Dorkman wrote:You can't possibly have actually heard Dawkins speak if you're making this comment.
It sure is hard being a Scotsman; nobody seems to think it's the truth. 
He's agreeable there, sure, he's agreeable a lot of the time. I've seen an awful lot of Dawkins stuff and read The God Delusion, and initially I liked him. He's quick on his feet and ultimately I agree with him. But I've also seen him be a dismissive, arrogant, unbelievable prick on a recurring basis, and I hold myself to the standard that you're only as good as you are at your worst, so try to elevate that, not dilute it with moments of absolute kindness, however many they are.
In other words, in my mind it's not a question of how you treat people you respect, it's how you treat people you don't.
Both smart and pleasant and respectful are rather lower on my list than the question "Correct or incorrect?" I don't care how smart someone is, if they're wrong about something, that's what matters.
I don't find that to be the case, with me. This is kind of philosophical.
Would you also say "I don't care how nice someone is, if they're wrong about something, that's what matters?" At what point do you draw the line and say "you know, this person has done nothing to me, certainly nothing that requires me to play intellectual offense, and even though I know we disagree on something, I'm not going to correct them."
Royal "you," now. Old lady knits you a sweater and says she used gray yarn when it's clearly red, do you say "thanks," or the more-correct "this is red yarn, you old lady." And if you did correct her, how can you ever be sure you've considered the nature of her mistake enough? How can you be positive that her brain and yours are both receiving and storing the same information, and that your conclusion, formed in a perfect vacuum, is the right one? Maybe she's color blind. Maybe she's blind blind. Maybe she just misspoke, and knows perfectly well that it's red. In any of those cases, what does the correction say about you? (Asterisk, coming back to this question.)
But of course you don't correct her in that situation, it doesn't matter. So there is a line somewhere. I just worry, every time I'm in a situation resembling that, that the old lady is going to think I'm an asshole, as are everyone around me who may understand the situation better, all because I corrected her when I didn't know what was going on in the first place.
All of that royal-you stuff is what goes through my mind whenever someone says something that I think is completely bogus. "Put yourself as fully as you can in their shoes, not just with regards to facts and knowledge, but emotionally, compassionately." I've found most arguments are just mistaken attribution of one's own history and assumptions on the other. If I try to clear that up, I find that they're usually not idiots, or at least complete idiots. They're coming from a different place, I just have to care to find out. A little benefit of the doubt. And then a meaningful conversation ensues, you learn more about how a person could have those opinions, and will understand them better next time.
The alternative is sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy; if you think everyone is a moron, you'll dismiss them, never learn otherwise, and continue thinking everyone is a moron.
Which brings me back to the asterisk. What does the correction of the old lady say about you? Well, I think the primary influence of a correction-happy person is just wanting to make it clear, when someone says something they think is dumb, that they're not with the dumb-sounder. "Just for the record, everybody, I know that this is red yarn. Just saying. I'm not as dumb as old lady here."
What it boils down to, for me, that kind of attitude, is that the person willing to be that way is willing to immediately throw someone else under the bus to increase their standing in the social situation they find themselves in - be liked - and I don't like that, and don't want to be around it.
I prefer the idea of a gentler road to being liked, which is respectfulness and pleasantness, and correct-ness isn't sacrificed. Not rolling over when specifically confronted with information you know (or think) is wrong, just taking a person in context and not out. "All things considered, this person is probably not an idiot, so let's figure out what they're basing that claim on and not the best way to tear it down." Don't make people feel bad just so you feel smart, or make them feel the need to defend themselves. Or be seen as someone who does.
As a true Scotsman, I just don't get enough of that vibe, amid the confrontation-frenzy that are the Dawtchens videos I've seen, to be a fan of them.
Anyway. That's how I feel about the thing.
