Two tickets purchased, with reception. I’ve never seen the east end of Bleecker St. before; it’ll be like finding the source of the Nile. Now I have less than two months to talk someone into going with me.
Calm, measured confidence paired with precise evidence citation and selective admission of uncertainty maximizes credibility.
Key traits ranked by impact:
Steady vocal tone and pace without raising volume or speed under pressure (signals control; studies on persuasion show emotional displays reduce perceived competence by 20-40%).
Open posture, consistent eye contact, minimal fidgeting (nonverbal cues account for ~55% of credibility judgments per Mehrabian-derived research).
Direct engagement with opponent's strongest points before rebutting, using phrases like "That's a valid concern because..." followed by counter-evidence (steel-manning builds trust more than dismissal).
Sparse, deliberate gestures aligned with key claims.
Brief, data-backed responses over lengthy monologues.
Counter-intuitive element: Controlled vulnerability—explicitly stating knowledge gaps on minor points—boosts overall trustworthiness ~25-35% in experiments on source credibility, as it counters defensiveness perceptions.
This outperforms aggressive dominance or overly deferential styles in most formal and informal settings. Effectiveness estimate: 75% across varied debate contexts, based on aggregated persuasion meta-analyses.
While data are important for persausion, stories are also important. We rely too much on quantitative data, while omitimg the qualitative, the experiential, the "in the trenches stuff". Strike the right balance, & you stand a chance of increasing receptiveness, not necessarily changing minds.
Humans seem to experience perception as objective and controlled, unaware of the subconscious systems of influence, including what makes a person appear more credible than another. It would make sense to become aware of and master the exhibition of those mechanics, ideally as an authentic byproduct of more enlightened intentions rather than performative for personal gratification. But I suppose we reap what we sow, to each their own.
Agree! I absolutely adore data lol I'm just wired for facts. It appears, the masses aren't. I don't find MT's style of argument abrasive in the least. Clearly, we are outliers. Think about HOW The Files turned into a moral panic, think of its genesis! Didn't it hatch through emotive story telling, planted in the fertile soil of governance that blames sex offenders for all social ills? I agree, use the tactics of the opposition. Tell stories about the victims that flip the narrative on it's head. Talk about how easy it is for imperilled children, to become 'offenders', complicit in Epstein's evil crimes. Help people understand complexity. Just some suggestions. I had a go at it with my own true story on substack. It's not easy.
It seems it's easy to establish a narrative, especially one that provides something to people more automatonic.... that lets them believe elites are actually morally inferior pedophiles and therefore no longer a trigger of inadequacy in comparison to themselves. It's much more difficult to get them to come down from that narrative once it has become integrated with the ego. For them, it's easier to attempt to discredit, silence, or ignore the few voices that are challenging. In the case of Epstein lore, there's nuance, ambiguity and even people we normally trust with information that are also bought into false elements of the narrative. So it's even more critical that dissenting voices take advantage of credibility signaling and other effective means. It's hard to deliver a compelling story that implies, "That sense of certainty you have, that is confirmed by all those outside sources, that has increased your sense of value, it's actually in error and you now you have to figure out where you went wrong, what else you might have wrong, can you trust your sense making going forward, etc...". Nevermind the implications regarding the future credibility of supposed victims of sexual abuse.
Interesting. I don't think debates are a good way to get at facts, but they can be entertaining. My guess is that you will be abrasive and lose because of that. But good luck!
oh i would love to come but i can't afford it. might it be livestreamed? or recorded? i'm also not confident your opponent or the venue won't cancel by then. i'm sure they'll get a lot of shit for "platforming" and "dignifying" you. hope it happens! :)
Two tickets purchased, with reception. I’ve never seen the east end of Bleecker St. before; it’ll be like finding the source of the Nile. Now I have less than two months to talk someone into going with me.
I’m definitely going to go. Kathryn from Brooklyn.
Calm, measured confidence paired with precise evidence citation and selective admission of uncertainty maximizes credibility.
Key traits ranked by impact:
Steady vocal tone and pace without raising volume or speed under pressure (signals control; studies on persuasion show emotional displays reduce perceived competence by 20-40%).
Open posture, consistent eye contact, minimal fidgeting (nonverbal cues account for ~55% of credibility judgments per Mehrabian-derived research).
Direct engagement with opponent's strongest points before rebutting, using phrases like "That's a valid concern because..." followed by counter-evidence (steel-manning builds trust more than dismissal).
Sparse, deliberate gestures aligned with key claims.
Brief, data-backed responses over lengthy monologues.
Counter-intuitive element: Controlled vulnerability—explicitly stating knowledge gaps on minor points—boosts overall trustworthiness ~25-35% in experiments on source credibility, as it counters defensiveness perceptions.
This outperforms aggressive dominance or overly deferential styles in most formal and informal settings. Effectiveness estimate: 75% across varied debate contexts, based on aggregated persuasion meta-analyses.
While data are important for persausion, stories are also important. We rely too much on quantitative data, while omitimg the qualitative, the experiential, the "in the trenches stuff". Strike the right balance, & you stand a chance of increasing receptiveness, not necessarily changing minds.
Humans seem to experience perception as objective and controlled, unaware of the subconscious systems of influence, including what makes a person appear more credible than another. It would make sense to become aware of and master the exhibition of those mechanics, ideally as an authentic byproduct of more enlightened intentions rather than performative for personal gratification. But I suppose we reap what we sow, to each their own.
Agree! I absolutely adore data lol I'm just wired for facts. It appears, the masses aren't. I don't find MT's style of argument abrasive in the least. Clearly, we are outliers. Think about HOW The Files turned into a moral panic, think of its genesis! Didn't it hatch through emotive story telling, planted in the fertile soil of governance that blames sex offenders for all social ills? I agree, use the tactics of the opposition. Tell stories about the victims that flip the narrative on it's head. Talk about how easy it is for imperilled children, to become 'offenders', complicit in Epstein's evil crimes. Help people understand complexity. Just some suggestions. I had a go at it with my own true story on substack. It's not easy.
It seems it's easy to establish a narrative, especially one that provides something to people more automatonic.... that lets them believe elites are actually morally inferior pedophiles and therefore no longer a trigger of inadequacy in comparison to themselves. It's much more difficult to get them to come down from that narrative once it has become integrated with the ego. For them, it's easier to attempt to discredit, silence, or ignore the few voices that are challenging. In the case of Epstein lore, there's nuance, ambiguity and even people we normally trust with information that are also bought into false elements of the narrative. So it's even more critical that dissenting voices take advantage of credibility signaling and other effective means. It's hard to deliver a compelling story that implies, "That sense of certainty you have, that is confirmed by all those outside sources, that has increased your sense of value, it's actually in error and you now you have to figure out where you went wrong, what else you might have wrong, can you trust your sense making going forward, etc...". Nevermind the implications regarding the future credibility of supposed victims of sexual abuse.
Interesting. I don't think debates are a good way to get at facts, but they can be entertaining. My guess is that you will be abrasive and lose because of that. But good luck!
I can't go but I'll invite a friend closer to NYC that could!
Keep going Michael you're a legend ✨️👍
Tear her limb from limb, Tracey!
Excellent!
oh i would love to come but i can't afford it. might it be livestreamed? or recorded? i'm also not confident your opponent or the venue won't cancel by then. i'm sure they'll get a lot of shit for "platforming" and "dignifying" you. hope it happens! :)
Calendar marked.
I so wish I could go to this! Make a reason up to do an event in Pittsburgh haha
Hell yeah
Best of luck on Bastille Day at The Sheen Center where art and spirituality meet.
Moral bemusement is more like it.