A Crash Course on How To Argue Better

This post is dedicated to people who have no idea on how to argue their viewpoints properly. Needless to say, this is in reference to the mass "dumbass comments" (as Eddy calls them) that were left on his blog.

I generally agree with Eddy's views on discourse. To have a proper debate, we must first have respect. Use logical and sound arguments to make your point. If you start asking rhetorical questions like FGM, then it is no longer an argument. It is political spin. Also, it makes no sense to just simply assert your own viewpoint and then fold your arms and say "I am entitled to my own opinion". Yeah OK, last I checked, it's a relatively free country. But assertion without justification is the fastest way to prove that you are not very smart.

So here is the Idiot's Guide on How to Make Better Arguments:

1. State your assumptions and assertion

2. Explain your assertions based on your assumptions

3. Give examples to support your assertions

4. State conclusion

5. Check whether your arguments make sense


Of all the steps above, No. 5 is the hardest to do. Steps 1 to 4 are probably taught to you when you were in primary school. Of course you do not have to do it in numerical order, but these are the bare necessities of any cogent argument. But often, we get lazy and just jump from assertion to conclusion, without even checking whether it makes sense. I must admit that I am one of those people sometimes, but I try very hard to avoid it.

The most useful way that I found to check whether your arguments make sense is the "5 Whys". This is one of the underlying techniques of Toyota's kaizen philosophy, which brought it to great heights. As an aside, Toyota seems to have lost its way, but that is not the focus of today's topic.

Let me use Ronnie's arguments as an example:

Assertion:

In fact, I would claim that despite the fact that an 11-year old Yeap Eng Chiam or an 11-year old Fong Yit San is likely to beat an 11-year old Yee Weng, Zi Jing, Ee Vern or Jonathan, the tables are turned as they are older.

Explanation:

Yes, I do believe that a 15-year-old Yee Weng (already two-time national champion), Zi Jing, Ee Vern or Jonathan (already a national champion at 13) is probably able to beat a 15-year-old Eng Chiam or Yit San. And even more surely, an 18-year old Yee Weng, Zi Jing, Ee Vern, Jonathan, Nicholas or Tze Han (all already national champions by then except Zi Jing who only won it at 20 years old) would in all likelihood win an 18-year old Eng Chiam or Yit San. Even an 18-year-old Anas might not stand a chance.

Examples to justify:

To go further, the 20-year old Yee Weng, Zi Jing, Jonathan, Nicholas, Marcus and Tze Han were National Champions (except Marcus who won it at 21), mostly rated around 2200 plus, performed strongly in local tournaments, represented Malaysia internationally (with some good perfomances) and have beaten FMs and IMs internationally. Some of course improved further, getting their IM titles in their twenties while some basically stopped playing.

Conclusion:

I hope you get my point. What I'm trying to say is that the OVERALL achievements of these players before they reached 20 were unparalleled by juniors in the years after (I'm pretty sure in the years before too).

The point here is not to discuss whether Ronnie's arguments are true or not. But this is just to show how a good, strong, logical argument is made. Hopefully, future discussions will be more productive and that some idiots would also have learnt a thing or two in making logical arguments. 

Let It Be Known

I think the person who reported back to Fuhrer has a lot to explain. This is a very easy way to escape any form of responsibility. Hide behind a ghost. Someone said this to me. I am just going to pass the word even though it was a lie. Doesn't this remind you of what someone said about Rationality. All Jimmy and I did was to pass along Rationality's blog post and Fuhrer here decides that Jimmy is in charge of the attack. Now, let me use the same logic that since Fuhrer used the information that a deal was offered, he is claiming it to be true. Let us also postulate that he must have done his homework and found all relevant evidence to support his claim that a deal was offered to Zhuo Ren.

If this was not true, then the above statement which I grabbed from FGM's blog is simply malicious. It was posted with an intent to lie and mislead and more importantly, to dishonour the IM's. For someone to lodge a complaint, one must have at least cause for concern. I cannot simply run around lodging frivolous complaints. Every one with a pea brain knows that. So the big elephant in the room is, what is the cause for complaint? Who is the "informer". I put it to you that there is no informer. It is just Raymond making up stories because we now have proof that there is no deal. Raymond has used an "informer" to escape responsibility of posting vicious lies.

What about this one:

He is accusing Jimmy (and friends) of selling shortcuts. Now, it has been proven that no such thing happened. So where is the answer now Fuhrer?

Now, Fuhrer says that he did not say that Jimmy attacked Zhuo Ren. Or did he? His complicity on the attack on Zhuo Ren? What did he do to attack Zhuo Ren? Zhuo Ren asked Jimmy to post an email as a favor, and Jimmy did it. According to Dictionary.com, the meaning of complicit is as follows:

choosing to be involved in an illegal or questionable act, especially with others; having complicity.

So, if Fuhrer is saying that Jimmy is complicit on his attack on Zhuo Ren, then it means that Jimmy has chosen to be involved in "attacking" Zhuo Ren, and especially with others. So actually, yes, Fuhrer has specifically said that Jimmy attacked Zhuo Ren. Unless we have to go back to, "throwing" a game is not actually throwing a game. We have all played that game before.

And now, the biggest bullshit of all:

OK, so he has not said Jimmy attacked Zhuo Ren. But the biggest question then is, "WHO DID?" Could it be FGM himself? Could it be that FGM attacked Zhuo Ren, but Jimmy was helping Zhuo Ren clear his name, and therefore he is now culpable for all the attacks on Zhuo Ren? To be honest, I am very curious... What is this attack that FGM always speaks of? What exactly is this attack? Was it the non-existent deal that was offered to Zhuo Ren? But if there was no deal, then there was no attack? FGM has a lot to explain.

Now, he also says that Jimmy was also culpable. Again, big words for a small man. Let us leave no room for gaps and go to Dictionary.com again.

deserving blame or censure; blameworthy.

So, if Jimmy did not attack Zhuo Ren, and there was no attack on Zhuo Ren, then he is to be blamed for what? Posting an email? Who is to say that if Jimmy did not post that email, Zhuo Ren would not start his own blog and post his email there? What would the difference be then? 

This is the kind of poor attitude and logical skills of the mind coach that Malaysia has for its chess team. It makes me worried about the state of Malaysian chess. Please call for a selection for mind coaches. We want a written selection for mind coaches. Or at least a transparent process on who the mind coach should be. After all, he is "endorsed" by the MCF. That means he is able to use that "endorsement" to actually acquire favors.

Logical Fallacy: Part 3,452

I kinda lost count on the number of times I have written on logical fallacies. For the uninitiated, let me first talk a little bit about how we think. Our little brain works with models and frameworks. In short, we take what we observe and then we generalize or simplify it into a model or framework to allow us to predict what will happen if something similar occurs again.

Take for example, we observe that every time someone pushes a door, it opens. This happens often enough that we generalize that every time a door is pushed, it will open. So we don't even think about it anymore. Can you imagine that one day, if you pushed the door and your hand goes right through it? That would be totally bizarre and even if you told someone else about it, no one would believe you. This is because we have internalized the concept that if a door is pushed, it will open. Past experience tells us so, therefore it must be so. Our minds have simplified it to that model.

Now, let us consider a certain madman who believes that Jimmy was leading the attack on some tournament that I don't even remember. One of the main reasons for this is because he sees all this "attack" going on in the chatbox in Jimmy's site. Therefore, the madman can only conclude that Jimmy must be behind these attacks. He cannot think of any other reason, therefore it must be the only reason. His brain has simplified the problem into his model and no matter what else happens, he can't accept it. Madman pushes the door, door must open. If the door does not open, he will never be able to explain or understand it because in his brain, there is only one dimension.

It is "easier" to believe that Jimmy is leading an attack and therefore it is easier to attack Jimmy. It is always harder to take a look at oneself and ask, "Am I the problem?".

Let me throw in some alternatives. What if, the madman is the one that is wrong? The main reason "everyone" is gathering at Jimmy's chatbox is that it is "the most convenient" place to express their dissatisfaction towards the resident loony. I urge all of you to consider what will happen if Jimmy closes his chatbox. I believe that all the chatboxers will move on to the next most convenient location and continue their discussion. If this is the case, would Jimmy then be "leading the attack"?

What will the madman then conclude? Perhaps he will think that Jimmy has put the wheel in motion, and now it can't be stopped? I think any person with half a brain would know that if Jimmy was that influential, he could takeover the country and become President for life. All Hail, Jimmy.

For someone who prides himself in being the master of the mind, his inability to process alternative explanations would just be too bizarre. It is just easier to believe that he is right. His brain is just unable to process any other evidence because he has already internalized his model. Even if Copernicus himself were to come along and present evidence that the Earth revolves around the Sun, he can't accept that he is not the center of the universe. Even if Ferdinand Megallen, who has sailed around the Earth were to tell him the Earth is round and not flat, he would still insist that we would fall off the edge of the earth if we sailed to the horizon.

Of course, our observations have created new models to help us process our experiences, but some madmen simply cannot process models that are beyond their own capabilities. Quite simply, he is just behind his time. He is still living in a world that is flat.

A Real Lesson On Reasoning

Aiyoyo... For someone who has so many reasoning flaws to teach us about reasoning. First, non-chess player trying to teach us chess. Now, non-logician trying to teach us logic. Here are SOME examples of poor logic to help you build up your reasoning power.

Refer to here (false analogies), here (more false analogies) here (beginning of the end), here (distortion of facts), here (false assumptions lead to false conclusions), here (the biggest idiot), here (strawman), here (nothing else better to do - deja vu) and here (nothing else better to do).

Wow, I am tired from all the linking. Aiya... go and learn some real logic, then we talk.

I blame this on the brain drain. Is there NO ONE ELSE in Malaysia smart enough to teach us anything useful these days?