Evolutionary Ethics.
Just as we're conceived and killed, we divide and conquer. It's okay. This is a
You may notice that I have a penchant for trichotomy.
One thing my staff get tired of hearing from me is the Rule of 3.
It applies to social contexts, ideological positions, and helps add some nuance from overly dichotomous thinking that leads to the human trope of dividing and conquering.
My soul is always conflicted, in seeing both sides of the equation. Ultimately, the selfish humanitarian wins. When pressed, I can usually compromise in the 3rd position.
It's fun to play the game sometimes
Never take anyone completely at their word. Always be aware of your own biases, and your own emotions that aren't always simple to logically break apart.
I'm prepared and ready to be wrong. When the point of recognition arrives, my ego backstops my position with their position to make room for the third. My ego can't take myself being dead wrong on something I feel strongly about. My ego likewise can't handle letting someone else feel like they have leverage over me if they feel that right.
Dealing the the Gogues
Sowing doubt and confusion frustrates them. Sharing doubt about my own position shows humility, and gives them a confidence boost where they start to lazily think.
- Start strong, fixed, and stubborn.
- Negotiate, stall, backtrack, play dumb or chalk up to mutual ignorance and a general lack of understanding.
- Get on your knees and lick a labia.
Sometimes, when dealing with an ideologue, it's best to start in position 2. It saves you a lot of time and distraction when they are seeking someone who just wants to fight or negotiate. I do this often with politics. I have my own views.
If someone approaches me with conflicting opposite viewpoints, I take position 2. If they try to sway me or convince me, I'll just stall and play ignorant to the point where I then move into position 1 in a different fight.
Example
Up vs Down
Take position 2:
Ignorance vs Down
then, the virtues of Ignorance (or indifference) becomes Position 1 and Down becomes "make a difference", resulting in Indifference vs. Difference
It's a whole different argument now. Funny for M. Up. Frustrating to M. Down.
If you really want to confuse them, then take a new position. Move from Indifference to another topic Cold vs Difference.
The Appeasing type will try to agree with Cold vs Cold. And then there is peace. Appeasers are a pathetic bunch, but necessary to the functioning of the world.
It gets especially interesting when someone adept in this gives you a taste of your own medicine will switch from Difference to Indifference Cold vs Indifference.
The Conflicting type will switch to Hot vs Cold. This actually reminds me of some of the ChatBot vs ChatBot conversations.
It's really fun to take a confusing yet offensive position that the opponent can't disagree with.
We need to fix climate change / Cows contribute to climate change
The wrong response to "X contributes to climate change" is to deny its existence. The correct response is to agree and, and then take a more extreme stance.
"Yes, we need to really work on the obesity epidemic. This 'body positive' movement is detrimental to the environment. The amount of wasted fat resting on many Americans' bodies is a travesty."
Take a few stabs at this and this ideologue will leave you alone. The Appeasing type will agree your statement but offer no new notions. The Gogue will move the the compromising point and/or leave you alone. And then you can enjoy your tea in peace.
Trichotomy... it is such a twisted tango!
