Download Episode Here – right click link and select “Save Link As…”
In this episode, Joel and Antonia talk about how we can use better conversation tools to improve our own thinking and understanding of others.
——————
In this podcast you’ll find:
- Why do oversimplified ways of thinking exist in the world today?
- What are some the emergents of sloppy thinking and how do they show up?
- Why holding space for paradox within thought and opinion is vital.
- The sense of personal responsibility Antonia feels as an Accuracy (Ti) user.
- Why simplicity is a double-edged sword in a complex world.
- Exploring the role of brainwashing and self re-programming.
- What happens when we don’t complete topical conversations and iterations at the societal level?
- The cost of being connected globally, but focused locally.
-
Why it’s important to carefully choose the topics and causes you’re willing to argue for.
- Honoring your cause with sincerity, love and intellectual honesty.
-
Drawing parallels between Accuracy (Ti) and Authenticity (Fi) to illustrate thought processing.
- What happens when you process a thought to its conclusion?
-
Why aren’t the principles of rhetoric and philosophy widely known and applied in most arguments?
- How modern-day media fails to use these principles.
- The cognitive dissonance in journalism today.
- “If you aren’t thinking your thoughts, you’re thinking someone else’s” – why it’s important to fight off attempts to soften our minds.
- Antonia introduces the rhetorical principle of steel-manning – learn more about the principles of rhetoric at this website.
- Understanding the antithesis of steel-manning: straw-manning.
- The hollow-man and iron-man – how these distort arguments, but lack persuasion.
- Why would someone revert to using one of these undermining tactics in the first place?
- Why it’s important to apply the principle of charity in debates or arguments.
- The power of steel-manning – how you benefit from strengthening your opponent’s position.
-
Diffusing the ego game – how to apply a positive reframe to an argument or debate.
- What if your opponent doesn’t reciprocate?
- The three rapport rules to apply when composing a critical commentary.
- Antonia’s parting advice for becoming a more critical thinker.
To subscribe to the podcast, please use the links below:
Subscribe with iTunes
Non-iTunes Link
Soundcloud
Stitcher
Google Play
Spotify
Radio Public
PlayerFM
Listen Notes
If you like the podcast and want to help us out in return, please leave an honest rating and review on iTunes by clicking here. It will help the show and its ranking in iTunes immensely! We would be eternally grateful!
Want to learn more?
Discover Your Personal Genius
We want to hear from you. Leave your comments below…
Share:
Podcast - Episode 0408 - Neuroscience - Genetics - and Personality Types (with Dr. Denise Cook)
Podcast - Episode 0410 - 5 Questions To Ask When You Get Stuck In Life
4 comments
I suspect the “Debater” moniker came from an enjoyment of conversations that force sharpening one’s thoughts in real time. But it doesn’t have to be argumentative. I see it as engaging the principles of debate – for example, intellectual honesty, steel-manning, persuasion, etc…. If an ENTP spends enough time exercising their auxiliary/Copilot function of Introverted Thinking/Accuracy, there’s not as much need for debate, but there will still be a love of conversation that requires a lot of heavy thought process to defend a concept.
I agree – It’s hard for me to come down on any position since I can see the strengths and weaknesses in most arguments. That’s why core principles become really important. I will die on very few hills, but I know which ones are important to me.
A
Omgosh, the analogy of the well designed “dropper of flavor”. As a side digression, I’m thinking of how most restaurant food utilizes oils and ingredients that are precision engineered to maximize palatability – an old neighbor who works for FoodPro told me a bit about this – but in later years I discovered one of the common oils used for frying food in restaurants utilizes a heavily processed Soybean oil, rich in linoleic acid which is commonly present in most tasty fried foods (peanut oil has it too). Linoleic acid it’s been alleged behaves as a sort of “winter is coming” signal to our bodies’ metabolism (traditionally it showed up in nuts & seeds dropped by trees in the fall), and allows us to intake larger quantities of food w/o feeling full, sequestering it into fat stores with less desire to burn it off in a wasteful manner. This is perfect for the purpose of making us eat more – the intended effect of such an engineered food – but hurts us in the long run.
Like the clickbait framing of so many articles, that rile us up with surprising swiftness just to piss off everyone in our social feeds who have to deal with our polarizing outbursts while driving more clicks – indeed viral!
Loved your analogies.
Bottom line: Open-mindedness must not only exist for the people you are talking to essentially you, (the speaker), must be willing to change your point of view when presented with a perspective that you might not have originally thought of or thought about the total ramifications that your actions would quite literally impose your actions on a society. Is society ready for the degree of change which you are suggesting.
Hi guys,
I never consciously thought about the way I use arguments. Reflecting on it now, I think I started steelmanning my conversation partners arguments about 5 years ago. Steelmanning (almost) unacceptable standpoints just to use it as a counterpoint to test other arguments is a lot of fun.
However, I am having a lot of trouble figuring out my own opinion because I see a degree of validity in all positions. This makes me (in my eyes) a terrible debater, because I never feel passionately like I’m totally against or pro- and therefore the debate setting never appealed to me.
This is also a reason why I questioned if I really was an ENTP or not because so many resources refer to them as “Debaters”. By now I’m pretty sure I am an ENTP even though in my opinion I’m more of a “Nuancer” then a “Debater”. I like to be a bystander of a debate helping both sides creating better and more clear arguments and narratives.
Is struggling to have an “own/authentic opinion” something you come across more often in ENTP’s?
Does anyone else recognize this?