How to Discuss Ideas Intelligently ｜ FRIDAY FIELD NOTE
Episode Stats
Words per Minute
178.37852
Summary
In this episode, Ryan Michler talks about the importance of discussing ideas intelligently and why it's so important that we do so. He also discusses the benefits of having an intelligent dialogue with others and how important it is to have a dialogue with ourselves.
Transcript
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
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.
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
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.
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
00:26:17.820
necessarily need to believe all women or not believe all women. Just the same as I believe
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,
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.
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