Reading this light-hearted essay about the art of always being right, prompted me to check out the source of its inspiration - The Art of Being Right by Arthur Schopenhauer.
I cannot recall how many times, I have witnessed versions of this trick - Claim Victory Despite Defeat - played with various degrees of success. My response when I have been the receiving end of it has been to make a mental note of what just happened but not give the other side the satisfaction of knowing that I was able to see through it. That involves letting them claim victory and act quietly defeated. Often it triggers even more blatant efforts at claims. Comes a point when it is no longer interesting for the "winner" and it makes them wonder if they are wasting time with me. There is no glory in prevailing over a dimwit who does not even try to put up a fight.
This, which is an impudent trick, is played as follows: When your opponent has answered several of your questions without the answers turning out favourable to the conclusion at which you are aiming, advance the desired conclusion, — although it does not in the least follow, — as though it had been proved, and proclaim it in a tone of triumph. If your opponent is shy or stupid, and you yourself possess a great deal of impudence and a good voice, the trick may easily succeed. It is akin to the fallacy non causae ut causae.
I cannot recall how many times, I have witnessed versions of this trick - Claim Victory Despite Defeat - played with various degrees of success. My response when I have been the receiving end of it has been to make a mental note of what just happened but not give the other side the satisfaction of knowing that I was able to see through it. That involves letting them claim victory and act quietly defeated. Often it triggers even more blatant efforts at claims. Comes a point when it is no longer interesting for the "winner" and it makes them wonder if they are wasting time with me. There is no glory in prevailing over a dimwit who does not even try to put up a fight.
This, which is an impudent trick, is played as follows: When your opponent has answered several of your questions without the answers turning out favourable to the conclusion at which you are aiming, advance the desired conclusion, — although it does not in the least follow, — as though it had been proved, and proclaim it in a tone of triumph. If your opponent is shy or stupid, and you yourself possess a great deal of impudence and a good voice, the trick may easily succeed. It is akin to the fallacy non causae ut causae.
Comments