Gotcha!

Hippyhead

As you've surely observed yourself, the Gotcha Game is one of the driving forces of philosophy forums. Somebody posts something, and users speed scan the post looking for something they can reject.

Contradiction, illogical, no evidence, wrong, Wrong, WRONG!

This phenomena is such a common social phenomena in the philosophy world, and the larger world too, that it seems to merit some closer inspection. What is the Gotcha Game really all about?

First, a process of challenge and counter challenge is obviously a key part of the philosophy process, so the Gotcha Game is hardly off topic. My parents taught me the Gotcha Game when I was a teen. Any idea I brought home from school they would always jump to the opposite side of the case. I found this really annoying, until I realized that they were teaching me how to think. They taught me so well that I find I'm an outsider in any social group as I'm always jumping to the opposite of the agreed upon consensus of that group, which tends to make me, um, extremely popular. :-)

Anyway, the Gotcha Game clearly has legitimate intellectual purposes. But I think it we're honest we'll agree there's also a lot more to it, and that emotional agendas are very often driving the phenomena. If we find that we're speed reading the post in search of something we can Gotcha! then emotional agendas are most likely at play. Now I would never do that myself, except maybe a million billion times, but other than that I'm not in to the speed reading Gotcha Game at all. :-)

So, what are these emotional agendas? No, I don't mean you of course dear reader, you would never do this, I mean that other guy. Why is that other guy craving the Gotcha Game experience?

TheMadFool

↪Hippyhead

I maybe misremembering this bit I think I made a mental note of a comment made by one forum denizen (sorry can't recall his/her handle). S/he said something to the effect that philosophy is essentially a negative enterprise in the sense it's raison d'etre is crticism - by and large it's a ~~fact finding mission~~ fault finding mission, an activity that's designed to be destructive rather than constructive. In this regard it's Popperian in spirit - any philosophy that can't hold its own against those who think otherwise isn't worth the ink or the breath spent in espousing it. Gotcha! :smile:

deletedusercb

There are likely a wide range of answers:
1) positions that one does not like seem weaker if can undermine a specific argument in favor of them - it seems more likely they are false
2) someone thinks people arrive at confidence rather too easily, in general, so it is fun or noble work, to show them, hey, it ain't so easy and you're believing stuff on weaker grounds than you realize.
3) you consider yourself a filter or a test. Perhaps you're not good at coming up with new ideas, but you have a set of skills you like to use as a kind of decomposer. I mean, vultures and fungi and worms play a vital role in ecosystems.
4) the position is threaten and finding holes in specific arguments for that positions reduces anxiety.
5) you're mean and get off on frustrating people
6) you're a negative type person, you like to tear things down and you might not even be good at it.
7) people are always telling you what to think, finally you can make them look foolish, trouble them, get in their way
8) you like to probe worldviews and see what happens
9) you actually agree with them, but think they are making mistakes and their arguments could be better
10) you hope they are right, but present your own nagging doubts, either to find they can reduce your nagging doubts or to at least bring them to your level of concern and frustration.
11) you are generally skeptical about knowledge

I am sure there are many other reasons to what may seem like a Gotcha move but might be something not quite Gotcha or a great example of Gotcha.

Philosophim

They taught me so well that I find I'm an outsider in any social group as I'm always jumping to the opposite of the agreed upon consensus of that group, which tends to make me, um, extremely popular. :-) — Hippyhead

Ha ha! Hippyhead, you always strike me as the archtype of the Jester. Not the fool, but the clever pretender who mocks reality with a wink. We may have had some disagreements in past posts, but I do enjoy your presence here.

But I think it we're honest we'll agree there's also a lot more to it, and that emotional agendas are very often driving the phenomena. If we find that we're speed reading the post in search of something we can Gotcha! then emotional agendas are most likely at play. — Hippyhead

I agree. Motivation behind what we are trying to prove is just as important as the thing we are trying to prove. Or in other words, "Its not what you say, its how you say it". There are two general ways of breaking down how people view their own empowerment. Some feel empowered by their own accomplishments in life. Such people point out criticisms because they want other people to grow and become better. They are not afraid of bringing people up.

Then there are those who gain self empowerment by bringing others down. Instead of pride in their own accomplishments, they take pride that they are not as much of a failure as another person. While one can be confused for the other, often times this intent comes through. Ideally, we would all like to the be the former person, and not the latter.

Hippyhead

S/he said something to the effect that philosophy is essentially a negative enterprise in the sense it's raison d'etre is crticism - by and large it's a fact finding mission fault finding mission, an activity that's designed to be destructive rather than constructive. — TheMadFool

Yes, I agree with this. And I apply the process to itself, and make the contention that any idea can be ripped to shreds in the right hands, thus all ideas are flawed, thus what's the point of philosophy? :-) Seriously, if we apply the methodology to itself, the entire system can be unraveled, the ultimate destructive accomplishment. Many of my posts explore this territory from various angles.

Anyway, we agree this destructive process has intellectual value. However, generally speaking, my sense is that the intellectual value is a thin veneer which typically obscures the more important underlying reasons why we are drawn to this activity.

One method of determining our real motivation might be to examine how much time we invest in understanding the other person's point of view. If we're careful and methodical, we might be focused on an intellectual inquiry. If we ask question to clarify their view, we might be on an intellectual inquiry. If we are speed reading to find the Gotcha Gold asap, probably not.

I agree it's a complicated soup, and am just suggesting we give the emotional motivations a closer look.

Hippyhead

Ha ha! Hippyhead, you always strike me as the archtype of the Jester. Not the fool, but the clever pretender who mocks reality with a wink. We may have had some disagreements in past posts, but I do enjoy your presence here. — Philosophim

Thank you, and the same to you. I do become over enthusiastic quite regularly, but I don't hold a grudge, and every thread is a new day. I like to think of myself as the philosophy forum version of Randle McMurphy, or at least that is the fantasy I enjoy inhabiting. :-) And you know what happened to him in the end, don't you? :-) Uh oh!

Motivation behind what we are trying to prove is just as important as the thing we are trying to prove. — Philosophim

My sense is that most of the time in life the real audience we are addressing in conversations is ourselves. If I brag to you about some accomplishment real or imagined, the person I'm really trying to persuade is probably me.

Hippyhead

I mean, vultures and fungi and worms play a vital role in ecosystems. — Coben

Ha, ha! Yes, we philosophy nerds are reasonably compared to vultures, fungi and worms in the ecosystem of beliefs. We do play a useful role, but it wouldn't be smart to think anybody is going to thank us for it.

Hirnstoff

One method of determining our real motivation might be to examine how much time we invest in understanding the other person's point of view. If we're careful and methodical, we might be focused on an intellectual inquiry. If we ask question to clarify their view, we might be on an intellectual inquiry. If we are speed reading to find the Gotcha Gold asap, probably not. — Hippyhead

I think (as you correctly point out) it's all about motivation. If your immediate response to a new idea is, that you are obviously right and there's no value to that new idea, then it's very easy to point out irrelevant contradictory technicalities or to even willfully misunderstand the proponent. However I think we can consciously make sure that the immediate response is a feeling of identification with the other. We are united in the pursuit of truth and (at least in this forum) the enjoyment of thoughtful discussions. And this thought has the power to focus us more on discussing new ideas with honesty and respect.

TheMadFool

thus all ideas are flawed — Hippyhead

I know that I know nothing — Socrates

Socrates' career began when the oracle at Delphi claimed that he was the wisest man alive. Once word of this got around, Socrates had a reputation to deal with. Everyone wanted to know about the Athenian philosopher. But Socrates was as stumped by the oracle's judgment as everyone else. — Google

If we are speed reading to find the Gotcha Gold asap, probably not. — Hippyhead

:up: One of my many faults :sad: but it's not because I'm purposely seeking for words/sentences/paragraphs that I can call somebody out on and cry out "Gotcha!" Exposing flaws in a position or argument is, well, part of the act of doing philosophy.

Hippyhead

We are united in the pursuit of truth and (at least in this forum) the enjoyment of thoughtful discussions. And this thought has the power to focus us more on discussing new ideas with honesty and respect. — Hirnstoff

Not sure about the truth, but thoughtful discussions, yes, desired.

And we have to strive towards that goal with some honesty and respect, because unless we first attend to the all important ever demanding ego who actually runs the show, it will not permit thoughtful discussion.

Hippyhead

Exposing flaws in a position or argument is, well, part of the act of doing philosophy. — TheMadFool

Agreed. But still curious. A bit suspicious. Even skeptical. Why are we so interested in engaging in an activity built upon exposing flaws articulated by others? Why did we choose this hobby instead of say, playing the piano?

And did we even chose it? It feels like a genetic level installed at the factory system in my brain, reinforced by upbringing. I'd probably be picking things apart inside my own head even if there was no opportunity to share the analysis. But there is such an opportunity, and I grab it, and um, usually wind up getting banned. :-) Something more than intellectual inquiry going on me thinks.

Kenosha Kid

Agreed. But still curious. A bit suspicious. Even skeptical. Why are we so interested in engaging in an activity built upon exposing flaws articulated by others? Why did we choose this hobby instead of say, playing the piano? — Hippyhead

This point of view only makes sense if you believe YOU ARE RIGHT and that anyone who points out an error IS ATTACKING YOU. It's that millennial mentality that says you have the right to go unchallenged in life.

From a more academic standpoint, the whole point of putting forward an argument is to invite criticism so you can defend it. Where you can, win! Where you can't, you amend and strengthen your argument accordingly, win! And where your argument cannot be strengthened, you've been saved a lifetime of being totally wrong, win!

fdrake

From a more academic standpoint, the whole point of putting forward an argument is to invite criticism so you can defend it. Where you can, win! Where you can't, you amend and strengthen your argument accordingly, win! And where your argument cannot be strengthened, you've been saved a lifetime of being totally wrong, win! — Kenosha Kid

At its best, a gotcha takes a weak point in an account and shows it for what it is.

At its worst, a gotcha is actually a sophisticated means of performative stupidity. A way of focussing on the weakest point of a well reasoned and plausible account to avoid having to see it as well reasoned and plausible. Critique as a buffer to prevent needed change.

Confusing the first for the second is a bad error. Unfortunately, we are all prone to it. Believing strongly that all of our opinions are well reasoned, plausible and relevant invites the worst form, I think.

Isaac

↪fdrake

Although at its most mundane, a gotcha is often just an overly self-important pedant pointing out an error or omission in an otherwise perfectly salient proposition. You missed that one...gotcha!

Gnomon

S/he said something to the effect that philosophy is essentially a negative enterprise in the sense it's raison d'etre is crticism - by and large it's a fact finding mission fault finding mission, an activity that's designed to be destructive rather than constructive. — TheMadFool

Unfortunately, that negative definition of Philosophy ignores the positive contributions of Plato & Aristotle, among others. They were not just Critical (strict; demanding) and analytical (reductive; destructive), but also Complementary (completing; harmonizing) and Synthetical (cooperative; combining; holistic; constructive; creative). Philosophical progress results, not from tearing-down arguments, but from putting them back together in a stronger structure.

Creative Positive philosophy seems to be more difficult than Critical Analytical negation, which may explain why progress in constructive Wisdom is so slow & erratic, while progress in analytical Science has been so rapid. "Gotcha" can mean "I found your fault" or "I apprehend your meaning".

Ooooops! Did I just jump to the opposite opinion? :joke:

Socratic Synthesis : The Socratic method is a form of cooperative argumentative dialogue between individuals, based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to draw out ideas and underlying presuppositions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method

dussias

↪Hippyhead

I'm actually driven by curiosity, rather than criticism.

My parents taught me the Gotcha Game when I was a teen. Any idea I brought home from school they would always jump to the opposite side of the case. — Hippyhead

That must've been fun! I'm glad you had that experience and chose to share it with the world.

Srap Tasmaner

A philosopher who is not taking part in discussions is like a boxer who never goes into the ring. — Ludwig Wittgenstein

Great philosophers don't argue — Burton Dreben

Hippyhead

This point of view only makes sense if you believe YOU ARE RIGHT and that anyone who points out an error IS ATTACKING YOU. — Kenosha Kid

Except that it wasn't a point of view, but a question. Gotcha! :-)

Hippyhead

That must've been fun! I'm glad you had that experience and chose to share it with the world. — dussias

It was fun. All during the sixties my Dad and I would retire to the family room after dinner to debate the issues of the day. It was our father/son bonding experience. It's great to have such conversations with someone with whom you share so many genes, as conversations can go effortlessly at the speed of light.

I'm not so sure about the sharing with the world part. Most people don't really want their perspectives inspected and challenged from every angle. As I said, this inheritance I got from my Dad does tend to make me an outsider in any group because my mind always instinctively starts challenging the group consensus, a rather unpopular activity. This is especially true on the Internet where it seems every site is tribal, and the point of the site is for members to reinforce their shared view.

Challenging the tribal group consensus can work socially if you allow the group to win. You can even become a cherished prodigal son if you publicly agree they have persuaded you. But if you persist in the challenge, and worse, if you are good at it, you inevitably have to choose between the intellectual and social. I couldn't possibly begin to remember all the sites I've been banned from.

JerseyFlight

Any idea I brought home from school they would always jump to the opposite side of the case. I found this really annoying, until I realized that they were teaching me how to think. — Hippyhead

Psychological and philosophical maturity consciously strive to bypass this game by making use of 1) intellectual standards and 2) practicing a sense of self that is not merely reactionary.

There is obviously much more to say here, but these are the basic principles. Further, I do not view philosophy as a game, if it's working properly it is desperately trying to get its hands around life. Those who approach it as a game are refuted by life itself. Thought is the only mediator man has to stand between himself and the dumb forces of nature -- including his own impulsivity.

Kenosha Kid

Except that it wasn't a point of view, but a question. Gotcha! :-) — Hippyhead

There's a lot of evidence in the OP that argument doesn't sit so well. That's the point of view I refer to, the one which gave rise to the question and its implicit assumption, not the question itself. So... that's a straw man, right? Gotcha! :D

deletedusercb

Agreed. But still curious. A bit suspicious. Even skeptical. Why are we so interested in engaging in an activity built upon exposing flaws articulated by others? Why did we choose this hobby instead of say, playing the piano? — Hippyhead

This point of view only makes sense if you believe YOU ARE RIGHT and that anyone who points out an error IS ATTACKING YOU. It's that millennial mentality that says you have the right to go unchallenged in life. — Kenosha Kid

That conclusion seems unwarranted along with the psychologizing of, at the very least, people like the person you are quoting. The word 'agreed' by Hippyhead was in response to

Exposing flaws in a position or argument is, well, part of the act of doing philosophy. — TheMadFool

IOW he agreed that is one is doing philosophy, presenting one's ideas, is part of philosophy to face criticism. He then wonders what draws people to engage in an activity that as opposed to others where finding flaws is not such an essential part. The response to this is that he thinks people are attacking him if they critique his ideas and that he has a millenial mentality.

In the OP which you consider backing up your interpretation he says...

First, a process of challenge and counter challenge is obviously a key part of the philosophy process, so the Gotcha Game is hardly off topic. My parents taught me the Gotcha Game when I was a teen. Any idea I brought home from school they would always jump to the opposite side of the case. I found this really annoying, until I realized that they were teaching me how to think. — Hippyhead

Where he says this is a key part of philosophy and in fact seems if anything grateful because it taught him to think!!!!!!!!!

Now it's not binary. Perhaps there is some part of your interpretation that fits, but his OP and responses actually seem curious and interested and not fitting your interpretation of his position (nor of his psychology, which really need not have been brought in at all.

TheMadFool

Unfortunately, that negative definition of Philosophy ignores the positive contributions of Plato & Aristotle, among others. They were not just Critical (strict; demanding) and analytical (reductive; destructive), but also Complementary (completing; harmonizing) and Synthetical (cooperative; combining; holistic; constructive; creative). Philosophical progress results, not from tearing-down arguments, but from putting them back together in a stronger structure.

Creative Positive philosophy seems to be more difficult than Critical Analytical negation, which may explain why progress in constructive Wisdom is so slow & erratic, while progress in analytical Science has been so rapid. "Gotcha" can mean "I found your fault" or "I apprehend your meaning".

Ooooops! Did I just jump to the opposite opinion? :joke:

Socratic Synthesis : The Socratic method is a form of cooperative argumentative dialogue between individuals, based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to draw out ideas and underlying presuppositions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method — Gnomon

Socrates was put to death for a reason. He was, in essence, systematically demolishing all the cherished beliefs of Athenian society. In other words he was being critical rather than charitable and that didn't go down well with the Athenian populace.

Kenosha Kid

That conclusion seems unwarranted along with the psychologizing of, at the very least, people like the person you are quoting. The word 'agreed' by Hippyhead was in response to — Coben

I think the context is sufficient to see that the word 'agreed' was not what I was taking issue with.

There are three possible viewpoints:

1. I think my argument should be criticised
2. I don't care if my argument is criticised.
3. I don't think my argument should be criticised

By all means explain to me how the OP is in any way consistent with (1) or (2) and I will cede the point merrily.

TheMadFool

IOW he agreed that is one is doing philosophy, presenting one's ideas, is part of philosophy to face criticism. He then wonders what draws people to engage in an activity that as opposed to others where finding flaws is not such an essential part. The response to this is that he thinks people are attacking him if they critique his ideas and that he has a millenial mentality. — Coben

:ok:

SophistiCat

I think (as you correctly point out) it's all about motivation. If your immediate response to a new idea is, that you are obviously right and there's no value to that new idea, then it's very easy to point out irrelevant contradictory technicalities or to even willfully misunderstand the proponent. — Hirnstoff

Likewise, if your response to any push-back is that you are obviously right and there's no value to a different view, then it is very easy to come up with ad hominem excuses for why the opponent can be dismissed outright. For example, psychoanalyze them and conclude that the only reason they are contradicting you is that they are "craving the Gotcha Game experience." After that you don't have to listen to anything they say and you can still feel good and smug.

khaled

↪Hippyhead

Gotcha Game is one of the driving forces of philosophy forums. Somebody posts something, and users speed scan the post looking for something they can reject.

Contradiction, illogical, no evidence, wrong, Wrong, WRONG! — Hippyhead

This isn't even a philosophy forum thing this is an internet conversation thing. It's fine to critique but most people that I find here and on other forums "critiquing" are not trying to help reach an answer they are just trying to tear down a given position, either because they don't agree with it or just because it feels good. I think the main reason people do this is the anonymity of the internet. People here talk in such a manner that they completely wouldn't apply to the real world.

For example when they would usually say: "I'm not sure I agree,..." they say "That's just wrong". Instead of simply not replying they take the time to say things like "I am done talking to morons". And most of the time they just choose to talk much more smugly than they would IRL.

This attitude prevades this site very heavily. I constantly see S wannabes.

I think this site needs an "Arguing" section that is dedicated to letting people duke it out with anything short of ad hominem. Would be pretty fun to read later. But then again I think half the fun in being smug is pretending you're not being smug and that the opposition should just grow up so maybe no one will use it.

I think this should be a psychology forum question though. Gotcha!

PS: "Gotcha game" in Japanese refers to trashy pay to win games with a huge reliance on chance and lootboxes

Hippyhead

It's fine to critique but most people that I find here and on other forums "critiquing" are not trying to help reach an answer they are just trying to tear down a given position, either because they don't agree with it or just because it feels good. I think the main reason people do this is the anonymity of the internet. — khaled

Yes, the anonymity of the Net provides a safe opportunity to do something that apparently often feels good: criticize, tear down, dismiss, disrespect and so on. I'm not arguing this is the only motivation for the gotcha game, but emotional motivation does seem quite prominent. The evidence for emotional motivations are the tone of many of the challenges, roughly described as snotty, snarky, dismissive, superior, lecturing etc. What's this all about? Why does this stance have such appeal?

I wouldn't try to put a percentage on how many posts are of this snarky nature, but here's a thought experiment. Imagine that all screen names were removed from the forum, and that an AI system re-wrote all posts in neutral language so that we couldn't identify a poster by their writing style. If the human element (ie. emotional agendas) were removed and the forum contained only ideas, how long would the forum last before it died? Two weeks?

I'm floating a theory that philosophy, like all optional human activity, is primarily an emotional experience and that the intellectual content of philosophy is more of a cover story. We could just come here and yell at each other in a straightforward manner, but this wouldn't be too flattering, so we use the philosophic content as a vehicle for persuading ourselves that our intentions are high minded.

Hippyhead

Socrates was put to death for a reason. He was, in essence, systematically demolishing all the cherished beliefs of Athenian society. — TheMadFool

Right, philosophy provides a valuable function by providing a view from outside the socially acceptable group think, but one should not expect to be rewarded for providing the service.

There may however be a reward which is built in to the social rejection. If one is tossed out of the social world, the real world is the only place left to go. And whaddya know, the real world is far more interesting than the social world! Yup, it's true, all my best friends are armadillos. :-)

TheMadFool

Right, philosophy provides a valuable function by providing a view from outside the socially acceptable group think, but one should not expect to be rewarded for providing the service.

There may however be a reward which is built in to the social rejection. If one is tossed out of the social world, the real world is the only place left to go. And whaddya know, the real world is far more interesting than the social world! Yup, it's true, all my best friends are armadillos. :-) — Hippyhead

I'm afraid there is no real world other than this world no matter how deeply flawed it is. Also, philosophers are people too.

Kenosha Kid

Likewise, if your response to any push-back is that you are obviously right and there's no value to a different view, then it is very easy to come up with ad hominem excuses for why the opponent can be dismissed outright. For example, psychoanalyze them and conclude that the only reason they are contradicting you is that they are "craving the Gotcha Game experience." After that you don't have to listen to anything they say and you can still feel good and smug. — SophistiCat

Contrary to the subject of this thread, and me being disagreeable by nature, I completely agree. Damn.

Gotcha!

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories