People's motivation in arguing.

[Picard]

This explains a lot about what is going on in here.

Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber are two evolutionary psychologists who proposed that humans have evolved to prioritize winning arguments over seeking truth. Their "argumentative theory of reasoning," outlined in works like The Enigma of Reason (2017 French edition), posits that human reasoning developed primarily for social persuasion and debate, not solitary truth-finding. This explains why reasoning often falters individually but improves in group discussions, as evolution favored skills that helped convince others in collaborative ancestral environments. Their theory has gained traction in discussions of why people cling to flawed beliefs during arguments. 

[Weston Super Saint]

Pony.

[trousers]

Arse

[sadoldgit]

28 minutes ago, Picard said:

This explains a lot about what is going on in here.

Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber are two evolutionary psychologists who proposed that humans have evolved to prioritize winning arguments over seeking truth. Their "argumentative theory of reasoning," outlined in works like The Enigma of Reason (2017 French edition), posits that human reasoning developed primarily for social persuasion and debate, not solitary truth-finding. This explains why reasoning often falters individually but improves in group discussions, as evolution favored skills that helped convince others in collaborative ancestral environments. Their theory has gained traction in discussions of why people cling to flawed beliefs during arguments. 

Most of the time on here a flawed belief = someone else’s opinion that you don’t agree with. No one ever wins an argument as they are usually circular with opinions being repeated, flawed or not, until someone gets bored.

The protagonists tend to fall into two camps, those with empathy v those without much empathy. It has nothing to do with finding truth and everything to do with expressing displeasure at those who see things completely differently.

[skintsaint]

[CB Fry]

Jesus wept.

[Turkish]

19 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Most of the time on here a flawed belief = someone else’s opinion that you don’t agree with. No one ever wins an argument as they are usually circular with opinions being repeated, flawed or not, until someone gets bored.

The protagonists tend to fall into two camps, those with empathy v those without much empathy. It has nothing to do with finding truth and everything to do with expressing displeasure at those who see things completely differently.

Good post. Maybe you’re starting to finally become more self aware.

Edited 11 hours ago by Turkish

[Holmes_and_Watson]

1 hour ago, Picard said:

This explains a lot about what is going on in here.

Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber are two evolutionary psychologists who proposed that humans have evolved to prioritize winning arguments over seeking truth. Their "argumentative theory of reasoning," outlined in works like The Enigma of Reason (2017 French edition), posits that human reasoning developed primarily for social persuasion and debate, not solitary truth-finding. This explains why reasoning often falters individually but improves in group discussions, as evolution favored skills that helped convince others in collaborative ancestral environments. Their theory has gained traction in discussions of why people cling to flawed beliefs during arguments. 

It's brave work from the evolutionary psychologists to show that when heads go far enough up their own rears regression also occurs.

Are we not men? No! We are Devo(lutionary psychologists)! 

54 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Most of the time on here a flawed belief = someone else’s opinion that you don’t agree with. No one ever wins an argument as they are usually circular with opinions being repeated, flawed or not, until someone gets bored.

The protagonists tend to fall into two camps, those with empathy v those without much empathy. It has nothing to do with finding truth and everything to do with expressing displeasure at those who see things completely differently.

This was also toss. You've never missed an opportunity to portray yourself as the champion of empathy, and therefore right. All while expressing some of the worst, myopic, out dated, intolerance the board gets to see.

[Lighthouse]

11 hours ago, Picard said:

Their theory has gained traction in discussions of why people cling to flawed beliefs during arguments. 

Weren't you one of those people who insisted that Coronavirus was all a hoax concocted by Bill Gates and the WHO to keep us locked down forever?

[whelk]

I had a vision once - I was walking in the forest and there was a flash of light in front of me and a voice boomed out “Whelk, stop wasting your life and be more productive, go educate those cunts on Saintsweb”

[Turkish]

10 hours ago, Holmes_and_Watson said:

 

This was also toss. You've never missed an opportunity to portray yourself as the champion of empathy, and therefore right. All while expressing some of the worst, myopic, out dated, intolerance the board gets to see.

Oh my mistake I thought he was finally realising he was in the lack of empathy/expressing displeasure at some else’s views camp. How could I have been so naive? You of course have called it better. Of course what he meant was he shows empathy, he is right and the people who say he talks shit are the ones who don’t agree with him.