Intellectual Dishonesty: Denying Reality When It Doesn't Suit Your Narrative

Ever had a time when you were speaking with someone only to be confronted with "Is that all the evidence you got?" | "Why are you cherry picking examples?" |
"I have no idea what you're talking about but here's what I think.................."

Some times people just play dumb to avoid tough conversations.

If you had these experiences, you're not alone. These are some top examples of intellectual dishonesty.

Intellectual dishonesty not only makes conversations difficult, it is also one of the major reasons for the division of ideologies, politics, and beliefs.

If more people are willing to engage in conversations more civility and with intellectual humility, our societies would be more understanding of each other.

Questions to ponder:

• What is intellectual dishonesty to you? Examples?
• Does it seems like anytime you provide an evidence for your opponent, it's mostly rejected for various reasons rather than accepting or at least analyzing it?
• Why are so many people intellectually dishonest?
• Why do some people just never answers the question and trying to convince you that they did?
• Do people come join conversations with an already pre-made up mind?
• Is being able to change one's mind a good metric for intellectual humility?
• How do people use logical fallacies to make their arguments?
• What are the most common logical fallacies you've faced?
• In what contexts are people more likely to be intellectually dishonest?
• Are you really more educated and more knowledgeable than an expert?
• Is the belief that no one is an expert in anything an intellectually dishonest position?
• What are the differences between intellectual humility and intellectual snobbery? (Classic modern example: Covid)
• What does intellectual humility look like?
• Can you think of a time when you or the other person have admitted that they're wrong and did so without lashing out at each other?
• When someone askes you "is that the only evidence you got?" are they looking for more or have they already decided that no amount of evidence will suffice?
• Why do people blame the sources of others to be too politically biased but not their own?
• What is an actual definition of cherry picking and when does it become a deflection by the other person because they don't want to accept?
• When someone resorts logical fallacies, is that a sign they've already lost the argument?
• Do you value being right at all cost or do you value people connections? (Are they mutually exclusive?)
• How can we be more intellectually honest?

Guidelines:

• If your name on Zoom does not match your Zoom name, you will be removed or not admitted.
• Hand raises are required. There are no limits on how many times you can raise your hand.
• There will be a 2-3 minute timer for every person depending the size of attendees. However, in this group, I do allow a brief back and fourth interjection from others if it's something that's related to the person who was just speaking. This is a way to prevent the group from feeling too "robotic" in style and get your pressing question asked to the speaker and get the answer right away without waiting all the way back to your turn again.
• Be authentic & civil!
• Please refrain from using Ad Hominem (personal) attacks. This includes in voice, in meeting chat, and in the comments section below. Instead, please attack the points from others. Severe Ad Hominem such as racist behavior will result in being removed from the meeting.
• Zoom link is posted well before the day of the meeting but you will not be able to join until 10 minutes before the meeting start time.