Once every few months. Ultimately most of this stuff doesn’t really matter in the end. Would rather hear object-level arguments from high quality sources.
I love this style of content. I’m all for a 50/50 split between this and the other formats (detailed analysis of third-party discussions and direct interviews).
My reasons:
I’ve been trying to convince people of doom-related arguments and was surprised by how hard it is—or nearly impossible. I used to think that disagreements were mostly misunderstandings that could be talked through. Turns out, it’s a lot more complicated than that. It feels like we all—myself included—can get stuck in bubbles of conflicting beliefs. It’s not about people being wrong or stubborn, it’s just hard to notice these things when you’re inside the bubble. When someone "moves the goalposts," they probably don’t even realize it. From their perspective, it feels like they're just clarifying what they meant all along. I get why calling it a "strategy" wouldn’t make sense to them, because it genuinely feels like "the truth." Having real conversations out in the open gives us all a chance to see these patterns and start addressing them. We need to elevate the discourse to a more objective level, but that only happens when more people see how these everyday debates tend to spiral.
If we keep talking about these spontaneous, everyday conversations, maybe someone will eventually change their perspective—or at least rethink things (I hope!). Understanding how people come to those moments of realization could help all of us navigate difficult discussions better.
It also helps me understand how different people think and communicate, especially when it comes to topics like this. I’m often caught off guard by certain moves people make that I didn’t expect. For example, someone once told me, "You’re only addressing what I actually said!" as if that was a bad thing, and I’m still not sure how to interpret it. The conversation ended with, "I’ve made my conclusions, have a nice day," and I’ve been thinking about it ever since. I get that trying to convince one specific person can't be my life goal, but understanding where the conversation went sideways helps me figure out how to handle similar situations better. Talking about this kind of meta stuff could help us all become more aware of how we think and engage, and maybe give us a pause when we start going down unproductive paths. After all, Twitter fights are closer to everyday conversations than podcast debates, which probably fall into a different reference class that people don’t associate with their own day-to-day discussions.
I found this episode entertaining, despite already having read at the time (and in one case at least chimed in) the relevant disagreements on twitter. That being said, I'm skeptical about twitter fights being useful for anything other than getting people to debate Liron (which I believe is his main goal).
I believe I have a sense of what you mean by twitter fights being like conversations, but i've had exchanges on twitter worse than any conversation i've ever had in real life with a person of roughly normal IQ and level of functioning - and this is the norm it seems. Some exchanges on twitter are literally worse and lower-quality than conversations i've had with the schizophrenic homeless on the street at night.
hahaha. Yes, maybe you are right. I'm new to this. I've never **really** tried to convince someone, because nothing seemed to be important enough. This has changed. My experiences on twitter and in real life have been mixed. Real life conversations have the tendency to be more "civilized", but the exchange of information seems to be very low either way. Do you have an idea how to teach people to think in their own conversations?
Once every few months. Ultimately most of this stuff doesn’t really matter in the end. Would rather hear object-level arguments from high quality sources.
I love this style of content. I’m all for a 50/50 split between this and the other formats (detailed analysis of third-party discussions and direct interviews).
My reasons:
I’ve been trying to convince people of doom-related arguments and was surprised by how hard it is—or nearly impossible. I used to think that disagreements were mostly misunderstandings that could be talked through. Turns out, it’s a lot more complicated than that. It feels like we all—myself included—can get stuck in bubbles of conflicting beliefs. It’s not about people being wrong or stubborn, it’s just hard to notice these things when you’re inside the bubble. When someone "moves the goalposts," they probably don’t even realize it. From their perspective, it feels like they're just clarifying what they meant all along. I get why calling it a "strategy" wouldn’t make sense to them, because it genuinely feels like "the truth." Having real conversations out in the open gives us all a chance to see these patterns and start addressing them. We need to elevate the discourse to a more objective level, but that only happens when more people see how these everyday debates tend to spiral.
If we keep talking about these spontaneous, everyday conversations, maybe someone will eventually change their perspective—or at least rethink things (I hope!). Understanding how people come to those moments of realization could help all of us navigate difficult discussions better.
It also helps me understand how different people think and communicate, especially when it comes to topics like this. I’m often caught off guard by certain moves people make that I didn’t expect. For example, someone once told me, "You’re only addressing what I actually said!" as if that was a bad thing, and I’m still not sure how to interpret it. The conversation ended with, "I’ve made my conclusions, have a nice day," and I’ve been thinking about it ever since. I get that trying to convince one specific person can't be my life goal, but understanding where the conversation went sideways helps me figure out how to handle similar situations better. Talking about this kind of meta stuff could help us all become more aware of how we think and engage, and maybe give us a pause when we start going down unproductive paths. After all, Twitter fights are closer to everyday conversations than podcast debates, which probably fall into a different reference class that people don’t associate with their own day-to-day discussions.
I found this episode entertaining, despite already having read at the time (and in one case at least chimed in) the relevant disagreements on twitter. That being said, I'm skeptical about twitter fights being useful for anything other than getting people to debate Liron (which I believe is his main goal).
I believe I have a sense of what you mean by twitter fights being like conversations, but i've had exchanges on twitter worse than any conversation i've ever had in real life with a person of roughly normal IQ and level of functioning - and this is the norm it seems. Some exchanges on twitter are literally worse and lower-quality than conversations i've had with the schizophrenic homeless on the street at night.
hahaha. Yes, maybe you are right. I'm new to this. I've never **really** tried to convince someone, because nothing seemed to be important enough. This has changed. My experiences on twitter and in real life have been mixed. Real life conversations have the tendency to be more "civilized", but the exchange of information seems to be very low either way. Do you have an idea how to teach people to think in their own conversations?