Barriers to agreement...

[Nova Andromeda]

--In this thread I would like to explore why people
(or any intelligent entity) would not be able to come
to agreement on any subject.
-It is my understanding that there are three barriers.
The first, is most people probably have a different
knowledge base. However, this can be overcome by
discussion to a large extent. The second, is conflict
between the goals people may have. This is more
difficult to overcome and in fact may be impossible
if the goals are mutually exclusive. However, most
people do not have truly mutually exclusive
primary goals and secondary goals are usually
up for negotiation. The third, is problem solving
ability and general intelligence. Some people just
aren't smart enough to figure out how coexist with
others outside of their world.

--To start, I think it would be best to agree that the
previous analysis is correct. Once that is done and
any corrections are made it would be nice to discuss
how best to overcome each barrier.

[Darth Wong]

It is my understanding that there are three barriers. The first, is most people probably have a different knowledge base. However, this can be overcome by discussion to a large extent.

Ignorance can be theoretically overcome through discussion, but not during the argument. In the midst of a discussion (particularly on the Internet, where quasi-anonymity tends to make people brave), the ignorant party will often try to bluff his way out, and only reflect on his position well after the fact (if at all).

The second, is conflict between the goals people may have. This is more difficult to overcome and in fact may be impossible if the goals are mutually exclusive. However, most people do not have truly mutually exclusive primary goals and secondary goals are usually up for negotiation.

This depends on what sort of disagreement we're talking about.

The third, is problem solving ability and general intelligence. Some people just aren't smart enough to figure out how coexist with others outside of their world.

In other words, some people are just too fucking stupid to debate with

Let's look at some examples of intractable disagreements:

1. Religious fanatics. They cannot agree with any argument made from an objective standpoint because they categorically reject the superiority of objective reality over so-called "personal revelation". This would not be so bad if they did not insist on appropriating the language and terminology of objective methods and sciences in their efforts to lend credibility to themselves, despite their rejection of all objective philosophy. Using your reasons, this would be an example of #2 and #3 simultaneously (they reject objective methods so their fundamental methods and goals are different from those of normal people, but they're too stupid to recognize that they cannot go ahead and claim objective superiority anyway).
2. Trekkies who think a Federation ship would blow away an ISD. These people tend to come from a background of Trek fandom and have paid little or no attention to the technology of Star Wars. As a result, they have a wildly skewed knowledge base. This would be an example of #1 in your list (most Trekkies concede and then reposition themselves, eg- the "OK, we'll lose a war, but Fed tech is still superior in many ways" position), but some become indignant and move into category #3 (see Darkstar).
3. Disagreements over morality: these arguments almost invariably fall into the category of #2. People have different ideas of what is moral, and they tend to judge other peoples' morality systems based on their own system. Two people doing this to each other tends to generate an intractable disagreement.
4. Marital strife: this kind of disagreement stems from emotion. Marital arguments tend to become heated over minor domestic subjects which have nothing to do with the real source of strife. I would add emotional duress as a fourth category in your list.
5. White-supremacists: these people are examples of #2 and #3. Their arguments are invariably moronic and often self-contradictory (hence #3), and their basic mindset (that we must preserve racial purity) is inherently at odds with the average person's notion of morality (that we must respect human rights).

I suppose other good case-studies could be found.

[Nick]

Well, I summed it up the other day as saying that most of humanity's problems can traced back to:
1. Ignorance
2. Irrationality
3. Dogmatism

My number 1 was also Nova's number 1. My number 2 was Nova's number 3. (Not that the order really matters that much)

Nova's other point was 'conflicting goals'. I guess my point of view is that, in the absence of dogmatism, it is usually possible for reasonable people to come to an agreement which is basically a win-win situation (everyone gets the stuff they really want).

So I think my 3 points are much the same as Nova's - I just focus on the major stumbling block to effective conflict resolution, which is when either party absolutely refuses to budge from any part of their position, and can't bring themselves to accept the other side's position might have some validity.

"Is EVERYONE on this board some sort of twisted sexual freak?"- Stormbringer

I'd love to see the thread that prompted this comment.

Hmm - goes and searches. Reads. ROFL!

[salm]

some people are too proud to admit that they´re wrong so they just go on and on arguing even though they´ve noticed that they´re wrong.

[Kelly Antilles]

Most of the time, when two parties cannot agree through debate, even when one side produces facts that cannot be disputed, it is usually their beliefs that prevent them from seeing the truth. So, like Nick says, dogmatic. (as in the actual definition of the word)

I wouldn't put ignorance first. If someone believes in something so fully, it doesn't matter if they are ignorant or not. They're going to fight for their beliefs. Ignorance and stupidity go hand-in-hand.

Take the most recent invasion. I was attacked because I am female. Obviously these "things" believe a woman's place is in the home taking care of babies, cooking food, cleaning house, etc. That is their belief. Granted, it is because of ignorance that they have this belief. Hm, perhaps all three are together, not separate.

[Next of Kin]

Take the most recent invasion. I was attacked because I am female. Obviously these "things" believe a woman's place is in the home taking care of babies, cooking food, cleaning house, etc. That is their belief. Granted, it is because of ignorance that they have this belief. Hm, perhaps all three are together, not separate.

Kelly, what is scary is that they probably don't really believe what they said. They trolled for the sake of trolling and said anything to get a rise out of the people on this board. One of these clods is blubbering that he's sorry for what he did.

[Kelly Antilles]

Kelly, what is scary is that they probably don't really believe what they said. They trolled for the sake of trolling and said anything to get a rise out of the people on this board. One of these clods is blubbering that he's sorry for what he did.

I noticed that. I also noticed that despite Spanky bringing up the fact that they completely insulted me, they have avoided that.

And as for Azeron, I brought up valid points in several threads he'd started, yet he took the one where I said he was a bit off to attack me.

Arminius did the same thing.

I really hate people who think women are inferior and can't have a brain.

(sorry, that's just a little pet peeve of mine)

[Next of Kin]

Kelly, what is scary is that they probably don't really believe what they said. They trolled for the sake of trolling and said anything to get a rise out of the people on this board. One of these clods is blubbering that he's sorry for what he did.

I noticed that. I also noticed that despite Spanky bringing up the fact that they completely insulted me, they have avoided that.

And as for Azeron, I brought up valid points in several threads he'd started, yet he took the one where I said he was a bit off to attack me.

Arminius did the same thing.

I really hate people who think women are inferior and can't have a brain.

(sorry, that's just a little pet peeve of mine)

Azeron, is a completely different sort of fool. As for Arminius or any fitness elite troll; they relish insulting someone and pushing their buttons.

[Nick]

I really hate people who think women are inferior and can't have a brain.

(sorry, that's just a little pet peeve of mine)

Why apologise for saying something which makes such perfect sense? Given that this thread is about 'borders to understanding' misogynism rates as a pretty fine example of irrationality, ignorance and domatism

Oh, and in terms of the ordering of my 3 comments, I agree that ignorance isn't the biggest problem. I'd actually put them in the following order:

Dogmatism: this is the worst, because if you can't admit that you might be mistaken or uninformed, then you are never going to learn anything.

Irrationality: without a rational mindset, it is difficult to develop the critical faculties required to properly assess the information that is available to you. It is also a problem because it prevents you from making proper use of the information you do have.

Ignorance: If you are rational, and not dogmatic, remedying ignorance is a trivial matter.

[Darth Wong]

Are dogmatism and irrationality two separate concepts? I've always considered them unified, ie- dogmatism is a form of irrationality.

[Nova Andromeda]

-- I guess I will address Darth Wong's comments first.

--"... the ignorant party will often try to bluff his way out, and only reflect on his position well after the fact (if at all)."
-This is a problem that stems from a person's goals. In this case the goals is not to lose face and thereby ranking in society.

--"I would add emotional duress as a fourth category in your list."
-I prefer to use a broad definition of goal such that a person's goal(s) include(s) anything that motivates them whether they know or understand it. It appears to me too diffucult to draw the line anywhere else since one's emotions are part of our "control system" and define our goals (they provide the weighting in our neural network).

--"In other words, some people are just too fucking stupid to debate with ..."
-While this is true I'm not entirely convinced that there is a certain level of intelligence beyond which a person is capable of recognizing that their level of comprehension is lacking in certain subjects and must therefore not conclude too much within those subjects. In other words, how smart to you have to be to accuratly determine how stupid and ignorant you are?

--"Are dogmatism and irrationality two separate concepts ..."
-I'm pretty sure dogmatism stems from both a person's goals (in this case the need to fit within a certain group/lifestyle) and their intellectual capacity. One must both be motivated to be dogmatic and be crippled intellectually in specific ways (in this case be able to believe or not recognize inconsistancies in ones thinking).

--On the subject of ranking the obstacles I would start with conflicting goals being the primary obstacle. If people's goals are truly in conflict there is no hope of resolution (short of a contest of power). Next I would place stupidity. One can't reason with people who don't understand logic. These people can be manipulated/appeased though. Last I would rank knowledge base differences since this is can be overcome with time and effert.

[Nick]

Are dogmatism and irrationality two separate concepts? I've always considered them unified, ie- dogmatism is a form of irrationality.

I agree that dogmatism is a form of irrationality, but I also think it deserves special consideration, because of its unique role in preventing learning.

Similarly, it is possible to say that irrationality is a special form of ignorance. In this case, the knowledge a person lacks is knowing how to think rationally.

So the basic problem is ignorance. Our internal model of reality is incomplete or inaccurate, and leads to our making poor choices.

Irrationality is a special form a ignorance, which means we don't have the ability to manipulate the knowledge we do have, nor to properly assess any new information we come across. (The second half of this being more commonly known as an inability to think critically)

Dogmatism is a special form of irrationality, which means we can't admit that our ideas might be wrong, thus preventing us from remedying either our irrationality or our ignorance - because fixing those requires us to admit that we are ignorant and/or being irrational.[/i]

[weemadando]

Barriers to agreement?

People are morons. Present company NOT excluded.

No-one is an expert on everything, and no two people in the world hold the same ideals.

However some people in the world are capable of atleast reaching a consensus based on rational evidence and debate. Present company included, for the most part...

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

There is also another consideration, mentioned above: pride. No one likes to admit when they're wrong. It is especially difficult to admit that your argument is flawed when the statement of this fact contains the implicit or explicit statement that the proponent of the argument, as a person, is flawed. Pride precludes concession in such a case. I have proven to be an example of this principle, unfortunately. When someone says, "Your position is stupid." and follows that with a clear, well-defined reason why this is so, I (and I would assume most laypeople) will more readily receive and accept such a statement. If, on the other hand, I am told, "You are stupid." I will perceive this as nothing more than an attack, and respond in kind.

[haas mark]

Why can't people agree...?

This only brings to mind the Clairvoyancy topic....

[Coyote]

Also: Defensive (or Overly-sensitive). If you don't agree with someone, they take it as a personal affront. Maybe even see it as a vilification of their beliefs. Beliefs, of course, beyond religious-- any particular creed or political stance, etc.

And then there are some ornery cusses who just thrive on argument and strife, pulling strings and the like to get a rise out of someone. It's hard for me to imagine folks like the Elite Fitness trolls--their comments seemed so over the top I thought it was some kind of stunt, and I have to remind myself that there are people out there that really dig doing this stuff. Just saw those threads today, on a random trawl through the board. Insane.