elminster wrote:I've started to subtly test people when I meet them to see if they're just a sheep, weak minded, unopinionated or the contrary of any. You deliver one point of view, see response, then later deliver an opposing view with flawed or reasonable arguments. Either they just agree (Sheep), they agree mentioning they've not thought about it that way (they don't think enough), they disagree with reasons already disproven (stubborn religious-type mindset), reel off only fallacies to prove their point (don't even bother with them), agree/disagree with no interest (meh, just doesn't interest them), and finally agree or disagree with secondary opinion or alternative point of view with reasoning based on knowledge/ideas/etc that hasn't been mentioned yet. The last being the ideal situation.
To make sure I understand what you're saying, here's a simplified version.
elminster "I believe A and that B is incorrect for factual reasons 1, 2 and 3."
Person "That's cool, I'm down with A"
elminster "You know, B is the better way for reasons X, flawed reason Y and completely wrong reason Z"
Because, if that is a correct simplified version, you've ignored one very real possibility - that they've noted the inconsistency in your argument, believe you to have no sense of logic or internal consistency and wisely realize any sort of debate with you is slightly less effective than trying to carve a tunnel through a mountain by spitting at it. In that case, you're going to see a lot of agreement or "I hadn't considered that" type responses on the hopes it'll get you to stop talking, or at least change subjects.
Note: I'm not good at articulating exactly what I mean when I said that or the below without being excessively verbose. I suck at expressing myself concisely or very precisely.
I wouldn't go about logically countering myself unless I'm going to explicitly state/admit it for whatever reason (reevaluating evidence, new information came to light, misunderstanding, etc). That's the worst thing you can do. It's more to do with testing whether they understand the logic involved and the depth of thought put into it.
For example, you can let them state their point of view with reasoning, then later on see if they agree with the contrary or a different point of view with reasoning that would directly oppose the first statement. Although I can't think of a particular example atm (bit busy atm).
Basically it's more to do with trying to under A) their ability to understand the logic involved B) depth of thought into a topic (similarly breadth in terms of points of view considered) C) willingness to change opinion relative to evidence provided (Depending on the evidence, too easy or too hard can be bad) D) ability to understand an opposing point of view, ignoring the fact that they may or may not agree with it.
In general I just dislike when people fully accept my points of view because they might think I know better. Maybe they do, maybe they don't. I'm not going to ask people that and really what I'm describing is a hell of a lot
more subtle than it would appear to what I'm writing. Of course I can't quantify it, I'm not exactly going to being weird about it, and really I'd only change my course of conversation slightly
in a way that would naturally flow anyway. I wouldn't just interject with a counter argument, or a put a point of view that didn't at least have some merits.
So in reality, it makes little difference to the actual conversations and I'm not going to mentally penalize someone for the way they think or who they are. Although I will take it into account when deciding what to converse about in the future.
Although let me just restate it to be clear, I wouldn't contradict my own logic (unless I'm giving a reason to) and it in no way would change what a normal conversation would be like. I'm completely aware that it's pretty obvious when randomly throwing out examples, but regular conversations can highlight things too. Now all this blown out of proportion stuff makes me seem psychopathic.
Tl;dr: I'd rather select more carefully the depth of conversation I go into with people by more accurately gauging them.