Discussion How to debate with people who genuinely have lesser knowledge about a certain thing?

[PoopyPigeon]

(Slight TLDR)

I do not mean "lesser knowledge" is a condescending sense. I mean people who genuinely don't know something you know.

Let's be precise. People generally argue common points over and over again. For example: "God doesn't exist because science contradicts religion", "Communism is evil because they killed 100 M", and so forth.

Yet in situation like the times when the other individual just really doesn't know something you do, it's almost impossible to explain your points to them.

An example might be when normies argue over gender-relations, yet have absolutely no idea about evo-psych or anything adjacent. The only things they believe are the patriarchy and all that mainstream jazz.

It's very difficult to explain evo-psych from the start to these people, and even worse is that they're less than willing to hear you.

I hope this thread doesn't escalate into another argument, and I just am asking how to deal with such situations regardless of the specific arguments mentioned.

 

[Schwarzwald]

Real talk, you’re not crazy for noticing this, it’s one of the most exhausting parts of stepping outside the mainstream bubble. You’re right, most normies are operating on a completely different OS. They’ve never even installed evo-psych.exe, let alone run it. Trying to explain things like hypergamy, mate value distribution, or sexual dimorphism of from zero is like teaching calculus to someone who thinks 2+2=5 because it feels right. It’s not just that they don’t know; they’re emotionally invested in not knowing.

Ps
I like to use the sexual dimorphism of anglerfish to explain it to normies.

 

[Agent One]

Well, it depends on why are you having an argument in the first place. What do you intend to gain from it? Better understanding of others? Test your own knowledge on the subject? Making progress of some sort? Or just simply curiosity and recreation? People go meandering sometimes because they discuss for the sake knowing the outcome and possible reaction to the subject, which sometimes it is the intent behind the discourse, depending on the person. It is useful? It is meaningful? It is simply enjoyable to bounce ideas between each other? You have to also distinguish between "Direct Information", the facts (The knowledge you're referring to, perhaps), and "Relative Information", the opinions, the personal matters. Conversations first to happen you have to be eager to talk as much as to listen, and even if an exchange takes place, it doesn't necessarly means that they will accept your perspective on the matter an adopt it as their own, and they even can deny the facts for this and the other. The best way to handle it? Just don't worry about it, conversations have to serve a purpouse, either to explore your own mind or the mental landscape of others, get answers. If there's nothing to it, possibly there's no debate to have? Choose your discourses.

Besides, if you get upset about other reaction to your perspective or "what you know", maybe you shouldn't? Knowledge is as certain as the floor beneath your feet. Even if you see something that they cannot or refuse to acknowledge, you already are aware of it. Either if its worth to show others that or not, is up to you, but overall, it pays off to cultivate a non attached attitude for these moments.

 

[deaf_judger]

(Slight TLDR)

I do not mean "lesser knowledge" is a condescending sense. I mean people who genuinely don't know something you know.

Let's be precise. People generally argue common points over and over again. For example: "God doesn't exist because science contradicts religion", "Communism is evil because they killed 100 M", and so forth.

Yet in situation like the times when the other individual just really doesn't know something you do, it's almost impossible to explain your points to them.

An example might be when normies argue over gender-relations, yet have absolutely no idea about evo-psych or anything adjacent. The only things they believe are the patriarchy and all that mainstream jazz.

It's very difficult to explain evo-psych from the start to these people, and even worse is that they're less than willing to hear you.

I hope this thread doesn't escalate into another argument, and I just am asking how to deal with such situations regardless of the specific arguments mentioned.

ask them questions about their own explanation. Also, if there is a moral concern in your argument you should probably address it before. Something like "I agree that we shouldn't use biology to justify mistreatment, but understanding .... helps us ...."