Discussing Topics From A Different Point Of View?

[Eyeron]

Have you ever tried discussing any given topic from a viewpoint other than your own? In a formal debate, would you? Even if there was no incentive to, such as say earning a grade on a classroom assignment?

Here's the kind of thing I mean. let's say you're very supportive of a woman's rights to have an abortion.

Would you argue from a pro-life point of view? From a religious pro-life point of view?

So, have you ever done this kind of thing with any other kind of topic? I think the idea does have some merit to it. Because reading about opposing points of view is one thing, but, when discussing any given topic from any opposing view or other views than your own could be akin to walking a mile in another man's shoes, and that can in some cases lead to greater understanding of other people.

[quixotecoyote]

Not on forums. In real life I'll take an unrepresented side if my friends are all agreeing with each other about something and I'm in a pot-stirring mood.

[qayak]

When debating in highschool you argued whichever viewpoint you were given and they were often contrary to my own beliefs.

I will often argue another position simply because I think it has some merit and should be kept in mind during the discussion.

[Homemade psycho]

I have a 20 minutes presentation arguing FOR the presence of aliens on earth next week.Not the side I'm used to.

[Hux]

I used to do that at school and have often wondered what it would be like to take your contrary position and be an apologist. I am not sure I could keep a straight face over certain subjects and would end up sounding like Hamelekim.

But I could work on the sincerity thing.

[Darat]

I do sometimes "play the devil's advocate", more so when I am trying to make my mind up about something, I find it helps me to consider the argument from other sides and directions.

Oh and we do have a tag if you ever want to make it clear that you are playing devil's advocate.


Oh and we do have a tag if you ever want to make it clear that you are playing devil's advocate.

[A.A.Alfie]

I do sometimes "play the devil's advocate", more so when I am trying to make my mind up about something, I find it helps me to consider the argument from other sides and directions.

Oh and we do have a tag if you ever want to make it clear that you are playing devil's advocate.


Oh and we do have a tag if you ever want to make it clear that you are playing devil's advocate.



Me too.
Where and how is this tag used?

[Darat]

Enclose your text with:

[A.A.Alfie]

like this?

[Hux]

Go on then. Pretend to be a mindless Christian with all the hatred and idiocy they harbour. Its not easy, even in quotes.

[A.A.Alfie]

Go on then. Pretend to be a mindless Christian with all the hatred and idiocy they harbour. Its not easy, even in quotes.

Huh?
:eek:

[drkitten]

Have you ever tried discussing any given topic from a viewpoint other than your own?

Routinely. It's part and parcel of learned discourse. "It has been argued (cite, cite) that [such and such], based on the findings of (cite). We show, however, that this argument fails due to [weakness] and that a more proper analysis shows that [whatever]."

The problem, of course, is that it's quite difficult to do, and it gets much more difficult the less merit the opposing viewpoint has.

For example, there is literally no merit whatsoever to creationism, nor to nihilist postmodernism, nor to Biblical literalism. Only by willful and deliberate ignorance can anyone hold those positions.

There are a lot of political positions that are almost equally vacuous -- for example, there is no evidence-based opposition to gay marriage.

[Hokulele]

Is there any gay opposition to evidence-based marriage?

[Robin]

There are a lot of political positions that are almost equally vacuous -- for example, there is no evidence-based opposition to gay marriage.
It has been amusing to listen to people struggle to produce a rational reason for this opposition.

I have heard that we need to "protect" the institution of marriage because it is vital to maintaining the stability of society and ensure the future of the species, one person describing marriage as an "efficient futures exchange for fertility".

And silly me thinking that marriage had something to do with two people loving each other and wanting to spend their lives together.

[Robin]

Have you ever tried discussing any given topic from a viewpoint other than your own? In a formal debate, would you? Even if there was no incentive to, such as say earning a grade on a classroom assignment?

Here's the kind of thing I mean. let's say you're very supportive of a woman's rights to have an abortion.

Would you argue from a pro-life point of view? From a religious pro-life point of view?

So, have you ever done this kind of thing with any other kind of topic? I think the idea does have some merit to it. Because reading about opposing points of view is one thing, but, when discussing any given topic from any opposing view or other views than your own could be akin to walking a mile in another man's shoes, and that can in some cases lead to greater understanding of other people.
When I first joined the old "Church of Critical Thinking" forum, the debate was about "Intelligent Design" and I was trying to point out that poorly thought out attacks on the position were counter-productive and only played into the hands of the ID camp.

However everybody immediately assumed I was a creationist and started treating me as such - saying things like "Well at least I don't want people to go to Hell" to me.

I assumed the role with relish and started making all the usual ID apologetics.

After that no-one on the site ever quite trusted that I was not a fundie and I have some sympathy for Theists on this site when they talk about the hostility they say they encounter here.

[Robin]

I wonder if anyone has tried the more extreme technique of trying to really sympathise with an opposing view, to really feel that it is true - especially a view you loathe?

[Egg]

I wonder if anyone has tried the more extreme technique of trying to really sympathise with an opposing view, to really feel that it is true - especially a view you loathe?
What a pointless waste of time. Why would you want to sink your mind down to the level of the idiots who believe in that kind of nonsense? It's far better to spend the time and effort finding evidence and working on stronger arguments against things you don't believe in.

da-da!:egglaugh:

Hmm...it's kind of liberating. Actually, I think it's a great exercise and can make you look at some of the arguments you do make in a different way. I don't think the idea is to try to repeat the same idiotic arguments which irritate you (;)Hux), but to try to make decent arguments for the opposition.

[Robin]

What a pointless waste of time. Why would you want to sink your mind down to the level of the idiots who believe in that kind of nonsense? It's far better to spend the time and effort finding evidence and working on stronger arguments against things you don't believe in.

da-da!:egglaugh:

I consider myself zinged. :)

[Robin]

But yes it is often liberating - it is often enlightening. But sometimes it is a bit scary.

[arthwollipot]

I've occasionally put on a creationist hat for the sake of argument, but it isn't easy.

[P.J. Denyer]

Go on then. Pretend to be a mindless Christian with all the hatred and idiocy they harbour. Its not easy, even in quotes.


The all powerfull Baby Jesus loves you so much that he's going to send you to Hell to burn for all eternity although he'd rather you didn't and its your own fault.

Good enough or have I used too much/little punctuation and capitalisation?

[arthwollipot]

Go on then. Pretend to be a mindless Christian with all the hatred and idiocy they harbour. Its not easy, even in quotes.You're assuming here that all Christians are mindless, and harbour hatred and idiocy. This is demonstrably not the case, and in fact is an offensive stereotype.

[Beerina]

I have a 20 minutes presentation arguing FOR the presence of aliens on earth next week.Not the side I'm used to.

I suggest finishing up with a very brief panspermia sentence, ending with "So there may be aliens on Earth, and they is us!"

"is" instead of "are".

[blutoski]

Part of critical thinking involves getting into the opponent's frame of mind. There are five benefits that I can think of:


assists with [Principle of Charity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity)]
reduces risk of [Straw Person (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man)]
understanding the argument and the arguer's colleagues increases the chance of producing an effective argument that will have genuine impact ([Rhetoric (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetoric)])
the purpose of a debate is to get closer to the truth - not to 'win' (reduces [Sophistry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophism)])
opponent may be right - the sooner you identify this, the better

[blutoski]

Oh, also: there's something to be said for parody.

I've done healthfraud lectures in the persona of a quack. ("Results: five dead, and fifty missing... um... presumed cured.")

We had a presenter at Vancouver Skepticamp in 2008 that posed as a new age guru to educate us on the geology of quartz crystals.

[Pure_Argent]

I once tried arguing in favor of YEC when an argument about it broke out in my biology class. The other kids couldn't figure out why I broke off mid-sentence and slumped over the desk laughing.

[six7s]

You're assuming here that all Christians are mindless, and harbour hatred and idiocy. This is demonstrably not the case, and in fact is an offensive stereotype.Yeah! Cool, huh?

Stereotypes - offensive or otherwise - can encourage the mindless christians (who don't actively/consciously ' harbour hatred') to think and, hopefully, realise that - in identifying/practicing as a christian, they are passively promoting a culture of mindless hatred and idiocy.

[arthwollipot]

Yeah! Cool, huh?

Stereotypes - offensive or otherwise - can encourage the mindless christians (who don't actively/consciously ' harbour hatred') to think and, hopefully, realise that - in identifying/practicing as a christian, they are passively promoting a culture of mindless hatred and idiocy.But Christianity has inspired heights of intellectualism, not to mention art. All of the great European discoveries, from heliocentrism to planetary motion to the inverse square law of gravitational attraction, were made by Christians. Christians to this day participate in the intellectual betterment of society by continuing to make scientific discoveries.

Um, and art!

[six7s]

But Christianity has inspired heights of intellectualism Cultural christians? Yes...

Philosophical christians? Please name them

not to mention art.OK... don't mention it

All of the great European discoveries, from heliocentrism to planetary motion to the inverse square law of gravitational attraction, were made by Christians.And this negates what, for instance? That "identifying/practicing as a christian, they are (were) passively promoting a culture of mindless hatred and idiocy."?

Christians to this day participate in the intellectual betterment of society by continuing to make scientific discoveries.Correlation != Causation

Um, and art!I thought you said to not mention it :p

[Praktik]

I argued for the existence of genuine ETs and UFOs in class in a debate format.... swung a LOT of people from "NO" to "undecided"..;)

[Mashuna]

I've occasionally put on a creationist hat for the sake of argument, but it isn't easy.

Too small?

[Hokulele]

Too small?


Too bum-like.

[Robin]

But Christianity has inspired heights of intellectualism, not to mention art. All of the great European discoveries, from heliocentrism to planetary motion to the inverse square law of gravitational attraction, were made by Christians.
And it is not simply the fact that they were Christians, but also the fact that Christian institutions were providing the resources and encouragement for intellectual achievement.

People remember Galileo but forget Copernicus, Oresme, Nicolas of Cusa, Roger Bacon, Roger Grosseteste...

Oresme was one of the early proponents of the idea that the apparent movement of the Sun could be a function of the rotation of the Earth. As he came from a poor family it is unlikely that he could have developed and disseminated this idea through any other channel but the Church.

[six7s]

And it is not simply the fact that they were Christians, but also the fact that Christian institutions were providing the resources and encouragement for intellectual achievement.

People remember Galileo...People might forget that those with the power/control of resources are key decision makers in the funding of research and that - for centuries - money and the Vatican have been inextricably intertwined...

wikipedia.org House of Medici (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Medici)The House of Medici was a political dynasty, banking family and later royal house who first began to gather prominence under Cosimo de' Medici in the Republic of Florence during the late 14th century. The family originated in the Mugello region of the Tuscan countryside, gradually rising until they were able to found the Medici Bank. The bank was the largest in Europe during the 15th century, seeing the Medici gain political power in Florence — though officially they remained simply citizens, rather than monarchs. The Medici produced 4[3] Popes of the Catholic Church and in 1531 the family became hereditary Dukes of Florence.

<snip/>

Their collective regency is known as the Turtici. Maria Maddelana's temperament was analogous to Christina's. Together, they aligned Tuscany with the Papacy; re-doubled the Tuscan clergy; and allowed the trial of Galileo Galilei to occur.

[Piscivore]

It has been amusing to listen to people struggle to produce a rational reason for this opposition.

I have heard that we need to "protect" the institution of marriage because it is vital to maintaining the stability of society and ensure the future of the species, one person describing marriage as an "efficient futures exchange for fertility".

Hell, my brother's heterosexual first wife has done more damage to the "institution of marriage" than all the gay people I know of. She's on her third husband, and has had kids with all.

[six7s]

Hell, my brother's heterosexual first wife has done more damage to the "institution of marriage" than all the gay people I know of. She's on her third husband, and has had kids with all.Sounds like she's following an edict from the Jeb Bush Institution of Marriage:Marry early and marry often!

[dlorde]

I wonder if anyone has tried the more extreme technique of trying to really sympathise with an opposing view, to really feel that it is true - especially a view you loathe?
I often can't sympathise, but I can and do try to empathise - to try to figure out why the person might feel that way. I don't believe you can productively argue with someone unless you have some understanding of their point of view. Unproductive argument is trivial.

[A.A.Alfie]

seek to understand before you seek to be understood

[arthwollipot]

Deep.

[A.A.Alfie]

From "Seven habits of highly effective people"

[Careyp74]

Huh?
:eek:

I think that was directed at the OP