Squick? Oh, it’s some TVTropes term. That’s a bit excessive, it is only mild bemusement on my part.
Why should we presume the person trying to persuade their friend in this example is objectively correct in knowing what is both the appropriate and correct way for their friend to behave?
You can shorten it to: “Don’t be discouraged when your proselytizing of rationalism is ineffective the first time, just be consistent in your message.” Honestly not seeing much of a difference in the article if you replace every instance of “rational” with “Christian.”
You can shorten it to: “Don’t be discouraged when your proselytizing of rationalism is ineffective the first time, just be consistent in your message.”
No, this article doesn’t advocate consistancy. It doesn’t say that the second attempt at convincing someone is supposed to be consistent with the first.
Honestly not seeing much of a difference in the article if you replace every instance of “rational” with “Christian.”
Lack of an ability to see something isn’t evidence that’s not there. It just shows that you aren’t skilled enough at seeing differences to see the difference in this case.
That’s simple a rhetoric tactic that’s bad.
How is advocating that someone be consistent not advocating consistency?
In response to your second argument, the stated example is very similar to proselytizing in that you’re attempting to bring your friend around to a way of thinking that you consider to be true and correct. Presumably because you also believe that it will improve their life. So if the end goal is to help them become a more emotionally stable person, then does it matter if they get there with rational or Christian teachings?
If the, presumed, end goal of this is to help your friend live a happier life then what is the effective difference between::
“Logically, there is no reason for me to be angry that I can not find my comb. This isn’t a big deal.”
As opposed to:
“The comb is a just a temporary material object whereas I am an immortal spiritual being. Why get angry over it?”
How is advocating that someone be consistent not advocating consistency?
The word consistent doesn’t appear in the post.
If I don’t want Alice to do X, and my first attempt is to convince Alice with Y not to do X, what’s a good second attempt?
Doing Y again? It’s an option but not necessarily ideal. It might be better to do Z whether or not that’s consistent with Y.
Gram Stone didn’t say something about whether to change approaches or to strive to be consistent.
“Logically, there is no reason for me to be angry that I can not find my comb. This isn’t a big deal.”
That’s not what the pitch happens to be. The word logically doesn’t appear in the article above or in the actual attempt of Gram Stone. In his attempt he points at a variety of memes like CBT and NVC. He makes the stoic pitch that the only thing we control is our reaction. He talks about cost benefits considerations. He doesn’t talk about logic.
Your sentence sounds much like: “Because there no logical reason I shouldn’t feel angry.” A pitch that’s inconsistent with with CBT and NVC principles.
Good point, I should not have assumed that repeatedly admonishing someone toward the same line of thinking through arguments based on rationality would be consistent or logical.
Squick? Oh, it’s some TVTropes term. That’s a bit excessive, it is only mild bemusement on my part.
Why should we presume the person trying to persuade their friend in this example is objectively correct in knowing what is both the appropriate and correct way for their friend to behave?
You can shorten it to: “Don’t be discouraged when your proselytizing of rationalism is ineffective the first time, just be consistent in your message.” Honestly not seeing much of a difference in the article if you replace every instance of “rational” with “Christian.”
No, this article doesn’t advocate consistancy. It doesn’t say that the second attempt at convincing someone is supposed to be consistent with the first.
Lack of an ability to see something isn’t evidence that’s not there. It just shows that you aren’t skilled enough at seeing differences to see the difference in this case. That’s simple a rhetoric tactic that’s bad.
How is advocating that someone be consistent not advocating consistency?
In response to your second argument, the stated example is very similar to proselytizing in that you’re attempting to bring your friend around to a way of thinking that you consider to be true and correct. Presumably because you also believe that it will improve their life. So if the end goal is to help them become a more emotionally stable person, then does it matter if they get there with rational or Christian teachings?
If the, presumed, end goal of this is to help your friend live a happier life then what is the effective difference between::
“Logically, there is no reason for me to be angry that I can not find my comb. This isn’t a big deal.”
As opposed to:
“The comb is a just a temporary material object whereas I am an immortal spiritual being. Why get angry over it?”
The word consistent doesn’t appear in the post.
If I don’t want Alice to do X, and my first attempt is to convince Alice with Y not to do X, what’s a good second attempt?
Doing Y again? It’s an option but not necessarily ideal. It might be better to do Z whether or not that’s consistent with Y.
Gram Stone didn’t say something about whether to change approaches or to strive to be consistent.
That’s not what the pitch happens to be. The word logically doesn’t appear in the article above or in the actual attempt of Gram Stone. In his attempt he points at a variety of memes like CBT and NVC. He makes the stoic pitch that the only thing we control is our reaction. He talks about cost benefits considerations. He doesn’t talk about logic.
Your sentence sounds much like: “Because there no logical reason I shouldn’t feel angry.” A pitch that’s inconsistent with with CBT and NVC principles.
Good point, I should not have assumed that repeatedly admonishing someone toward the same line of thinking through arguments based on rationality would be consistent or logical.