WEBVTT 00:00.050 --> 00:04.770 I want to talk about two rhetorical tricks that are being sort of hotly debated right 00:04.770 --> 00:10.530 now following a lot of the recent discussion about Israel, Palestine, Dave Smith going 00:10.530 --> 00:11.250 on Joe Rogan. 00:11.890 --> 00:20.330 They are just asking questions and I'm no expert, but let's start with I'm no expert. 00:20.710 --> 00:25.050 How many times have you heard people open discussions or participate in discussions 00:25.850 --> 00:31.750 where they begin by saying something like, look, I'm no expert, but here's what I think 00:31.750 --> 00:32.690 about what's going on. 00:33.070 --> 00:39.290 The current example of this of course is Dave Smith on the Joe Rogan show where he specifically 00:39.290 --> 00:45.830 claims to not be an expert on the Israel-Palestine situation and then he goes on to speak very 00:45.830 --> 00:50.510 confidently about exactly what has happened and is happening. 00:50.510 --> 00:59.470 I find this to be sort of a rhetorical sort of backdoor trick that's borderline dishonest. 00:59.730 --> 01:05.370 It's like a flavor of the Motton Bailey where you, the Motton Bailey for those that don't 01:05.370 --> 01:09.210 know is when you have two sort of retort, we have two separate arguments. 01:09.390 --> 01:11.730 One's easy to defend and one's hard to defend. 01:12.630 --> 01:16.950 You jump back and forth between the two arguments when you get challenged as a 01:16.950 --> 01:19.090 like a defense tactic. 01:19.090 --> 01:24.430 And this I'm not an expert thing can be used kind of in the same way as a defense mechanism, 01:24.450 --> 01:31.870 a rhetorical trick to not have to be held to account for the positions that you're putting forward. 01:33.290 --> 01:34.310 I'm not an expert. 01:34.630 --> 01:38.010 I'm not saying I could defend any of this, but here's my position. 01:38.170 --> 01:39.210 Here's what I think is happening. 01:39.550 --> 01:40.510 Spoken very confident. 01:40.850 --> 01:43.790 And then when somebody comes along and they're like, no, you're absolutely wrong. 01:43.790 --> 01:50.370 Here's why ABC and they ask, you know, why are you out here, you know, publicly speaking 01:50.370 --> 01:54.850 so confidently about the stuff which you clearly are not an expert on? 01:55.070 --> 01:57.270 And they're like, yeah, I don't claim to be an expert. 01:57.910 --> 01:59.310 These are just my opinions. 01:59.630 --> 02:00.610 Do you see what's happened? 02:01.210 --> 02:06.350 They've taken a position publicly and rather than defend it rather than succeed 02:06.350 --> 02:10.190 or fail on the merits of the position they've taken, they fall back to being like, 02:10.190 --> 02:11.030 look, I'm not an expert. 02:11.290 --> 02:12.930 I don't have to defend this stuff. 02:12.930 --> 02:17.090 If I'm an amateur, I find that very, very disinjected. 02:17.550 --> 02:20.250 It should go sort of one of two ways. 02:20.810 --> 02:26.410 If one is really knowledgeable on something, you should claim the expert title 02:26.410 --> 02:28.390 and defend it as such. 02:28.750 --> 02:32.190 If you've really done your research, if you have deep knowledge on the topic, 02:33.270 --> 02:38.330 whether or not you're trained in college or written a thesis on it that was approved, 02:38.890 --> 02:44.370 credentials are only an indication, an indicator for an expert or for expertise. 02:44.690 --> 02:48.990 Someone that has deeply researched something over a long period of time 02:48.990 --> 02:54.270 can be an expert in something without ever having acquired any public credentials. 02:54.590 --> 02:55.970 So that's not what we're talking about. 02:56.150 --> 03:00.630 For example, I never went to college for any computer engineering, 03:00.870 --> 03:05.710 but I am absolutely an expert in many areas of computer science 03:05.710 --> 03:09.030 through decades of self-study and practice. 03:09.310 --> 03:10.170 And that's fine. 03:10.390 --> 03:14.090 And if I go out there and I take a public position on a topic 03:14.750 --> 03:22.970 and I speak with confidence, I'm going to also take on the associated title of expert. 03:23.570 --> 03:27.570 And if somebody questions my position, I'm not going to retreat and say, 03:27.590 --> 03:29.590 oh, yeah, well, I didn't go to college for this. 03:29.650 --> 03:30.250 I'm not an expert. 03:30.430 --> 03:30.850 I'm an amateur. 03:31.190 --> 03:32.190 You know, don't listen to me. 03:32.250 --> 03:33.590 I don't have to defend these positions. 03:33.590 --> 03:34.130 Nonsense. 03:34.790 --> 03:37.610 That's spineless dog shit. 03:39.360 --> 03:45.410 If you speak confidently, you need to take on the associated burden of proof 03:45.410 --> 03:49.950 and seriousness of your positions that an expert does. 03:50.570 --> 03:55.310 Or you need to not speak confidently as an expert would. 03:56.230 --> 04:01.570 Your entire speech should be littered with reminding people that you haven't 04:01.570 --> 04:06.110 done the research, you don't know the full the entirety of the situation 04:06.110 --> 04:09.430 or the players or moving parts involved. 04:10.330 --> 04:14.590 And you're you should be asking a whole lot more questions than making statements 04:14.590 --> 04:18.030 because you don't know what you're talking about. 04:18.750 --> 04:22.810 So you should be asking a lot more questions than making statements. 04:23.270 --> 04:26.530 I find that at least in this recent chat with Joe Rogan, 04:26.750 --> 04:30.650 I wish Dave had picked one of those two, let's say 04:31.570 --> 04:33.810 intellectually honest lanes. 04:34.250 --> 04:39.250 He either should have spent the last couple years going around speaking 04:39.250 --> 04:45.030 confidently, declaring himself an expert because he definitely does have 04:45.630 --> 04:49.050 a lot of knowledge of the region and the situation going on 04:49.050 --> 04:51.870 that he's gotten from other people that are also experts. 04:52.250 --> 04:53.070 And that's fine. 04:53.910 --> 04:55.110 So speak confidently. 04:55.710 --> 04:57.070 Defend yourself as an expert. 04:57.590 --> 04:59.490 Let's find out if you're right or wrong. 04:59.490 --> 05:02.690 Let's have let's listen to him talk to another expert 05:03.320 --> 05:07.190 and let's decide who's right and who's wrong and on which parts 05:07.190 --> 05:12.110 but not use this as a sort of a rhetorical defense escape hatch. 05:12.450 --> 05:16.310 Or he spent the last two years going around as an amateur 05:16.310 --> 05:20.010 asking important questions and trying to figure this out. 05:20.090 --> 05:23.350 And it's also fine to do that publicly on podcasts 05:24.170 --> 05:26.890 and in public conversations with people. 05:26.890 --> 05:31.510 It's totally fine to go on a learning adventure with other people. 05:32.230 --> 05:35.330 But during that process, you ask a lot more questions 05:35.330 --> 05:37.750 than you make statements and you do it with humility 05:38.830 --> 05:40.810 and you do it to learn as you go. 05:41.210 --> 05:45.110 And you don't speak confidently with a bunch of conclusions 05:45.110 --> 05:46.310 because you're not an expert. 05:46.570 --> 05:47.510 So don't act like one. 05:47.930 --> 05:51.250 I'll leave you with one more example of this in action. 05:51.650 --> 05:53.710 It's John Stewart, host of the Daily Show. 05:53.710 --> 05:58.350 Wicked smart comedian, funny guy, fast thinker, fast talker, 05:58.810 --> 06:00.310 great retortation. 06:00.870 --> 06:03.790 Maybe the the through line here is comedians do this a lot. 06:04.670 --> 06:06.150 They provide social commentary 06:06.150 --> 06:07.710 and then they jump back and hide behind. 06:07.950 --> 06:09.910 Oh, I'm just a I'm just a dumb comedian. 06:10.130 --> 06:10.970 What do I know? 06:11.050 --> 06:12.610 Bill isn't me. I'm not an expert. 06:13.310 --> 06:17.630 I'm just providing confidently asserted, witty social 06:18.110 --> 06:20.990 conclusions and taking positions that I don't want to have to defend. 06:21.590 --> 06:24.010 It's like you need to ask them at the beginning of every conversation. 06:24.270 --> 06:25.450 Oh, hold on, hold on. 06:25.450 --> 06:29.310 Is your clown nose on or off for what you're about to say? 06:29.730 --> 06:32.190 Let me know how seriously you want me to take you right now. 06:32.330 --> 06:35.850 And if you don't want me to take you seriously, say so up front, please. 06:36.310 --> 06:38.890 And if you do, say that up front, please. 06:39.530 --> 06:44.290 The second thing is a more nasty, insidious trick 06:44.290 --> 06:47.690 that I've seen for many years around certain topics. 06:47.690 --> 06:51.370 It's very common in conspiracy theory circles. 06:51.910 --> 06:55.270 It's very common with the more racist topics 06:56.090 --> 07:00.450 like the Jewish question or things like that, 07:00.690 --> 07:04.070 where you'll you'll be interacting with somebody on the topic. 07:04.610 --> 07:07.250 And they'll ask you a bunch of questions like, you know, 07:07.350 --> 07:10.870 why are the Jews all working together in Hollywood to push a narrative? 07:11.330 --> 07:15.690 X, Y, Z. Why are there so many Jewish people in positions of power? 07:16.310 --> 07:19.250 And and I know even saying these words in these orders 07:19.250 --> 07:22.590 is probably going to get this video, I don't know, censored 07:22.590 --> 07:26.050 or even taken down by YouTube because they have no awareness 07:26.050 --> 07:29.170 of the fact that I'm using this as an example rather than 07:30.710 --> 07:32.270 saying that these are my positions. 07:32.670 --> 07:35.570 But, you know, Google never cares about truth. 07:35.770 --> 07:38.270 So they ask a bunch of questions 07:38.950 --> 07:44.550 that all lead you to frame in and around an issue. 07:45.090 --> 07:48.230 It's a bunch of questions, but without ever actually outright 07:48.230 --> 07:51.570 stating the conclusion or the position that they want to defend. 07:51.870 --> 07:55.850 No, no, because then they would have to actually defend the position from criticism. 07:56.190 --> 08:00.530 It's much easier if they just asking more questions. 08:00.830 --> 08:01.910 I'm just asking questions. 08:02.910 --> 08:06.690 What they're actually doing is dishonestly floating a narrative 08:06.690 --> 08:11.770 without owning the burden of proof to defend that narrative 08:11.770 --> 08:13.950 or that hypothesis or position. 08:13.950 --> 08:19.870 It is perfectly fine to ask questions to make hypotheses and test them. 08:20.050 --> 08:21.310 I'm not talking about that. 08:21.930 --> 08:27.230 I'm talking about people trying to communicate a narrative or hypothesis 08:27.850 --> 08:33.010 or a conspiracy conjecture about what's happening or how things actually work. 08:33.310 --> 08:36.250 But the conclusion, they don't want to say out loud 08:36.250 --> 08:40.970 because it might sound extreme or crazy or it might be racist 08:41.670 --> 08:47.150 or some other very uncomfortable or unpopular thing to say 08:47.150 --> 08:48.970 or conclusion or position to hold. 08:49.190 --> 08:50.830 They don't they don't want to see that out loud. 08:50.910 --> 08:53.710 They don't want to speak that out loud because then they'd be held to account for it 08:53.710 --> 08:54.990 and they'd have to defend it. 08:55.330 --> 08:59.270 It's much easier to stop before actually making any statements 08:59.270 --> 09:01.850 and just just ask questions. 09:02.350 --> 09:04.530 How slimy, how spineless. 09:05.270 --> 09:09.510 OK, so how do we deal with these people when we encounter? 09:10.030 --> 09:11.950 I find that the answer is actually very simple. 09:12.110 --> 09:16.170 It just requires us to be a little disagreeable. 09:16.490 --> 09:19.050 And I find that being a little disagreeable 09:19.810 --> 09:25.630 actually just completely cancels out so many different manipulation tactics 09:26.330 --> 09:29.630 like these, but including many, many more. 09:30.170 --> 09:35.470 And by disagreeable, I just mean stating what's happening outright and directly. 09:36.090 --> 09:40.590 Hey, man, it seems like you're you're taking some pretty strong positions 09:40.590 --> 09:44.010 and you're pretty you're speaking pretty confidently about those positions. 09:44.170 --> 09:45.910 But you're also saying you're not an expert. 09:46.130 --> 09:51.270 So I'm just curious, are you know, do you know what you're talking about or not? 09:51.530 --> 09:52.810 Are you an expert? 09:53.150 --> 09:54.850 Do you consider yourself an expert or not? 09:55.150 --> 09:59.610 Should I be holding you to account for the positions that you're saying or not? 10:00.110 --> 10:02.510 Pick a lane, man. Just actually say that. 10:02.610 --> 10:04.510 Now, do it politely. You can. Sure. 10:04.510 --> 10:07.230 But just say it. Get them in a lane. 10:07.810 --> 10:08.990 No, man, I'm not an expert. 10:09.230 --> 10:11.710 This is just based on stuff I've heard. OK, cool. 10:12.110 --> 10:14.030 Well, thanks for your opinions. 10:14.790 --> 10:18.650 Do you have any recommendations for actual experts that I can go and pay 10:18.650 --> 10:22.470 more attention to than whatever it is that we're doing here? 10:22.610 --> 10:24.850 Or, yeah, man, I've researched this for years. 10:25.030 --> 10:26.750 I think I am kind of an expert on topic. 10:27.110 --> 10:31.770 Great. Let's have you talk to another expert and and see who's right about 10:31.770 --> 10:36.110 what constitutes an expert is a different discussion we can say for another day. 10:36.470 --> 10:37.390 Don't need to cover that here. 10:37.910 --> 10:40.010 How do you handle the other people that just asking questions? 10:40.570 --> 10:42.230 People the exact same way. 10:42.470 --> 10:43.630 What are you trying to say here? 10:44.410 --> 10:46.490 I'm just asking questions. No, no, no. 10:46.990 --> 10:51.190 OK, say all these questions are answered in the way that you think they are. 10:51.410 --> 10:52.430 By the way, what is that? 10:52.650 --> 10:54.690 By the way, what do you what do you think the answers to all these 10:54.690 --> 10:56.530 questions are? You know, please spell that out. 10:56.910 --> 10:58.450 Be specific, be clear. 10:59.350 --> 11:01.190 What do you think the answers to these questions are? 11:02.070 --> 11:05.690 And if they even do that, which oftentimes they won't, 11:05.830 --> 11:10.370 because that's the whole point of the tactic is to get to avoid being 11:10.950 --> 11:13.570 nailed down to a specific position and owning it. 11:14.350 --> 11:18.210 But if they do, the step two in these discussions is often left out. 11:18.730 --> 11:21.410 And the step two is therefore what? 11:23.050 --> 11:26.330 An example of this is another one. 11:26.710 --> 11:29.270 Another reason why YouTube is going to shut us down here, 11:29.910 --> 11:32.590 just because I'm saying the words, not because I'm holding these positions. 11:32.850 --> 11:36.810 Of course, let's take the race realist position where, 11:37.650 --> 11:39.870 you know, I'm sure you've heard these people where they're 11:39.870 --> 11:45.290 they're constantly talking about the collective differences 11:45.290 --> 11:49.570 in IQ between the various races of people and how they're sort of a 11:49.570 --> 11:53.350 hierarchy of who is on average, which race on average 11:53.990 --> 11:57.450 is where in the hierarchy of IQs. 11:57.450 --> 12:00.770 Well, first of all, a lot of the times when you're interacting with these people, 12:01.270 --> 12:03.170 they're doing the I'm just asking questions. 12:03.450 --> 12:06.850 But if you're ever actually able to get them to state their conclusions, 12:06.970 --> 12:10.650 which is kind of rare, it's almost like they state the conclusion 12:10.650 --> 12:14.190 with like a dot, dot, dot question mark at the end, 12:14.310 --> 12:17.390 like you're supposed to figure out what we're supposed to do about it. 12:18.050 --> 12:20.730 Or or maybe they haven't even thought that far. 12:21.550 --> 12:25.530 They're just like, they'll say something collectivist and absurd, 12:25.530 --> 12:30.570 like the statistic show that black people are more violent dot, dot, dot. 12:30.990 --> 12:35.790 So again, the thing that you do is to say, well, let's say that that's the case. 12:36.150 --> 12:39.950 Let's say that that's the answer to this question that you're just asking. 12:40.730 --> 12:41.670 Therefore, what? 12:43.070 --> 12:46.510 What are you saying ought to be done about that? 12:46.990 --> 12:51.990 What are you saying we ought to do, think, feel or behave differently 12:51.990 --> 12:55.170 because of this point that you're incessantly pointing out 12:55.170 --> 12:57.410 or calling out or this position that you're holding 12:57.410 --> 12:58.790 or this conclusion you have in your head. 12:58.930 --> 13:01.250 Therefore, what? What are you saying? 13:01.810 --> 13:04.210 Just ask that question outright 13:04.750 --> 13:09.910 and you'll know who you're talking to really is you cut through the bullshit. 13:10.270 --> 13:13.290 And when you do, they'll usually respond in one of three ways. 13:14.430 --> 13:15.570 They won't say anything 13:16.510 --> 13:19.110 or they'll say they don't know in which case you're like, 13:19.130 --> 13:22.330 then why are you bringing it up if this doesn't affect anything 13:22.330 --> 13:25.450 or change our positions or change our behavior 13:25.450 --> 13:27.910 or impel us to do something? 13:28.450 --> 13:30.190 Why are you bringing it up incessantly? 13:30.630 --> 13:34.010 Or sometimes they'll actually say, well, I think we need 13:35.330 --> 13:37.690 segregation or something like whatever 13:38.890 --> 13:42.670 to which you can immediately, you know, then you know who you're dealing 13:43.190 --> 13:43.890 is what I'm saying. 13:44.170 --> 13:45.330 So it's clarifying. 13:45.730 --> 13:47.650 All right. That's all I have to say about those things. 13:48.210 --> 13:50.670 I hope it gave you some interesting thoughts 13:51.450 --> 13:52.970 about these two rhetorical tactics. 13:53.490 --> 13:55.610 If you have any questions, let me know in the comments 13:56.250 --> 13:58.530 if this video even stays up. 13:59.170 --> 14:00.910 Peace, love and energy.