Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Mantus · 12-27-2003, 10:51 AM

A damn nice post Four Fingers

Allot to think and talk about so ill get started.

Four Fingers is correct in his observation that people tend to be dogmatic towards their own point of view.

I will try to use the case of Mike, Billy and the dead Candy to illustrate how this determination to prove one’s own point can run amok in a large group of people.

Lets assume that both Mike and Billy are truly bad people.

- Mike says Billy did it.
- Group A (the skeptics) doesn’t like either; they say either could have killed Candy.

At this point several new groups arrive on the seen. These are people new to the issue and do not have a full view of it.

- Group B never had a reason to think Mike was bad.
- Group C believes that Mike did it.
- Group D believes that Billy did it.
- Group E start disliking Mike because they assume he killed Candy.
- Group F start liking Billy because they assume he was the victim of Mike.

This is an example of what could happen if an argument ensues between the different groups.

- Group A claims that either man could have killed Candy.
- Group C claims that Mike did kill Candy and think that Group A supports their claim.
- Group D claims that group A only supports the theory that Mike killed Candy.
- Group E claims that group A and C supports their claims.
- Group F claims that group A and C supports their claims.
- Group B claims that group A and C like Billy because they have support of F.
- Group D claims that A and C claim that Mike killed Candy because they like Billy.
- Group B claims that group D supports their claims.
- Group F claims that group D likes Mike.
- Group C claims that group D thinks Mike innocent only because they like Mike.

By this time we have a hell of knot to untangle. That’s not even the end of it…

Four Fingers’ observation is correct; each group only sees the evidence that supports their own case. They end up using other group’s cases to support their own even though the groups have different views. As the arguments get mixed up groups opposing a certain argument will attack totally irrelevant groups (who borrow the competition’s argument) in an attempt to indirectly disprove their competition.

12-27-2003, 10:51 AM	#3 (permalink)
Mantus lascivious	A damn nice post Four Fingers Allot to think and talk about so ill get started. Four Fingers is correct in his observation that people tend to be dogmatic towards their own point of view. I will try to use the case of Mike, Billy and the dead Candy to illustrate how this determination to prove one’s own point can run amok in a large group of people. Lets assume that both Mike and Billy are truly bad people. - Mike says Billy did it. - Group A (the skeptics) doesn’t like either; they say either could have killed Candy. At this point several new groups arrive on the seen. These are people new to the issue and do not have a full view of it. - Group B never had a reason to think Mike was bad. - Group C believes that Mike did it. - Group D believes that Billy did it. - Group E start disliking Mike because they assume he killed Candy. - Group F start liking Billy because they assume he was the victim of Mike. This is an example of what could happen if an argument ensues between the different groups. - Group A claims that either man could have killed Candy. - Group C claims that Mike did kill Candy and think that Group A supports their claim. - Group D claims that group A only supports the theory that Mike killed Candy. - Group E claims that group A and C supports their claims. - Group F claims that group A and C supports their claims. - Group B claims that group A and C like Billy because they have support of F. - Group D claims that A and C claim that Mike killed Candy because they like Billy. - Group B claims that group D supports their claims. - Group F claims that group D likes Mike. - Group C claims that group D thinks Mike innocent only because they like Mike. By this time we have a hell of knot to untangle. That’s not even the end of it… Four Fingers’ observation is correct; each group only sees the evidence that supports their own case. They end up using other group’s cases to support their own even though the groups have different views. As the arguments get mixed up groups opposing a certain argument will attack totally irrelevant groups (who borrow the competition’s argument) in an attempt to indirectly disprove their competition. Last edited by Mantus; 12-27-2003 at 10:56 AM..