Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- 50 [2024/04/30 11:58] – ultracomfy
+++ 50 [2025/08/17 16:20] (current) – ultracomfy
@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 {{page>Templates:Systems}}
 </WRAP>
+~~Title:50%~~
+<WRAP centeralign>Human Interaction/[[Conflict Resolution]]/\\
+<fs xx-large>50%</fs></WRAP>\\
+In an argument between two people, one of the two will be right((Obviously both people can be wrong, in that scenario the standard is reduced to "50% likely to be less wrong than your 'opponent'".)). This means that disregarding knowledge and expertise, you should statistically come out at a 50% "win rate" for your discussions. Half the time you should be able to convince the other person, half the time you are wrong and should be convinced by the other person. In the real world, these odds are affected by expertise and many other factors such as the generality of your claim ((The more general the claim, the less likely you are to be correct, except in some exceptions)), the temperament of an argument ((The more emotional an argument, the less likely anyone is to be correct)), and more. 50% are not realistically measurable in a one-on-one that only happens once, but becomes measurable quite well indeed when one talks to the same person several times and finds out that they //never// cede a point, //never// admit to be wrong on something, //always// make major, generalized claims.
-<fs xx-large>50%</fs> is a debating rule which states that in any conversation about a topic with differing opinions, disregarding expertise, knowledge and experience, a person is generally about 50% likely to be correct((Obviously both people can be wrong, in that scenario the standard is reduced to "50% likely to be less wrong than your 'opponent'".)). It's just statistics. Keep in mind that, in the real world, these odds are affected by expertise and many other factors, such as the generality of your claim (the more general the claim, the less likely you are to be correct, except in some exceptions), the temperament of an argument (the more emotional an argument, the less likely anyone is to be correct), and more. Keep in mind, 50% will be barely measurable in a one-on-one that only happens once, but becomes measurable quite well indeed when one talks to the same person several times and finds out that they //never// cede a point, //never// admit to be wrong on something, //always// make major, generalized claims.
+<wrap em>Important:</wrap> This metric is best applied to yourself. When is the last time you admitted to being wrong about something? How often, in %percent, do you admit to being wrong on something? I ask because I don't think it will approach 50% for any one of us. 50% is a reference you can use to determine whether a person you're talking to is actually being honest, but it is even more useful to hold oneself accountable. See [[Probably Wrong]].
 {{ :50_.png?nolink |}}
@@ Line 13: / Line 17: @@
 On the other end, it helps you guide your understanding of yourself, recognize where, when and why you may be more wrong about topics than you expect, or primarily realize that you <fs xx-small>probably</fs> **are** wrong in the first place.
-{{ :50_origin_story.png?nolink |}}
+{{ :50_origin_story.png?nolink&1000 |}}
-<WRAP center>50% origin story. In all of our 3 our 4 years of talking to each other I haven't seen this guy ever admitting on being wrong about //anything//, and we debated a lot of things, even before Ukraine happened. On a different note, I don't think it was bioweapons, he wasn't quite //that// gullible (or was he?), but it was some pretty outlandish claims.</WRAP>
+<WRAP centeralign>50% origin story. In all of our 3 or 4 years of talking to each other I haven't seen this guy ever admitting on being wrong about //anything//, and we debated a lot of things, even before Ukraine happened. On a different note, I don't think it was bioweapons, he wasn't quite //that// gullible (or was he?), but it was some pretty outlandish claims.</WRAP>