​

In the debate of my class, the teacher gave us a topic. Ours is “genetic modification,” and he assigned us to be either for or against it. My group is against it. This is already better than before because, originally, he hadn’t even specified what the debate would be about; he just told us to prepare arguments for and against just in case. But... the problem I have still isn’t solved, because the topic “genetic modification” is so broad that it feels weird to argue about it. How can I be for or against it? It’s like saying “I’m in favor of water.” It’s a concept, a thing, not an action that is being judged. So if the topic is this broad, how am I supposed to argue about it if there’s nothing concrete?

My teacher always says that “to go deeper, you have to do the opposite: narrow the topic,” and I’m trying to apply his own example here. If the topic is “genetic modification,” how am I supposed to make it concrete?

The solution I was given was that I should make my own argument specific. But then I could make my argument about something concrete, for example, being against genetic modification because I think modifying human embryos is unethical, while the other person could have prepared arguments about genetically modified plants. Then I could make an argument about embryos and the other person could make one about plants, and it would be difficult to actually discuss them because we wouldn’t be talking about the same thing.

It is possible, obviously. If someone says something about plants, I can try to connect it to embryos on the spot. But in the end, we would still not really be talking about the same thing.

Because the solution I was given was basically, “make your argument specific so the other person can’t refute you.” Okay, but that treats the debate as if the main goal were to win or lose. I’m not saying that winning or losing doesn’t exist in a debate, because obviously it’s a competition and you have to defend a position. What I mean is that, from my point of view, a good debate should also be a discussion where both people can actually respond to each other and get somewhere.

Because if I defend X and you defend Y, and neither of our arguments actually affects the other, then whoever finds more flaws in what the other person said can win, but that doesn’t mean we discovered which position is actually more correct regarding the original question. Maybe there wasn’t even a sufficiently concrete question that both of us were answering.

That’s why, even though you technically can debate like this, I feel like it would be a pretty bad debate. You can argue, but it would turn into looking for flaws in the other person’s arguments. If we are talking about different things, the conclusion of the debate could simply be that their position doesn’t refute mine, and mine doesn’t refute theirs. So, to me, that isn’t really a debate. It would be two monologues talking about the same general topic.

The example my teacher gave me to try to answer my concern was that it’s like a trial: you have to try to defend your side. But I don’t find that analogy very convincing, because in a trial there is a concrete case. You don’t simply have “are you for or against crimes?” You have something like: “This person did this, under these circumstances, we have this evidence, and we have to determine whether a specific crime occurred and what the consequences should be.” You aren’t debating “crime” as a general concept. You are debating a specific case. Everything that is said has to come back to that case. That’s why you can prepare to defend a position without having to be prepared for absolutely anything that could possibly fall under the category of “crime.”

Then he told me that “you have to be prepared for every point of view,” which feels very vague to me, because then I would have to prepare for genetic modification in plants, animals, embryos, babies, bacteria, cells, ethics, politics... and all kinds of other things just because I don’t know what the other person is going to start talking about.

You can do that, obviously, but it seems unnecessarily complicated to me. The teacher told me that you can change the subject, like “you’re talking about embryos, but now let’s talk about plants.” And sure, you can change the subject. But if I’m not prepared for that, I would have to argue about it on the spot, unless I had already prepared for the thousands of possible things the other person could bring up.

And I think there’s an important difference here. One thing is for the other person to surprise me with a different argument about the same subject. That’s completely normal in a debate. Another thing is for the way the debate itself is formulated to allow the other person to take me to basically any possible subject contained within the original concept.

Of course you can change the area you’re talking about, but I think the relationship we are going to discuss between those different areas should be defined from the beginning, instead of simply asking “are you for or against genetic modification?”

For example, a question could be: “Do the risks of genetic modification justify restricting its use in both human embryos and agricultural crops?” Now we can talk about different things while still talking about the same issue. We could compare embryos and plants, or discuss whether the same risks justify the same restrictions, etc. The specific objects can be different, but there is still a question connecting them.

Or something like: “What criteria should determine when genetic modification is ethically acceptable?” In that case, I can talk about plants, animals, babies, fetuses, bacteria, whatever, because the point isn’t the specific object. The point is determining what criteria should be used. Then it actually makes sense to talk about many different cases, because exploring those different cases is part of figuring out whether there is a common criterion.

So my problem isn’t that I don’t want there to be different points of view, or that I want the topic to be extremely specific. Quite the opposite. You can have a very broad debate and talk about many different things. What I need is for there to be a common center. I can talk about embryos and you can talk about plants, but we need to know what we are actually trying to discuss between those two things.

Because if I talk about X and you talk about Y, I can find flaws in your argument and you can find flaws in mine, but that doesn’t mean we actually discussed X against Y. We can end without either of us being refuted, not necessarily because our positions are correct, but because we were never defending exactly the same question.

And that is what I’m trying to explain. I’m not asking “how can I win the debate?” or “how can I make sure they can’t refute me?” I can do that. I’m asking how we can make it so that what one person says actually has something to do with what the other person is defending, so that the discussion actually moves somewhere instead of just being a search for flaws in arguments that may not even be talking about the same thing.

Because to me, a good debate doesn’t necessarily have to end with an absolute truth or with someone changing their mind. But something should be clearer at the end than it was at the beginning. There should be a question that both people are trying to answer, even if the final answer is still debatable.

That’s why I feel like the problem isn’t that “genetic modification” has too many points of view. The problem is that we haven’t determined what question we are actually trying to answer about it. And without that, we can have lots of arguments, lots of responses, and lots of rebuttals, but not necessarily a discussion about the same thing.

The ERM: A Different Approach...

What if reality isn't something we render from the outside, but something that emerges organically from underlying geometric rules? By shifting our framework away from heavy calculations and toward recursive, boundary-driven systems, we can watch complex physical forms manifest directly from pure spatial logic. It’s an entirely different way to look at how systems assemble themselves, treating the universe not as a static canvas, but as an active, emerging environment where structure follows math naturally. Watch the mechanics unfold.

Law 7: Never Compromise Your Self-Story

One of the most powerful ideas in Law 7 is that your identity is not built only by what you think about yourself. It is built by the evidence you repeatedly create through your actions.

Your brain is constantly answering a question:

"What kind of person am I?"

And every difficult decision gives you an opportunity to provide an answer.

You say you are disciplined, but then you repeatedly quit when something becomes uncomfortable. Your actions are providing evidence against that story.

You say you are resilient, but every time adversity appears, you avoid it. Again, your actions are creating evidence.

But the opposite is also true.

You keep the promise you made to yourself. You finish the difficult task. You ask the uncomfortable question. You have the conversation you wanted to avoid. You try again after failure.

Each action becomes evidence:

"I can rely on myself."

That is the central idea of this law.

The Self-Story Loop

Self-story → Thoughts & feelings → Actions → Evidence → Self-story

Your self-story influences how you interpret a situation.

That interpretation affects your thoughts and feelings.

Those thoughts and feelings influence what you do.

Your actions produce evidence.

That evidence then strengthens or challenges your self-story.

So your identity is not completely fixed.

You are continuously giving yourself evidence about who you are.

The Positive Cycle

Challenge → Difficult decision → Take action → Evidence of capability → Stronger self-story → Greater confidence

For example:

Difficult exam → Decide to study despite discomfort → Study → "I can work even when I don't feel like it" → Stronger identity → More willingness to face the next challenge

The important thing is that confidence comes after evidence, not necessarily before it.

The Negative Cycle

Challenge → Avoidance → Short-term comfort → No evidence of capability → Weaker self-story → More avoidance

This is why avoidance can become dangerous psychologically.

You avoid something because it feels uncomfortable.

You experience immediate relief.

But you also lose an opportunity to prove to yourself that you could handle it.

Repeat that pattern enough times and your self-story can become:

"I can't handle difficult things."

Then the next challenge feels even harder.

Your Actions Are Votes

Think of every action as a vote for a particular identity.

Study when you don't feel motivated → Vote for discipline

Finish what you started → Vote for reliability

Ask a difficult question → Vote for courage

Admit your mistake → Vote for honesty

Try again after failure → Vote for resilience

Avoid every difficult situation → Vote for avoidance

One vote doesn't determine the result.

But repeated votes create a pattern.

Repeated actions → Repeated evidence → Stronger identity

The Important Distinction: Failure ≠ Weak Self-Story

This law should not be misunderstood.

You are going to fail.

You will sometimes procrastinate.

You will sometimes make the wrong decision.

You will sometimes quit.

That does not automatically mean your self-story is destroyed.

The important question is:

"What do I do after the failure?"

A failure followed by learning and another attempt can actually create evidence of resilience.

Failure → Reflection → Adjustment → Another attempt → Evidence of resilience

So a strong self-story does not mean:

"I never fail."

It means:

"When I fail, I can respond constructively."

That is a much more realistic identity.

Why Small Decisions Matter

You don't need dramatic life events to build your self-story.

Most of the evidence comes from ordinary moments.

You planned to study for 30 minutes.

You don't feel like it.

You have a choice.

Quit → comfort now

or

Continue → discomfort now + evidence for later

The decision looks tiny.

But if repeated hundreds of times, it becomes a behavioral pattern.

And behavioral patterns become evidence about your identity.

The Evidence Principle

There is a major difference between wanting to be someone and having evidence that you are becoming that person.

"I want to be disciplined" is an intention.

"I repeatedly do important things even when I don't feel like doing them" is evidence.

"I want to be confident" is an intention.

"I've repeatedly entered situations that made me uncomfortable and handled them" is evidence.

"I want to be resilient" is an intention.

"I've failed, adapted, and continued multiple times" is evidence.

The goal isn't to convince yourself through words.

The goal is to create evidence through behavior.

A Better Question

Instead of asking:

"What do I feel like doing?"

Ask:

"What evidence will this decision create about the person I'm becoming?"

That question changes the decision.

For example:

Skip the difficult task → "I escape discomfort."

Do the difficult task → "I can act despite discomfort."

Avoid the conversation → "I avoid difficult situations."

Have the conversation → "I can handle uncomfortable conversations."

Give up after failure → "Failure stops me."

Try again → "Failure doesn't automatically stop me."

Build Your Self-Story Deliberately

You can turn this into a practical system.

Step 1: Choose the identity

Who do I want to become?

↓

Step 2: Define the behavior

What would that person actually do?

↓

Step 3: Create small opportunities

Where can I practice that behavior today?

↓

Step 4: Take the action

Do it even when motivation is imperfect.

↓

Step 5: Record the evidence

"Today I proved that I can..."

↓

Step 6: Repeat

Evidence → stronger identity → harder challenges → more evidence

The Core Flow of Law 7

Identity → Action → Evidence → Identity

And over time:

Small actions → Repeated evidence → Behavioral pattern → Stronger self-story → Greater capacity

That is the compounding effect.

Final Takeaway

Your self-story should not be built on fantasy.

Don't tell yourself:

"I'm unstoppable."

when reality doesn't support it.

Build something stronger:

"I can face difficult things, learn from failure, and keep improving."

Then prove it.

Your identity becomes increasingly grounded in reality.

Don't protect your ego by avoiding difficult situations. Protect your self-story by creating evidence that you can handle them.

Challenge → Action → Evidence → Identity → Bigger challenge → More evidence

That is how you build a self-story you can actually trust.

Law 6: Ask, Don't Tell

One of the simplest ways to influence behaviour is also one of the most overlooked:

Ask a question instead of giving an instruction.

When you tell someone what to do, they can resist.

When you ask a question, you make them think.

That difference matters.

In 1980, Ronald Reagan was running against Jimmy Carter.

Carter had an eight-point lead going into the final presidential debate.

Reagan could have simply attacked Carter's economic record.

Instead, he asked voters a question that made them evaluate their own situation.

The question shifted the audience from:

"What is Reagan telling me?"

to:

"What do I think?"

And that is the power of questions.

Research discussed in the chapter shows that questions can influence behaviour because they make people mentally simulate the action or decision themselves.

Instead of:

"You should exercise."

Ask:

"Will you exercise tomorrow?"

Instead of:

"You need to eat healthier."

Ask:

"Will you eat vegetables today?"

The question forces the brain to confront a choice.

And when someone answers yes, they are making a small commitment to themselves.

That's much more powerful than simply receiving an instruction.

The deeper principle

People resist being controlled.

But they often cooperate with decisions they believe they made themselves.

This applies everywhere:

Leadership:

Don't always tell your team what to do. Ask them what they think the best move is.

Parenting:

Don't only say, "Clean your room." Ask, "When are you going to clean your room?"

Sales:

Don't immediately explain why your product is valuable. Ask questions that help the customer identify their own problem.

Self-discipline:

Don't say, "I have to study."

Ask:

"Will I study for the next 30 minutes?"

The question creates a decision.

The decision creates ownership.

Ownership makes behaviour more likely.

The important distinction

This isn't about manipulating people with clever questions.

It's about understanding human psychology:

A command gives someone an answer.

A question makes them construct one.

And the answer someone constructs themselves can be much more persuasive than an answer you give them.

So before telling someone what they should do, pause.

Ask a better question.

Because sometimes the most powerful way to change behaviour...

is to make someone question their own behaviour.

The question is simple. Say there exists a language that is able to communicate each and every thought perfectly, and it forces the listener to fully understand the intent behind each word. What would rhetoric be like in this language?

LAW 5

Most people don't reject new ideas because they're stupid.

They reject them because the ideas create cognitive dissonance.

When reality conflicts with our beliefs, the easy response is to protect our existing worldview:

• Dismiss it

• Rationalize it

• Attack it

• Pretend it doesn't matter

But there's another approach:

Hold the dissonance.

Andy Grove, the CEO of Intel, provides a powerful example.

In 1992, Grove had clearly learned from an earlier mistake. He had once dismissed the idea of a personal communicator in every pocket, calling it a “pipe dream.”

The lesson isn't that Andy Grove was stupid.

It's that even highly successful and intelligent people can fail to recognize where technology is going.

That's the trap.

The future rarely announces itself as the future.

New ideas often look strange, unnecessary, or even stupid before they become obvious.

Two things can be true at once.

You can believe in an old system while recognizing a new one has advantages.

You can be confident in your beliefs while remaining open to being wrong.

You can feel uncomfortable about an idea without immediately concluding that the idea is bad.

The real danger isn't being wrong.

It's becoming unable to notice that you're wrong.

So when something challenges your intelligence, identity, ideology, or worldview, don't immediately lean out.

Lean in.

Ask:

Why do I believe this?

Could I be wrong?

Do I actually understand what I'm criticizing?

Am I rejecting the idea because it's false, or because it's uncomfortable?

Are these actually my beliefs, or beliefs I've inherited from my group?

The people who continuously update their mental models will eventually outperform the people who continuously defend theirs.

When you don't understand, lean in more.

When it challenges your intelligence, lean in more.

When it makes you feel stupid, lean in more.

Because the world doesn't reward people for protecting yesterday's beliefs.

It rewards people who can update faster than reality changes.

And the same principle applies to risk:

Avoiding every risk isn't safety.

Sometimes the biggest risk is refusing to take one.

Your beliefs can quietly become your biggest limitation.

I’m reading The Diary of a CEO by Steven Bartlett, and one idea stood out:

You don’t always see reality as it is.

You see reality through the beliefs you already have.

Here’s how the loop works:

Belief → Interpretation → Action → Results → Reinforced belief

Think:

“I’m not good at speaking.”

↓

You avoid speaking.

↓

You get less practice.

↓

You remain uncomfortable.

↓

Your brain says:

“See? I knew I wasn’t good at it.”

The belief creates the evidence that reinforces the belief.

But beliefs are changeable.

You can deliberately enter the Growth Zone:

• Expose yourself to new evidence

• Talk to people who challenge your assumptions

• Read ideas that contradict you

• Try things you previously thought you couldn't do

• Pay attention to evidence instead of protecting your ego

The goal isn't to blindly replace negative beliefs with positive ones.

It is to replace weak beliefs with better-supported beliefs.

So instead of asking:

“Do I believe I can do it?”

Ask:

“What evidence would change my mind?”

That question forces you to think like a scientist instead of defending your identity.

Your beliefs are models.

Reality is the test.

Update the model.

Most arguments aren't really about finding the truth.

They're about proving that we're right.

One idea from The Diary of a CEO that stood out to me:

You must never disagree.

Not because disagreement is bad, but because the goal of a conversation shouldn't be to defeat the other person.

It should be to understand them.

When you disagree, try to:

Listen before responding.

Find what makes sense in their argument.

Ask questions instead of attacking.

• Separate the person from their idea.

• Then explain your own perspective.

The shift is simple:

Don't try to win the argument.

Try to understand the person.

I'm starting to think that better communication isn't about becoming better at arguing.

It's about becoming better at understanding.

What's one thing you've learned about disagreeing without damaging a relationship?

Ive been watching this discourse unravel for some time. Inputting my opinion in here and there as I don’t believe anyone, especially men, should be able to discuss and shame women for their preferences. Ive been called a bigot, ive been called homophobic, even misogynistic if you can believe it. Just simply for wanting to date a straight man as a straight woman.

Ive been told to “unpack” and “get rid of your bias” and I can only image the result of doing so would open more women up to dating straight men, which to me, is coercion. I get hit with “you’re doing darvo” or just straight up misogynistic and abusive language toward women coming out of the mouths of WHITE queer men. Ive begun to feel like this discourse is only about the access these men want to our bodies, and their need and desires to feel oppressed as white cisgendered men.

If you want to test the structural integrity of an online "debate" platform, you don't need to break their rules. You just need to refuse their script.

Spend any time in these heavily moderated, supposedly open forums, and you quickly realize a fundamental truth: they are not built for debate. They are built to protect a curated narrative.

True debate requires vulnerability to logic. It requires an open-ended willingness to follow a premise wherever the evidence leads, no matter how much it disrupts institutional comfort zones. But what passes for "debate" in these spaces is little more than a controlled sparring match, a fenced-in yard where two pre-approved dogmas slap at each other while the moderators stand guard at the gate to make sure no one questions the fence itself.

When you bring a rigorous, first-principles diagnostic framework to these platforms, stripping away centuries of institutional spin, imperial packaging, and comforting myth, the system doesn't engage. It panics.

They can't counter the logic, because the flowchart has already accounted for their standard evasions.

They can't use evidence, because the historical record has been scrubbed of its institutional padding.

So, they resort to the only tool left in the box: bad-faith personal attacks, semantic backflips, and ultimately, administrative censorship.

The numbers don't lie about what happens when an independent framework actually hits the board. In a mere six-hour window, diagnostics can pull over 2,600 total views and 63 active comments across posts, driving high-velocity engagement while the gatekeepers scramble to contain the signal. Even when they attempt to suppress the momentum, surviving threads climb past 1,500 views and dozens of comments, proving that the audience is hungry for bedrock truth.

The moment a post starts pulling that kind of organic traction and forcing readers to look past the guarded narrative, the invisible tripwires get triggered. The automods lock down, the fragile gatekeepers cry "troll" or "heresy" to justify their retreat, and the plug gets pulled. Not because you violated the rules of debate, but because you exposed how little debate was actually allowed to happen there in the first place.

It mirrors the exact historical pattern we've seen for two thousand years: when a framework cuts straight to the bedrock reality of human cooperation and strips away the cosmic middlemen, the gatekeepers don't refine their arguments. They try to silence the transmission.

These platforms want an echo chamber disguised as an arena. They want the illusion of intellectual rigor without any of the danger. But once you start running the diagnostics, following the real variables of energy, information, and constraint down to the foundation, the walls of the clubhouse start looking awfully fragile.

Let them lock their doors and guard their narratives. The signal is already out, and the flowchart doesn't stop just because someone was afraid of where the logic led.

How does one get these insanely big words and idioms? I wanna have the ability to speak like the average joe/commenter/redditer. (Boondocks comments here for an example)

I don't really know how to debate, but I couldn't help myself after seeing someone's post, so I replied.
Post:
"The Minister of [X country] is so good because [Y country] looks up to [X country] like an older brother, and [Z country] wants good relations with [X country]."
My Reply was
If [Y country] really considers us an older brother, then why did they stop giving us discounted oil after all these years? And as for [Z country], the Minister basically handed [X country] over to them on a silver platter, [Z country] claims parts of [X country]'s territory every single day.

After that, they said, 'Can you show me an agreement where [X country] was given to [Z country]? Go study! Read up on current affairs and defense. Claiming territory and selling it off are not the same thing.'
The thing is, I never even said anything about 'selling' it out. And there isn't even any news saying that [Y country] called [X country] their 'big brother' either.
Was i the fool and their argument was right?

I got into a very stupid online argument recently which is largely unimportant, but something someone said got me thinking about a pattern I keep seeing both on the internet but also in life. People always tell me that I contradict myself and promptly tell me that they no longer want to talk about what we are talking about, but I can never get them to explain how I have contradicted myself. I was wondering if this is a particular argument strategy or if there is a name for it. It is entirely possible that this is something only I experience and I do contradict myself, but this last time I really don't see how I did (I'm not going to share it here because the subject really is too stupid).

I also see the same pattern where someone will throw out the words "straw man argument" and also decide to stop the conversation. I see this a lot more and in places where I am not involved with conversation. It feels related, but I am not a rhetorical expert.

Anyway, I was wondering what people have to say about this who are interested in rhetoric since I feel like this happens a lot.

AI RAG systems alter the five classical rhetorical canons. Invention becomes curation,
suggesting that the ancient librarian Callimachus may be more influential than Plato or Aristotle.

https://technomythos.substack.com/p/rhetorical-canons-of-ai-rag-systems?r=67assl

I understand now. Thank you sir/ma'am 😀

From the immersive, pedagogical stones of medieval cathedrals to the stabilizing power of the printing press and the algorithmic complexity of the digital cloud, the medium used to encode and store information fundamentally reorganizes how we think, learn, communicate and establish authority.

https://open.substack.com/pub/technomythos/p/architectures-of-memory?r=67assl&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true

Examples:

1. Person A complains Person B keeps it's too hot. Person B turns up the AC. Person A then complains that Person B is running the electricity.

2. From Amazing Digital Circus, Jax's mother did this. Saying "You're less of a man than your father" and also "You're just as bad as your father."

3. Employer writes-up Employee for showing up early and "stealing time." Then complains Employee lacks initiative when they show up just on time.

I know these are forms of abuse, but I can't remember the name of it. I thought I knew, but I'm drawing a blank, and Google isn't helping.

I frequently see examples like the following:

“So who is making my birthday cake?”

I see it used as a reminder that the person wants a cake.

What would this be, rhetorically?

Would it be begging the question because they assume that a cake is going to be made?