[Suggestion] Real-life piracy

[ThePsuedoMonkey]

At the risk of prolonging this thread... No: it's an archetype, as it has been shown to follow a consistent pattern in such studies. The difference being that it is not based upon a personal impression, but rather actual documented evidence. Second, the papers I mentioned weren't talking about the quality of the arguments, but rather the outcome of the debates: the most relevant was polarization of the members based upon their initial opinion, even if it was originally insignificant.

You are correct that I cannot declare that any specific person will not be persuaded to change their position based upon the merits of the arguments, but I don't have access to research quite that specific: so I have to look at the disparity among politics, religion, and social issues and conclude that "yeah, all those studies seem to make sense." I did not mean that absolutely no one will change their view, that was an exaggeration on my part (sorry), but was attempting to convey that the discussion would probably end up being less than beneficial to the FTL community.

On the bright side, we seem to have reached a conclusion without name-calling and insults!

[Maze1125]

At the risk of prolonging this thread... No: it's an archetype, as it has been shown to follow a consistent pattern in such studies. The difference being that it is not based upon a personal impression, but rather actual documented evidence.

When you take a statistical phenomenon and apply it to the whole, that's stereotyping, regardless of the validity of the original statistics.
Stereotyping is when you take a phenomenon that occurs in a proportion of a population and assume it occurs in the entire population. Which is precisely what you did and have now admitted to.

Second, the papers I mentioned weren't talking about the quality of the arguments, but rather the outcome of the debates: the most relevant was polarization of the members based upon their initial opinion, even if it was originally insignificant.

I never said that the quality of the arguments was important either...

You are correct that I cannot declare that any specific person will not be persuaded to change their position based upon the merits of the arguments, but I don't have access to research quite that specific: so I have to look at the disparity among politics, religion, and social issues and conclude that "yeah, all those studies seem to make sense." I did not mean that absolutely no one will change their view, that was an exaggeration on my part (sorry), but was attempting to convey that the discussion would probably end up being less than beneficial to the FTL community.

Again, I don't see convincing the other side of the argument as the only possible benefit to a discussion.
Internet debates have on-lookers that don't participate but can gain insight into the view-points of both sides, regardless of how unproductive the debate is for the people involved in the argument.

[Gorlom]

When you take a statistical phenomenon and apply it to the whole, that's stereotyping, regardless of the validity of the original statistics.

That is a very odd use of stereotyping. I have a hard time understanding hat you mean by continuing to call it stereotyping. Is that something negative in your eyes?

Are you using "stereotyping" as if anyone stereotyping is prejudice against whoever they are stereotyping? Are you using it as oversimplifying the conception? (Or are you using it talking about a metal printing plate cast?... hmmm probably not )


Either case I disagree with you when you simply dismiss his argument as stereotyping. Even if it is stereotyping it does not invalidate his argument. In fact you just keep proving his argument hen you shut your ears and refuse to listen like that... at least in my eyes.

[Maze1125]

Either case I disagree with you when you simply dismiss his argument as stereotyping. Even if it is stereotyping it does not invalidate his argument. In fact you just keep proving his argument hen you shut your ears and refuse to listen like that... at least in my eyes.

Well, the fact you're so willing to listen to him, and have considered his view-point fairly, proves my point exactly.

[Gorlom]

Either case I disagree with you when you simply dismiss his argument as stereotyping. Even if it is stereotyping it does not invalidate his argument. In fact you just keep proving his argument hen you shut your ears and refuse to listen like that... at least in my eyes.

Well, the fact you're so willing to listen to him, and have considered his view-point fairly, proves my point exactly.

Huh? How do you figure that?

For that to have happen I must have at some point disagreed with him, must I not? He has not changed my mind, only reaffirmed my beliefs. Which was HIS point.

[Maze1125]

Either case I disagree with you when you simply dismiss his argument as stereotyping. Even if it is stereotyping it does not invalidate his argument. In fact you just keep proving his argument hen you shut your ears and refuse to listen like that... at least in my eyes.

Well, the fact you're so willing to listen to him, and have considered his view-point fairly, proves my point exactly.

Huh? How do you figure that?

For that to have happen I must have at some point disagreed with him, must I not? He has not changed my mind, only reaffirmed my beliefs. Which was HIS point.

So you're saying you're not actually considering both points of view, you're just arguing your own view-point blindly?

[ThePsuedoMonkey]

OK Maze, we might have got our wires crossed; just for my clarification, you are saying that (1) I am stereotyping humanity, (2) convincing the listeners of an argument is at least the secondary goal of the dispute, and (3) individuals may listen to the dispute and change/define their position.

I have already conceded #3 in my previous comment, but it seems like a mute point to me since its occurrence must be statistically insignificant, given the results of the research. For #2, the listeners are a part of the argument and each have their own opinions and biases (you even said they "haven't formed a significant opinion"); as such, the research indicates that they will be polarized based upon those opinions ("even if they are insignificant"). As for #1, I am not applying the findings from numerous sample groups to the entire population, I am applying them to a functionally equivalent group: the difference may seem academic, but without it I would be just another guy throwing a stereotype into the internet. I agree that it's not a pretty picture, but there it is.

[Maze1125]

I have already conceded #3 in my previous comment, but it seems like a mute point to me since its occurrence must be statistically insignificant, given the results of the research. For #2, the listeners are a part of the argument and each have their own opinions and biases (you even said they "haven't formed a significant opinion"); as such, the research indicates that they will be polarized based upon those opinions ("even if they are insignificant").

That is a leap of logic you have no evidence for.

Yes, there is significant evidence that the vast majority of people who involve themselves in arguments do so for social reasons, not rational ones, and only polarise their viewpoints further as a result.
But that in no way requires that people observing arguments must do the same.

As for #1, I am not applying the findings from numerous sample groups to the entire population, I am applying them to a functionally equivalent group: the difference may seem academic, but without it I would be just another guy throwing a stereotype into the internet.

That may be what you are doing now, but your original post was stereotyping.

No study can show with 100% certainty that 100% of the population possesses a particular trait. Yet that is what your first post claimed, and there-in lies the stereotype. You didn't extend a study that showed X% of the tested people showed Y and concluded that X% of everyone would also show Y. You extended a study that showed X% of the tested people showed Y and then claimed that everyone would show Y, not X% of everyone.

[Syphus]

Let's assume two people, a pirate and a non-pirate, who have identical tastes, play the demos of 100 games.

How many games have demos these days?

[Gorlom]

Wait a minute! when did he...

Way to stereotype basically all of thinking humanity. Sure I have a view, but it doesn't mean that I won't be swayed by a logically sound, well-reasoned argument.

Maybe I'm being too pessimistic, but I didn't come to that conclusion by myself. As this paper (full text) and another one point out, group discussions tend to fall prey to confirmation bias and attitude polarization; and those were of people meeting in person.

To be fair, the argument here seems to have climaxed (giggity), but I doubt anyone here planned on pirating FTL.

That's still stereotyping.
All those papers prove is that most people completely fail to argue rationally, which is true, but that doesn't mean there can't be one person who's capable of debating a subject and considering both sides fairly and on their own merits.

Further, the value of internet debates is rarely in convincing the person you're directly responding to, but in convincing third parties who are reading the debate. Those people often haven't formed a significant opinion on the subject yet and so are far more willing to consider both sides fairly as they don't have an entrenched position.

I'm sorry maze, but when did tend and most become always and everyone? I must have missed that part of the discussion.