The Top 5 Dishonest Rhetorical Tactics of High Verbal IQs

[@olekXDDDD]

i think saying "you are fat" is always a legit argument.

[@smoath]

It's higher IQ to call the mum fat.

[@robnobert]

💯🎅🟰💩

[@SonofAlbion]

Physiognomy never misses….

[@galou0090]

This is intrinsically true and people trying to rationalise it instead of internalising the wisdom behind it have a long way to go. I think its best to focus on the argument at hand and use a valid criticism to invalidade the "expertise" of the person defending an argument.

[@KARKATELCESARENVIADODESA-pv4yd]

It is but only among those who know what it implies. To the "normal" people (I just got some 2 dudes rabid on me for calling the masses normal, guess we're losing our minds over semantics here now) fatness is "okay" and "normal" (oops I said the forbidden word again!) because everyone is like that and we know that is not correct but to them it is and they're in bigger numbers than us here so yeah.

[@guser7137]

I prefer to lead with "You're fat".

[@buffkonradin]

Body and Mind are the same

[@jamesedwards.1069]

If it's Trump you accuse him of being Orange.

[@jaybeaton9301]

Lmao.

[@bellphorusnknight]

I followed up with psychologizing

[@hazchemel]

Haha yeah, can always dial back to cuddly.

[@ahelleneauthor]

Former attorney here. EVERY SINGLE ONE of these is used by lawyers, and is encouraged in legal pleadings. It’s so obnoxious and part of the reason I had to get out.

[@downstream0114]

Can you give an example?

[@brunods4560]

I imagine that in jury trials anything goes, as far as logic and honesty goes

[@OmarBenjumea]

Worse than the ornate speeches is to advise the criminal defendant to wear a suit.

[@JackKent0110]

1. Know your audience. 2. Know your objective. 3. Select an appropriate delivery mechanism.

[@StrayCatInTheStreets]

This reminds me of when Ben Shapiro went on the BBC years ago and got annihilated. He effectively failed these 3 points. This was the turning point for Mr Shapiro as since then he selects his audience, target and delivery mechanism very wisely as to not get caught again

[@AcademicAgent]

This is a key aspect of rhetoric

[@Dude0000]

@@StrayCatInTheStreetsyeah, that was with Andrew Neil, who has also become a bit of a tool of the establishment, himself. He was once one of very few bright lights of the BBC, as he was fair, and grilled all equally, and let the audience make up their mind, as he how far to push, unlike, say Paxman who would ask over and over as he was performative playing to an audience, and was as much about him, whereas Neil punched it enough to make his point. So, credit where credit is due. Neil was a good interviewer, but has since decided he needed to reign it it so he wasn’t kicked out of the ‘club’, in my opinion, based on the facts of his change in rhetoric and sentiment in his analysis, arguments and questioning.

[@BrewsterMcBrewster]

@@StrayCatInTheStreets That interview was similar to the JBP vs. Cathy Newman. When "an objective journalist" like Andrew Neil has a political agenda, said journalist is no longer objective. I don't think Shapiro was annihilated by any stretch. The mismatch (IQ difference) between Neil and Shapiro was too great to have a rational conversation. And I'm not a big fan of Shapiro. He and Dennis Prager don't like libertarians because we want to see an End to the Fed!

[@machtnichtsseimann]

@@StrayCatInTheStreets - Shapiro has fully owned how that interview on the BBC was a "fail" for him. He's worked on himself and not getting so defensive, rather, arguing his points. On your point of selecting his audience, well...doesn't everyone, which is their prerogative? Then again, when he visits college campuses to talk, then do Q&A, most probably he's not in total control who shows up, and I've seen enough of such videos to see there are some pretty pointed, even snidely asked, questions, challenges and postures from some students towards Ben. ( Looks like you are implying Ben is still weak, though in a different way. If so, then nope. He comes off as more mature and thicker-skinned. Not saying I agree with everything he argues, but give him credit where he's due. )

[@ihque125]

"High-Verbal IQs" ...who nose what that could mean...

[@pgmasterson1163]

You nose them by their tiny hats.

[@EnglishFolkWisdom]

All crows are black but not all black things are crows. If someone takes the bait and corrects your spelling it MIGHT be because they have used facts and logic to conclude something about you that you didn't expect

[@GaijinTV]

Nose. Hehehe

[@haraldbredsdorff2699]

It does sort of drive me insane when people talk about "high verbal IQ", because IQ is not suppose to include verbal intelligence. "High verbal IQ" is just about how many words they know to use. A typical journalist would have "high verbal IQ". But make them try to understand how statistics work, or imagine where people are in a 3d room, and they fail at the start. Because their actual IQ is bellow 100. Inserting how many words you can remember, and use, is how certain groups have cheated on IQ scores for years. Pretending they can find solutions, when all they do is talk circles without saying anything.

[@eh1702]

It means people whose standout ability is verbal, but either other people or they themselves may not recognise that it’s their standout. They mistake high VERBAL ability for all-around high IQ. It implies they either lack other forms of intelligence (like strong reasoning; or being able analyse a problem; numeracy, etc) &/or that they lack the insight to understand that opinion ≠ fact. Or that their education in those things is deficient. People whose standout ability is verbal are often unable or unwilling to admit that “debate” does not settle fact. “Winning” a debate by rhetorical tricks - point-scoring, analogy, metaphor, putting down the person arguing against you - is not equivalent to truth, proof or fact. I grew up in a family of genuinely smart people, actual geniuses and polymaths, which is probably why I have good verbal ability: but I am well below average in pretty much everything else. And I have met people dumber than me who genuinely do not know they are dumb, because they also have this as their best feature. High verbal IQ is like a store with a flashy window display. You could open the door and go in, and find a well-stocked, high-end department store - that is what the majority of people assume. Or you could find a poky, miserable few shelves of dusty junk under flickering neon light. It is amazing how many people will say, “Must be in the middle of something, the luxury boutique must be further back there somewhere.” If a child is well behaved and well presented, teachers will do this too. They’ll even tell the child what a great store they have, and why don’t they dust it a bit? Rather than see there’s not much there. This means the child can seriously underperform because their actual needs as a student (the empty shelves) are not being addressed. And the child’s family also may be dazzled by the window display, at least early on. This is why people like Andrew and Tristan Tate who *sound* like they should be smart, leave school with basically no qualifications, become vacuum-cleaner salesmen, bum up a six-bout, one-win foray into MMA as a “career” and then become a pimp. While their sister goes to law school and becomes an attorney with a happy family.

[@ElCampeador99]

The thing is AA, public debates aren't won by using sound rhetoric. They are won by winning the audience over by means of emotion because the audience likes punchy one-liners and shocking questions. The people like slop so they expect slop in a debate.

[@ElCampeador99]

Ah, but you already knew that. Haha.

[@city_of_coompton6832]

I read "Amusing Ourselves to Death" by Neil Postman. He argues each new form of media eg. Print>Radio>TV is lowering people's attention spans and lowering the quality of public discourse. He compared political speeches and presidential debates from the 19th century to the late 20th century and the decline in quality was shocking. It was written in the 1990's I'm sure he'd say social media has only made things 10x worse lol

[@greenfroggood2392]

I guess that depends on what you consider "winning"

[@baldr2510]

I don't think "winning" public debates really achieves anything.

[@whiggles9203]

Thats what rhetoric is

[@marcusmoonstein242]

One of the sneaky tricks I see the "debate bro's" use is when they feel they're on the verge of loosing a point they subtly switch to a second related point and leave the first point hanging. I've developed a loathing for debate after seeing the dishonest tricks they use.

[@lyricalmike7162]

You have to just call that out and not even engage the point switch-up no matter how much they dishonestly try to be like “oh you’re scared to answer” just double down on the fact that they are being dishonest pos

[@etymonlegomenon931]

This is like the psychosis of our age. It's so rare to have ANY kind of conversation today where you both stay on one topic for more than three whole back-and-forths.

[@damaristighe3227]

The old motte and bailey tactic.

[@AlastorTheNPDemon]

Debating is WWE for nerds anyway. There are discussions between two parties where the truth is practiced, and both cooperate with each other, and then there is debating, which is consistently set up in a competitive way and there is a 'winner' and 'loser' based on collective consensus of opinion. What "works" (if you could call such dysfunction "working") is dropping sick one-liners and verbal humiliation.

[@anon-tk1zg]

Only argue the issue at hand. Lawyer trick. Repeat "The issue is _____", and do not engage the other 'points'. Also never let someone frame or reframe.

[@city_of_coompton6832]

The AA has been immunized against all dangers. One may call him a communist, a grifter, brown, fat, it all runs off him like water off a duck's back. But call him high verbal IQ - and you will be astonished at how he recoils, how injured he is, how he suddenly shrinks back: "I’ve been found out".

[@captainhanpritcher]

Not sure how one could accuse AA of being a communist. Outgrowing libertarianism does not a fellow traveler make.

[@garrenosborne9623]

not an argument😉

[@thaneofwhiterun3562]

"Blast! Foiled again!"

[@city_of_coompton6832]

@@garrenosborne9623 Stefan Molyneux is that you?

[@n0vitski]

I've heard a lot of euphemisms for them, but "High Verbal IQs" is a new one.

[@GaijinTV]

These comments should be rated… This one is a contender. Well done my opinion

[@eh1702]

KZbin seems to censor replies with words like “bullshitters” in them.

[@MrReubenTishkoff]

A lot of people conflate cramming a speech with as much jargon as possible with High verbal IQ.

[@BlackMasterRoshi]

​​@@MrReubenTishkoffit's typically the people who do that jargon-cramming who also claimed to have high verbal IQs.

[@KARKATELCESARENVIADODESA-pv4yd]

I guess having brainrot pays off because it means I get to laugh because of comments like this that not a single normal would get. It's the little things, people.

[@StrayCatInTheStreets]

High IQ Slop is still slop

[@CivilizedWasteland]

I think AA made a chart about that

[@sethbracken]

The Brazilians are thwarting AA.

[@KARKATELCESARENVIADODESA-pv4yd]

Usual Brasil antics.

[@notsocrates9529]

Based hue bros.

[@stan1050]

I'm not sure they're thwarting him although it could be a close shave.

[@Cavalier.]

I'm not.

[@saryakan]

The worst attempt at 2 probably was "So what you are saying..."

[@ohwinvt]

I had a college professor who I refused to talk to because he did that constantly.

[@jackm.1628]

I’m not sure I know what you’re referring to, can you give an example?

[@usemythirdarm]

@@jackm.1628 Cathy newman vs JP

[@Subtlenimbus]

Really, that is an example of a Strawman fallacy.

[@Hjominbonrun]

That is the opening phrase of Straw manning.

[@1toneboy]

I didn't move right, the far-right moved to me.

[@NukeCloudstalker]

It certainly didn't. The "far right" has been the same for decades.

[@MrMasterCGO]

Imagine being a 2000s Liberal, pathetic

[@MrMasterCGO]

Imagine being a 2000 Liberal

[@Gigachad-dv8pu]

I’m not far right, I’m a sensible centrist.

@@NukeCloudstalker False. The political window moved to the Left. Things like Multiculturalism and Transgenderism would have been considered Extreme Left in the early 2000s, now it is passing as just Left-leaning while 2000s centrists are ''Far Right''.

[@malicant123]

I had to wipe away a tear for poor Stefan after seeing him up in the top corner. It was actually his videos that inspired a much younger me to start looking more critically at the world.

[@robnobert]

I wasn't that into his videos, but I listened to FDR in the reallllly early days ~ show 100. Same for me. Looking back he had quite a big impact on me in a good way. ❤ Hope he's well.

[@AcademicAgent]

A little homage by me

[@CharlieKellyEsq]

Same, he told one too many truths for his own good though :( :(

[@Wo1fLarsen]

Shout out to Stef. He was solid. Solid guests too. He's over on Odyssey, but the content is bland now.

[@Bombsquadcomedyshow]

​@Wo1fLarsen He really fell off. I'll check back in on him from time to time, and he's become a broken record.

[@MrDhollaballa]

I think the biggest thing is making you prove basic truths and then presenting statements that actually require proof as a given.

[@theloniuspunk383]

are you talking about the gas chambers?

[@michaelcook3816]

"But define what you mean when you use the term 'woman'."

[@theloniuspunk383]

@@michaelcook3816 i cant

[@brahimilyes681]

Framing is what it is.

[@elinope4745]

I come across this problem legitimately from time to time. It's always when there is a jargon word with a very specific meaning that is also in the lay vocabulary as meaning something that the technical term does not mean. For instance, the word "literally", it is used differently by lay people and professional people. The lay definition of that word also includes pejorative meaning. Another example is the term "normal", this can mean different things and sometimes those differences is a key point of my argument. It is both normal and abnormal to be fat. It all depends on what your local norms are, or what population you are considering, or what you mean by the term fat, or if you are using medical or statistical definitions of the word. You run into this problem a lot when discussing technical aspects with lay people, especially those unfamiliar with the subject matter. This makes it hard to talk with young people about anything with more than room temperature complexity.

[@AgainstMyBetterJudgement]

1. Ad hominem attacks are not arguments. But some legitimate arguments are taken as ad hominem attacks. Before you raise your voice, ask yourself first whether the argument might be relevant, and second whether it might be true. And maybe ask the other person, too, just in case they know something you don't. 2. Psychologizing is not always projection. Even if it's not correct. Classifying all psychologizing as projection is, itself, psychologizing (and perhaps projection). 3. Manufactured consensus is powerful, and obviously disingenuous. But again, the mere observation of a genuine majority can be relevant to some discussions. Don't be afraid to be in the minority, but always consider reasons why the majority of people might disagree. 4. Ridicule may not be an argument, but people are still allowed to make jokes. If a statement is already on the table when you enter the room, don't assume it's an argument. 5. There's a fine line between an irrelevant detail and a detail you haven't thought to care about yet. Give people a chance to explain why their observations matter.

[@CoreSystemDev]

Thx for saving me 10mins

[@AgainstMyBetterJudgement]

@CoreSystemDev (Just to be clear, this is my response, not an overview. I hope you used your powers of deduction to reverse-engineer the 5 tactics.)

[@CoreSystemDev]

@@AgainstMyBetterJudgement yep, but thanks for clarifying!

[@Laotzu.Goldbug]

1. In an Ideal World of purely abstract Talking Heads where all facts can be immediately known and compared it is true that an ad hominem does not constitute a valid argument™. But that's not reality, and in a world where even the most basic facts are often not agreed upon and things cannot be researched and known instantaneously and you have to take a lot of things on trust - whether that's a person's description of a specific data point or their intention or good faith in an argument - "ad hominem" is absolutely an entirely a valid tool for the discourse because you are in fact basing a lot of that conversation and debate on trust or credibility in a person's character, intentions and so on, so things that question their personal attributes have direct relevance. So in short you probably shouldn't do it in high school Debating Society where you're practicing, but in the real world it is often very necessary to bring those things up.

[@domonkospap2421]

Thank you

[@jamesedwards.1069]

This is why I hate Nigel Farage's guts now, he brought up Tommy Robinson's record as if it was an argument that had anything to do with the issues being discussed. And it turned out that the violence against women accusation was a lie, which is so ironic since the issue was the violence being committed against the young girls.

[@djinnxx7050]

So, what prevented you from disliking him prior? It's not as if he changed, he's still the closeted Tory and corporate condom he always was.

[@elingrome5853]

Nigel cannot win that fight… it will haunt him if he chooses to pursue it

[@KARKATELCESARENVIADODESA-pv4yd]

Big Chungus sends his regards!

[@HalIOfFamer]

​@@elingrome5853farage is a crook anyway. He is containment of the masses. Even if he wins nothing will change but the population will be docile again because of his grift.

[@PointNemo9]

It shows his character

[@AH-C4-627]

Your commitment against using rhetoric in an era where influencers are obsessed with channel growth and monetization is rare. While most focus on churning out content appealing to the confirmation biases of existing audiences for the lowest cost, your content remains thought provoking. Not employing rhetoric is one reason your channel is one of the few worth listening to. It would be a shame to lose that. Stick to your guns for the few of us who want something to actively listen to.

[@retrictumrectus1010]

I would say the wording of "High Verbal IQs" is rhetorical.

[@brerpossum]

“Super common” but no actual examples to illustrate. You pictured Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson implying they represent dishonest rhetoric but then never gave an example of them being dishonest, in fact you suggested Shapiro wouldn’t go ad hominem. The closest you came to an example involved Groypers - are they in the “high verbal IQ” category? So the implication with Shapiro and Peterson wasn’t backed up and was pretty shitty. Ironic since you mentioned ad hominems while implying those two were dishonest without even furnishing anything like a reason.

[@AcademicAgent]

Shapiro and Peterson were included as an extremely cryptic reference to someone else that is a coded message.

[@brerpossum]

@ so you’re engaging in silly idiosyncratic puzzles. I’ve wasted enough time on this channel.

[@AcademicAgent]

@ stick around you may learn something and much more than you’d ever learn from Shapiro or Peterson …

[@manishchandola6468]

Ben Shapiro is dishonest. Now whether he employed dishonest rhetoric is a matter of personal choice, you either acknowledge it or you don't.

[@GreenCanvasInteriorscape]

Coherency matters

[@IVIaskerade]

This is why I only use the highest tiers of arguing: •You eat supermarket bread •What's your 1RM? •I'm prettier so I'm right •Touch grass

[@AcademicAgent]

Some supermarkets have a wide range of breads

[@IVIaskerade]

@@AcademicAgent ok bread eater

[@tomk2720]

Yeah OK so what is your 1rm

[@marlonjormungand7845]

Whats you 1RM though?

[@IVIaskerade]

@ 225 (kg)

[@Pwecko]

I have come across all these tactics, but I don't think it is always people with "high verbal IQs" who use them. In particular, the first and last examples given here - ad hominem attacks and red herrings - seem to be used when people are losing an argument and need a way out. They are acts of desperation in most cases, rather than prepared tactics, and they don't really require a high verbal IQ. Children use these tactics in the playground.

[@thuglifebear5256]

Boomers. But it's worth noting the establishment just feeds them these retorts on a plate. Or a gun rack.

[@BlackMasterRoshi]

shitlibs are the children who copy high verbal iq liars.

[@jiaan100]

High verbal IQ can kind of disguise those tactics, make them more difficult to notice especially if theyre not aimed at you. Also he says what your post says at the very start of the video

[@douglasclerk2764]

People with a genuinely high verbal IQ - i.e. not a euphemism for those with word salad syndrome, should not need these tactics.

[@paxluporum4447]

"If you ain't cheating; you ain't trying," - Southern US Army military maxim

[@KARKATELCESARENVIADODESA-pv4yd]

Based. Been a cheater my whole life IN things I consider as rigged or cheated off since the get go in the first place (cough SCHOOL cough)

[@reinedire7872]

When it comes to James Lindsay, "you're fat" has become a totally legitimate argument...he's clearly stress eating because he knows he's wrong.

[@maxb3690]

Is that the "critical race theory is race marxism" guy?

[@Randgalf]

@@maxb3690 Yes, but that's one of his valid points.

[@IVIRnathanreilly]

​@@RandgalfNot really a valid point, it just is. It's not a point or idea, CRT is actually Marxist rhetoric reframed as race struggles as opposed to class.

[@tomk2720]

His insisting on this gnostic thing is so incorrect

[@amorphousblob2721]

​@@tomk2720 The only point where I see that he goes wrong is when he starts talking about the "woke right", which always means "those who dare to name the High Verbal IQs." I see nothing wrong with his arguments connecting Marxism and Gnosticism.

[@viorelgheorghe9772]

You putt the fotos of Ben Shapiro and Jordan B. Peterson and say they use some tactic that is not an argument but you failed to show a real example, I mean a video with them using these non arguments that you talk about. I have seen a lots of debates with these two people and I don’t remember them doing the things you talk about!

[@justanothernick3984]

Don't know about Shapiro but JBP absolutely uses both psychologizing and red herrings. "Everyone" is a narcissist and the red herrings are shifting of economic and public issues into the academia to point out the flaws in education.

[@coshyno]

Why don't you find them yourself

[@viorelgheorghe9772]

@@coshyno A burden of proof fallacy is when a person tries to eschew their need to provide proof. They can do so by denying an event, by pretending they have already offered their burden of proof, or by saying it is someone else's duty to provide the burden of proof.

[@tonybernard4444]

I was thinking exactly this. I thought they were credible sources who cite references in order to break down other people's bullshit. Jordan is a different kind of animal, and it's tough to fight him because his brain is all over the place, but Ben is what I call a master debater; he's studied his topics exhaustively and can instantly rattle off multiple points with examples and references before I can think of a single retort (nevermind that I'm too ignorant and slow witted to even try). Anyway, both of them silence proponents of feminism, woke ideology, DIE and systemic discrimination by asking for a single actual instance of their victimhood. It's probably true that both gentlemen use tactics to win arguments because they're passionate and competitive, but I haven't detected it, and I think it's irresponsible to make them poster children of dishonesty without giving examples. It's not like they don't have enough material out there to choose from.

[@foxtrotalphagolfgolfoskart3224]

Jordan is prone to ad hominem when ever one of the troll basement dwellers as he calls em ask him anything critical about Israel.

[@davestevenson9080]

I would ask a 6th category but I don't fully know how to define it - False meta-analysis? Regurgitating lots of irrelevant facts to build a false justification for a narrative. i.e the battle of britain was won with foreign pilots, the royal family is foreign, your car is foreign so having millions of foreigners come here can only make things better!

[@hens0w]

I love that the royal family is foreigner because George the first was born in Germany but the mayor of London is british because he was born in the UK. Make it make sense.

[@debanydoombringer1385]

In the US it's that we used German scientists to help get to space. They avoid the bomb because it had zero. In fact, most of our technology came out of the military which any top secret research requires US citizenship and both parents to be US citizens. It's why Musk trying to say he needs Visa for Space X to get to Mars is just a straight lie because he can't have them working on anything sensitive for it.

[@damaristighe3227]

Great argument for a ban on foreigners.

[@indricotherium4802]

That's just a non sequitur. The conclusion of the statement does not follow from the premise of the statement.

[@davestevenson9080]

@ It's still something ever so slightly different. cumulative non sequitur ?

[@gandalfgimlilegolas6663]

So how honest is it posting a picture of your obvious target without mentioning their names? 😂

[@WeighedWilson]

Downright cowardly

[@RichardPhillips1066]

Labour at the very moment is refusing to deal with a problem because they say angry people are racist , and that more concerning than child sexual assault, I never really thought of it as an avoidance tactic

[@emt4377]

What problem is Labour "refusing to deal with"? Are you sure you haven't been baited and hooked on this idea by the so-called conservative "influencers" pretending to be elected leaders who are only now "awakening" to a problem that existed during the reign of error of the Conservative Party which has left the UK poorer, nastier, more isolated, and more divided against itself? The problem of the historic child sexual assaults you are talking about has already been quite publicly investigated and reported upon widely. Exactly what do you expect a new investigation to accomplish other than re-traumatizing the victims and furthering the bigotry of the extremists who are exploiting this issue to make Britain ungovernable which is bound to make it poorer, nastier and more vulnerable to the further misrule of the cynical pols who led the nation into this morass? The monies that would be wasted on a new investigation would be much better spent supporting the needs of the known victims rather than exploiting them again to satisfy the demands of the outraged extremists who have zero evidence that there is anything worth investigating further. Take a look at the statistics of the prison population of inmates incarcerated for sexual offenses. The most likely perpetrator of sexual assault in the UK is NOT a person whose ancestors from South Asia lived under the domination of the sunsetted British Empire - it is someone who looks much more like Andrew Tate, Tommy Robinson or Nigel Farage and alcohol was probably a factor in compromising the victim's safety. If you really want to see the problem of sexual assault addressed, addressing the pervasive alcoholism throughout England would have a greater impact than repeating investigations that have already been completed. Why not investigate alcohol abuse and how it is often used as "the weapon" that incapacitates sexual assault victims? Or is England using an "avoidance tactic" to evade facing a much bigger problem? Sexual assault is always a crime of predatory abuse of physical and social (political) power i.e. the perpetrator feels entitled to violate the victim and expects society to ignore the abuses and even to shame the victims. Reflect on these observations and you will realize that the most likely person to abuse power is a person who confidently believes he can get away with it. They even form political factions nowadays that resemble gangs insofar as they occupy shadowy corners from which they hurl threats and invective as they try to intimidate and extort members of the community into bending to their demands for raw power that they unashamedly intend to criminally abuse.

[@earlgrey4024]

Thanks for your excellent content. I’ve got a request. Could you please make some content about how you would counter the narrative when it comes to teaching children? Like you, I have a child in the school system. What resources will be useful? How can we make sure are kids don’t become programmed without them saying ‘daddy told me such and such isn’t true’. Any content on raising based children would be good. After all, the children are the future.

[@damaristighe3227]

Great idea. The small but growing number of institutions that advertise a "classical" education is encouraging (Hillsdale for example). Some home-schooling networks build content along these lines. If I was raising a child again, we'd be going that route.

[@johnpeterson2987]

You have to plant seeds, like the movie Inception. If you straight up tell them something sucks they will find a reason to like it.

[@caffeineandphilosophy]

I will say, "not an argument" is actually, itself, sometimes, a dishonest high-IQ move, dismissing what are often legitimate arguments because a point is implicit rather than explicit.

[@ashs4022]

Correct. It’s an opposing opinion. An opinion which is, subjective.

[@BulletRain100]

I find in high level discussions that logic is next to worthless because both sides are extremely rational and logical. The real battle is over axioms and hierarchies of values, and there isn't a way to logically resolve that battle. This is why they resort to these tactics because they actually work better than "logic."

[@KARKATELCESARENVIADODESA-pv4yd]

Good point. You gotta aim for something anywhere, and this could be no different. But still, as AA says, one should always stay inside the realm of logos. Ideally one should, as much as possible, even then, I am of the opinion that if you are playing with a dirty player you should just... you know.

[@BillLaBrie]

Most debates should start with questions like “does anything exist?” Then, “how do we know anything exists?” But see, most people tune out by then.

[@KARKATELCESARENVIADODESA-pv4yd]

@@BillLaBrie True.

[@jimmcneal5292]

Definitely not always(unless were only specific discussions as "high-level")

[@Christian35100]

It's like an argument between 2 smart people over immigration. Ones brown and ones white. At the end of the day, they both just want whatever benefits themselves more. The white wants less immigrants so his wages aren't driven down. The brown wants more so his culture gains dominance and his wages go up. (In this case likely through welfare) They both will shift their hierarchy of values to fit whatever they're arguing for at that given moment and exonerate themselves of having to accept fault. Suddenly the white person only cares about merit and taxes and the brown person only cares about giving people equal and fair opportunity. Even though that white person 2 days ago was arguing for higher taxes on rich people, and the brown person was arguing to stop letting the Chinese flood his country in Mexico. The truth is that everyone is a absolute joke with no conviction, and people are the absolute scummiest things that exist. And if you ever wonder if that's actually true, just remember that agriculture was 80% of the economy before the industrial revolution. It's now a fourth of that. And food gets more expensive every day.

[@MalachiWhite-tw7hl]

A college professor posting the faces of two conservatives, describing them as "dishonest"? That cannot possibly be, since we know they are interested only in facts and logic. Could the thumbnail also include, say, public intellectuals Robert Sapolsky or Neil Tyson?

[@stochasticstoic4810]

a punter, looking at the faces of two demonstrably dishonest people, focusing on their political faction? did you even listen?

[@trippinsciko]

he showed two people who are brazenly dishonest regularly, you bringing politics into this just diminishes any point you could have had

[@trippinsciko]

@MalachiWhite-tw7hl you're... happy with that? because that's a pretty pathetic goal, and makes you look disingenuous what with it you admitting to being so

[@trippinsciko]

@@MalachiWhite-tw7hl lmao how sad

[@MalachiWhite-tw7hl]

@@trippinsciko Heartbreaking.

[@Prognome12358]

15:20 is a very high verbal IQ pitch for the Trivium, buy it now

[@thefranken-thing]

I want to be one of the thousands who have been granted the honor of purchasing it.😃

[@brianbob7514]

While number 2 is usually used irresponsibly it can be fruitful to consider the person when contemplating their ideas.

[@jaybeaton9301]

6) if they really bug me I ask “how many jabs have you had?”

[@doobclub]

The worst is about 10 so far I believe. Maybe 11 now.

[@GuldeScott]

I'd like to see you do a video where you show examples from mainstream commentators. Especially Ben Shapiro.

[@marketads1]

Thank you algo! Just found you the day after America fell to Melon Head. Will watch this space for more.

[@Skrimpish]

And even if you defeated their argument the day before, they acted like they won or pretended not to know what you were talking about... Gradually

[@UnsoberIdiot]

I appreciate this reference.

[@BrewsterMcBrewster]

Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals"

[@Christian35100]

Really good comment

[@Cincy32]

"American" but shows an Israeli & a Canadian

[@AcademicAgent]

It was cryptic

[@Cincy32]

@AcademicAgent To be fair, Israel co-owns the US along with the PRoC & Canada will be annexed by the US by 2029. You're just ahead of the curve I suppose.

[@AgainstMyBetterJudgement]

Ben Shapiro is from Los Angeles.

[@EntropicHobbit]

​@@AgainstMyBetterJudgementThey tend to congregate in cities.

[@danieltemelkovski9828]

@@AgainstMyBetterJudgement Being from LA is not mutually exclusive with being Israeli.

[@Mornings]

The problem with most people is they'll accept emotion/authority based non arguments if it defends their own beliefs but not if it defends someone elses. In your average political discussion no matter what someone's ideology is both sides are void of logic.

[@BrewsterMcBrewster]

Confirmation Bias.

[@Pwecko]

I miss Stefan Molyneux on KZbin.

[@user-pt6oc4rj4u]

Rationality Rules...

[@malicant123]

He brought himself down by wandering into dangerous territory regarding race and IQ, but ruined his chance of resonating with the dissident right by ignoring the JQ. If you're going to go all in, go all in.

[@yorkshire_tea_innit8097]

The level of discourse has gone so far down since then.

[@Baker68]

@@malicant123It is strange that it is so hard to talk about when the data is out there… the first result on google search. A list of countries and IQ

[@AvocadoRob]

No need to miss Stephan, He's on Odysee, a few clicks away.

[@cyberninjazero5659]

Some Austrian man talked about this in a book once

[@enclaveofdoom]

You didn't even watch the video 😢

[@yukiko6137]

@@enclaveofdoom He's right though, there was one section about it in the infamous book.

[@Jimmyhoffa_1234]

@@enclaveofdoomhe did mate

[@topoatrangan465]

I heard he also did some painting.

[@cyberninjazero5659]

@@yukiko6137 I wonder if AA saying insults flowed off of him like "Water off a ducks back" was an intentional reference

[@tooter4u271]

I don’t believe for a second that anybody calls this guy “fat” or “brown” in any sort of serious discussion. He must have been talking to five year olds.

[@alansmith2892]

I find countering the "it's just a joke, why do you care" approach to be difficult. Any recommendations on how to rhetorically counter without in turn responding with humour? I find humour responses and the injection of a little banter to degrade the argument as a deliberate elicited-response tactic by the OPFOR. It also tends to coincide with the nihilistic "who cares" and "why does it matter" attitudes you can get from some. I remember that debate with Carl years back I think with Destiny where he'd clocked in retrospect he was literally arguing with people who didn't care if western civilisation collapsed or society fell apart. Carl was struggling a bit to argue that western civilisation is worth continuing with people who couldn't give a toss, indeed it is difficult to argue when the other side is effectively suicidal.

[@huguesdepayens807]

If you're having a discussion with someone and they use any of these tactics just stop talking to them. It's very likely not worth it and it'll add years back to your life.

[@adiem8764]

Had an argument like this once. Person claims to not believe in their own five senses, I told them having their arms and legs cut off shouldn’t meet any resistance then, to which they replied “yeah”. Nihilism means you have no discourse.

[@alansmith2892]

@@huguesdepayens807 Easier said than done with family.

[@doobclub]

@@huguesdepayens807 thanks, you basically said what I was about to comment: get away from them. They're probably narcissists.

[@damaristighe3227]

The Left don't have a sense of humour. Humour can be devastating.

[@brindlebriar]

I used to listen to Jordan Peterson A LOT before Oct. 7th, and though I didn't agree with him about everything, I never noticed him using any of these tactics. Maybe he has since Oct. 7th. I wonder if you could give an example, though. If you're going to use those guys as the thumbnail and refer to them by name, there should be presented _one_ example of each of them using at least _one_ of the tactics mentioned, as a teaching tool.

[@ThepurposeofTime]

A lot of people could sense Jordan Peterson was leaning far-right and since he has gained his comfortable position it’s been proven true. Jordan creates gaps instead of using obvious tactics. An example is promoting the power and importance of story telling on the psyche as if it’s a holy mission. And then claiming race familiarity isn’t needed in visual media and underlying prejudiced symbol and subtext don’t exist He has always been very careful to navigate the socio-intellectual space and he works VERY hard to do so, daily grinds with blinkers on

[@MrAkura1984]

​@ThepurposeofTime These are legitimate opinions on his part. He believes that religious stories have big significance . He doesn't pretend to make it sound as a scientific fact. He doesn't use opinions, though, when arguing with others, he's using facts and logic for that.

[@user-qh4uv5dz7i]

🚬👤🧐 Speaker provided no actual examples from the folks he was criticizing. Only threw out generalities. Also, analyzing underlying Motives is perfectly legitimate in some cases. Then claims good vs evil? Lame. A thoroughly unconvincing overview.

[@CrunchyNorbert]

Im getting real tired of these guys from brooklyn with a tailor father and a poet mother that act like they get to be thought leaders

[@TheGingerjames123]

Something ive been struggling with is short statements with a lot of prebaked assumptions that take a long time to address. Even if i buckle down and go through it all it feels like ive fallen for some attrition warfare tactic

[@dylanrust7289]

Video starts at 3:30

[@61shirley]

Ignoring the insults becomes a walk in the park after a while. 20 years I’ve been doing this and the worse thing you can do in a debate is make it personal. Even if they do it first

[@danieltemelkovski9828]

For special emphasis in those moments, in order to make it more obvious to those who are slow to pick up on it, I like to point out "if you have to make this personal, it tells me that you're out of arguments."

[@BrewsterMcBrewster]

When the ad hominems start coming out of your mouth, you have lost the debate. You might, however, win over some low thinking types.

[@BronzeAgePuritan]

So, by "rhetoric" you really mean "bullshit"?

[@jwsuicides8095]

New subscriber here. Definitely familiar with these tactics. Thanks for listing them.

[@marketads1]

Me too!

[@ActionEHamshraershV]

Enlightenment critic DESTROYS his high verbal-IQ opponents with FACTS, EVIDENCE, REASON, and LOGIC.

[@carlotapuig]

Good luck trying to gain normies over with logic, statistics and arguments. It's literally impossible. However, using emotions (especially fear of losing something), presenting an alleged consensus and especially making the other side look ridiculous or highlighting they are physically unattractive (e.g. being fat), work easily most of the times.

[@AcademicAgent]

Don’t want normies, hate normies

[@BabaBooey1922]

​​@@AcademicAgent I can immediately tell if someone hasn't read any of your books especially The Populist Delusion. We aren't mormons here lol ORGANIZED MINORITIES will always be the ones to move the needle.

[@dannypaterson888]

Normies are vital. They dictate the course. That's why I don't have a problem with fashionista bimbo MAGA grifters, etc. The left understands the power of the normie and targets them almost exclusively. It turns out that getting normies on board was all they needed to dominate

[@jiaan100]

I disagree about ad hominems not working. I think when used right theyre very convincing to others listening to the argument. E.g. when i bring up a certain day in 2001 (from a physics perspective even) and almost every time get called a flat earther or mindless contrarion. Ad hominem is not super effective alone, but is effective when paired with groupthink.

[@BrewsterMcBrewster]

Ad hominems work with average to low thinking humans. And that's a pretty large group.

[@hansenmarc]

1. Ad hominem 2. Psychologising/inferring motivation 3. Manufacturing consensus 4. Distract by ridicule 5. Red herring Surprised you didn’t mention the Gish gallop.

[@wrongthinker843]

"High verbal IQ" aka a cavalcade of bs.

[@markstuber4731]

I am highly skeptical of anyone who claims they never fall for these tactics.

[@threethrushes]

Bold of you to conflate verbal salad with high intelligence. Intelligence simplifies the complex; mendacity always tries to confuse.

[@AcademicAgent]

This is just behaviour I’ve seen from people who have declared themselves as such

[@thefranken-thing]

High intelligence is definitely a requirement for being good at it. I look at it like telling a story. If there is consistency and some level of believability, people can more easily suspend disbelief. If the story flatters or agrees with one or more aspects of the listener, it is even more effective. The ability to analyze people well enough to use it against them also requires relatively high intelligence.

[@redwithblackstripes]

I use them all because i'm based and Shoppenhauerpilled, ironically, of course.

[@alexanderayotte8867]

Isn’t assuming psychologising is projection also psychologising?

[@AgainstMyBetterJudgement]

Yes. It's probably also projection.

[@bendone81]

If you're good at holding your tongue and waiting till they give you a turn to talk, you can learn how to the stern reprimand for interrupting that you were probably often given. Practice it in the mirror; be a defiant adult. Then, when you start to give your response and your adversary inevitably interrupts, you give them that stern reprimand for interruption. Like, "Look! I gave you the respect to complete your rant and if you're not going to give me the respect to speak my response I'll leave you here. Now, can I speak?" Give them the whole narcissist ego response, full force and justified. It works surprisingly well. Their parents or teachers or whatever disciplinarians they had programmed it into them exactly like it's programmed into you. Practice it. Try it out. Take your power back.

[@MrReubenTishkoff]

A lot of people conflate cramming a speech with as much jargon as possible with High verbal IQ.

[@buenos4799]

and they are impressed by each other so much to lead to promotions

[@drmodestoesq]

And worthless vagaries.

[@BrewsterMcBrewster]

True. Makes one sound smarter than one really is. "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bulls*&t."

[@Jeremyak]

Debate may be the worst possible way to come to the truth of a thing, it's a complete waste of time. A good debater can win every debate even with the demonstrably false position. A written exchange is far better, you have the time to collect your thoughts and present the best evidence at your disposal, it isn't perfect but it's better.

[@buenos4799]

HR departments pre-filter verbal IQ candidates for all engineering jobs these days, the products be damned.

[@BillLaBrie]

Yeah, and what do you call a guy who makes it through the filter? An engineer.

[@buenos4799]

​@@BillLaBrietheir technical work is sub par, then they lie about it to preserve their careers.

[@BillLaBrie]

@@buenos4799 uh-huh. And?

[@TowerofGuitars]

In which direction?

[@erynlasgalen1949]

Engineering needs spatial reasoning. A high verbal IQ does not necessarily mean a lack of spatial reasoning. It would be a mistake to window out any candidate with high verbal IQ 'just because'.

[@andreahoehmann1939]

The people who are really good at this verbal warfare have even more tricks up their sleeve: 1.) They take advantage of the fact that their opponents do not know the meaning of the individual words 100 percent precisely, and then they claim: "You are exploiting group X," or: "You are using whataboutism" - and then the opponent needs more time than he has to collect himself and put the matter in the right perspective. 2.) They claim that the opponent expressed himself unclearly and is perhaps not clear about what he actually wants to say, and then they end the conversation condescendingly with the words: "We are going around in circles. You better think again more carefully!" 3.) They misrepresent what the opponent said and then refute not the actual statement, but the distorted statement. Number 3 in particular is a high art that requires a lot of practice.

[@Traktorlad]

Used to enjoy some of the counselling molyneux would give to broken People when they called in to his show. Seemed like a very decent guy.

[@christianlibertarian5488]

His problem was that he was fixated on certain issues re: sex, and his dealings with women. His logic evaporated in these areas.

[@Liam-w4h4w]

Dealing with these type of people is exhausting. Candace owens is one of these. Absolutely exhausting, talks in circles, and sounds smarter than what she is.

[@caseyv.3603]

You seem to be having an incredibly difficult time making a point.

[@AcademicAgent]

No I don't in any respect, that's why I make a living out of making points and you do not.

[@manishchandola6468]

​@@AcademicAgentyes you do in one respect. It's like you had brain fog through the first point, second point. It was testing my patience for your first video. Maybe it's too make more money from ads. For any one else reading this. I'm being honest here not sarcastic.

[@AcademicAgent]

@@manishchandola6468 Well, ya win some and ya lose some hey ho

[@RW-rt5nd]

​@@AcademicAgent: Sounds like an ethos argument right there: this is how I make a living and, therefore, I'm right! 😂 Your presentation and language could be a bit more succinct. You might give some examples to illustrate your points and keep the attention of viewers.

[@owlobsidian6965]

@@AcademicAgent You make a video about dishonest rhetoric, then hit someone with "that's why I make a living out of making points and you do not." That's about as low level and meaningless an argument someone can make.

[@bleachman803]

“To which I replied, ‘your mother’”

[@kbur9292]

Surely many of these are only rules to follow on an even playing field? Why should psychologising a foreigner who is promoting mass immigration not be viewed solely as "promoting his own interests and those of his group"? I also think recognising someone is of a different ethnic group can be sufficient grounds to dismiss them and end a conversation since I also believe in genetics and spirit being a prime motivator of behaviours, but many would dismiss that as ad-hom.

[@BlackMasterRoshi]

for a channel like this it's fine to not use rhetoric but everyone should be using it in their daily lives. especially to demonize their political opponents.

[@Mcfreddo]

Mmm psychologising, in general conversation of the "friend " who will talk over you and "give" you information you weren't asking for, the hedging of where you we're going to in a remark or expressions upon a subject- trying to finish your conversation for you; this is a form of psychologising?

[@marketads1]

Yes.

[@heinrichb]

9:27 Rorschach, not Rorsach. It's pronounced Roar-shukh.

[@brotherofgurnip]

AA doesn't make mistakes, he laid a perfect trap to catch out a high verbal IQ haver, and you just fell straight into it

[@RichardPhillips1066]

Perhaps yes , that's how I say it ..but I've noticed academics do pronounce names differently , Nietzsche...Goethe.. for example..perhaps the names become anglicized

[@AcademicAgent]

Number 5!!!!

[@UnsoberIdiot]

It's "rawr-shack", silly.

[@justinAclark2075]

What I find this most useful for is not the ability to detect deception (I am already good at that) but to make sure I myself am being fair to others, and not using any of these techniques myself. It's much easier for us to see the speck in the eye of another than the log in our own.

[@MoralistaDefinitivo]

The high verbal IQs. So that’s what we’re calling them now?

[@SevenFootPelican]

What’s your favorite Byron poem?

[@Daimo83]

Personally I'd have called "Manufacturing Consensus" using conformity, and "Distract by Ridicule" reductio ad absurdum. Anyway, I'd love to know why certain people grow up to be immune from these things. I think about it a lot.

[@manishchandola6468]

I currently think it's those people who are neither traditional conformists nor traditional rebels that have immunity from these and are also painful to talk to, in a good way. But people consider that being rude or in cases of geniuses like Nietzsche being insane.

[@marumaru6084]

You can definately see 3 and 5 being done at the moment in respect of the Labour rape gang defense.

[@aaakin]

Both sides are bullshitting on that one. AA should do an honest research on that.

[@marumaru6084]

@@aaakin As with Southport the victims are soon forgotten.

[@ZZZebman]

One of the main issue in reetorical tactics used by people like Shapiros and Petersons is that they will give smart ass comment, which could be totally irrelevnt, throw in a personal level comment and then prompty move on wihtout letting the other side give a response or even understand the comment. This happens most of the time because these people are talking from a higher advantaged level and no one is moderating or controlling the situation. What to do here?????

[@UnsoberIdiot]

Don't engage, or start trolling. This is not a fruitful discussion.

[@Cozonac3000]

Facts don't care about your feelings bro!

[@christianlibertarian5488]

Feelings don’t care about your facts, either.

[@BjornHegstad]

I think "psychologising" an argument is perfectly appropriate if the root cause of the conflict is the emotional stress that one individual is suffering from. I've seen people who are emotionally distressed create conflict completely uncalled for, due to their stress. This is particularly prominent in marriages and families, regardless of their intelligence. The reason couples go to therapy together is not to have an expert help them determine who's factually wrong and who's right; it's to have a therapist help them understand the psychological dimension of their conflicts. Also I'd argue that people of low verbal intelligence (which is the trait that correlates the most to political correctness, according to research by prof. Jordan Peterson) resort to these rethorics just as often, if not more, than high IQ people.

[@BonusHole]

No the reason couples go to therapy is because they entered into a covenant with God without knowing He exists and thus not taking His covenant of marriage seriously. They then think there is some 'advice' that can help them but they just both have to agree to serve God not themselves or each other.

[@buglepong]

"value free" analysis is only convincing if people can suspend their disbelief that you have no values yourself (or agree with your values).

[@Jimmyhoffa_1234]

His values are rightist, so they are true in a TRUE sense.

[@davestevenson9080]

@@Jimmyhoffa_1234 move beyond left/right.

[@kieranwhoriskey7270]

You are assuming that his analysis is for the masses, it is not. This will only resonate with a small amount of people. He is narrow casting not broadcasting.

[@shabbos-goy9407]

The Painter Simple as that

[@marshallodom1388]

Asking to back up what you're saying isn't a personal attack even if it feels like one.

[@Laotzu.Goldbug]

Israeli Quotient

[@benmoss786]

Something to consider with guys like kirk, Shapiro, and even Peterson is that there audience is not there to watch an honest debate play out, they are there to watch people get "destroyed" or "humbled" by these guys and in doing so are already a biased audience. So when these end up on the back foot of a debate, they use rhetoric to win the audience over thus never giving the appearance of defeat before going "okay next person". I used to like these guys, but the fact is they're very manipulative and do not have your best interests at heart. Edit: it feeds into thst manufactured consesnus you were talking about

[@TomTabaczynski]

So which one are you using in the Lenin video when you shift from 'predictive' to parroting Lenin's economic ravings because 'big numbers'. Is it the 'big numbers' and 'ominous sounding words', like 'export capital' and 'rentier class'. rhetorical strategy?

[@AcademicAgent]

Tom I started watching your videos and mention you on one coming out next Monday. A full reply will be forthcoming eventually but may take a while

[@nathang4570]

As someone with a high verbal IQ but an autistic obsession with truth and logic, I can confirm these are the main tactics of such people. I've always seen them used and they have always rubbed the wrong way. I am often identified by a person or group as highly intelligent and invited in and the quickly excommunicated after point out their own BS and their BS arguments. I find it quite amusing, I have no need for these peoples friendship and I know that I will forever be a nagging voice of reason in their muddled up brains every time they think something stupid. I prefer to keep smaller more honest company.

[@nathang4570]

Forgive the typos, I can't scroll properly to spell check on this app....

[@justanothernick3984]

​@@nathang4570 People don't like to be shown their hypocrisy back at them but I think it's good to go back to values and priorities. If you can sell your values (which are context dependent) then you are good. People might think you are a "bad person" but sometimes it's a necessity. SOMETIMES!! I like your approach but me, myself, am a more passive aggressie person trying to avoid unnecessary conflict.

[@PeterM8987]

You are amazing.

[@liberatumplox625]

"I'm spamming 'you're fat' but it isn't working!" "Bro, just switch to Eddy Gordo." "It's working now!"

[@Mr.Ambrose_Dyer_Armitage_Esq.]

As a trolling addict, I use every one of these...but that's largely because I know what I believe and what I want others to believe and I am uninterested in genuine debate, partly because I think Platonic dialectics is a feminine approach to dialogue employed by the otherwise powerless and partly because I have nothing better to do and derive a great deal of impish joy from shaming and/or ticking off my opposition. Maybe I should strive to be a better, truth-pursuant conversationalist...but then maybe I should just strive to be stronger and more productive so I'm not compelled to use rhetoric/sophistry OR debate. After all, if you have power, you don't need to justify yourself in some legalistic duel of wits and substantiation...you just take what you want. As Thucydides (I think) said of the Melian Dialogues, *_"The strong do what they can and the [week] suffer what they must."_*

[@davidwilliams5248]

Amen.

[@tonydalton6756]

Would you like some Kebab with your word salad?

[@Mr.Ambrose_Dyer_Armitage_Esq.]

@@tonydalton6756 I grew up reading Lovecraft and Ligotti; if you don't like the way I type, you're welcome to keep scrolling or waste your time prodding me with passive-aggression. Either way, I won't change and remain unshamed. I'll have that Kebab in Döner form, mutton only, hold the onions, and a side of Ayran, Herr Dalton. Danke schön!

[@TheDiveDawg]

Sounds to me like you're the hero in your own story. It's probably a fantasy with one main character who's trolling always leaves the audience in admiration of their genius. I bow down to your greatness!

[@tonydalton6756]

@@Mr.Ambrose_Dyer_Armitage_Esq. Oh I wasn't prodding pal. I thought it was very good. It was my attempt at humour with a bit of a tease "Where's the beef" Hehehe

[@hridammm]

Hi Professor, an old student here, loved this video!

[@1toneboy]

That Palestinian thing, that was just a joke, just a joke mate, why you being so serious?

[@apollosun2913]

Insulting someone instead of adressing their argument isn't an adhominem attack, in and of itself. It's only an ad hominem attack if the insult is the basis of a refutation to to the argument.

[@ClearLight369]

Re psychologizing: it does make sense, if someone is making bad arguments, to try to divine their hidden motives for doing so. But confession through projection is always a good go to gambit!

[@buglepong]

its a very fine line between categorising and psychologising. AA himself puts other social media pundits in categories eg slop merchants etc. fight with words always ends in bullshit anyway. every argument reaches the point of calling each other idiots

[@jonasfermefors]

2. Psychologising Isn't always BS in my experience. In the way it's described I would agree but at times I think it's more about trying to show what the person won't talk about. An example from my native Sweden (which I think applies in many parts of Europe) is when I analyze what spokespeople for the right wing nationalist SD say. They will say "we need to make the legal system better" without ever explaining how. The only way I can find to know more about what they really want is by asking for countries they admire to which they will typically say "Hungary, Poland and Italy". When you then say that they want to dismantle the legal system like Orban has done they vehemently disagree.. but they still never tell us what they want. Psychologising? Perhaps, but sometimes you have to go off the information you get.

[@OneLine122]

It's essential to do so. It's not like people tell you everything that is on their mind. People that lack empathy will resent it though and try to disparage it. They simply are at a great disadvantage.

[@Arvidholders]

6:48 smooth, very smooth

[@TheGuyInTheCheapSeats]

14:14. Calling your audience stupid might not be a good idea.

[@thornfielder]

Only potentially 95%. Likely true. Have some faith as you may be one of the 5%

[@raphaelward1711]

Everyone will read themselves as the five percent not stupid. Clever tactics

[@neolord50pro77]

​@@thornfielderi'm officialy representing 95% of audience stupidity of this channel. So everyone who needs confirmation of his intelligence you just got it.🫡

[@jameswilliams2269]

Does logic even matter when persuading the masses? Perhaps the best propaganda is stupid, so it resonates with the average person.

[@huguesdepayens807]

Not much

[@AgainstMyBetterJudgement]

The problem presents itself the moment you set "persuade the masses" as your goal. This is why politicians are so universally hated as a group. The purpose of logic is not to persuade, but rather to reveal the truth. Better to speak the truth and persuade one wise man than to sell a lie and rally a thousand fools to your cause.

[@damaristighe3227]

Stupid triumphs over reason.

[@BrewsterMcBrewster]

Good question. It's why Trump wins when people like Ron Paul lose. Trump speaks to the "common man" and Dr. Ron Paul speaks to the well educated, smart crowd which is, of course, much smaller than "the common man". BTW, I love Ron Paul dearly.

[@MadeleineTakam_Info_on_Profile]

High verbal IQ? You mean, they speak fast in meaningless platitudes and rhetoric when never challenged by people who aren’t intimidated, who actually have done a STEM subject.

[@danieldelaney1377]

Ad hominin is good actually

[@TalismancerM]

It's a fine line between Psychologising and pointing out legitimate reasons to simply ignore that person as a source of ANY argument. (eg part of a clearly corrupt organisation working on behalf of oil industries to muddy the waters on climate change. ie if there's a good argument I'll hear it from someone else thanks).

[@FrankyRemo]

The @ThePodcastoftheLotusEaters aren't going to be happy-AA has just given away their entire business model!

[@elingrome5853]

Oh stop it those guys are not pretentious whatever their idiosyncrasies

[@FrankyRemo]

​@@elingrome5853 Aha, Ignoratio Elench, Strawman!