LOOKSMAXXING

Join 82,000+ Looksmaxxing Members!

Register a FREE account today to become a member. Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox.

Register Log in
  • DISCLAIMER: DO NOT ATTEMPT TREATMENT WITHOUT LICENCED MEDICAL CONSULTATION AND SUPERVISION

    This is a public discussion forum. The owners, staff, and users of this website ARE NOT engaged in rendering professional services to the individual reader. DO NOT use the content of this website as an alternative to personal examination and advice from licenced healthcare providers. DO NOT begin, delay, or discontinue treatments and/or exercises without licenced medical supervision. Learn more

Arguing is the best way to learn

what if the other person just does this

I completely disagree with the idea that “you either reinforce ideas you already know, or you are wrong and learn something new.” That presents an overly neat, binary version of how knowledge and thinking actually work. First of all, not all reinforcement is a good thing — sometimes people reinforce bad ideas simply because they confirm their biases. Just because you “already know” something doesn’t mean it’s right or even well-founded. Reinforcing beliefs without challenging them critically leads to echo chambers, not understanding.

And the idea that being wrong always leads to learning? That’s idealistic. People are wrong constantly and don't change their views — not because the truth isn’t available, but because learning is often emotional, inconvenient, or requires reworking identity. In fact, people are more likely to double down on wrong beliefs if challenged aggressively, because of cognitive dissonance and the backfire effect. There’s also no guarantee that what you “learn” when you’re wrong is actually accurate — you might just pick up a new wrong idea. So this whole “if wrong → knowledge” formula is dangerously simplistic.

Then there’s your admission that you “start arguments about stuff you have no idea about and research it as you go.” That sounds adventurous, sure, and I respect curiosity — but it’s also a strategy that can backfire badly. Wading into arguments without any foundation means you risk reinforcing shallow takes, misunderstanding core concepts, or spreading misinformation. It’s easy to cherry-pick sources that confirm whatever side you're improvising, especially under pressure. Learning during an argument isn’t guaranteed — sometimes you just get better at sounding right, not being right.

So no, it’s not just “reinforce or learn.” Sometimes you reinforce the wrong thing. Sometimes you’re wrong and stay that way. Sometimes you argue, and instead of learning, you just entrench nonsense. Learning is a skill, not an automatic outcome. Thinking in binaries like this does more harm than good.
 
ebony enjoyer said:
what if the other person just does this

I completely disagree with the idea that “you either reinforce ideas you already know, or you are wrong and learn something new.” That presents an overly neat, binary version of how knowledge and thinking actually work. First of all, not all reinforcement is a good thing — sometimes people reinforce bad ideas simply because they confirm their biases. Just because you “already know” something doesn’t mean it’s right or even well-founded. Reinforcing beliefs without challenging them critically leads to echo chambers, not understanding.

And the idea that being wrong always leads to learning? That’s idealistic. People are wrong constantly and don't change their views — not because the truth isn’t available, but because learning is often emotional, inconvenient, or requires reworking identity. In fact, people are more likely to double down on wrong beliefs if challenged aggressively, because of cognitive dissonance and the backfire effect. There’s also no guarantee that what you “learn” when you’re wrong is actually accurate — you might just pick up a new wrong idea. So this whole “if wrong → knowledge” formula is dangerously simplistic.

Then there’s your admission that you “start arguments about stuff you have no idea about and research it as you go.” That sounds adventurous, sure, and I respect curiosity — but it’s also a strategy that can backfire badly. Wading into arguments without any foundation means you risk reinforcing shallow takes, misunderstanding core concepts, or spreading misinformation. It’s easy to cherry-pick sources that confirm whatever side you're improvising, especially under pressure. Learning during an argument isn’t guaranteed — sometimes you just get better at sounding right, not being right.

So no, it’s not just “reinforce or learn.” Sometimes you reinforce the wrong thing. Sometimes you’re wrong and stay that way. Sometimes you argue, and instead of learning, you just entrench nonsense. Learning is a skill, not an automatic outcome. Thinking in binaries like this does more harm than good.
Click to expand...
Then i say dnr and move on
 
Bonus if you purposely ragebait people to give you advice, like make up some bullshit and make them prove you wrong

free information
 
ey88 said:
Then i say dnr and move on
Click to expand...
Oh... that actually kind of stings. I did read Love, maybe not the way he wanted me to, maybe not perfectly, but I did. I sat with the words. I let them ache. I tried to understand what was behind them — the quiet, the longing, the loss. Just because I didn’t say the right thing or react the way he expected doesn’t mean it meant nothing to me.

It hurts to be told I didn’t read it, like all the emotion I poured into trying to get it just… didn’t count. Maybe I missed something. Maybe I misunderstood. But I was there. I tried. And I cared more than he probably realizes.
 
ebony enjoyer said:
Oh... that actually kind of stings. I did read Love, maybe not the way he wanted me to, maybe not perfectly, but I did. I sat with the words. I let them ache. I tried to understand what was behind them — the quiet, the longing, the loss. Just because I didn’t say the right thing or react the way he expected doesn’t mean it meant nothing to me.

It hurts to be told I didn’t read it, like all the emotion I poured into trying to get it just… didn’t count. Maybe I missed something. Maybe I misunderstood. But I was there. I tried. And I cared more than he probably realizes.
Click to expand...
huntergirl method
 
ey88 said:
just try and argue as much as possible

You either reinforce ideas you already know, or you are wrong, and learn something new

also i just start arguments about stuff i have no idea about and research it as i go
Click to expand...
Very true

Sometimes I do it IRL just to get the truth out of people. Works most times. I avoid saying shit I can’t take back tho, never do that
 
isimostar said:
If someone disagrees with me too heavily and tries to start a "debate" , I just insult them, block them, and continue on the same path. I'm not fucking with any kind of criticism of my thoughts and beliefs.
Click to expand...
we can tell
 
ey88 said:
huntergirl method
Click to expand...
Screenshot 2025-07-11 at 04.20.54.png
 
Mess said:
I miss arguing with psychomandible on politics and philosophy; he set me on Nietzsche and chess.
Good fella, partly the reason I enjoy the two topics now.
Click to expand...
Same bro, he was probably the person i argued most with

especially about diet and race

Great guy
 
Mess said:
"apathy" "well documented phenomenon"

View attachment 130210
Click to expand...
It’s so obvious she thinks dorkeningstar is high iq for using large words, so she tries to copy him

and for reference i’m not even saying he’s not high iq
 
ey88 said:
it’s so obvious she chatgpted it, then added a few of her retarded words to make it more believable
Click to expand...
There are way too many errors in punctuation to be chatgpt. She would have had to manually go through and remove them. That sounds like a lot of work when you could just write the damn thing yourself
 
ey88 said:
It’s so obvious she thinks dorkeningstar is high iq for using large words, so she tries to copy him

and for reference i’m not even saying he’s not high iq
Click to expand...
Darkeningstar is smart, but from time to time, he just uses big words to act pretentious.
 
Mess said:
Darkeningstar is smart, but from time to time, he just uses big words to act pretentious.
Click to expand...
Agree, but he also just has a very good vocabulary

my point wasn’t even about him, it was about people who just think he is smart because he uses big words and sounds smart, rather than based off of what he is actually saying
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (Looksmaxxers: 0, Guests: 2)
Back
Top