Quote from: BeardFisher-King on January 16, 2018, 01:29:32 pm

It's just analysis of a claim that strikes me as ambiguous by pointing out how the ambiguity arises. That is my point. That is my only point.

That said, you appear to be frustrated - I'm very sorry to have caused you distress.

To answer your question, I'm pursuing the matter to find out in what context you are pursuing the matter. ie I'm confused by why you appear to be confused, and that confusion has lead me to ask you to clarify your confusion to assuage my confusion. Simple .

I've beaten this poor horse of a proposition to death; no need to add to either of our levels of confusion. Two reasons for this dogged pursuit:
1. To practice my close-reading/analytic skills.
3. To practice even-tempered disputation in online fora; to disagree without becoming disagreeable.

No worries, Wilshire. We just seemed to be talking past each other. Looking back, I should have been clearer about the limits of what I was discussing.

Regards,
-BFK

Wilshire,  I don't know how else to say this. I'm not addressing the article. I am simply analyzing the sentence logic of proposition #35, which, in my reading, claims that people with higher IQs are only better at crafting arguments for positions if they already agree with those positions.

If you believe that dissecting this statement is "useless", then why are you pursuing this matter? The only reason I'm pursuing it at this point is, frankly, my amazement and frustration over your wonderment towards "what point I'm trying to make". It's just analysis of a claim that strikes me as ambiguous by pointing out how the ambiguity arises. That is my point. That is my only point.

No, it's not a straw man argument*, and I'm not adding anything to the proposition. Might I request that you reread my restatement of the proposition? I am simply analyzing the sentence logic of the proposition. My analysis is reductive; I'm trying (and failing, I suppose) to show that it's the construction of the proposition, not its content, that is the problem.

Perhaps the proposition should read:
"People with higher IQs are better at crafting arguments generally; unfortunately, they prefer to do so for positions with which they agree."

ETA: It's not a straw man argument because I'm not arguing either for or against the proposition.

Well, I don't read it in a content-neutral format, but sure I agree it's a bit unclear.

That's what I'm saying. Basically, bad syntax leading to confused meaning.

Actually I didn't even read the article, but now after having read (skimmed) the article I still can't see how the short conclusion is ambiguous compared to the article.

Honestly, my point is not that complicated:

Quote

35.
Intelligence doesn’t make someone more likely to change their mind. People with higher IQs are better at crafting arguments to support a position—but only if they already agree with it.

Here's the proposition:
"People with [quality A] are better at [task B]...but only if [condition C]."

Read in this content-neutral format, the proposition states that condition C is necessary for the main clause to be true.

So: people with higher IQs are only better at crafting arguments for a position if they already agree with it. Their agreement is a necessary condition.

Thanks, Madness!

Perhaps if you could restate what it is you find absurd. I don't understand why you find my questions difficult. If you prioritize X, Y, and Z over C, my first question was, "Does C belong with X, Y, or Z?" My second question was, "Should C be a higher priority than X, Y, or Z?"

What I'm saying is compassion is a belief like any other.