Jun 1, 2023·edited Jun 1, 2023Liked by Alex Dobrenko`
1) I have met Mike Sowden in person at a pub in London and he's a complete puppy dog! And by that I mean, he kept making messes on the pub floor that I had to clean up while shouting, "Bad Mike Sowden! THAT IS NOT AMAZING!"
2) do you ever fight or debate people online? has it ever gone well?
Spectacularly well. During the 2016 US election I waged online warfare with my awful high school classmates who were supporting Trump. I'm pretty sure the results of that election speak volumes about my success!
3) do you love your wife? If yes, why are you so afraid to share that with the world?
I love my husband and the very heterocentric nature of this question reveals your true nature. WHY DO YOU HATE RUPAUL!
4) What other deep truths are you afraid to admit online?
I have gone to Starbucks while living in Italy. Everyone should just unsubscribe from our Substack now.
5) Do you have any tips for how Mike and I can improve our relationship?
Yes. If you subscribe to my new Substack Advice For Deranged Heteroflexible Substack Writers, I'll share it with you.
Hahah you have got me all wrong! Anyone can be a wife guy. You don’t even need a partner. Wife guy is an experience a mindset a way of seeing and being with the world
1. Has Mike Sowden also attacked you on the internet and if so do you want to join my class action lawsuit? It’s gonna be more of a class dramedy but same idea.
Mike hasn't attacked me on the internet, but there's still time. Also, I never decline an invitation to join a class action lawsuit. I'm in!
2. do you ever fight or debate people online? has it ever gone well? I try not to do that. It always goes poorly. Actually, that's not totally true. One time, I witnessed two situation normies quarrel, but out of respect for themselves and the game, they backed away to their respective corners, grabbed a snack & hydrated, issued apologies, accepted apologies, then went back to their conversation. I was a proud internet lurker that day. But mostly, online debates are Thunderdome with Tina Turner's kickass soundtrack.
3. do you love your wife? If yes, why are you so afraid to share that with the world? Yes, I love her very much. Am I afraid to share that? Maybe. Also, did you put you up to this, Alex?
4. The answer is: 42.
5. What other deep truths are you afraid to admit online? I think American greatness basically comes down to one thing: free refills on sodas and iced-tea. Try getting a free refill in Cambodia, or Spain, or Korea. Not gonna happen. America is #1 (because of free refills).
6. Do you have any tips for how Mike and I can improve our relationship? We’re in couples therapy now, like literally now I am writing this while in a session and Mike and the “doctor” keep saying, “Alex hurry up your post is too long its not gonna be digestible and punchy” and I give em a MEAN MUG and keep typing. This is a tough one. I think you both should consider touching grass more often. That is the way.
Been to 30-plus countries. It's very rare. If I see free refills outside the U.S. it's almost always a developed nation and I'm probably eating in an American chain. Developing nations typically don't have fountain drinks. You buy the can, or more likely, the bottle, so a free refill ain't gonna happen.
I once had to ask for "mes gel, sis plau" (more ice, please) FIVE TIMES in a little cafe in the mountains of Catalonia near Andorra to get enough tiny, European sized ice cubes to be able to make a decent cup of ice coffee. Later in the meal, my late mother-in-law got a "crema catalana" (similar to a Flan) with an interesting specimen of cockroach in it.
Some people are blissfully unaware of the perils of being a dedicated multiculturalist and advocate of postmodern pluralism.
Loving your wife is for CUCKS who have been CUCKED by the WOKE LIBTARD ESTABLISHMENT. I will go home and crank the barrel of my AR-15 to my ANIME JAPANESE GODDESS because SHE would NEVER use PRONOUNS and admit to having WEAK SOYLENT EMOTIONS for me.
you have done it again, and by "it" i mean "fun." you have done fun again.
now, to answer your questions like i love doing:
"Has Mike Sowden also attacked you on the internet and if so do you want to join my class action lawsuit? It’s gonna be more of a class dramedy but same idea."
alex, this question seems more like a joke than a sincere inquiry, so my answer to you is laughter.
"do you ever fight or debate people online? has it ever gone well?"
i used to do it A LOT. i now consider myself a recovering argumentaholic. it very rarely went well. though there are a FEW instances i remember where i responded kindly and respectfully to someone who initially came in real hot from the other direction and by the end of it we had reached a communion of understanding of sorts. so, it IS possible! now, if someone says something oppositional to a public post of mine, i'll respond thoughtfully ONCE, and if they respond in good faith, then we can have a conversation! and if they don't, i'll stop. this has saved me a lot of time and aggravation. HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT THAT?
"do you love your wife? If yes, why are you so afraid to share that with the world?"
i do and i'm not. in fact, the only reason i would hesitate to share it loudly and widely all the time is because i wouldn't want to make anyone else feel inadequate to have not found the caliber of love that i feel for my girlfriend of 7 years who is my wife functionally (the most romantic way)!
"What other deep truths are you afraid to admit online?"
my greatest weakness is my desire for perfection, mr job interviewer.
"Do you have any tips for how Mike and I can improve our relationship? We’re in couples therapy now, like literally now I am writing this while in a session and Mike and the “doctor” keep saying, “Alex hurry up your post is too long its not gonna be digestible and punchy” and I give em a MEAN MUG and keep typing"
alex, this one ALSO seems more like a joke than a sincere inquiry so once again the answer is LAUGHTER HAHAHA.
it's a podcast where i talk about a back and forth i had with a guy who had very strong opinions about a joke i made that went something like "for people who like deep dish pizza, do they know about lasagna?"
you know that the USA can no longer progress toward the pinnacle of civilization (paying the price for the free market) when everyone is afraid to make lasagna pizza. with yak butter and lard from chestnut-fed wild pork.
Jun 1, 2023·edited Jun 1, 2023Liked by Alex Dobrenko`
Mike Snowden’s THIS TIME is a cliffhanger. I’m sure I speak for everyone—well, maybe not Morgthorak the Undead — when I say we want a round 2.
Do you ever fight or debate people online? Has it ever gone well?
Just the other day I commented on “Let’s Talk About That High School Debate” on The Free Press. They made the case that “leftist ideologies” and communists are destroying debate in the USA and the problem with debate restrictions.
I agreed we shouldn’t have debate restrictions, but when I pointed out the examples when right wing people suppressed free speech, attacked journalists, burned books, and sent firing squads on protestors, shit went south.
It seemed many people reading The Free Press article stand for free speech and debate until it comes to events and research they don’t wanna hear.
It was the first time Substack felt like Twitter. The angrier and more hateful the comments, the more likes. Comments that sought common ground were often overlooked.
Which has me thinking, is it algorithms that push emotive and polarising posts, or is that just what most people are drawn to?
Jun 1, 2023·edited Jun 1, 2023Liked by Alex Dobrenko`
I AM HERE FOR ROUND 2.
More seriously (not that I'm not being serious at taking Alex down once and for all):
This is something I'm really interested in! So I've been doing a lot of reading around it, and a few things have really leapt out. Firstly: negativity bias is a scientifically recognised thing with a convincing body of evidence behind it. It does seem we're all designed to react to the bad stuff a bit more intensely - and it stands to reason that the development of news services (which 100% rely on getting attention) will have fallen prey to the temptation to push the negative stuff a little higher in the rankings for traffic purposes, AND the people at work in the news have a negativity bias like the rest of us. Result: a measurable skew towards the crappy things happening in the world (including furious arguments and violent dissent of all kinds) as being deemed more "important".
(Just think if the news was genuinely proportional: "Today 96.3% of people had a somewhat okay day and got along just fine with everyone they met.")
And secondly: the problem with debates is that they're all about winning. The "victory conditions" of a debate are "I destroy your argument and show you mine is the right one". That just kills curiosity dead. That means that going into a debate, you're probably going to not learn anything...
But what if a debate's victory condition was defined as "I learned something new about this thing I thought I knew everything about"? What happens then? Well - it means you're happy to "lose" the argument. Because it's all about opening your mind to what you didn't know until the other person introduced you to it.
If both sides genuinely debated with that in mind, then it turns from the old crappy "I'm going to destroy you" model of adversarial argumentation that goes back to Roman senators trying to stab each other in the chest with words and sophistry, and it takes things in a new direction - in a more science-like direction, in fact! It says "Here's my working hypothesis, please help me learn what's wrong with it".
For this reason, I've concluded one thing: if you want to live a more curious life (and active curiosity seems to make you happy, hopeful and less depressed) - then you have to learn to hold your opinions lightly. Not, you know, believing any old rubbish, but being open to explore the possibility that you're wrong, if the person suggesting it is doing so in good faith (and not trying to troll you, sealion you, etc.)
This is a very long and boring answer. Sorry. I should probably stay up my mountain.
Thanks for the thoughtful response, Mike. I agree that negativity bias has a lot to do with it. I also think that a debate should be about learning from the other person, but I’m not sure I’m against the attempt to “win” a debate.
Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, etc., views on rhetoric (however different in some aspects) influenced the analytic western view of rhetoric and debate where if A = A, then A cannot = B. There is also a much greater focus on speaking than listening.
However, Chinese rhetoricians like Guiguzi focused on keeping silent and listening to your “opponent” to win a debate. And they understood debate and rhetoric from a more holistic approach. In many eastern cultures, it’s possible to have two contradictory truths (naïve dialecticism). This holistic thinking still influences people today.
For example, in a Peng & Nisbett study from 1999, half the participants received only one argument either Argument A or Argument B) and were asked to indicate how compelling they found it to be. Both Americans and Chinese who received only Argument A tended to view it as more compelling than those who received only Argument B. Because these participants saw only one argument, they did not witness any potential contradiction, The other half of the participants were asked to evaluate both of the contradictory arguments. These participants saw a potential contradiction. How did seeing the contradiction affect their evaluations of the arguments?
When Americans encounter two contradictory arguments, they come to view the better argument as even more compelling than when they encounter this same argument by itself. In contrast, when the Chinese encounter two contradictory arguments, they come to view the weaker argument as more compelling than when it is presented by itself.
I think this might also explain, in part, the culture wars and divisiveness in America together with the negativity bias.
Either way, trying to win a debate might be beneficial in some settings because some people are drawn to competition, and it’s a way to exercise critical thinking skills, but when it comes to understanding each other to create a more unified world, a better aim is to understand and learn from the other person. And a more holistic approach to discussion might be a step in that direction.
Polynesian cannibals were reported to have eaten the livers of their defeated enemies, when was the last time you had a nutritious, culturally authentic ritual meal like that?
Blocked? Hell no! I'm relatively new here, but I always learn something from you and Everything is Amazing. I've checked out Adam Grant. I'll take a look at Ian's work as well. Thank you.
Bari Weiss is a Zionist, so her comments section is full of "right wing" AIPAC trollz and b0tz.
To complete the simulation of a real, authentic human online debate, there are usually one or two completely absurd leftist b0tz that are allowed to post comments there about how Tawana Brawley is the second coming of Jesus.
2. If my cats count as people online, then yes I do
3. I am married to a Man but I still consider myself a Wife Guy (TM)
959493.
5.
I too consider myself a Wife Guy
Me three.
ANYONE CAN BE A WIFE GUY
JUST LOOK AT SUCCESSION
Dayum bringing in the BALTICS
Semaphore message from top of Scottish mountain:
"I WAS NEARLY SOMEONE STOP THEN ALEX HAPPENED STOP PLEASE PLEASE LET IT STOP"
More like a Semafart
Got him
You can ridicule me all you like but LEAVE THE FLAGS ALONE
NOT THE FLAGS.
It’s too late for that, Mike. 😂
Narrator: "He was never going to be someone, but with a little love perhaps he could be one to some."
1) I have met Mike Sowden in person at a pub in London and he's a complete puppy dog! And by that I mean, he kept making messes on the pub floor that I had to clean up while shouting, "Bad Mike Sowden! THAT IS NOT AMAZING!"
2) do you ever fight or debate people online? has it ever gone well?
Spectacularly well. During the 2016 US election I waged online warfare with my awful high school classmates who were supporting Trump. I'm pretty sure the results of that election speak volumes about my success!
3) do you love your wife? If yes, why are you so afraid to share that with the world?
I love my husband and the very heterocentric nature of this question reveals your true nature. WHY DO YOU HATE RUPAUL!
4) What other deep truths are you afraid to admit online?
I have gone to Starbucks while living in Italy. Everyone should just unsubscribe from our Substack now.
5) Do you have any tips for how Mike and I can improve our relationship?
Yes. If you subscribe to my new Substack Advice For Deranged Heteroflexible Substack Writers, I'll share it with you.
Hahah you have got me all wrong! Anyone can be a wife guy. You don’t even need a partner. Wife guy is an experience a mindset a way of seeing and being with the world
1.Mike doesn’t know I exist. He’s too busy juggling families and cooling his tea.
Everyone loves your wife. I have a secret family with her. We have two golden retrievers.
I love my hubby. Today is his birthday. I have plans for him.
Mike has been nothing but nice over texts, and once on a video call he was effusive in his praise. This makes me deeply suspicious.
The man has fooled millions. Plz if you don’t mind save the rest for when I make a tell all Netflix doc about him
I'll check with Oprah when she's free.
1. Has Mike Sowden also attacked you on the internet and if so do you want to join my class action lawsuit? It’s gonna be more of a class dramedy but same idea.
Mike hasn't attacked me on the internet, but there's still time. Also, I never decline an invitation to join a class action lawsuit. I'm in!
2. do you ever fight or debate people online? has it ever gone well? I try not to do that. It always goes poorly. Actually, that's not totally true. One time, I witnessed two situation normies quarrel, but out of respect for themselves and the game, they backed away to their respective corners, grabbed a snack & hydrated, issued apologies, accepted apologies, then went back to their conversation. I was a proud internet lurker that day. But mostly, online debates are Thunderdome with Tina Turner's kickass soundtrack.
3. do you love your wife? If yes, why are you so afraid to share that with the world? Yes, I love her very much. Am I afraid to share that? Maybe. Also, did you put you up to this, Alex?
4. The answer is: 42.
5. What other deep truths are you afraid to admit online? I think American greatness basically comes down to one thing: free refills on sodas and iced-tea. Try getting a free refill in Cambodia, or Spain, or Korea. Not gonna happen. America is #1 (because of free refills).
6. Do you have any tips for how Mike and I can improve our relationship? We’re in couples therapy now, like literally now I am writing this while in a session and Mike and the “doctor” keep saying, “Alex hurry up your post is too long its not gonna be digestible and punchy” and I give em a MEAN MUG and keep typing. This is a tough one. I think you both should consider touching grass more often. That is the way.
Hahaha wait. Is free refills really just a USA thing??
Been to 30-plus countries. It's very rare. If I see free refills outside the U.S. it's almost always a developed nation and I'm probably eating in an American chain. Developing nations typically don't have fountain drinks. You buy the can, or more likely, the bottle, so a free refill ain't gonna happen.
I once had to ask for "mes gel, sis plau" (more ice, please) FIVE TIMES in a little cafe in the mountains of Catalonia near Andorra to get enough tiny, European sized ice cubes to be able to make a decent cup of ice coffee. Later in the meal, my late mother-in-law got a "crema catalana" (similar to a Flan) with an interesting specimen of cockroach in it.
Some people are blissfully unaware of the perils of being a dedicated multiculturalist and advocate of postmodern pluralism.
Thunderdome without Tina would have been a clunking mess.....hmmm come to think of it the world too.......shit! #MadMaxRulesForever
Best internet debate ever
So worthy a word battle is rarely seen--and can we just scream booorjwazee in the sound of the poor children for the rest of our lives? Dying.
Not only can we. We must.
Loving your wife is for CUCKS who have been CUCKED by the WOKE LIBTARD ESTABLISHMENT. I will go home and crank the barrel of my AR-15 to my ANIME JAPANESE GODDESS because SHE would NEVER use PRONOUNS and admit to having WEAK SOYLENT EMOTIONS for me.
THIS
So which of you is the bot? Confused.
Anne.
Anne.
The painting is really interesting
No one else even saw it. You win
😊
This was too funny!
I spit out my coffee at the line —“ Like any dumpling worth their salt, I was steamed.”
Hilarious
Hahahahahjaha
dear alex,
you have done it again, and by "it" i mean "fun." you have done fun again.
now, to answer your questions like i love doing:
"Has Mike Sowden also attacked you on the internet and if so do you want to join my class action lawsuit? It’s gonna be more of a class dramedy but same idea."
alex, this question seems more like a joke than a sincere inquiry, so my answer to you is laughter.
"do you ever fight or debate people online? has it ever gone well?"
i used to do it A LOT. i now consider myself a recovering argumentaholic. it very rarely went well. though there are a FEW instances i remember where i responded kindly and respectfully to someone who initially came in real hot from the other direction and by the end of it we had reached a communion of understanding of sorts. so, it IS possible! now, if someone says something oppositional to a public post of mine, i'll respond thoughtfully ONCE, and if they respond in good faith, then we can have a conversation! and if they don't, i'll stop. this has saved me a lot of time and aggravation. HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT THAT?
"do you love your wife? If yes, why are you so afraid to share that with the world?"
i do and i'm not. in fact, the only reason i would hesitate to share it loudly and widely all the time is because i wouldn't want to make anyone else feel inadequate to have not found the caliber of love that i feel for my girlfriend of 7 years who is my wife functionally (the most romantic way)!
"What other deep truths are you afraid to admit online?"
my greatest weakness is my desire for perfection, mr job interviewer.
"Do you have any tips for how Mike and I can improve our relationship? We’re in couples therapy now, like literally now I am writing this while in a session and Mike and the “doctor” keep saying, “Alex hurry up your post is too long its not gonna be digestible and punchy” and I give em a MEAN MUG and keep typing"
alex, this one ALSO seems more like a joke than a sincere inquiry so once again the answer is LAUGHTER HAHAHA.
thank you and love you,
myq
Wait I truly cannot imagine you fighting people online what did that look like
great question!
i'll see what i can uncover from the arg-chives (the argument archives)!
for now, maybe this will do: https://faucet.libsyn.com/44-the-deep-dish-zaga
it's a podcast where i talk about a back and forth i had with a guy who had very strong opinions about a joke i made that went something like "for people who like deep dish pizza, do they know about lasagna?"
love you!
you know that the USA can no longer progress toward the pinnacle of civilization (paying the price for the free market) when everyone is afraid to make lasagna pizza. with yak butter and lard from chestnut-fed wild pork.
Mike Snowden’s THIS TIME is a cliffhanger. I’m sure I speak for everyone—well, maybe not Morgthorak the Undead — when I say we want a round 2.
Do you ever fight or debate people online? Has it ever gone well?
Just the other day I commented on “Let’s Talk About That High School Debate” on The Free Press. They made the case that “leftist ideologies” and communists are destroying debate in the USA and the problem with debate restrictions.
I agreed we shouldn’t have debate restrictions, but when I pointed out the examples when right wing people suppressed free speech, attacked journalists, burned books, and sent firing squads on protestors, shit went south.
It seemed many people reading The Free Press article stand for free speech and debate until it comes to events and research they don’t wanna hear.
It was the first time Substack felt like Twitter. The angrier and more hateful the comments, the more likes. Comments that sought common ground were often overlooked.
Which has me thinking, is it algorithms that push emotive and polarising posts, or is that just what most people are drawn to?
I AM HERE FOR ROUND 2.
More seriously (not that I'm not being serious at taking Alex down once and for all):
This is something I'm really interested in! So I've been doing a lot of reading around it, and a few things have really leapt out. Firstly: negativity bias is a scientifically recognised thing with a convincing body of evidence behind it. It does seem we're all designed to react to the bad stuff a bit more intensely - and it stands to reason that the development of news services (which 100% rely on getting attention) will have fallen prey to the temptation to push the negative stuff a little higher in the rankings for traffic purposes, AND the people at work in the news have a negativity bias like the rest of us. Result: a measurable skew towards the crappy things happening in the world (including furious arguments and violent dissent of all kinds) as being deemed more "important".
(Just think if the news was genuinely proportional: "Today 96.3% of people had a somewhat okay day and got along just fine with everyone they met.")
And secondly: the problem with debates is that they're all about winning. The "victory conditions" of a debate are "I destroy your argument and show you mine is the right one". That just kills curiosity dead. That means that going into a debate, you're probably going to not learn anything...
But what if a debate's victory condition was defined as "I learned something new about this thing I thought I knew everything about"? What happens then? Well - it means you're happy to "lose" the argument. Because it's all about opening your mind to what you didn't know until the other person introduced you to it.
If both sides genuinely debated with that in mind, then it turns from the old crappy "I'm going to destroy you" model of adversarial argumentation that goes back to Roman senators trying to stab each other in the chest with words and sophistry, and it takes things in a new direction - in a more science-like direction, in fact! It says "Here's my working hypothesis, please help me learn what's wrong with it".
For this reason, I've concluded one thing: if you want to live a more curious life (and active curiosity seems to make you happy, hopeful and less depressed) - then you have to learn to hold your opinions lightly. Not, you know, believing any old rubbish, but being open to explore the possibility that you're wrong, if the person suggesting it is doing so in good faith (and not trying to troll you, sealion you, etc.)
This is a very long and boring answer. Sorry. I should probably stay up my mountain.
Sounds like a bunch of sour milk to me.
Na I agree. Strong opinions lightly held
Thanks for the thoughtful response, Mike. I agree that negativity bias has a lot to do with it. I also think that a debate should be about learning from the other person, but I’m not sure I’m against the attempt to “win” a debate.
Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, etc., views on rhetoric (however different in some aspects) influenced the analytic western view of rhetoric and debate where if A = A, then A cannot = B. There is also a much greater focus on speaking than listening.
However, Chinese rhetoricians like Guiguzi focused on keeping silent and listening to your “opponent” to win a debate. And they understood debate and rhetoric from a more holistic approach. In many eastern cultures, it’s possible to have two contradictory truths (naïve dialecticism). This holistic thinking still influences people today.
For example, in a Peng & Nisbett study from 1999, half the participants received only one argument either Argument A or Argument B) and were asked to indicate how compelling they found it to be. Both Americans and Chinese who received only Argument A tended to view it as more compelling than those who received only Argument B. Because these participants saw only one argument, they did not witness any potential contradiction, The other half of the participants were asked to evaluate both of the contradictory arguments. These participants saw a potential contradiction. How did seeing the contradiction affect their evaluations of the arguments?
When Americans encounter two contradictory arguments, they come to view the better argument as even more compelling than when they encounter this same argument by itself. In contrast, when the Chinese encounter two contradictory arguments, they come to view the weaker argument as more compelling than when it is presented by itself.
I think this might also explain, in part, the culture wars and divisiveness in America together with the negativity bias.
Either way, trying to win a debate might be beneficial in some settings because some people are drawn to competition, and it’s a way to exercise critical thinking skills, but when it comes to understanding each other to create a more unified world, a better aim is to understand and learn from the other person. And a more holistic approach to discussion might be a step in that direction.
This is superbly said, Nolan - and a case in point! There was me jabbering away and in fact, I think you know more than I do on this topic...
Thank you, Mike. I'm not sure if I know more, but these are topics I love researching and thinking about. I'm always happy to explore and discuss.
Wait I’m confused who WON this DEBATE and OBLITERATED the other persons family
Polynesian cannibals were reported to have eaten the livers of their defeated enemies, when was the last time you had a nutritious, culturally authentic ritual meal like that?
In case you haven't blocked me yet, a couple of books I've found super-helpful in starting to think about this stuff: "Think Again" by Adam Grant (who is on Substack! https://adamgrant.substack.com/) and "Conflicted" by Ian Leslie - https://ian-leslie.com/conflicted/ - and he's on Substack too! https://ianleslie.substack.com/
Blocked? Hell no! I'm relatively new here, but I always learn something from you and Everything is Amazing. I've checked out Adam Grant. I'll take a look at Ian's work as well. Thank you.
Adam grant like the economics ancient dead guy??
Got him
am i sensing a reprisal of the Lincoln/Douglas debates coming to a mall near me?!#!??
spoiler: the nearest mall up here in east bum f...k will require for my attendance some pole dancing as well
Bari Weiss is a Zionist, so her comments section is full of "right wing" AIPAC trollz and b0tz.
To complete the simulation of a real, authentic human online debate, there are usually one or two completely absurd leftist b0tz that are allowed to post comments there about how Tawana Brawley is the second coming of Jesus.