Podcast – Episode 0409 – How We Get Brainwashed To Become Sloppy Thinkers

Download Episode Hereright 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

free-personality-test-myers-briggs-2

We want to hear from you. Leave your comments below…

Showing 2 comments
  • Thomas J Sodwith
    Reply

    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.

  • Job
    Reply

    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?

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Contact Us

We're not around right now. But you can send us an email and we'll get back to you, asap.

Not readable? Change text. captcha txt