It has recently been brought to my attention that some person perceive my responses as cherry picking. This is not entirely true nor false, but more misrepresentative of what's actually occurring.
Why do I do this?
- It is not my intent to be dishonest, evasive, subversive, or waste another person's time.
- When comparing opportunity costs (sex, productivity, responsibilities, games, etc) I have better things to do with my time (higher priorities) than to engage in a detailed critique of unfocused propositions.
- Recently, I have been focusing efforts on finding ways of making discussions/arguments more efficient and productive.
If an argument demonstrates an inability to focus, I will not respond to every tiny detail. Symptoms of an unfocused argument include:
- Ill-defined or an inability to define a specific objective or set of objectives (goal/aim/value/pursuit). Ask, why is X important? What does one wish to achieve with X?
- Objective types contrast greatly. For example, morality and economics. Perhaps pick one?
- The argument is the length of a novel. Consider Occam's_razor. Can anything be removed? If cutting is impossible, try starting over, picking priorities, and remaining concise.
- The response contains facts or values of no interest to the audience. "But God said!" So what if he did?
- The argument contains unrelated or off-topic questions. "Why did the King have 3 wives?" Why are you asking me?
I should respond to every detail because…. ? What objective might I hope to accomplish? How does that objective compare to my other priorities *(earning money, producing goods, enjoying friends)*?
Alternatively, offer helpful suggestions of ways I may pursue my objectives (i.e. efficiency, effectiveness, saving time, etc), while doing whatever it is you want me to do.
Simply demanding I should value your priorities over my own is entitled behavior.
Does it appear that I am evasive? Here are a few recommendations:
- Cherry pick for me!
- Highlight something in BOLD TEXT.
- Ask specific and clear questions. Ask few questions (max 3).
You're evasive therefore I'm right!
- Logic fail. Persistent != true.
Why is Argumentation Unappealing to me?
TLDR: Because I hate chocolate.
Some propose that argumentation is the pursuit of civil behavior, truth, and/or logic. However based on my observation, those are merely "rules of the game." The objectives of the game of argumentation are typically win, defeat the opponent, get-what-you-want, convince the opponent, attack, or defense. I find these to be highly unappealing.
I do not enjoy argumentation and primarily engage in it primarily as a defensive act. It is unlikely that someone has something I want. The win-lose dynamic is destructive IMO. Defense is unappealing as well, however better than the opportunity cost.