Maybe You Have to Bully to get your Point Across?

[Someguy]

I'm watching this video of Paul Rubins, who frankly I think is ruder then hell, yet a lot of what he said makes sense. He had to overwhelm and control in order to get his point across.

I find that a lot of what Paul Rubins said actually came to fruition, and actually had some truth in it.......people don't pay attention unless there's fire in the streets....people are bipolar in their perceptions.

However, I find this video taught me more then any of those blow hards on stage did:

Do you find that people are more in tune to emotional blackmail then they are to reason? That people are more in tune with how they feel rather then what should be deductive reasoning?

[Mark]

Someguy,

This is Jerry Rubin (Yippy leader), not Paul Rubins (Pee Wee Herman). But as I've pointed out before, I used to think the University in Baltimore was founded by "John Hopkins"

Thanks for posting this. What a display of anger! I've never seen that clip before. What is ironic here is that Donahue was really rather liberal and was not trying to contain Rubin, just to ask him to be a part of civil discussion, which Rubin either couldn't or wouldn't do. I have to think Rubin's childhood must have been messy.

Modern day talk show hosts all sound like Rubin here. Everyone is angry and no one answers questions asked of them anymore. Sad and scary.

Do you find that people are more in tune to emotional blackmail then they are to reason? That people are more in tune with how they feel rather then what should be deductive reasoning?

I do find that to be true, both from personal experience and from a passing study of neuroanatomy. If you look at how the brain is built, the centers of reason (cortex) are evolutionarialy younger and more peripheral than the centers of emotion (sub-cortex, "limbic" system). Emotional processing is the interrupt of the brain - overriding ongoing logical processing whenever it comes up (just like interrupts function in a computer, if you have any background of that). Like when you get scared, your attention immediately refocuses to the threat. That is an emotion-focused interrupt.

To overgeneralize again, people are interested in feeling that they are "right" (as in "righteous") and they will take emotional offence if you challenge them, even if the actual evidence is on your side. And if you are arguing with someone from a faith-based community, no amount of evidence will be sufficient, becuase such people have been taught to distrust their reason and view your attempts to use reason as demonically motivated.

Here's a quote from a book I've been reading which also serves to make that point:

People automatically rewrite the world to maintain their own rightness. They are driven to do this. it doesn't mean they are happy with how they are or with what they do. It means being right is more important than happiness. Indeed, many people feel being happy is wrong. So, in order to understand someone, the primary thing you need to know is how they keep themselves right.

That's from "Power with People" by Gregory Lester, a psychologist. The ideas in the book are great, although the actual writing is only passable.

[Someguy]

Oh god, if you think that's angry then you gotta watch this:

I just feel I've encountered a lot of that behavior and I'm sick of it.

I'm start'n to wonder if I should fight fire with fire, or just leave and find

people that are 'civilized'.

And what is stranger then hell is that I see a correlation between those 2 videos.

I find a lot of times people seem to repeat themselves.

[Guest ASchwartz]

You ask a really important question: "Should I fight fire with fire or find civilized people." In my opinion, fighting fire with fire only results in frustration because we canno change other people. It is better to find other, like minded people, from whom we can derive support and acceptance.

Allan