Order of Man - How to Discuss Ideas Intelligently ｜ FRIDAY FIELD NOTE

00:00:00.000 You're a man of action. You live life to the fullest, embrace your fears, and boldly chart

00:00:05.000 your own path. When life knocks you down, you get back up one more time, every time.

00:00:10.440 You are not easily deterred or defeated, rugged, resilient, strong. This is your life. This is who

00:00:17.240 you are. This is who you will become. At the end of the day, and after all is said and done,

00:00:22.800 you can call yourself a man. Gentlemen, what is going on today? My name is Ryan Michler,

00:00:27.680 and I am the host and the founder of this podcast and the movement that is Order of Man. I want to

00:00:33.280 welcome you to the podcast. I don't know how long you've been listening in. Could be five years,

00:00:38.860 could be five days. Regardless, I'm glad that you're here tuning in with us each and every week. Man,

00:00:45.380 this is a much needed mission. And the mission, just in case you don't know, is to reclaim and

00:00:51.120 restore masculinity in a society that seems to be increasingly dismissive of it and wants to

00:00:57.160 undermine masculinity at every turn. It's my job to give men the tools and the guidance,

00:01:02.300 instruction, ideas, insights, and specifically in this podcast, the conversations to equip them to

00:01:08.280 become better fathers, husbands, business owners, community leaders, and so on and so forth.

00:01:13.440 A lot of people ask me who this is for. Frankly, this is for me guys. I'm not placing myself on a

00:01:18.060 pedestal that I don't belong. The information that I share with you and the information I learned by

00:01:23.280 doing this podcast and the conversations I'm having serves me and helps me on my path to become a

00:01:28.320 better father and husband and business owner and just man in general, just as much as it hopefully

00:01:33.340 serves you. So if you would, please leave a rating and review. If you have found any value from what

00:01:38.920 we're doing here, I've got a very interesting conversation lined up for you today. And one that

00:01:44.160 is very, very needed in society. We're going to talk about that here in a second. Ultimately,

00:01:49.460 I'm going to talk with you about how to discuss ideas intelligently. Again, we'll get to that here

00:01:53.880 in a minute. Before I do just want to introduce you to my friends over at origin, Maine. Now these

00:02:01.420 guys make American goods and products all made in America. They started roughly, I want to say five

00:02:09.580 years ago with a Brazilian jujitsu rash guards and geese, but they've moved into lifestyle apparel.

00:02:15.220 They've got some amazing products. Their boots, their bison boots specifically are boots that I

00:02:20.600 really like. I like them so much. I wore down the souls. So my boots are in the process of being

00:02:25.680 resold right now because for the last, gosh, I don't know, last six months or so I've worn them

00:02:31.720 every day and I've put hundreds and hundreds, if not thousands of miles on them. So I asked if they'd

00:02:35.940 resold them. So they're taking care of that right now. But they've also got their denim. They've got

00:02:41.060 their nutritional lineup partnered up with Jocko Willink. And I know if you guys are in the market

00:02:45.520 for any of those products, you will not be disappointed. Head to origin, Maine as in the

00:02:49.760 state, Maine origin, Maine.com. And if you end up picking anything up, use the code order or RDR at

00:02:56.460 checkout, and you'll get a discount there. Again, origin, Maine use the code order today, guys,

00:03:02.320 we are going to be talking about discussing ideas intelligently. Now, if you are on social media

00:03:09.880 or had any sort of conversation with anybody, whether that's somebody that you disagree with,

00:03:15.580 or even just at the Thanksgiving table, it's likely that you've had to share ideas that you've had to

00:03:22.320 listen to ideas. And more often than not, it seems like these debates and these discussions and in

00:03:29.860 these conversations we're having have a way of turning sour, specifically with people you don't

00:03:34.980 know. But I want to equip you with some information today that will help you and other people discuss

00:03:41.520 these ideas more intelligently rather than resorting to name calling and other logical fallacies that

00:03:48.440 we're going to talk about that frankly, don't really get the needle moved in the right direction.

00:03:53.360 Now it's so crucial that we've learned to have intelligent dialogue and discourse with people

00:03:58.580 because the, the ideas and the solutions to the problems that we are dealing with, whether it's

00:04:05.600 at an individual and personal level or a societal or neighborhood or a global level can be found in

00:04:12.800 the nuances of the discussions that we're having. And if we're resorting to a name calling and immature

00:04:19.700 approaches to having this dialogue specifically with ideas and people we don't agree with,

00:04:24.740 then we're never going to create any sort of solutions again, to the problems that we may be

00:04:30.840 facing and dealing with. I know that it's easy to want to like own people, for example, on Twitter

00:04:38.600 and Facebook and Instagram and the either web in general. But again, that's not really the whole

00:04:47.500 objective and goal of having conversation. The idea is that you're going to expose yourself to new

00:04:54.260 information and new perspectives that you haven't previously considered that it's going to expand

00:05:00.080 your horizon. It's going to open you up to new ideas. You're going to find new information to be

00:05:07.080 able to link different ideas and concepts to create new solutions to problems that we haven't been able

00:05:12.680 to deal with in the past. And I, and frankly, I just enjoy a little verbal jousting, but if it can't

00:05:20.360 be done intelligently, if it can't be done in a mature manner, it's not going to go anywhere.

00:05:25.100 So I ran across some information several years ago called the 10 commandments of logic and the 10

00:05:31.640 commandments of logic are 10, uh, logical fallacies that people resort to typically when they're

00:05:40.120 emotionally charged and emotionally driven and, or they're losing a discussion or a debate. So they'll

00:05:46.260 resort to these as last ditch attempts to quote unquote, when the argument or when the conversation,

00:05:52.840 uh, these, these were first identified by Aristotle, uh, and he had listed 13 or identified,

00:06:00.640 I should say 13 logical fallacies that people resort to in a debate that aren't conducive to an

00:06:08.880 intellectual discussion. This is so crucial that you understand this. And I'll tell you why,

00:06:14.040 because if you are trying to be influential in people's lives, whether you're trying to have a

00:06:20.220 dialogue and a conversation with your wife over a disagreement with how to raise the kids,

00:06:24.760 or you're trying to lead a team at work or convince your boss that a certain initiative that you want

00:06:30.660 to head up is the right course of action or get your team on board, or you're coaching a youth sports

00:06:36.240 team, or you're running an organization. Like we are here with order of man, your ability to

00:06:41.480 communicate and present ideas intelligently is going to, in many cases, spell the difference

00:06:48.120 between whether or not somebody will get on board with what you're trying to do and what you're trying

00:06:53.580 to communicate, or they will not. That's one of the reasons it's so important to be able to do

00:06:59.660 this, have dialogue in a mature way. The other reason this is so important is because you're going

00:07:06.560 to begin to recognize and understand the tactics and strategies that other people are using against

00:07:14.520 you to undermine your thoughts, your ideas, and your solutions. If you understand and recognize what

00:07:22.460 they're doing, you equip yourself to be able to combat those things and maybe even potentially

00:07:27.620 disengage from a non-productive conversation if the situation calls for it. So I'm going to go through

00:07:33.960 these 10 commandments of logic. They are logical fallacies. And of course, this is not all of them.

00:07:39.760 There's a great website that I found, and I'm going to pull this up here real quick. As I was going

00:07:45.140 through some information for this podcast, it's called your logical fallacy is.com. Again, that's

00:07:52.700 your logical fallacy is.com. And it looks like I want to say they've identified roughly 24 logical

00:08:00.480 fallacies here. You can hover on each one. It'll tell you a little bit about what these fallacies

00:08:04.420 are. And I think it's important information. And I think our inability to have civil discourse is one

00:08:11.120 of the great tragedies that we're going to continue to see as social media is on the rise. Of course,

00:08:17.420 it's tough on social media because those aren't platforms for context and civil discussions. And

00:08:22.640 sometimes just getting mad at each other and emotional seems to be what like you're supposed to do,

00:08:28.240 which obviously doesn't produce the results that I think most of us are after. If you're mature

00:08:32.620 anyways, and really after ideas, then social media doesn't always promote that. So let's get into it.

00:08:38.520 One other thing I wanted to talk about before I get to that, I'm sorry, I'm kind of beating around

00:08:41.720 the bush here a little bit is we live in this idea of cancel culture, right? That if somebody shares 0.94

00:08:47.720 an idea that we don't agree with, rather than discuss that intelligently, we, they want to cancel

00:08:52.960 us, right? They want to shut that communication down. It's, it's really an infringement upon the

00:08:59.320 first amendment, which is, which is disheartening to say the least. I think not, I think we have a

00:09:05.220 right, a God-given right to be able to express ourselves, even ideas that aren't accurate or

00:09:12.440 healthy or productive. We all have the right to express those ideas. Now, I don't believe all opinions

00:09:18.820 are equal certainly, but I think we all have the right to share those ideas. And if anybody's coming

00:09:23.560 in and trying to shut people down from having this sort of discussion, that's a problem. In fact,

00:09:30.620 I think it's a good idea when somebody presents stupid ideas, not necessarily to shut them down,

00:09:35.420 but to let them continue to talk. Because when somebody comes in with a bad idea, the more they

00:09:40.360 talk about it, the more we realize how bad it actually is. I mean, we see this in politics all the

00:09:45.700 time. The more these politicians talk about their grand ideas and strategies, uh, the more we begin

00:09:50.520 to realize and see, for example, socialism and communism, how bad these ideas actually are. If we

00:09:56.480 don't allow them to talk about it, we won't allow them to continue to step into the potholes. They do

00:10:00.960 every time they open their mouth and talk about ideas that have been tried and have never worked in

00:10:04.920 the history of man. So we need to encourage healthy dialogue and discussion, not necessarily this

00:10:10.820 cancel culture. And if you're so emotional and so immature that you can't handle the fact that

00:10:17.480 somebody disagrees with you or has a difference of opinion, uh, I got to say you're in for a world of

00:10:23.380 hurt, uh, with the rest of your life. All right, enough, uh, preparing you for this stuff. Let's get

00:10:28.640 into it. The 10 commandments of logic, number one, and I've got my notes here, so I don't skip anything.

00:10:32.840 Uh, thou shalt not attack the person's character, but the argument, this is the logical fallacy ad

00:10:39.440 hominem. Now I don't speak Latin, so I might butcher some of the, the, uh, pronunciation on that.

00:10:46.160 But again, thou shalt not attack the person's character, but the argument, I think it's really

00:10:50.760 easy when you're losing a discussion or you feel like you are losing a debate or an argument that

00:10:55.980 instead of dealing with the issue at hand, which is the topic, the thing you're actually debating,

00:11:00.540 it's very easy to say, well, you're an idiot or you're a loser and you resort to slander, uh, as

00:11:06.760 opposed to attacking that argument and then debating it intelligently. Look, if people are arguing based

00:11:13.720 on who's an idiot and you're a loser, and it's just not a conducive conversation, it really isn't. 0.81

00:11:19.440 Now, as I made this post on Instagram a couple of days ago, which I did, uh, I had a lot of people

00:11:23.940 say, well, what if, what if the, the argument is the person's character? Well, yeah, obviously then

00:11:29.880 you're probably going to talk about the character. Uh, a great example of this would be in, in the

00:11:35.500 courtroom. For example, if a, if a defense is trying to undermine the prosecutor's witness,

00:11:42.040 then yes, he might address the character itself. So please understand context. All right. There's

00:11:48.980 exceptions to what I'm talking about here. And yes, if the topic is the person's character, then of

00:11:54.080 course, obviously you're going to be talking about the character, but most conversations and debates

00:11:59.600 aren't about the individual's character. They're about the argument itself. I had another, uh,

00:12:05.660 a gentleman say that, uh, he has to take somebody's character and credibility into the equation.

00:12:11.760 Of course, because that's going to help you determine whether or not this person is speaking

00:12:16.660 from a position of credibility and an authority, or whether they're just frankly talking out of

00:12:21.620 their ass, but even somebody with low character or zero credibility can be right. That's the

00:12:29.240 interesting thing about credibility. And even somebody who's a hypocrite, like let's, let's

00:12:34.340 say that somebody is calling somebody out for, uh, for being immoral. And yet that individual

00:12:40.560 is immoral. Well, we all are in some ways. And just because if I'm calling somebody out for

00:12:45.360 being immoral, well, they say, well, who are you to speak? Cause you're immoral. Well, that

00:12:49.840 may be true, but that doesn't make what I said initially necessarily any less true. So this

00:12:56.480 is why it's very, very crucial that we don't debate on character alone. And we look at the

00:13:01.640 argument, uh, as objectively as possible and determine whether or not it's accurate or inaccurate.

00:13:06.880 And then we work our angle from there. So that's number one, uh, number two, thou shall not misrepresent,

00:13:13.300 excuse me, misrepresent or exaggerate a person's argument in order to make them easier to

00:13:19.800 attack. This is the straw man fallacy. And how often do we see this? One person says something,

00:13:26.440 another person either, uh, unintentionally or, or deliberately misinterprets what that individual

00:13:34.420 says in order to fit a narrative so that they can then attack an argument that wasn't even taking

00:13:39.880 place in initially. A great example of this is if you haven't seen, uh, the Kathy Newman,

00:13:45.700 Jordan Peterson interview, uh, I would highly recommend that you go check it out because

00:13:50.820 Kathy Newman illustrates number two, thou shall not misrepresent misrepresent or exaggerate a

00:13:57.200 person's argument in order to make them easier to attack. She illustrates this perfectly. So Jordan

00:14:02.640 Peterson will, will make a statement. And then Kathy Newman, if you're familiar with the interview,

00:14:06.980 will say, so what you're saying is, and then proceeds to say something entirely different

00:14:12.420 than what Jordan Peterson said in the first place. And then she attacks that issue. Now,

00:14:18.420 the way that she frames it makes it sound wrong, but that's not what he was actually saying in the

00:14:24.840 first place. So you've got to be very, very cautious in dealing with people who are going

00:14:28.480 to present these straw man fallacies, uh, as fact, because they're going to, they're going to twist

00:14:34.040 and contort and misconstrue your words in order to fit the argument. If somebody's doing this,

00:14:38.960 it's not, it's not, uh, intellectually honest. And again, it's not a conducive way to have these

00:14:44.860 types of conversations and don't do this to other individuals. Don't misrepresent and don't exaggerate

00:14:50.520 what they're saying. Just take what they're saying and pick that apart or discuss intelligently

00:14:56.740 about that idea. Don't make it about something that it really isn't about. People do this to me

00:15:02.040 all the time, uh, on, on social media specifically. And they start bringing up points and debating

00:15:08.160 points that I'm not even presenting. So be very, very cautious on that. Uh, number three,

00:15:14.680 thou shall not use small numbers to represent the whole. This is hasty generalization.

00:15:19.980 Thou shall not use small numbers to represent the whole, a great example. A lot of people will say,

00:15:26.020 for example, that, uh, sex is not binary, right? We have male and we have female, but they'll say sex 0.57

00:15:34.000 is not binary because about what about those, those individuals who have extra chromosomes or are

00:15:40.080 intersex? Well, those are disorders. Those aren't generally the way that it works. And just because

00:15:48.120 there's a genetic disorder or a mutation doesn't necessarily mean that's indicative of the

00:15:55.780 generalization. So sex is binary. We have male and we have female just because we have intersex people.

00:16:03.260 And just because we have those who are born with an extra chromosome doesn't disprove the fact that

00:16:11.060 sex is indeed binary. It just means that there's some deviance from that. There's exceptions to

00:16:17.860 everything, but it doesn't disprove the rule. Uh, another great example. I heard this from Ben

00:16:23.240 Shapiro, who regardless of how you feel about Ben Shapiro is, uh, an incredible, incredible debater.

00:16:30.380 And he knows these, these rules very, very well. If you listen to him in the way that he, uh,

00:16:35.280 discusses ideas with other individuals, he's very rational about this. He says humans have 10,

00:16:42.140 10 digits, right? Humans have 10 digits. And, and just because somebody may be born with

00:16:47.560 nine or 11, or somebody loses a finger and now has nine doesn't mean that humans have anything but

00:16:56.080 10 digits. That's what we have. And yet people will debate on that because of the small exception

00:17:02.000 that does not disprove the rule. So don't use those small numbers to represent the whole,

00:17:06.840 uh, number four, thou shall not argue thy position by assuming one of its premises to be true.

00:17:13.460 Let me say that again. Thou shall not argue thy position by assuming one of its premises to be

00:17:19.740 true. Now I had a lot of pushback on this one. A lot of people would say, well, I want to believe

00:17:24.660 these, or I want to argue based on what I believe is true. And you're welcome to do that. But what I'm

00:17:29.680 suggesting in a, in a rational discussion and debate, if you're basing your argument on something

00:17:37.720 that is presumed to be true, but hasn't been proven to be true, it's, it's an inferior position to debate

00:17:44.460 from. You can do it. I'm just saying that if somebody doesn't believe that first premise of

00:17:50.460 your argument, then you've undermined your entire defense or point before you really even got started.

00:17:57.400 Let me give you an example of this. Some people will say, for example, that the Bible is true

00:18:04.120 because it's the word of God. And we know God is real because the Bible says so well that is assuming

00:18:17.460 let's take the first part of that. The Bible is true because it's the word of God. Well, you're

00:18:21.340 assuming that that individual believes that God is even real. And if that's the case, well, you've

00:18:26.640 undermined your entire argument about why the Bible is true. Because if that person you're talking with

00:18:31.700 doesn't believe that God is real, then that's not a great argument to make as to why the Bible is

00:18:37.380 true. This is also called circular reasoning here. It says begging the question. Okay. So very,

00:18:42.300 very similar concept. So be very, very cautious of basing debates and conversations on something that

00:18:49.420 you're assuming to be true. Uh, another example, somebody had given me is they said something to the

00:18:55.100 effect of, uh, the government, what did they say? The government, uh, I I'm going to butcher this,

00:19:01.340 but something to the effect of, uh, private industry is best because the government never

00:19:07.880 does anything effectively or efficiently. And that was his premise. Okay. Well, you're going to have

00:19:14.480 to prove that first point. Like I actually agree with that, but the person you're debating with may

00:19:20.660 not. So if you're basing private industry is better because the government doesn't do anything

00:19:25.940 efficiently, if you're debating with somebody who thinks that government does do something

00:19:30.140 efficiently, you're going to have a hard time proving that main point, which is that private

00:19:34.180 industry is better. So there has to be some sort of foundational, uh, mutual consensus on those first

00:19:41.760 foundational debating principles, right? I hope this makes sense. Uh, I know, I know we're kind of

00:19:47.660 going through this pretty quickly, but if you're, if you're making these arguments based on what isn't

00:19:55.900 proven to be true, it's just an inferior way and an inferior foundation to, uh, to debate, to debate

00:20:02.020 from, uh, number five, thou shall not claim that because something occurred before it must be the

00:20:09.600 cause. This is post hoc or false clause. That shall not claim that because something occurred before

00:20:15.620 it must be the cause. This is the old adage that, uh, correlation does not equal causation.

00:20:23.900 Now it, it might, but it doesn't necessarily mean that. So you have to be very careful in assuming

00:20:30.600 that, you know, that the reason X is happening is because a, B and C happened before just because

00:20:36.880 it's correlated doesn't mean that it's going to necessarily happen again. Number six, thou shall not

00:20:43.040 reduce the argument down to two possibilities. This is called false dichotomy. So a lot of the

00:20:49.940 questions that we answer in the, ask me anything are false dichotomy questions. And this is why I

00:20:54.780 have a very difficult time answering them because they're not, they're not based in reality. So

00:20:59.720 people will say, for example, is it better to make more money or to be happy? That's a false dichotomy

00:21:08.040 because what you're saying is you're essentially saying that if you make great money, then you're

00:21:13.080 not going to be happy. And if you're happy, then you can't make great money. Well, there's a third

00:21:18.420 option. There's an infinite number of options actually. And that other option is you can make

00:21:23.160 great money and be happy, or you can make no money and not be happy. Like there's other alternatives

00:21:31.600 here. So if you're limiting it down to a false dichotomy, that there's only two solutions,

00:21:37.500 you're robbing yourself of opportunities that, uh, or ideas that could expose themselves. If you were

00:21:44.240 to broaden your perspective and realize that there's a lot more possibility here as to what

00:21:49.480 might happen. A lot of people say, do I choose to chase my career or, uh, and expose myself to risk,

00:21:57.660 or do I play it safe here and continue to pursue this career? Well, maybe it's actually less risky

00:22:04.360 to pursue something you're passionate about. But again, if you only have these two notions in hand

00:22:10.100 and this vice false dichotomy at play here, you're closing yourself off to the possibility that maybe

00:22:15.740 you have less risk in pursuing something that's meaningful and significant to you. All right. Number

00:22:22.360 seven, thou shall not argue that because of our ignorance, the claim must be true or false. This

00:22:29.600 is called ag, I'm gonna butcher this ad ignorantum, ad ignorantum. Let me say that again. Thou shall not

00:22:36.520 argue that because of our ignorance, the claim must be true or false. Uh, let me try to think of an

00:22:41.480 example here. Uh, let's say that I, I say, you know, I, I believe in a extraterrestrial life.

00:22:48.920 I believe in aliens and somebody says, well, I don't believe in aliens. And I came back and I said,

00:22:56.300 well, you can't prove they're not true. So they must exist. I know this is a silly example, but

00:23:02.880 people do this all the time. Same thing with, with God. They do this. I believe in God. And people say,

00:23:08.680 well, I mean, there, there is no God. Well, you can't prove there isn't. So there must be,

00:23:13.020 well, no, that's actually not what that means at all. Some things we just can't prove and we can't

00:23:19.240 know. Right. So we can't claim that because somebody is ignorant to whether something is

00:23:25.360 true or false, that it must automatically be the other thing. All right. That that's very important

00:23:30.820 because it moves into, uh, the next point, point number eight, thou shall not lay the burden of proof

00:23:38.140 onto him that is questioning the claim. All right. Let me say that again. Thou shall not lay the burden

00:23:44.500 of proof onto him that is questioning the claim. So for example, let's say that, uh, and we'll use

00:23:51.180 this God, God example again. Let's say, I say, God is real. God is real. And you say, well, no, he's,

00:24:00.000 he's not, there is no God. And then I come back and I say, well, you need to then prove to me

00:24:05.820 that there isn't. Well, no, that that's not how this works. I'm the one who initially made the

00:24:11.840 claim. So if I'm trying to convince somebody else that I'm right, that there is a God, for example,

00:24:16.760 in this case, then it's not on that individual to prove there isn't it's on me who made the claim

00:24:24.080 that there is a God to prove that there is right. So we have to be very, very careful of switching

00:24:30.040 this burden of proof. They call it burden of proof reversal is that if you can test my idea that you

00:24:37.240 need to prove to me why you're right and I'm wrong. Nope. If I'm making the claim, it's up to me.

00:24:44.580 This is actually why, uh, in our laws, we are innocent until proven guilty, right? So if somebody

00:24:52.460 accuses me of a crime, it's not up to me or my responsibility to prove my innocence. Now that

00:25:01.460 might actually be a great defense strategy, but it isn't my requirement. It's up to you. The one

00:25:06.720 who's accusing me to prove that I actually committed that crime. You made the claim. You need to prove it.

00:25:13.540 Now this, a lot of people don't like this. A lot of people don't like this. And unfortunately in,

00:25:18.960 in, in society, in modern times, it seems like the one making the claim is automatically believed.

00:25:26.080 That's not a healthy way to run a society. And it's not a healthy foundation for a legal system. 0.94

00:25:31.480 Because if I don't like somebody, I can make simply make a claim and, and therefore have that

00:25:37.780 person have to defend themselves against a false accusation. This is not healthy. It's not productive.

00:25:45.480 It's not a great way to run society. And those who are perpetuating this idea are actually opening

00:25:51.240 the gateway for themselves to be abused and misused and falsely accused of a crime. So if you hear

00:25:59.180 anybody doing anything like this, like, Hey, this person accused this individual of doing this and,

00:26:04.560 and it's up to them to prove their innocence. That is not correct. That is not accurate. And that's

00:26:10.180 why I have a difficult time with this. Believe all women rally cry. Now I don't think that we 1.00

00:26:17.820 necessarily need to believe all women or not believe all women. Just the same as I believe 0.91

00:26:23.460 that about men. We don't need to believe all men or not believe all men. If somebody's accusing

00:26:28.360 somebody of a crime, whether it's a woman, uh, uh, accusing a man or a man, accusing a man or a man,

00:26:33.920 accusing a woman. Well, it's up to that individual or that prosecution to then prove the burden of proof

00:26:41.360 lies upon them that that individual did indeed commit that crime. We are innocent until proven

00:26:47.000 guilty. All right. Number nine, thou shall not assume, uh, this follows that when it has no logical

00:26:55.240 connection. Uh, this is called non sequitur. Thou shall not assume this follows that when it has no

00:27:02.780 logical connection. So I see this on Twitter. Uh, I'll give you a silly example, but you'll

00:27:09.340 understand the point. So I could say, for example, I love dogs, which I do. We've got two dogs. We've

00:27:15.440 got a, uh, greater Swiss mountain dog, and we've got a German shepherd. We love our dogs. If I say that

00:27:21.460 I love dogs for whatever reason, specifically on Twitter, people seem to want to come back with,

00:27:26.600 well, why do you hate cats? Okay. Well, that has no logical connection at all because just because I

00:27:34.860 love dogs does not mean that I hate cats. All right. A lot of people talk about this with,

00:27:40.440 with our podcast and our movement as well is obviously it's called order of man. I'm focusing

00:27:45.140 on giving men, you the tools and equipment and resources and guidance you need to step up more

00:27:49.940 fully in your life. So people will say, well, why isn't this focused on women too? Well, because we run

00:27:55.820 an organization called order of man. Now, does some of this information apply to women? Yes,

00:28:02.220 it certainly could. And can a woman use it? Yes, she certainly can. And nobody's keeping her from, 0.92

00:28:09.340 from doing that. So don't be jumping to conclusions and making up these weird assumptions and connections

00:28:16.440 that don't really exist. Again, this is called non sequitur. Thou shall not assume that this follows

00:28:22.720 that when it has no logical connection whatsoever. And number 10, last one here is thou shall not

00:28:29.760 claim that because a premise is popular, therefore it must be true. This is bandwagon fallacy. Again,

00:28:36.340 thou shall not claim that because a premise is popular, therefore it must be true. Pretty

00:28:40.640 self-explanatory. A lot of people can get things wrong. Seems to me that 90% of people are typically

00:28:46.800 wrong to begin with. So, uh, we got to be careful that just because something is popular,

00:28:52.320 uh, socialism, for example, is becoming increasingly popular just because it's popular doesn't mean that

00:28:58.620 it's true. And we, we can take social, we have enough proof that socialism doesn't work. It's

00:29:03.320 never worked in any context throughout human history. Therefore we need to be cautious assuming

00:29:09.140 that because everybody likes it or because there's a growing popularity of socialism, that somehow this

00:29:14.120 can miraculously work in our lives is a viable solution to humanity and society in general.

00:29:21.560 So there it is guys. There's the 10 commandments of logic. I actually put one more in here. And I

00:29:26.620 think this applies more towards social media is I wrote down thou shall not, uh, correct grammatical

00:29:32.400 and spelling errors as a critical component of your retort. Let me say that again. Thou shall not use

00:29:39.340 or correct grammatical and spelling errors as a critical component of your retort. All right. You're,

00:29:46.140 you're better than that. If somebody misspells a word or uses the wrong form of your or their,

00:29:54.280 all right, it doesn't mean that the argument isn't true. It doesn't mean that that person's an idiot.

00:29:58.780 It simply means they used an incorrect word or incorrect grammar or misspelled it. And who cares?

00:30:07.080 You're clearly capable of understanding what that individual meant. Just be even though in spite of

00:30:13.640 them using the wrong form of their or your, so you look like a fool when you do that. You really do.

00:30:20.220 You're making yourself look foolish and you're not actually addressing the principle or the argument at

00:30:25.660 hand. You're arguing something else that frankly has nothing to do with the argument to begin with.

00:30:30.880 So guys, I know I went through a lot of information there fairly quickly. Uh, and some of you might be

00:30:36.500 asking, why is this important? You know, I did have some guys say, oh, this seems trivial. Well,

00:30:40.820 learning to discuss ideas intelligently is hardly trivial. This is very, very important. It's critical

00:30:48.740 that you learn to debate and discuss and have conversations in an intelligent, more mature

00:30:55.800 way. Uh, this is something that I'm guilty of. I'm not above this. Do it all the time, especially

00:31:01.080 when I get emotional. All right. When you get emotional, you're going to fall more easily into

00:31:06.000 these 10 commandments of, uh, of logic and abuse these 10 commandments of logic. But here's what I

00:31:11.560 would say as we wrap things up. Number one, don't get emotional, right? If you find yourself

00:31:16.400 getting emotional and arguments, I think it's best to disengage. If you realize that somebody else is

00:31:21.640 getting emotional and they're committing some of these errors, uh, that it's best to disengage.

00:31:26.560 Nothing good is going to come from it. You're going to waste a bunch of time with an individual.

00:31:30.440 Uh, you're going to be pissed off. It's going to spill over to other areas of your life,

00:31:34.000 other relationships, other tasks and projects that you have. And it's just not worth it. So if you see

00:31:38.880 one party, you or the other getting emotional, just back up, disengage. Uh, number two, second point,

00:31:44.920 don't debate with those who are abusing the 10 commandments of logic, whether they're doing it

00:31:49.600 intentionally or unintentionally, it doesn't matter if they continue and habitually abuse these 10

00:31:54.920 commandments of logic and the other logical fallacies, then this is somebody you can't

00:31:59.100 have an intelligent conversation with. You can still be friends with them. Uh, you can still

00:32:03.200 communicate with them to some degree, but having a civil conversation and debate and discussion is

00:32:10.680 just not going to happen. It's not possible because they're either intentionally doing it or they're,

00:32:14.960 uh, doing it out of ignorance. And both you want to disengage from that. Uh, if the argument isn't

00:32:20.380 going anywhere, okay, if you're having a discussion or a debate and it's just going around and around

00:32:25.140 in circles and circles, and it's not really moving or going anywhere, uh, just don't like, what are you

00:32:30.440 doing? Like, don't you have more important things to do? Like you can spend time with your kids.

00:32:35.080 Uh, you can take your wife on a date. You could put a few more hours in on a project. Uh, you could

00:32:40.240 take a nap. You could read a book. Like there's so many other things that you could do then debate

00:32:44.800 and argue, uh, with an, with the person in a conversation that's not going anywhere. It's,

00:32:49.800 it's stupid. It's a waste of time. Don't do it. Okay. Just, just don't. It's a waste of time.

00:32:54.140 Uh, and then the last thing I would say, and of course this is, uh, very easy for me to say,

00:32:58.200 I'm a bit biased, but I would just encourage people to listen to this episode, right? Encourage people to,

00:33:02.920 to, to learn these ideas so that we can elevate the way that we're having conversations. I see

00:33:08.680 a demise of this. I see a disintegration of the way that we're having conversations. And if people

00:33:14.400 learn this information and then apply it, well, now we can have civil conversations. We can pick up

00:33:20.940 new perspectives. We can learn new things. We can make new connections. Uh, we can expand our current

00:33:25.940 understanding. We can frankly have some entertainment because I think it to have a lively,

00:33:30.840 healthy debate is entertaining and it's in enjoy. It's something that I enjoy. So encourage people

00:33:37.540 to listen to this episode. And then I would also, again, as an additional resource, give you this

00:33:41.800 website one more time. Uh, your logical fallacy is.com your lad, your logical fallacy is.com. 0.52

00:33:48.820 Uh, check that out as well. Cause you're going to learn. I think, like I said, there, I want to say

00:33:52.060 there's 24 other fallacies here that they talk about. And, uh, this stuff's fascinating to me.

00:33:56.420 And of course I communicate for a living. So understanding how to communicate better and

00:34:00.880 express ideas is going to help me be more influential in the lives of the people I'm

00:34:05.360 trying to impact, whether it's my family, uh, my team, uh, you who is listening or watching

00:34:10.340 this podcast. Uh, it's very important for me. And I imagine because you're a communicator

00:34:14.220 to some degree as well, that this would be important for you. All right, guys, that's all

00:34:17.740 I've got again, how to discuss ideas intelligently. Hope that helped hope that serve you. Please

00:34:22.000 let me know how you're using these ideas. Uh, if there's other logical fallacies that

00:34:25.400 you're aware of, and you want to talk about that and discuss, leave those in the comments

00:34:28.780 of YouTube or connect with me on Instagram. I'm really growing my Instagram page. Very,

00:34:33.400 very active over there and try to communicate with everybody who reaches out to me. You can

00:34:37.020 do that at, uh, at Ryan Mickler. All right, guys, I'm going to let you get going, go out

00:34:42.280 there, discuss these ideas intelligently, learn the commandments of logic, uh, avoid logical

00:34:47.860 fallacies. It's going to help you be more intelligent or at least to help you appear more

00:34:51.580 intelligent and, uh, have some powerful conversations. All right, guys, we'll be back next week for

00:34:56.140 our interview, uh, with actually, I don't know who it's with right off hand. Cause I've done

00:35:00.700 a lot of podcasts over the past several weeks, but, uh, it's a good one. I know it's a good

00:35:05.100 one. Cause I've got four and a hopper and they're all good. All right. We'll catch you soon until

00:35:08.760 then take action. Come to man. Thank you for listening to the order of man podcast. You're

00:35:14.840 ready to take charge of your life and be more of the man you were meant to be. We invite you

00:35:19.220 to join the order at order of man.com.

Order of Man - January 31, 2020

How to Discuss Ideas Intelligently ｜ FRIDAY FIELD NOTE

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript