Hoo Boy

[kevin_standlee]

The discussion on Range Voting may have set a new record for the most number of comments on any of my postings. (I'd have to go looking through the archives to be sure; I know there were some whoppers last year.)

In case anyone wonders why some messages seem a little out of sequence or stuff appears asynchronously if they go and look again, it's because at least one of the posters doesn't have an LJ account, but is (mostly) signing his messages. I screen anonymous comments to keep out spammers and such. So sometimes there is going to be some delay until the next time I get around to clearing queued-up pending messages.

Comments

[debgeisler.livejournal.com]

I'm finding the discussion a tedious but clear example of complete tone-deafness on the part of someone outside of a community who is telling people *inside* of a community that they are doing things all wrong.

It's also a fascinating illustration of how not to be persuasive...how not to win friends and influence people.

[purpleranger.livejournal.com]

I think you just summed it up quite nicely. Or to put it in the context of an old beer commercial, you've said "Budweiser."

[debgeisler.livejournal.com]

Okay, pathetic little sheeple that I am, I read that as "Bud. Weis. Er." before hearing the much older commercial in my head.

[thebrokenladder.livejournal.com]

Science isn't about some pop culture book where you "win friends" or "influence people". It's about attention to facts, details, evidence, logic...that sort of thing. I don't win debates by befriending the opponent, I win them fairly, by producing the better, more scientifically founded argument.

[debgeisler.livejournal.com]

Science isn't about some pop culture book where you "win friends" or "influence people".

This morally superior claim (which, by the way, insultingly assumes that one's audience is intellectually inferior, does not understand science, and so on) is all well and good, of course, but what you're doing on LiveJournal and elsewhere is an exemplar of a social science -- one we call "persuasion."

And you're not, I'm afraid, doing it well.

If you think that being courteous, careful in how one constructs an argument by considering the human factors, and sensitive to one's audience is somehow being unfair, you will not become any more successful at this persuasion thing. Unsuccessful persuaders are not likely to be effective in the paradigm change game.

[buddykat.livejournal.com]

I don't win debates by befriending the opponent, I win them fairly, by producing the better, more scientifically founded argument.

Whether or not you will "win" this debate depends on your definition of win. If you define winning this debate as convincing Worldcon members to try and change to Range Voting, well, that's *highly* unlikely. As debgeisler points out, you need to actually work at persuading us, not just being dogmatic about how much "better" your system is because a computer model says so. As others have said, I'd much rather see some *real life examples* of your system in use rather then a computer model.

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

I don't win debates by befriending the opponent, I win them fairly, by producing the better, more scientifically founded argument.

You may win formal debates that way, but you'll not win elections by antagonizing the people you're trying to convince. Assuming people always act rationally will leave you terribly disappointed.

I've had to deal with WSFS fan politics for more than twenty years. I have a whole lot of sometimes unpleasant experience in how people act irrationally.