I’m happy with intelligent disagreement, as I’ve mentioned before.
The need for intelligent disagreement may be why I’m not very into most Twitter, which seems to encourage the worst in most people, while being too short to be useful as a medium to exchange deep ideas.
It’s sort of like with game advice. I don’t think debating most game advice is very interesting. Hear the advice, go apply it on the streets and in your relationship. Does it work? Keep it. Does it not? Tweak it. Or jettison it. Figure it out for yourself.
I don’t really reply to game haters online, to the extent I see them. Game is about getting what you want out of your life and social relationships. It’s about understanding how women work and think and how to apply that knowledge. For guys who are utterly happy in their life and social relationships, I guess they don’t need game. Guys who are not getting what they want, need game. The ones who need and reject it are most strange to me.
I try to discern what is real and what is fake. Game appears real. So does evolutionary biology (game takes evolutionary biology and applies it to modern social relationships). That is my ideology. Try to understand what is real and true to the best of my abilities.
I know most people who learn of game will never put in the practice to make it work. That’s fine. Most people don’t put the effort into anything. It shows in the quality of their lives.
Try my best to make the world a more joyful place (game does this… women want to be seduced by hot guys).
I don’t like writing about political issues very much because those issues activate partisan identities that shut down learning. Framing an issue as political impairs the reasoning ability of liberals and conservatives. The end result of arguing about political issues is… more argument. By contrast, in fields that have learning and immediate consequences, it’s possible to learn. If a guy learns game, he bangs more hot chicks. He can then tell other guys what worked and what didn’t. If a guy learns data structures and algorithms, he can program a computer to do what he wants it to do. Politics doesn’t have that immediate feedback loop. Not national politics. Maybe some hyper-local politics have that feedback loop.
Moderation is on for this blog, but I approve non-stupid, non-asshole comments. My audience is small enough that I don’t attract haters or trolls.
The best disagreement addresses the substance of the disagreement; the worst is usually name calling, followed by ad-hominem attack, but even the best of us can slip in that direction. Let’s try not to do that.
In business, management is a truly hard problem. It requires listening to criticism, processing it, and being able to use, transform, or discard it. Most people can’t get past their emotional first reactions and into judging the substance of disagreement, taking into account all that is known about the problem area. Few people can do this. Those who can, and who can keep their egos in check during the search for the greater good, often thrive. This is a specialized application of the “disagree, but be smart about it” worldview. Amazon codifies this strategy as “disagree and commit.” Almost every business should adopt this ethos, but few do. How far could we get if we could get our own egos out of the way?