Not sure if I read it or reinvented it, but seems like one of the Sleight of Mouth NLP patterns.
For example, when someone accuses you of manipulation, you can try the strategy of wild generalization “everything in this universe is manipulation; even when a photon hits an electron, it is manipulating it”, or you can focus on details and insist that each detail taken separately is okay “dude, I just pressed a few keys on my keyboard and clicked a mouse button; either tell me which of those keys was the ‘manipulation’ you are talking about, or quit accusing me of that epiphenomenal bullshit”, or go meta “you know what is manipulation? accusing other people of manipulation!”, etc.
Essentially, the book is a Clever Arguer Handbook. Not sure if it is the exact opposite or LW, or a reverse-psychological way to show you how all the clever arguing is just juggling with the meaningless noises. I haven’t actually read the book, only the summary, but even that already contains a lot of memetic toxins.
Clever arguing is the sort of thing we should try to avoid as much as possible. You might be able to shut someone up by making one of these arguments just by the other person’s lack of available retort, but you aren’t going to actually change their mind or have their feelings about you improve.
Yes. That’s a great description! This specific Dark Art is about how to find the suitable noncentral argument quickly; it provides a few general directions where to look.
Clever arguing is the sort of thing we should try to avoid as much as possible.
Depends. But if the goal is to find the truth, then yes.
you aren’t going to actually change their mind or have their feelings about you improve.
Well, if you do it right, you are going to influence them. That’s exactly why people do it. Of course, if you do it wrong, it may backfire.
For example, when someone accuses you of manipulation, you can try the strategy of wild generalization “everything in this universe is manipulation; even when a photon hits an electron, it is manipulating it”, or you can focus on details and insist that each detail taken separately is okay “dude, I just pressed a few keys on my keyboard and clicked a mouse button; either tell me which of those keys was the ‘manipulation’ you are talking about, or quit accusing me of that epiphenomenal bullshit”, or go meta “you know what is manipulation? accusing other people of manipulation!”, etc.
All deliberate human interaction is manipulation, in something the same way that everything you touch is made of atoms. The issue there isn’t wild generalization, it’s that “manipulation”, as a specific reference for a specific class of human behaviors, is fuzzy to the point of uselessness. It doesn’t carve the world at any useful joints.
I think that notion is implicitely in a lot of places, but I’m seeking for a explicit expression of it that I can reference for an article that I’m writing.
Not sure if I read it or reinvented it, but seems like one of the Sleight of Mouth NLP patterns.
For example, when someone accuses you of manipulation, you can try the strategy of wild generalization “everything in this universe is manipulation; even when a photon hits an electron, it is manipulating it”, or you can focus on details and insist that each detail taken separately is okay “dude, I just pressed a few keys on my keyboard and clicked a mouse button; either tell me which of those keys was the ‘manipulation’ you are talking about, or quit accusing me of that epiphenomenal bullshit”, or go meta “you know what is manipulation? accusing other people of manipulation!”, etc.
Essentially, the book is a Clever Arguer Handbook. Not sure if it is the exact opposite or LW, or a reverse-psychological way to show you how all the clever arguing is just juggling with the meaningless noises. I haven’t actually read the book, only the summary, but even that already contains a lot of memetic toxins.
Looks a lot like the Worst Argument in the World.
Clever arguing is the sort of thing we should try to avoid as much as possible. You might be able to shut someone up by making one of these arguments just by the other person’s lack of available retort, but you aren’t going to actually change their mind or have their feelings about you improve.
Yes. That’s a great description! This specific Dark Art is about how to find the suitable noncentral argument quickly; it provides a few general directions where to look.
Depends. But if the goal is to find the truth, then yes.
Well, if you do it right, you are going to influence them. That’s exactly why people do it. Of course, if you do it wrong, it may backfire.
All deliberate human interaction is manipulation, in something the same way that everything you touch is made of atoms. The issue there isn’t wild generalization, it’s that “manipulation”, as a specific reference for a specific class of human behaviors, is fuzzy to the point of uselessness. It doesn’t carve the world at any useful joints.
I think that notion is implicitely in a lot of places, but I’m seeking for a explicit expression of it that I can reference for an article that I’m writing.