If you do the thing that you hate , You will start getting the thing that you love .

Welcome to Deepstash

Lokesh Vaishnav on Aug 10

People think and process information in one of two ways: inductively and deductively,” he says. “The inductive thinker needs all of the background information first and then the point. The deductive thinker needs the point first and then the background information.﻿

Two ways people process info

You can discern how a person thinks by paying attention to how they present information. Do they usually cut to the chase? Or do they take you along their decision-making journey step by step? Then form your presentations or asks based on how their tendencies.

Discernment

Figuring out whether you’re speaking with an inductive or deductive thinker can make all the difference.


Thoughts

One reason people don’t listen to you (and how to easily fix it)

When we are struggling with a complex topic, it can be powerful to talk someone else through the idea, step by step.
This principle of explaining complex ideas as simply as possible is called &#39;Explain Like I&#39;m Five.&#39; Explaining concepts helps to clarify our thinking. It is a process that ultimately helps us to be understood.

Clarifying your thinking

Problem Solving

Take a moment of self-reflection. We have many vague and confusing thoughts and feelings that we don&#39;t spend the time to sort out, so they mostly stay that way.
Observing yourself in a neutral way is the first step to clearer thinking. Make yourself comfortable, then try to notice the flow of your thoughts and feelings in a nonjudgmental way.

Reflect on why you believe something is important

What are you claiming, and why? For example, thinking if it is better to become a vegetarian or a vegan, and why or why not it is better.
Write out a numbered list of statements followed by a conclusion. The statements should present a line of reasoning that justifies your final conclusion. Then, ask two questions about each statement.
<ul>
<li>Why should someone accept this particular claim?</li>
<li>What follows from this claim once it&#39;s been accepted?</li>
</ul>

Consider what you are claiming

Simple conclusions can become more complex and revealing. For example, if you believe that it is better to be a vegetarian but don&#39;t eat vegetarian, it suggests that you don&#39;t believe your own reasons or that you don&#39;t find your reasons compelling.
Clarifying your thinking will strip away oversimplifications and replace them with an honest acknowledgement. It is by repeatedly questioning the why and what of our claims that we can hope to tear away the confusion and self-justification of our thoughts.

Investigate the divide between beliefs and actions

Consider on what basis you can justify any claims. You may rely on external evidence, personal preferences or experiences. All of them will at some stage point to our assumptions we accept as fundamental.
Our assumptions are unexamined ideas. They are vital as they underpin our thinking. However, sometimes we don&#39;t share the same assumptions with others and may need to spell them out.

The basis of justifying claims

When it comes to clarifying your thinking, differentiate between what follows from your assumptions and the status of those assumptions:
<ul>
<li>Any line of thinking begins with certain assumptions you take as a given.</li>
<li>A process of analysis can show where your assumptions lead.</li>
<li>Different ways of reasoning based on differing assumptions may lead to different outcomes.</li>
<li>It is useful to spell out your own and other people&#39;s key assumptions.</li>
<li>If you&#39;re open-minded, you can find common assumptions and challenge faulty ones.</li>
</ul>

Be clear about assumptions

The most valuable thing about clearly presenting the thinking behind a point of view is the willingness to participate in a reasoned exchange of ideas.
In principle, it suggests you&#39;re prepared to:
<ul>
<li>Justify your position.</li>
<li>Listen to, and learn from other perspectives.</li>
<li>Accept that you might have to reconsider your opinion or change your mind.</li>
</ul>

Embrace dialogue

By learning to question and clarify your thoughts, you’ll improve your self-knowledge and become a better communicator

How to think clearly | Psyche Guides

... is a faulty assumption that becomes the basis of an argument and makes it logically unsound. For example, all birds can fly. Penguins can&#39;t fly. Therefore, penguins aren&#39;t birds. The premise that all birds can fly is false since some birds can&#39;t fly.
A false premise underpins many logical fallacies, making it essential to understand them.

A false premise

A logical fallacy is reasoning that contains a flaw.
Many logical fallacies rely on false premises:
<ul>
<li>Appeal to nature - claiming something is good because it is &quot;natural&quot;. Some natural things, like cyanide, is very bad for you.</li>
<li>False dilemma - a limited number of options are presented as mutually exclusive or as the only options.</li>
<li>The appeal to novelty - when something is assumed good because it is new.</li>
<li>The argument from incredulity - someone concludes that because they can&#39;t believe something is true, then it must be false.</li>
</ul>

False premises and logical fallacies

<ul>
<li>An explicit premise is when a premise is mentioned directly as part of an argument. </li>
<li>An implicit premise means that the premise is hinted at and used as part of the argument.</li>
</ul>
Someone might choose to rely on a particular implicit premise because it is evident to all participants. Or, someone might decide to rely on an implicit false premise while giving a speech because it will be harder for listeners to notice problems with it.

Explicit and implicit premises

When you respond to the use of false premises, you should generally call them out as false, explain why they&#39;re false, and how them being false invalidates the argument.
<ul>
<li>False premises can be implicit rather than explicit.</li>
<li>It can also be helpful to ask the person who relied on the false premise to support it.</li>
<li>However, remember that a false premise that makes an argument logically unsound doesn&#39;t mean its conclusion is wrong.</li>
</ul>

How to respond to false premises

<ul>
<li>Ensure that you&#39;re aware of all the premises your argument is based on and that you know that your premises are true.</li>
<li>You can engage in self-distancing by treating your arguments as if they&#39;re presented by someone else. This can help you rationally consider your views.</li>
<li>If you make an argument, the proof is on you to support your premises.</li>
<li>Learn about common fallacies associated with false premises. Then you are more sure to avoid them.</li>
</ul>

How to avoid using false premises

False Premise: When Arguments Are Built on Bad Foundations - Effectiviology

It is a rhetorical technique that involves overwhelming your opponent with numerous vague arguments, with no regard for accuracy, validity, or relevance of those arguments.
The Gish gallop is a misleading rhetorical technique, rather than a logical fallacy because it doesn&#39;t represent a pattern of flawed reasoning.

The Gish gallop

Communication

A classic example is when a proponent of some pseudoscience bombards an expert with many weak arguments and start a new argument each time the expert successfully refute one of them.
But Gish gallops also appear in less formal contexts. E.g., someone who wants to support an unfounded stance on social media might post a huge list of irrelevant sources that they didn&#39;t actually read.

Examples of Gish gallops

<ul>
<li>In live debates, a person using the Gish gallop will fire off arguments one after another to attempt to overwhelm the opponent.</li>
<li>In online discussions, Gish gallopers will list a large number of sources that supposedly support their stance. They will search for relevant keywords, then list all the sources regardless if the sources support their stance. It works to some degree since many people won&#39;t bother with the list of references and just assume they&#39;re valid and relevant.</li>
</ul>

How the Gish gallop is implemented

The Gish gallop technique was first known by names such as &#39;argument by verbosity&#39;, &#39;proof by verbosity&#39;, and &#39;shotgun argumentation.&#39;
Professor Eugenie Scott used the term &#39;Gish gallop&#39; to describe the debate technique of Duane Gish, a Young-Earth creationist, who was &quot;allowed to run on for 45 minutes or an hour, spewing forth torrents of error that the evolutionist hasn&#39;t a prayer of refuting in the format of a debate.&quot;

History of the Gish gallop

Arguments in a Gish gallop often contain various logical fallacies, such as the strawman fallacy which attacks a fabricated argument, or appeals to nature, which claims something is good because it is perceived as natural.

The Gish gallop and logical fallacies

The Gish gallop technique is used for two main reasons:
<ol>
<li>It is often easier to raise weak arguments than it is to refute them.</li>
<li>People generally prefer simple arguments and not complex refutations. The Gish gallop often contains these arguments which offer a compelling argument.</li>
</ol>
The Gish galloper will often use a prepared list of arguments that they can fire off rapidly. They then appear well prepared because a person is unlikely to refute every single point.

Who uses Gish gallops and why

<ul>
<li>Full rebuttal. Go over every point made by your opponent, and refute each of them individually. </li>
<li>Sample-based rebuttal. Select a representative sample of your opponent&#39;s arguments, either randomly or based on some criteria, then refute only those arguments.</li>
<li>Thematic rebuttal. It consists of identifying the main theme of your opponent&#39;s arguments and arguing against that.</li>
<li>Group-point rebuttal. Dividing the opposing arguments into distinct groups, then addressing each group separately.</li>
<li>Best-point rebuttal. Addressing only the strongest piece of evidence presented by your opponent.</li>
<li>Worst-point rebuttal. Addressing only the weakest pieces of evidence.</li>
</ul>
Different techniques will work better in different circumstances based on who your opponent is and what your goals are.

How to respond to Gish gallops

Regardless of which technique you use, you can generally point out that your opponent is using the Gish gallop, especially if you need to explain why you cannot provide a full, point-by-point rebuttal.
Explain how your opponent is using this technique and why it is problematic.

Calling out the use of the Gish gallop

When responding to specific arguments within a Gish gallop, you can use certain techniques to respond effectively to the flawed arguments.
<ul>
<li>When someone states there is support for their stance, you can ask your opponent to list the specific evidence they claim support their view.</li>
<li>When responding to generalised claims, show that they contradict the scientific consensus on the topic.</li>
</ul>

Arguments within a Gish gallop

This technique&#39;s strength is that it frames the course of the debate and can create a false appearance of credibility and control.
<ul>
<li>Because it gives an advantage to the Gish galloper, your best course of action is to avoid playing their game.</li>
<li>Don&#39;t allow the opponent to establish this type of rhetoric. However, this is not possible in online discussions.</li>
<li>If your opponent already used the Gish gallop, ask them to defend specific pieces of evidence.</li>
</ul>

deductivethinker

LOKESH VAISHNAV

Lokesh Vaishnav on Aug 10

Two ways people process info

One reason people don’t listen to you (and how to easily fix it)