that at the end of the day, you've got yourself nothing more than a locked threat that inevitably repops a month later because the original disagreements were not really resolved.
Honestly, I just don't think my time or energy is worth responding to crazy shit. Especially on the internet, I feel a need to let a person know that they're saying stupid shit, just matter-of-fact, and then move on to substantive stuff. In person, I'll wave a hand and giggle at stupid shit.
Pretty much.
Stupid people who disagree with the majority get knocked out by the abuse.
Then smart people who disagree get tired of dealing with eight replies to each of their posts, six of which are by stupid people who agree wit hthe majority, and they leave.
Then we all get to talk about how Obama is awesome and pro-lifers are horrible horrible people. All the time.
This phenomenon is exhausting. I've been on the wrong side of it before, and it sucks.
Look, you're basically saying that you're free to abuse people whenever they say something outside whatever you consider the pale just because it would bother you not to. There's no sort of moral imperative to insult people. It does not make them smarter or more inclined to see reason. It makes them defensive and insular. And it sort of creates the suspicion that you don't actually have a well-thought-out reason for rejecting whatever they said, just reflexive bias.
I only really do this when somebody says something that is contrary to known facts. Racist and sexist beliefs, falsehoods about science, etc. I feel peer pressure is an important tool for the eradication of patently false ideas. It's not so much about argument or debate for me as it is about letting people know - and most importantly letting people that don't have a strong opinion one way or another know - that holding radical, stupid beliefs is not socially acceptable and that saying black people are inferior/evolution didn't happen/abstinence-only sex education is preferable/drinking bleach cures AIDS/any number of insane beliefs will get you justly mocked.
If you're dealing with a band wagon you can take the argument in two directions, one is just find the most legitimate reply and respond to that and ignore the rest. After the tards realize they're being ignored they'll move on. The other is to target the stupidest posts with the weakest arguments and lay into them. You run the risk of getting more hateful vitriol from others but it can also shut the one's you reply to up and hopefully attract someone willing to make a legitimate argument. Either way, given enough time the tards will give up and either start a legitimate discussion or just change the subject. They can also be fun in ways, because by the other side conceding the moral high ground it opens them up for some pot shots too and you know some wonderful hijinks are going to ensue.
Band wagons suck (especially if mods get involved) but if you're right and your logic is sound it isn't an issue. All it takes is time.