Mitä taktiikkaa käytätte, kun huomaatte olevanne väärässä?
Most common tactics you witness individuals use to 'save face' in argumentation/reasoning/conversations when their stance is challenged as incorrect, inaccurate, or non-optimal?
I find that when one's counterparty points out logical disconnect, the ego tends to inspire creative ways of saving face.
This tends to occur in arguments containing logical fallacies & cognitive biases (more likely to be unintentional). But the 'saving face' technique tends to also contain fallacies & biases (more likely intentional/instrumental use).
When I say 'save face' here, this applies generally: from conversing with a co-worker about technical implementation to conversing about ideas (i.e. on a podcast) to attempts at discerning causality in everyday life.
Some common examples I've seen of ways folks save face or even attempt to 'detonate' a topic of conversation when their reasoning/argument is false, inaccurate, non-optimal etc.:
1. - Trail off into murky territory, rather than coherently chaining points and tieing a concluding knot on their argument. Convolution is a mechanism for obfuscating faulty reasoning.
2. - Ambiguous redeeming statements (often ones that attempt to impart hypothetical fear, or ones that appeal to complexity i.e. 'there's not enough data to discern causality or conclude either way')
3. - Pulling a social escape hatch (i.e. 'this is useless to talk about, let's not')
4. - Ensuring the conversation hangs on the challenged faulty point of reasoning, use obfuscating dialogue, then subtly shift the view/stance on that point.
5. - Simply turning the conversational table around & strawmanning/nitpicking their counterpart.
6. - Tweaking the initial frame/context/end-goal of the argument to match where they've ended up. (i.e. moving the goalposts)
7. - Distraction (i.e. changing direction of the chain of reasoning, or swapping focus toward semantics/noise).
8. - Attempt to summarize their counterpart's view with reductive statements rather than nuanced/probabilistic views. (i.e. in strawmanning)
9. - Appeals to: an improvised-intent behind their argument (i.e. I wanted you understand this more clearly), emotion, or current status quo morality, or pseudo-benevolence (i.e. I'm trying to help you) > reason.
10. - Loaded adversarial questions.
11. Myönnän virheeni ja muutan kantani.