Arguing on YouTube (Part 2)
Continued from Part 1
After doing this for awhile, I've found that most interlocutors were at a loss at how to respond, and couldn't provide sufficient refutations or counter-arguments, getting tripped up in their own logical fallacies. I was persistent and they would usually give up responding. Some were not interested in honest conversation and were simply out to troll. I would respond in kind. Those conversations go nowhere fruitful. But I would still try to keep them up and get in the last word, which felt like winning. In my mind, it's something like: "the first person to give up loses." At times, I would take the loss, as I was wasting too much time on it and getting stressed out.
When I'm anonymous, I can get a bit mean and arrogant (though I try to avoid ad hominem in my condescension.) I certainly don't communicate in the same way I would in-person. I bet everyone who knows me from online courses as a quiet, soft-spoken guy would be surprised at these conversations. Perhaps this is some kind of outlet.
I've been learning how to communicate better from:
- How to Have Impossible Conversations and Street Epistemology
- gently and cooperatively exploring and challenging the foundation and certainty of strongly-held beliefs in a way that the other person doesn't feel bad at the end of the conversation
- a state of mind exhibiting: Vulnerability, Impartiality, Empathy, Vulnerability
- asking non-judgmental, open-ended how/what questions
- Internal Family Systems (IFS)
- relating to other people's subpersonality "parts" without triggering them
- being led from Self, which exhibits the 8 C's: Calm, Clarity, Compassionate, Confident, Connects, Creative, Courageous, Curious
But these communication methods don't translate well into text. They work better for my face-to-face interactions.
On YouTube, things can get heated. I'm trying to "win" instead of connecting with the other faceless person. Even when I "win", I don't feel good. I get that non-humble feeling of "in your face!" Many conversations are frustrating, especially when the other person doesn't care about having an honest conversation. That's when they ignore my points or dismiss them without evidence, fail to provide support for their arguments, and continue preaching their flawed beliefs.
I know my tactics are a terrible way of changing people's minds, and I don't expect it to. But there is probably still a secret hope that I have that kind of power with my rhetoric.
Most times, I spend a lot more time writing my arguments than they spend in their responses. As I mentioned previously, I can get into flow. But it gets to the point where I feel burned out. Then I stop for awhile. Only to get sucked in at a later time. I don't know if these phases coincide with other aspects of my life. I guess they often function as a distraction from an important project that I'm procrastinating on.
Going back to IFS, the newest model I'm learning about, none of these actions arise from my core essence of Self. These are burdened parts that take over as a misguided way to protect me. One of these parts is providing a distraction from being overwhelmed by other projects. Another part gets triggered and is lashing out at my past indoctrination. Yet another part hates what these parts are doing: being unproductive and causing me negative emotions.
I want to get to the point where I'm Self-led in these situations, specifically in these areas:
- compassionate, both to my parts and others who disagree with me
- calm, and not easily triggered
- creative, by using this energy in more productive ways that adds value to others