The 10 signs of Intellectual Honesty

[NJmaverick]

I came across these on the internet a few years back. I was so impressed by them that I saved them on my computer, so I don't have the original link. Still I consider them to worthwhile in terms of ideals to post (and think) by.


1. Do not overstate the power of your argument. One’s sense of conviction should be in proportion to the level of clear evidence assessable by most. If someone portrays their opponents as being either stupid or dishonest for disagreeing, intellectual dishonesty is probably in play. Intellectual honesty is most often associated with humility, not arrogance.

2. Show a willingness to publicly acknowledge that reasonable alternative viewpoints exist. The alternative views do not have to be treated as equally valid or powerful, but rarely is it the case that one and only one viewpoint has a complete monopoly on reason and evidence.

3. Be willing to publicly acknowledge and question one’s own assumptions and biases. All of us rely on assumptions when applying our world view to make sense of the data about the world. And all of us bring various biases to the table.

4. Be willing to publicly acknowledge where your argument is weak. Almost all arguments have weak spots, but those who are trying to sell an ideology will have great difficulty with this point and would rather obscure or downplay any weak points.

5. Be willing to publicly acknowledge when you are wrong. Those selling an ideology likewise have great difficulty admitting to being wrong, as this undercuts the rhetoric and image that is being sold. You get small points for admitting to being wrong on trivial matters and big points for admitting to being wrong on substantive points. You lose big points for failing to admit being wrong on something trivial.

6. Demonstrate consistency. A clear sign of intellectual dishonesty is when someone extensively relies on double standards. Typically, an excessively high standard is applied to the perceived opponent(s), while a very low standard is applied to the ideologues’ allies.

7. Address the argument instead of attacking the person making the argument. Ad hominem arguments are a clear sign of intellectual dishonesty. However, often times, the dishonesty is more subtle. For example, someone might make a token effort at debunking an argument and then turn significant attention to the person making the argument, relying on stereotypes, guilt-by-association, and innocent-sounding gotcha questions.

8. When addressing an argument, do not misrepresent it. A common tactic of the intellectually dishonest is to portray their opponent’s argument in straw man terms. In politics, this is called spin. Typically, such tactics eschew quoting the person in context, but instead rely heavily on out-of-context quotes, paraphrasing and impression. When addressing an argument, one should shows signs of having made a serious effort to first understand the argument and then accurately represent it in its strongest form.

9. Show a commitment to critical thinking. ‘Nuff said.

10. Be willing to publicly acknowledge when a point or criticism is good. If someone is unable or unwilling to admit when their opponent raises a good point or makes a good criticism, it demonstrates an unwillingness to participate in the give-and-take that characterizes an honest exchange.

While no one is perfect, and even those who strive for intellectual honesty can have a bad day, simply be on the look out for how many and how often these criteria apply to someone. In the arena of public discourse, it is not intelligence or knowledge that matters most – it is whether you can trust the intelligence or knowledge of another. After all, intelligence and knowledge can sometimes be the best tools of an intellectually dishonest approach.

[Truth2Tell]

1. K&R

[niceypoo]

2. Epic

These will come in handy here

[AwakeAtLast]

3. This should be a Sticky

& R!

[Marr]

4. Point #5 is incredibly rare.

I rarely even see it here. People will usually argue their point into the ground, long after they've been proven incorrect.

I don't think I've ever seen *anyone* apply these points in a television "debate".

[rhett o rick]

46. TV "debates" are far from real debates. They are more like talking point exchanges. nt

[patrice]

5. Thanks!

[gateley]

6. K&R nt

[Motown_Johnny]

7. Great post, now it is saved on my 'puter also... someone should send this to FAUX Noise

[tabatha]

8. #7 is typical of right-wingers.

Saved.

[TCJ70]

10. Typical of many posters here, too...

...take, for instance, the elective abortion threads. Those of us who have no problem with the terminology were instantly labeled as anti-woman, anti-choice and forced-birthers.

[Posteritatis]

14. Nice post, Hitler!

[rhett o rick]

48. In three words I think you broke all of the rules. No soup for you.

[readmoreoften]

23. It's also intellectual dishonest to deny you're assenting to anti-choice rhetoric.

You may not be anti-woman and you may not even be anti-choice, but you are willing to give ground to the anti-choice movement by your "lack of a problem" with their rhetoric--rhetoric which has empowered them and continues to empower them. I won't say you're anti-woman. I'll just say that your position makes me question your commitment to women's health because of your willingness to apologize for rhetoric that interferes with women's ability to seek health services.

You have the right to your feelings about rhetoric, but others have the right to determine that you might be a weak ally. Calling you "anti-woman" or a "forced-birther" is over the top, however.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

42. I must have missed the discussion you refer to, but I'd want to know

what your reasoning is for being comfortable with that terminology.

You neglect to mention here where you are on the continuum. The possible reasons for your stance are so wide ranging, that I wonder why people apparently reacted so forcefully against you.

[TCJ70]

65. It's in this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[hughee99]

53. It's not just abortion either...

If you're against illegal immigration, you hate brown people.
If you're okay with allowing undocumented humans to travel to and work in the US, you support corporations exploitation of cheap labor at near slave wages... and you're anti-union.

Though the most interesting situation occurred last year. Normally, it's just the repukes that are racists and sexists, but during the last primary, half the DUers were being called racists (by Obama supporters), and the other half were being called sexists (by the Clinton supporters). Then suddenly the primary ends and all of the sudden, none of us are racists or sexists anymore.

I'm not saying these debate tactics are universal here, but you can certainly find them.

[Cosmocat]

35. Number 8 is a complete plague on this country ...

it has been the absolute fulcrum for any discussion in the media, which absolutely refuses to challenge when someone poses a false representation of someone else's position ... it has weeded its way into common conversation, and it just absolutely PAINS me ...

[HughMoran]

9. "Intellectual honesty is most often associated with humility, not arrogance." Amen!

I bet there are very few people here who can say that they live by these guidelines and never fall off the wagon.

[NJmaverick]

29. It's not about perfection, it's about the effort

[rhett o rick]

50. I agree with both statements. I for one have a hard time meeting these guidelines.

I think it is easier for someone that is an intellectual to be intellectually honest. I only know just enough to get myself into trouble.

[lapfog_1]

11. Our adherence to these principles

is, sadly, how we lose the public debate with the wingers.

The public doesn't want to see a polite debate society, they WANT to see verbal cage match death fights.

[NJmaverick]

28. It's a fine line to tread. On the one hand you do need to be mindful of the disadvantage posed

on the other hand it's very easy to get caught up in the dishonesty and then lose proper perspective.

[tabatha]

36. strong opinions - another reason for losing the debate

Also, for the most part, I have found liberals to be open to different opinions, hence are able to be somewhat hesitant or able to entertain the possibility that they are wrong. Right-wingers on the other hand, are fixed and cemented in their opinions. For some reason, many people support the latter and dismiss the former. I saw that both in South Africa where many supported the old government for their kragdadigheid, and here where rightwing Americans were using the Chamberlin-was-weak example.

"Among South Africa's Afrikaner politicians, it is axiomatic that kragdadigheid, a show of strength, wins elections. With that strategy in mind, the National Party government of State President P.W. Botha has been preparing for the May 6 whites-only parliamentary elections by pouring on just about as much kragdadigheid as the country can bear. His government last week was threatening to strike at neighboring countries that might be harboring anti-Pretoria guerrillas and was attempting to enforce harsh new regulations against opposition demonstrations at home."
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,964204...

I think Bush took a lesson from Botha.

[catzies]

40. Yes, strong opinions can lose debates, but shouldn't debates be based on FACTS?

Everyone's entitled to their own opinions, but facts are facts.

[tabatha]

41. It is more about philosphy than facts.

Strong opinions on what to do in the future about a problem.
Or acting with strength against an enemy.

[snagglepuss]

12. Great post. Bookmarked. K & R.

[tekisui]

13. Good list.

Would that we all followed it.

[RufusTFirefly]

15. List originates (apparently) from a Web site called "Above Top Secret"

Here:
Above Top Secret

Further disseminated through a Web site called The Design Matrix (as in Intelligent Design) here:
The Design Matrix

[QC]

21. Interesting. n/t

[readmoreoften]

24. That is DEFINITELY an intellectually honest site!

[Starry Messenger]

25. Reasonable people can disagree that evolution is true.

[AlbertCat]

52. Reasonable people can disagree that evolution is true.

Uh.... no they can't. The evidence is overwhelming....plus!

That's like saying "Reasonable people can disagree that gravity is true."


Those who don't think it's true are simply ignoring the evidence.


Unless of course you were being sarcastic....

In which case:

[Starry Messenger]

56. Yes, that was sarcasm.

I was hoping someone would read that though. I was just cracking on the irony of this set of rules in the OP being compiled by a guy who basically champions intelligent design.

[Silver Gaia]

70. From what I could tell, the hard-core IDers don't like this guy.

Mike Gene is his name (or, well, pen-name?). He's actually claiming original authorship of this list on October 20, 2008 on his site (with a link back here to this thread): http://designmatrix.wordpress.com / The Above Top Secret post is dated October 26, 2008: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread405282/pg1

And -- not that I necessarily agree with him, or am defending Mike Gene, but -- according to reviews of his book (I haven't read it, nor even heard of it until today) at Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Design-Matrix-Consilience-Clues/p... , he states upfront in his book (the one shown at his site, and reviewed at Amazon) that he does not believe ID is science, and that it should not be taught in schools, which is probably a good reason why the hard-core IDers don't like him. Evidence of that here: http://www.designinference.com/documents/2002.07.Mike_G... .

Evidently, what he's done is to take some sort of "middle ground" between ID and evolution. He doesn't deny the truth of evolutionary theory, but is trying to find some middle ground where this debate could possibly be resolved. Somehow. Like I said, I haven't read his book, and am only going on the evidence of the reviews and his dissing by the likes of Dembski, but maybe it's unfair to paint him as anti-science, anti-evolution, pro-ID. He seems more like "ID-lite" or something. That's all the research I did on him, though, so if someone else has read his book, or has more info about him, I'm interested.

And besides all that, regardless of whether he or someone at ATS originally authored this list, it does seem to me to be sound and good advice.

[InkAddict]

16. Humm....a continum of life in shades of gray....

Where are the primary colors, the bold contrasts...I'd miss them....

[TCJ70]

17. The bold colors are in the views themselves...

...not in how the discussion is conducted.

[jmondine]

18. Doesn't the wording on Number 9 violate Number 1?

[MellowDem]

20. Number 9 isn't an argument...

as far as I can tell. Just a part of a definition.

[jmondine]

38. Ah, okay. I see.

[yurbud]

19. Most in Washington are paid to have their opinions and none of this enters their minds.

[L0oniX]

22. Kinesic Interview Observations:

General Principles about the Kinesic Detection of Deception Technique

No single behavior, standing alone, proves anything. There must be something to be gained or lost, behaviors must be relatively consistent when stimuli are repeated. Be sure to establish what "normal" behavior is by asking questions with known answers.

Observing and interpreting behavior requires four steps:

*Have the technique explained to you
*Study the technique
*Practice behavioral analysis skills on your friends
*Apply and develop your new skills

The subject will be analyzing you as you analyze them, so do not reveal behavior except what they would notice themselves, otherwise:

* You give them irrelevant things to argue about
* Do not train your opposition

Ponder the "Duck" Principle of the Accused and understand it:
* Is subject's personality consistent with the suspected behavior?
* Does it agree with known facts?
* Is it consistent with an apparent motive; method; opportunity?

Put faith in your thoughtfully disciplined 6th sense, subconscious processing of observed data, try proving subject honest, if you can’t it’s not your fault:
* Verbal signs are usually more productive than non-verbal.
* It is easier to control deceptive verbal signals than the non-verbal.
* ANY speech obstruction, physical or symbolic, indicates deception.
* 90% of deceptive subjects bring some religious behavior to light.

Only the guilty have a reason to be intimidating:
* Liars will deny specifically.
* Truthful subjects deny generally, categorically.
* The guilty use soft words to avoid harsh realities.
* You cannot insult a guilty person.

Fingers reveal deception:
* When subject is speaking, fingers can point to a lie.
* When subject is listening, fingers can indicate displeasure.
* When subject gets angry, then gets cooperative, indicates probable deception.
* When cooperative, but then gets angry, the subject is probably innocent.

Pointer responses highlight important things being said:
* Threatening words, gestures toward interviewer.
* I can feel it in my heart when asked that question.

Ask yourself why does a liar stall? To gain time to decide two things:
* Should they lie or tell the truth? ("Ah..., Err..., Um...,)
* What size lie should they tell...a little one or a whopper?

One of the most reliable signals of deception is hesitation (denial), stalling can come in the form of complete sentences or questions:
* Repeats the same question verbatim.
* Rephrases it to make it apply specifically to themselves.
* Responds with another question.
* Clears throat or gives a slight cough.
* Asks for the question to be repeated.

A deceptive subject may:
* Make too many complaints.
* Questions the entire investigation regarding self.

A guilty person complains to put the interviewer on the defensive. When subjects claim a memory failure or show they have almost too good memory (suggesting rehearsal) rather than straightforward denying the offense, they are almost always being deceptive, memory failure warnings that flag deception include:
* “Do not think so”
* “Cannot recall”
* “Cannot remember”
* “Not that I can think of”
* “Not that I am aware of”

Gulping soft drinks or swallowing hard is a good sign of stress; (and provides for frequent restroom trips to consult with a lawyer). Certain words or phrases used in connection with positive statements, 90% of the time or more, the statements are false; examples of some deceptive flag words and phrases are:
* “Really”
* “To the best of my knowledge”
* “To tell you the truth”
* “To the very best of my recollection”
* “To clarify what I am saying”
* “I do not know anything about it”
* “To answer that completely”

The word NO can be said in many different ways. Some ways which typically indicate deception to questions asked are:
* "No" in connection with crossing arms or legs.
* "No" followed by closing eyes.

Persons who express a lack of faith in the investigator/investigation, or claim they are being persecuted, are usually guilty. Beware of the subject who avoids answering questions by saying:
* “I have already answered that question”
* “Like I told you before, I did not do it”

Beware of the subject who goes directly to the point they apply pressure to abandon your agenda. Does subject want to get right to the heart of the matter? Guilty subjects reason you would expect a guilty person to avoid the issue at hand, as though to say:
* Would I bring this up if I were guilty?
* If you have never listened to me before, listen to me now.

General outward appearance of the truthful person:
* Appears at ease
* Sincere
* Cooperative

General outward appearance of the deceptive person:
* Apprehensive
* Overly friendly
* Aggressive toward interviewer
* Evasive answering

Sitting postures in a chair of the truthful person:
* Relaxed looking
* Arms open and uncrossed
* Head and shoulders aligned

Sitting postures in a chair of the liar:
* Slouches or sits rigid and stiff
* Head slumped
* Faces to the side
* Arms crossed or held in close

Deceptive subjects hold facial expressions/emotions ten seconds or more. When a subject's face becomes:
* White = The height of an autonomic fight or flight response.
* Red = Recovery from a strong emotion.
* Dark = Blood backing up due to autonomic constricted veins.

Touching or rubbing the nose indicates stress and/or deception while denying involvement reveals subject is lying. Arms crossed tightly in front of chest with fists reveal an uncooperative and cocky subject. Arms crossed while leaning toward investigator reveals a decreased chance of cooperation.

Such subjects must be approached without warmth, as straightforward as possible. Niceness by the investigator will be viewed as weakness! Non-emotional extrovert characteristic keys:
* Sociable personality
* Loves excitement
* Compulsive
* Takes chances
* Readily responds to questions
* If interviewer is persistent, personality will deteriorate.
* Tries to put interviewer into "follower" role.

Lip behaviors under stress that reveal deception:
* Biting them and/or squeezing them together
* Continually licking them, but they remain dry

Investigative Interviews and Depositions are not fun, a big smile on your suspect’s face is not realistic and probably reveals deception.

[AlbertCat]

54. ANY speech obstruction, physical or symbolic, indicates deception.

People who have a stutter are always deceptive????

[L0oniX]

78. I guess that would also include having your head stuck up your ass.

[pampango]

26. Bookmarked. Great post. K&R n/t

[Delphinus]

27. Thanks for this -

I think I'll save it too.

[BREMPRO]

30. excellent post- should be required reading to post on DU!

The one thing i've noticed about Republicans is that they are almost always intellectually dishonest. Over and over again they fail the tests of these principles. I hope DUer also see that sometimes they don't follow these principles either. I've seen a lot of that here lately.

[seabeyond]

31. i like this. and it isnt very hard. nt

[Martin Eden]

32. K&R n/t

[BrklynLiberal]

33. K&R and saved for future reference.

[rucky]

34. It all depends on your objective coming into a debate.

If it's to gain and/or share an understanding, then you can have a productive conversation - but that's rarely the objective of people who engage in debate on the internet.

[Uncle Joe]

37. A great post, kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, NJmaverick.

[mmonk]

39. Good things to keep in mind for everyone.

Seems like discourse these days is just shutting the other person down.

[babylonsister]

43. Rec'd. nt

[madinmaryland]

44. Number 4. I remember a certain DU'er who spent an entire day

arguing about a video that as I had noted was not true. Just sayin!

[emulatorloo]

45. rec n/t

[Mithreal]

47. Go back up the mt and get another set of stones

These are good and I'd favor simplification.

[rhett o rick]

49. Yikes, I am glad I wasnt shooting for intellectual honesty. Are there ten signs for

"I'm just making this shit up as I go"?

[many a good man]

51. Should be titled "10 Ways to Make Your Thread Sink Like a Stone"

[rtassi]

55. rec n/t

[d_r]

57. thank you for posting this

[branders seine]

58. except when republicans are involved, because it is a known fact

that all republicans are stupid, wrong, evil and worthless.

To even admit the possibility of anything else would be intellectually dishonest.

[Mithreal]

76. Nothing screams worse than a stuck Republican

[Hatchling]

59. I've read a myriad of threads these past few days.

Quite a few have featured you attempting to browbeat other posters into complying with your 10 signs of Intellectual Honesty.

It would be one thing if you, yourself complied with them as fiercely as you advocate them, but to stall the conversation by insisting the poster is breaking one of your rules is one of the most dishonest tactics I have ever seen.

The posters on this forum have only "7" rules we have to abide by.

If you haven't broken rule #3, you've come very close in the past few days.

And by posting "your" rules in their entirety without attributing them to Mike Gene http://tiny.cc/MikeGene10Signs, you've shown intellectual dishonesty yourself or at least intellectual laziness and broken rule #5.

Here they are OUR rules to refresh your memory:

Discussion Forum Rules

These are the basic rules. For a detailed explanation of how we enforce these rules, please click here.

Last updated November 7, 2005.

1. This is a moderated discussion forum with rules. We have a team of volunteer moderators who delete posts and ban disruptors. Members are strongly urged to familiarize themselves with our rules, and make an effort to become a positive member of our community. Those who do not risk having their posts deleted or their posting privileges revoked.

2. Who We Are: Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office. Democratic Underground is not affiliated with the Democratic Party, and comments posted here are not representative of the Democratic Party or its candidates.

3. Civility: Treat other members with respect. Do not post personal attacks against other members of this discussion forum.

4. Content: Do not post messages that are inflammatory, extreme, divisive, incoherent, or otherwise inappropriate. Do not engage in anti-social, disruptive, or trolling behavior. Do not post broad-brush, bigoted statements. The moderators and administrators work very hard to enforce some minimal standards regarding what content is appropriate. But please remember that this is a large and diverse community that includes a broad range of opinion. People who are easily offended, or who are not accustomed to having their opinions (including deeply personal convictions) challenged may not feel entirely comfortable here. A thick skin is necessary to participate on this or any other discussion forum.

5. Copyrights: Do not copy-and-paste entire articles onto this discussion forum. When referencing copyrighted work, post a short excerpt (not exceeding 4 paragraphs) with a link back to the original.

6. Forum Administration: Respect the moderators and administrators, and respect their decisions. You can help make their job easier by clicking the "Alert" link on any post that might need moderator attention. Please understand that moderating errors and inconsistencies are inevitable on a large website like this. If you have a question about DU policies, or if you have a concern about an action a moderator has taken, please contact an admin privately.

7. More Information: For a detailed explanation of how we enforce these rules, please click here.

[TexasObserver]

60. You have hit the nail on the head.

ANYONE who walks around with rules they favor and tries to enforce them on others is being autocratic.

Every zealot in the world does exactly what this OP does - try to force feed others their beliefs.

These threads started by this poster are intellectually dishonest, and frankly, they reek of newly learned information. No one is quite as impressed with new information as the one who has just gained it.

[Hatchling]

64. Thanks.

It was getting to me, especially the "do as I say not as I do" BS.

[Bluebear]

62. Man, you don't post often, but when you DO!

[Hatchling]

63. Yeah, I'm kinda shy about posting.

I either have to have something really important to say or I have to be ticked off.

Both in this instance

[dgibby]

66. Hammer, meet nail!

Thank you, thank you, thank you!

[Turborama]

74. Your link doesn't work

This one does, though: http://designmatrix.wordpress.com/2009/01/24/10-signs-o... /

[Ignis]

75. You're good. Post more frequently, please.

[Mithreal]

77. What Ignis said, agreed

[d3m0l1sh3r]

61. Awesome, thanks

*Saves

[skepticscott]

67. A very good list

and worth reading by everyone on DU. I would only add as an addendum to #9 that it is not intellectual dishonesty to fail to give equal treatment to two different positions in the name of "balance" when one is clearly favored by the evidence.

[bridgit]

68. I keep looking for 10 signs of 'intellect' period

[mia]

69. K&R

[nikto]

71. What is more important...

Truth?

or

Winning?

Every person must decide for themselves.

[ChazInAz]

72. Excellent

Think I'll tattoo those on my forearms. Keep them handy and me honest.

[The Doctor.]

73. That's my ride;

"One’s sense of conviction should be in proportion to the level of clear evidence assessable by most."

Tell me the Earth don't revolve around the sun, and there's no intellectual dishonesty in callin' you a moron.