It was a cathartic experience to be a first-time voter. Having debated on many of the key questions of this election, it was interesting to not defend a predetermined position, but rather think about my own reasoning and decide who I agree with the most. I never considered not participating in my democratic duty. However, a lot of Lithuania's young people did, with our turnout barely crossing 1/3rd. Maybe a return to quality political debate, focusing on the issues rather than show, is something that can bring them to the ballot box. Additionally, youth policy and issues relevant to young people weren't expanded on in many of the parties' manifestoes. Youth NGO sector hopes the 13th Seimas will remember about the young people of Lithuania more often.
No comments yet
Be the first to comment
MORE INSIGHTS YOU MIGHT LIKELearn more by discovering other insights
What is the purpose of debate? Most of us, if asked, would say it’s about helping someone with an incorrect, harmful idea see the light. It’s an act of kindness. It’s about getting to the truth.
But the way we tend to engage in debate contradicts our supposed intentions.
Much of the time, we’re really debating because we want to prove we’re right and our opponent is wrong. Our interest is not in getting to the truth. We don’t even consider the possibility that our opponent might be correct or that we could learn something from them.
As decades of psychological research indicate, our brains are always out to save energy, and part of that is that we prefer not to change our minds about anything. It’s much easier to cling to our existing beliefs through whatever means possible and ignore anything that challenges them. Bad arguments enable us to engage in what looks like a debate but doesn’t pose any risk of forcing us to question what we stand for.
It’s never fun to admit we’re wrong about anything or to have to change our minds. But it is essential if we want to get smarter and see the world as it is, not as we want it to be. Any time we engage in debate, we need to be honest about our intentions. What are we trying to achieve? Are we open to changing our minds? Are we listening to our opponent? Only when we’re out to have a balanced discussion with the possibility of changing our minds can a debate be productive,avoiding the use of logical fallacies.
Bad arguments are harmful to everyone involved in a debate. They don’t get us anywhere because we’re not tackling an opponent’s actual viewpoint. This means we have no hope of convincing them. Worse, this sort of underhand tactic is likely to make an opponent feel frustrated and annoyed by the deliberate misrepresentation of their beliefs.
And if you’re a chronic constructor of bad arguments, as many of us are, it leads people to avoid challenging you or starting discussions. Which means you don’t get to learn from them or have your views questioned. In formal situations, using bad arguments makes it look like you don’t really have a strong point in the first place.
Read more about bad arguments and how to avoid them: https://fs.blog/2020/05/bad-arguments/
Three Types of Marketplace Shifts: Changing Without Breaking The Marketplace
“Making decisions about shifts in value, control, or risk is hard. It’s scary. Perhaps the shift will offset the special equilibrium of trust and value that exists in the marketplace...mechanics you may privately confess not to even fully understand.
And it’s emotional. While that’s true for any change or big decision at any company, it’s doubly true when the company is serving multiple customers at once. In a marketplace business, different parts of the company will, by design, see themselves as allied with one of the marketplace parties more than the others. Sales will advocate for the supply side. Marketing may advocate for the demand side. Product teams, depending on their focus area, will have a bias for their segment or constituency. And Finance, Legal and Policy teams will often lean towards more control, more value, and less risk for the business. This type of partisanship shouldn’t be disappointing to you. It’s ultimately a good thing! It's checks and balances. But it can result in some charged debates when marketplace shifts are required.”
Full article: https://www.giladhorev.com/posts/three-types-of-marketplace-shifts-changing-without-breaking-the-marketplace
17 of the most useful razors (rules of thumb that simplify decisions):
1. Bezos' Razors:
• If unsure what action to take, let your 80-year-old self make it.
• If unsure who to work with, pick the person that has the best chances of breaking you out of a 3rd world prison.
2. Skinner's Law:
If procrastinating on an item, you only have 2 options:
(a) Make the pain of not doing it greater than the pain of doing it.
(b) Make the pleasure of doing it greater than the pleasure of not doing it.
3. Luck Razor:
• If stuck with 2 equal options, pick the one that feels like it will produce the most luck later down the line.
4. Bragging Razor:
• If someone brags about their success or happiness, assume it’s half what they claim.
• If someone downplays their success or happiness, assume it’s double what they claim.
5. Hofstadter’s Law:
• It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter’s Law.
Every project costs 2x as much and takes 3x as long - even when you factor this into your projections.
6. Elon's Law:
• If you have a project, combat Hofstader's Law by setting a ridiculously ambitious deadline.
Even if it takes 3x longer than the deadline, you're ahead of everyone else.
Elon Musk missing his super human deadlines is a feature rather than a bug.
7. Naval's Razors:
• If you have 2 choices to make and it's 50/50, take the path that’s more painful in the short term.
• If a task is worth less than your ambitious hourly rate - outsource it, automate it or delete it.
8. Munger's Law:
• Never allow yourself to have an opinion on a subject unless you can state the opposing argument better than the opposition can.
Steelman Arguments > Strawman Arguments
9. Hitchen's Razor:
• What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
10. Newton's Flaming Laser Sword:
• If something can be settled by experiment or observation, then it is not worthy of debate.
UFC 1 >>> Decade long debates on the best martial arts
11. Joe Rogan's Razors:
• If unsure what action to take - ask what the hero in the movie would do.
• If you're intensely passionate about something and nobody around you is interested in it - assume the scale of the internet might help you find them.
12. Taleb's Surgeon:
• If presented with two seemingly equal candidates for a role, pick the one with the least amount of charisma.
The uncharismatic one has got there despite their lack of charisma.
The charismatic one has got there with the aid of their charisma.
13. Discomfort Razor:
• The more uncomfortable the activity, the more likely it will lead to growth.
• The more comfortable the activity, the more likely it will lead to stagnation.
1000 uncomfortable hours > 10,000 comfortable hours
14. Checkhov's Gun:
• When telling a story, if it's non-essential - don't include it.
"If you say in the 1st chapter that there is a rifle hanging on the wall, in the 2nd or 3rd chapter it absolutely must go off. If it's not going to be fired, it shouldn't be hanging there."
15. Occam's Razor:
• Simple assumptions are more likely to be correct than complex assumptions.
Avoid Occam's Duct Tape:
• Someone who approaches a problem with a ridiculously large number of assumptions.
16. Walt Disney's Rule:
• If struggling to think clearly about a subject, draw it out.
17. Schwarzeneggers' Rule:
• Never need to monetize your artistic pursuits. You won't have to sacrifice your inner joy and vision for a payday.
Arnold made millions from property and D2C bodybuilding guides so he never had to say yes to acting gigs he didn't like.
Collected by George Mack (https://twitter.com/george__mack)
Pircture: Walt Disney's drawing he made in 1957 of the Media Empire he wanted to build. It's iconic.