1. Why don't you Sign Up? It's free and there are no special requirements.
    We are a friendly community and you might be much smarter than you think.
    Don't just look at us. We need YOUR help!
Dismiss Notice
This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.


Discussion in 'Intelligence and Brainpower' started by Joe, Jun 18, 2017.

  1. Joe

    Joe Well-Known Member Unclaimed IQ

    How do you attempt to argue with someone who is a deviation or two below your intelligence?

    I am more or less asking about the methods you use to argue with them successfully?

  2. Creedinger

    Creedinger Well-Known Member IQ: 120+

    Do you want to win the argument or make him take your position as well?

    I mean it highly depends on the goal and setting. Usually it should be easy to win.

    When trying to convince somebody I appeal to their honor and try to make them think about the consequences of their and my arguments.

    Simple people tend to overrate the outcome of an argument or the consequence over the stringency of the argument.
    Joe likes this.
  3. marom

    marom Well-Known Member Claimed IQ: 140+

    I avoid arguments, regardless of the intelligence of my opponents. Why? People are very hard to convince, regardless of the evidence that one might have to hand. Simple example: last night, somebody was fool enough to think that the government would not tax subsequent interest on lottery winnings b/c the winnings had already been taxed! "Oh," I said, "You're going to deposit millions in the bank and earn millions more in interest, and the government is not going to tax those interest earnings?" I couldn't budge the guy. Tax had "already been paid on the winnings!" So, I shrugged and gave up. Of course, you're going to pay tax on any interest that your winnings earn ... If I absolutely have to "win" an argument w/someone, I make sure beforehand that I have some manner of compulsion besides changing a person's mind in my arsenal. I rarely find myself in such a situation, but I do know how to put on the squeeze, if necessary - it's much easier to choke something out of somebody than to get it handed over w/a smile.
    JerryH, Moloch, Genesis and 1 other person like this.
  4. Joe

    Joe Well-Known Member Unclaimed IQ

    Please allow me to retract the word argument and replace it with the word discussion.

    I have noticed that when one person is a deviation or two above another, they often make points that is above the persons comprehension. The result is that the person with the lower IQ does not even notice that their point was refuted.

    What tactics or methods do you use to explain things to people to the degree that they understand your refutation of their point? Does this happen often?

    @marom Gave an example of this idea below:
    My objective is to learn how to communicate effectively with different types of people.
  5. Genesis

    Genesis Active Member Claimed IQ: 150+

    Not to mention he's likely to pay tax on anything he spends the winnings on. :LOL: :p :thumbsdown:
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2017
    Joe likes this.
  6. WheatieMuncher

    WheatieMuncher Well-Known Member IQ: 120+

    Whoever can hold a plastic bag over his head the longest wins. Simple. Stupid arguments are eliminated by the dozens everyday!
    Joe likes this.
  7. Genesis

    Genesis Active Member Claimed IQ: 150+

    Well, there's just nothing like plain, good ol' practice! :LOL:
    Joe likes this.
  8. Joe

    Joe Well-Known Member Unclaimed IQ

    So, let me give an example of what I mean by " tactics or methods"...

    If you are starting a conversation with someone, do you guess their IQ, experience in the field you are confabulating about, etc., and conform your argument around your estimate of their IQ? Do you then incrementally increase the difficulty/specificity/etc., of the conversation when you feel they have understood your first few points?

    Ex: I know person X went to college, therefore it is safe to assume that person X has an IQ around 110 give or take, and therefore, I will subject my points in the conversation to an IQ of 110. Then adjust the content, vocabulary, etc., of the conversation as needed.
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2017
  9. TheGreat

    TheGreat Active Member Claimed IQ: 130+

    Intelligence may have little or no effects on arguments. In fact, most arguments are triggered when the topic is controversial and can be analyzed logically and emotionally. Another reason why arguments occur is because the introduced topic can be approached, interpreted and analyzed in a very biased way. We humans try to be as objective as possible but everyone is guilty of being biased.

    How to win an argument 101. First try to analyze the introduced topic from your opponent's perspective while trying to be objective as possible.

    Once step one has been accomplished and you've now established a connection between the person's argument and his bias, proceed to the next step.

    Next you attack his/her bias. It could be religion, past tragedy or current tragedy. A bias is just anything that's making your opponent reluctant to submit to logic.This step should be done if you really want to win and you care less about the emotional well being of your opponent.

    After attacking his bias,(this has to be done effectively with logic .If you introduce an irrational evidence, you are more likely to lose so, stick with logic as possible. ) you introduce your ideas and views(has to be logic). This will ultimately destroy your opponent's confidence replacing it with doubts.

    Now, that your opponent have lost confidence, you can destroy him.

    NOTE: if it's a logic vs. Logic kind of argument, keep questioning his fact and analysis. Use words like "did you know" to introduce your claim and counter argument. The reason I'm recommending you to use this phrase is because it portrays you as someone very knowledgeable of the introduced topic. (opponents are scared of this).
    Joe likes this.
  10. Genesis

    Genesis Active Member Claimed IQ: 150+

    I think you've just got to use whatever words are right for the moment. If, for example, Person X says something you feel you need to refute, just say it in your own words. If he rebuts or doesn't understand, you should have the opportunity to rephrase your position. Try to judge, by his statements, so far, what words are needed to convey your message.) At some point, if he really doesn't understand, you just have to walk away.

    Words -- the way they are spoken and understood -- vary all over the world. A word can be understood differently in another part of town, region, country, to another age group, career group, and so on. Best to get to know your audience when you want to converse. That takes practice, exposure to various types of people.

    Totally guessing here... I hate to give advice. :)
    Joe and Moloch like this.
  11. marom

    marom Well-Known Member Claimed IQ: 140+

    I've been amazed at the degree of ignorance and stupidity that abounds in the society, no matter whether an individual has gone to college. Indeed, I've known college graduates who were all but functionally illiterate, young men and women who could not put a simple sentence together, never mind compose a coherent paragraph. It's not a matter of pedantry on my part that I deem grammatical and syntax and even minor spelling errors signs of stupidity (I do make allowances for people who are not native speakers of English). I think that any truly intelligent person is well-read enough to have encountered the Classics and should, therefore, be well-versed in compositional form and style, and it is incumbent upon any intelligent person to devote time and energy to mastering formats such as the memo, the business letter, the report, and the essay. But, no, everywhere the language is butchered w/o mercy, as though its written form were no longer to be better than its spoken form; the street vernacular is to replace polished prose in the published literature ... Am I venting? Yes. But w/a purpose: there is little point in trying to argue w/people whose minds have no subtlety, no familiarity w/the forms of argument, no understanding of logic. No, "argument" w/such people usually leads to a shouting match, which is won by the person who has the "upper hand" in the outcome. And that's important to remember in any argument - who has the upper hand? You can't argue w/your boss the way that you argue w/a stranger, can you? You've got always to be careful about ticking off a person who can do you harm - the boss, the landlord, a cop, a judge, etc. Have you ever felt the sting of having to hold your tongue before a judge? Well, I can tell you: there you are, tail between your legs, daring not to say anything, no matter how right you think you are.
    Joe, AguirresPriest and Genesis like this.
  12. marom

    marom Well-Known Member Claimed IQ: 140+

    Logic? If logic played any great role in the World, there'd be no advertising business - or it would be very different from what it is! The best way to win an argument is to get your opponent to see the advantages to himself in your side of the argument - that is, appeal to his baser nature. Self-interested is how most people are and how most people will always remain - appeal to that self-interest, and you've got a decent chance of getting what you want from them. Otherwise, you're fighting the proverbial "uphill battle." Cynical? Yes. But, then, I am very well versed in World history, and there is little in history to encourage more than cynicism.
    Joe and Genesis like this.
  13. TheGreat

    TheGreat Active Member Claimed IQ: 130+

    "Getting your opponent to see the advantages to himself in your side of the argument". if you have read and correctly understood my response earlier, you would have noticed you didn't refute my thesis but acknowledge it. The whole purpose of trying to understand your opponent's view is to tell him why he is wrong and introducing a better idea (your own).

    My emphasis on logic earlier was used as an example of ways you can counter biases.

    My own interpretation of the word "logic" was possible, tested and proven, rational, sensible. You may have misinterpreted my dictions.

    Lastly, your allusion to advertisement is totally irrelevant to this topic at hand in the sense that ads are there to persuade you not to argue why they think their products are the best for you.

    NOTE: do not mistake persuasion for argument. In persuasion, you care if the audience are now able to relate with the topic from your point of view where as, in an argument your opponent already have a well defined and established stance against your views and beliefs and it is up to you to effectively use evidences to show your audience(not the opponent) why his/her idea should be diminished and yours should be appreciated. Watch the presidential debate for an example of a well structured argument.
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2017
    Joe likes this.
  14. Moloch

    Moloch Well-Known Member IQ: Over 150

    Who's wrong and who's right has little to do with an argument.

    Patience and a willingness to compromise are both key to try and work things out between people, even more so when it comes to discussing things with people who are not like us. There's no reason to push, pull, shove or tear at someone's mental disposition / position unless it is a matter of life and death. It is also, as @marom said, rather pointless... their minds simply do not work like that and most are aimed at getting the best result for them first and foremost due to a rather natural selfish perspective. Evolutionary speaking it payed off more to be selfish first and indeed in a survival situation it is unwise to put others first unless they are close kin... and once we get into intereactions and arguments it very quickly becomes clear that free will and arguments have little to do with each other, and oft being recognized and accepted are much more important than quantitiy, quality or logic. I prefer willing co-operation for mutual benefit, preferably in line with my moral perspective.

    No, I present an argument and if that fails to connect I present parts of the arguments in simpler terms, and if that fails to connect I do it again in even simpler terms. I could care less about their IQ-scores and how they relate to mine and don't do guesswork due to what @marom (I detect a pattern here) said: Having a degree or an education does not liberate one from stupidity. I try to find the common ground to proceed as this is oft the best motivator to get along.

    I think intimidation is a detestable and dejecatable mannerism, especially when trying to win an argument. It is bullying and poor form. One might as well roll up one's sleeves and show off the size of one's biceps because that is what one is doing... pretending to have big mental biceps. It can also badly backfire when the other person knows more about the subject than you do and isn't displaying the same behaviour. I would not reccommend it. If one destroys an opponent future conversations are more likely to be a mess, therefore destruction of opponents is useless because it is only a usefull tactic if there are no consequences, and if there are no consequences then one's superiority was already obvious and then one is just being mean-spirited by crushing the other... and if the opponent detects you are out to crush him then all logic is pointless and they will probably just dig and ignore what you are saying.

    And yet your experience and writings are worth a lot and contain great wisdom. Please, by all means, continue to hate giving advice :) .


    On the whole though I agree and what is even worse I am more often than not surprised at the lack of ability of even native speakers to write something coherent in English. I mean, if I have managed to aquire a passing knowledge of the language as a non-native speaker then it should be easy enough for those who are native to at least write something without errors right? Right? Well, wrong... but I get that in Dutch too. People who write forum posts in short sentences all the time, do not know whow to use a paragraph even if a 20-pound book filled with paragraphs about proper paragraphing hit them in the face (leaving an indentation in the skull, preferably, so that they are marked), do not understand what the subject matter of a sentence is... The list is long and full of errors. It is beyond me how they manage to butcher the written word.
  15. marom

    marom Well-Known Member Claimed IQ: 140+

    YOUR interpretation of the word? Who are you to redefine a well-defined discipline? Please, don't make me laugh. Logic is a well-defined discipline w/in both philosophy and mathematics and cannot be casually reinterpreted by a non-specialist who has no standing in either field.Use some other word to denote your own mental concoctions but not "logic!"
    Joe likes this.
  16. TheGreat

    TheGreat Active Member Claimed IQ: 130+

    A word can be interpreted in so many ways. That's why there is such thing as synonyms. My use of the word "logic" was to express reason.

    :thumbsdown: that was not a joke.
    Joe likes this.
  17. BudBudderly

    BudBudderly Well-Known Member IQ: 140+

    First I remind myself of the other person's right to an opinion different than my own. To impose my opinion or will on another without their understanding due to lack of reason (intelligence) or their consent (free will) is infringement; this is something I try to avoid. If another person consents to accept my advice or see things my way this is not infringement but two people working in harmony. This is not me forcing change in another person but instead communicating with them in such a way that they change themselves. It may seem like manipulation but it isn't because they always retain the right to choose. The methods I use to communicate vary depending on personality but in general it's kind of like making a phone call. I have to have the correct digits to get through to the person and if I don't we're not going to connect. I will elaborate on the specific methods I use later when I have mulled things over a bit in my mind and have more time.
    Joe, Moloch and AguirresPriest like this.
  18. Genesis

    Genesis Active Member Claimed IQ: 150+

    Joe and Moloch like this.
  19. Joe

    Joe Well-Known Member Unclaimed IQ

    I would say that IQ has great effects on the validity of arguments. I would also state that IQ has only an infinitesimal correlation to obtaining truth.

    I value everyone's o pinon on here. That is why I tend to like everyone's post. So, please continue.

    I used a college graduate as an accepted stereotype of someone who is fairly intelligent. Since a child, I never really agreed fully with the weight most people put on that correlation.

    Everyone comes out of various classes with a unique degree of comprehension. Even a student who has earned a 95% on all of their examinations throughout their academic life, still posses a perpetual 5% gap in comprehension that tends to show up somewhere later in life. It is sad that it usually happens very dramatically when the student hits a wall. In a business law class I took in college, there was a woman who was illiterate. The professor asked the students to prepare an analysis of some court case and argue some point I cant remember, but grammatically the paper had to be flawless. He would excuse one grammatical error and reduce the paper a letter grade for the second grammatical error. A third grammatical error got your paper ripped up. Well, this woman got her paper back with red marks all over the paper. She was very attractive and the professor gave her another chance to write the paper over. She came back a second time and he realized she was illiterate and told her in the hallway..although most of the class could hear. He told her go to the writing center and fix the paper. Well this was at the end of the semester and we had a final coming up in a week. She had very little time to understand the basics of grammar. I talked to her after class and looked over the paper but this was a class that you had to pass and do very well on to get into the business school. The business school in the University I attended was competitive. She showed up to the final but after the final, I never saw her again. Everyone in the business school knew each other, so I would have seen her. Additionally, I was popular and new a lot of people outside of the business school but never saw her again. Sad.

    If you are privileged enough to have that time and access.

    Sad, but true.

    The moment you simplify your argument relative to your original argument, in light of your recipient, you make a comprehension judgement that is often correlated to the intelligence of that person in that simplification. The example and your process include an IQ judgement but yours weighs it after an initial statement when evaluating comprehension and the need for simplification.


    This really is at the center of my question. The discussion you give has to structured around the area of the subjects comprehension. Otherwise, they can not confirm or truly deny your points.

    I think he meant it in the connotative form not in the denotative. If he meant it in the connotative use of the word, it was appropriate.

    I understand your point. I agree with your point when you extract forcing people to consent without "freedom of choice". However, I think that our words are a force, in and of itself, that is strong enough to superseded what I can extract from your definition of free will. This is just a minor observation but if I went into a crowded area and as loud as I could yelled "stop!" The majority of people, if not all, would stop without conscious thought that has been imbued through another force called socialization.

    I am interested.
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2017
    Moloch likes this.
  20. awakenedmachine

    awakenedmachine Well-Known Member Claimed IQ: 130+

    Is this about a particular person or is this just curiosity in general? I tend to think a lot in terms of context, who the person is, what the topic is, how well I know them. It's become my thesis more and more that you can't really peg a person to a certain IQ and not be surprised by them in some way or another. Also, convincing someone has a lot more to do with whether they are emotionally ready to accept the implications of a new position, so the topic itself is very important, how invested are they in it socially? e.g. I was a Christian and I know that Christians are attached to their position by friends and family who are believers, they may be married to a believer, they may have children, any of those things being the case will have a huge influence on whether or not they are willing to accept facts that are contrary to their position, regardless of the level of logic and this can be true for the most intelligent of people. (not meaning to dig on Christians, just something I have a lot of experience with and I have experience with being on both sides in a very committed way) First and foremost we are animals who have spent eons being naturally selected over our ability to survive as social creatures, who have deep values in things with a greater impact in our lives than what is true and right on a purely intellectual level. It's been shown that people have psychosomatic reactions to contrary political opinions in the same way that they respond to consuming rotten food or reacting the same way emotionally as they would to a physical assault, because we value the social bonds that come with those positions, because we as a race have been tribal for far longer than we've been individuals to think for ourselves. So, I try to be patient, I try to understand their position and let them know that I care about it (I'm not as well practiced at this online, sorry everyone, I need to work on that - haha) and I try to present my position carefully and clearly, but anymore, I never expect anyone to change their mind. Depending on the depth of the topic, it takes quite a lot to change people's minds and they often have to do it for themselves. I was a passionate supporter for the presidential candidate, Ron Paul, in 2008 and 2012. There's another forum that I participate in and I know that a couple of people contacted me to thank me for talking about him and pointing out his virtues as a candidate, but this was out of hundreds of active and participating members over the course of many months. I worked as a missionary overseas for a couple of years and I did evangelistic work outside of that time pretty actively as well and I saw little "fruit" from those endeavors, even though I trained quite a lot and developed many persuasive arguments. Oftentimes it's a matter of personal values and cultural perspectives on what is an attractive position to take. People are so much more complicated than we'd sometimes like them to be, but then of course it's a great strength to our species as well! It's amazing that we have people who have the ability and desire to fill so many different roles, to form such a well rounded society.

Share This Page