• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

What are the things you say to chip away at the pro aging trancists?


  • Please log in to reply
33 replies to this topic

#1 brokenportal

  • Life Member, Moderator
  • 7,046 posts
  • 589
  • Location:Stevens Point, WI

Posted 03 November 2008 - 11:13 PM


What we expected to turn out to be a soft barrier to cross, convincing people to help extend their own lives, turned out, to all us life extensionists horror, to be a seemingly impenetrable wall. Nonetheless we buckled in and fought for years, making seemingly little to no ground. Things have changed, the life extension faqs around the internet have helped and grown. Our strategies have finally been forged sharp enough and we've gained some additional tools. The pro aging trance is cracking. In fact in some areas the peices are beginning to fall away in chunks. Now is the time to keep that momentum going. Put your weight behind the pendelum of life extension meme now, the added weight will help crush it all the faster.

What are some things you say to the trancists?

From this discussion we'll outline a list of key ideas and add some or all of them to the imminst faq.

Imminst has a faq here: FAQ Its has some usefully tools for combating the deathists and their pro aging trance.

#2 Mind

  • Life Member, Moderator, Secretary
  • 16,891 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 03 November 2008 - 11:41 PM

What I usually do is ask people if they would like to cure disease, then I ask what's after that? What if we live to be 200 or 300 without any disease? Shouldn't someone be thinking about this possibility? Shouldn't someone be planning for that eventuality even if the odds are not that great? That is what Imminst does (in part).

#3 VictorBjoerk

  • Member, Life Member
  • 1,763 posts
  • 91
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 04 November 2008 - 12:04 AM

One may ask: If aging is not a disease, could you tell any health benefits of getting old?

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#4 Mind

  • Life Member, Moderator, Secretary
  • 16,891 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 04 November 2008 - 12:14 AM

This is from Reason:

"The rational actor looks at risks to life and health ahead and acts to
minimize those risks. Since we all have limited time and resources, we have
to prioritize: we make lists, in our heads if nowhere else, putting the
most likely and terrible outcomes up at the top. Highly unlikely but
terrible outcomes don't receive much attention: meteors, lightning strikes,
that sort of thing. Likely but merely unpleasant events might just be
suffered as a cost of getting on with life: catching the flu is an
obnoxious happenstance, but not particularly threatening for most of us.
There are more important things to worry about while buying insurance and
otherwise taking care of essentials.

"So you end up with a list involving fires, car accidents, sudden implosion
of the company you work for, that sort of thing. In that, most of us are
not being terribly rational, as aging isn't on the list. It is absolutely
going to happen, and it leads to the most terrible personal consequence
possible - death - via numerous other very nasty personal consequences.
Alzheimer's, heart disease, cancer, and all the rest. We all have a 100%
chance of aging as things stand, and it's the worst thing that will happen
to most of us. So why isn't it up near the top of that priority list?"



#5 brokenportal

  • Topic Starter
  • Life Member, Moderator
  • 7,046 posts
  • 589
  • Location:Stevens Point, WI

Posted 04 November 2008 - 12:21 AM

What I usually do is ask people if they would like to cure disease, then I ask what's after that? What if we live to be 200 or 300 without any disease? Shouldn't someone be thinking about this possibility? Shouldn't someone be planning for that eventuality even if the odds are not that great? That is what Imminst does (in part).



So what you mean is you talk about aging as a disease right? Most people think aging is some kind of unstoppable solid unchangeable thing and they dont realize it is a set of 7 diseases, so I think this approach is great. They say that the best way to win an arguement is to avoid it, so not even mentioning that some people dont think that aging is a disease, and stating it as if it is obvious that it is is a good strategy. I use some version of that too.



Victor- Your approach allows room for arguement for exactly those reasons stated above. I would suggest not even leaving room for them to argue wether aging is a disease or not. To do so makes it seem as though you may not know for sure. Where you can assert one side of what could be taken subjectively then do it. At least thats how Ive been finding things to work best. Any other ideas on any of this anybody?

#6 brokenportal

  • Topic Starter
  • Life Member, Moderator
  • 7,046 posts
  • 589
  • Location:Stevens Point, WI

Posted 04 November 2008 - 12:47 AM

This is from Reason:

"The rational actor looks at risks to life and health ahead and acts to
minimize those risks. Since we all have limited time and resources, we have
to prioritize: we make lists, in our heads if nowhere else, putting the
most likely and terrible outcomes up at the top. Highly unlikely but
terrible outcomes don't receive much attention: meteors, lightning strikes,
that sort of thing. Likely but merely unpleasant events might just be
suffered as a cost of getting on with life: catching the flu is an
obnoxious happenstance, but not particularly threatening for most of us.
There are more important things to worry about while buying insurance and
otherwise taking care of essentials.

"So you end up with a list involving fires, car accidents, sudden implosion
of the company you work for, that sort of thing. In that, most of us are
not being terribly rational, as aging isn't on the list. It is absolutely
going to happen, and it leads to the most terrible personal consequence
possible - death - via numerous other very nasty personal consequences.
Alzheimer's, heart disease, cancer, and all the rest. We all have a 100%
chance of aging as things stand, and it's the worst thing that will happen
to most of us. So why isn't it up near the top of that priority list?"


I used to say stuff like that, but I think there was a flaw in it, that its asserting to readers or listeners that indeed they dont have it on the top of their list and then prompts them to argue it. People, as you may have noticed will argue anything. When I for example see my creationist friends, I argue evolution against them, when I see my evolution friends I argue creation against them. You can throw any topic out there and people will always jump to argue the other side.

Therefore Ive started wording things in a way so as to bring life extension up as though I think they already know how real and important and active life extension is.

Rather than make the arguement 'why isnt saving your own life at the top of your list,' I word it as though I assume it is, and then reel them into an arguement as to why they dont take action and try to make them feel guilty for not helping with the simple things they can do to save their own life.

Like this: "Ill be working on life extension stuff all afternoon." Then they usually say "whats life extension?" and then I say something like, "you know, the work going on to end aging, there are 7 diseases that cause our cells to age and the science is under way to get them cured. (I say it in a voice like Im reciting the obvious) Youve probably seen the cause, its been all over the media in the past few years, 60 minutes, colbert report, alex jones show, ted talks, popular science, barbara walters special etc.." then they usually say something like, "No I havent seen it, interesting" and then they usually, I find, throw in a lot lot less "but what abouts" they sometimes throw in a few after pausing for a while, as if they dont want to sound like they are asking a stupid question, and state a few "population" or "death is natural" fallacys. I then pary them in their various ways. Sometimes I they say "yes, I have seen some stuff about that on tv." and then dont pary with any "but what abouts" and then boom, there you go, you are cracking their pro aging trance. When that happens ask them to help you with something or do something, sign up at imminst, help you distribute flyers, etc.. Ive got people doing some things, telling their friends and family, helping me distribute flyers etc..

I should up date this approach though to get around having them argue why procrastinating is a good idea. They always say, "Im busy, Im not smart enough to know about that kind of stuff," etc..

#7 bacopa

  • Validating/Suspended
  • 2,223 posts
  • 159
  • Location:Boston

Posted 01 December 2008 - 05:05 PM

I recently opened a field office at my address for the Campaign for Aging Research. I plan on collecting donations, talking to people, and getting people to sign up for the cause. I am about to start canvassing in my area in Marblehead, Mass. I was wondering should imminst start such a campaign? Wouldn't going door to door or setting up in a shopping center with tables and materials be beneficial? I'm not sure people are ready to donate in the way but it could be promising. What do you guys think?

#8 brokenportal

  • Topic Starter
  • Life Member, Moderator
  • 7,046 posts
  • 589
  • Location:Stevens Point, WI

Posted 02 December 2008 - 12:23 AM

I recently opened a field office at my address for the Campaign for Aging Research. I plan on collecting donations, talking to people, and getting people to sign up for the cause. I am about to start canvassing in my area in Marblehead, Mass. I was wondering should imminst start such a campaign? Wouldn't going door to door or setting up in a shopping center with tables and materials be beneficial? I'm not sure people are ready to donate in the way but it could be promising. What do you guys think?



Im not sure that car gives the sense of urgency that is needed. It gets people to support curing debilition with out them realizing that its side effect is probably extreme longevity. I myself am still in the process of milling car over in my head, but that is part of what occurs to me. It will gain support, and work, and I support it, but Im not sure that it can rally the same sort of effort that the indefinite healthy life extension effort is.

It does open the door to life extension ideas though, so it might work great for cutting through the trance. What are you going to say to the people when you go to their door? Should imminst start a door to door campaign? With its name, probably not. But through a Longevity Communities Network idea, then yes, for sure.

Although, its under debate as to whether or not door to door canvassing is the most lucrative approach to take at this point. I myself am wondering what the difference between internet "door to door" and real life door to door is. Internet seems a lot cheaper, easier, condensed and potent way to do it. People will donate for sure. You just have to ask enough people and hone in your pitch. I did a fund raiser for a church once, I was surprised how many random strangers donated with no questions asked.

#9 bacopa

  • Validating/Suspended
  • 2,223 posts
  • 159
  • Location:Boston

Posted 02 December 2008 - 01:12 AM

I see your point but Aubrey De Grey is supposedly one of the research scientists looking at CARs grant proposals so he is working at least somewhat with CAR. CAR knows about imminst and it's goal although Charlie the main guy there thought it was too speculative stuff at this point.

I think their message could cut through the pro-aging trance as they are more focused on reality based stuff that we can do right now. I am going to say something like..."my name is Devon Fowler and I'm working with the Campaign for Aging Research to try to get the necessary money to give to aging research which will benefit the struggle to fight off age related diseases like cancer, alstheimers, heart disease, and arthritis. Would you like to volunteer or donate money towards this important cause?" Then I'll give them statistics like 100,000 people die a day from age related deaths etc. etc. Finally if they ask further I'll go into some detail on the 7 causes of aging.

I don't think imminst would get very far with the name imminst at least not for door to door donations, but Longevity Communities Network Idea would work I think.

I think internet donations are the way to go because who goes door to door anymore? C.A.R. has a web page where one can donate.

#10 cyborgdreamer

  • Guest
  • 735 posts
  • 204
  • Location:In the wrong universe

Posted 02 December 2008 - 01:45 AM

This is from Reason:

"The rational actor looks at risks to life and health ahead and acts to
minimize those risks. Since we all have limited time and resources, we have
to prioritize: we make lists, in our heads if nowhere else, putting the
most likely and terrible outcomes up at the top. Highly unlikely but
terrible outcomes don't receive much attention: meteors, lightning strikes,
that sort of thing. Likely but merely unpleasant events might just be
suffered as a cost of getting on with life: catching the flu is an
obnoxious happenstance, but not particularly threatening for most of us.
There are more important things to worry about while buying insurance and
otherwise taking care of essentials.

"So you end up with a list involving fires, car accidents, sudden implosion
of the company you work for, that sort of thing. In that, most of us are
not being terribly rational, as aging isn't on the list. It is absolutely
going to happen, and it leads to the most terrible personal consequence
possible - death - via numerous other very nasty personal consequences.
Alzheimer's, heart disease, cancer, and all the rest. We all have a 100%
chance of aging as things stand, and it's the worst thing that will happen
to most of us. So why isn't it up near the top of that priority list?"


I used to say stuff like that, but I think there was a flaw in it, that its asserting to readers or listeners that indeed they dont have it on the top of their list and then prompts them to argue it. People, as you may have noticed will argue anything. When I for example see my creationist friends, I argue evolution against them, when I see my evolution friends I argue creation against them. You can throw any topic out there and people will always jump to argue the other side.

Therefore Ive started wording things in a way so as to bring life extension up as though I think they already know how real and important and active life extension is.

Rather than make the arguement 'why isnt saving your own life at the top of your list,' I word it as though I assume it is, and then reel them into an arguement as to why they dont take action and try to make them feel guilty for not helping with the simple things they can do to save their own life.

Like this: "Ill be working on life extension stuff all afternoon." Then they usually say "whats life extension?" and then I say something like, "you know, the work going on to end aging, there are 7 diseases that cause our cells to age and the science is under way to get them cured. (I say it in a voice like Im reciting the obvious) Youve probably seen the cause, its been all over the media in the past few years, 60 minutes, colbert report, alex jones show, ted talks, popular science, barbara walters special etc.." then they usually say something like, "No I havent seen it, interesting" and then they usually, I find, throw in a lot lot less "but what abouts" they sometimes throw in a few after pausing for a while, as if they dont want to sound like they are asking a stupid question, and state a few "population" or "death is natural" fallacys. I then pary them in their various ways. Sometimes I they say "yes, I have seen some stuff about that on tv." and then dont pary with any "but what abouts" and then boom, there you go, you are cracking their pro aging trance. When that happens ask them to help you with something or do something, sign up at imminst, help you distribute flyers, etc.. Ive got people doing some things, telling their friends and family, helping me distribute flyers etc..

I should up date this approach though to get around having them argue why procrastinating is a good idea. They always say, "Im busy, Im not smart enough to know about that kind of stuff," etc..


That seems awfully manipulative, though. Are you really helping people overcome their emotional/cognitive biases or are you just using those biases to your advantage?

#11 Vgamer1

  • Guest, F@H
  • 763 posts
  • 39
  • Location:Los Angeles

Posted 02 December 2008 - 02:04 AM

That seems awfully manipulative, though. Are you really helping people overcome their emotional/cognitive biases or are you just using those biases to your advantage?


I think this is a very good point. I think we have to be careful not to con people into thinking something they don't genuinely believe. Not only does it feel unethical to me, but it also runs the risk of backlash when people find out what we're "really" about.

I don't have a lot of time to discuss this tonight unfortunately, but I hope the topic continues because I think that education is one of the most fundamental ways in which we can promote our ideas.

#12 JLL

  • Guest
  • 2,192 posts
  • 161

Posted 02 December 2008 - 01:10 PM

I would say he's helping them overcome their biases.

I have, on more occasions than I can remember, simply told people the truth and provided the logical proof for my argument, and 95% of them will reject it.

Most people here already agree with the idea that aging is bad, so it's easy to point the finger at other people who are just being silly. But what about things where we ourselves are biased? I hardly think immortalists are free from all bias.

The following dialogue written by Stefan Molyneux highlights my point. See you reach the same conclusion as the statist here does:

---

Me: Tell me, do you think that violence is wrong?

Statist: Yes, violence is wrong – except in self-defense.

Me: Agreed, except in self-defense. So tell me, how do you think that problems should be solved, if we should not use violence?

Statist: Well, I think that people should become more active in government, and that governments should do ABC, X, Y and Z.

Me: But how do you reconcile your objection to violence with your support of government programs, since government programs are paid for through taxation, which is coercive?

Statist: Huh? What are you talking about? Taxation is not coercive.

Me: Taxation is coercive, since if you do not pay your taxes, you are kidnapped at gunpoint and thrown in jail – where if you try to escape, you are shot.

Statist: But this is a democracy, where we choose our own governments.

Me: Being offered a choice between two violent alternatives is not the same as being free to choose. If a store owner gets to choose which Mafia gang he pays “protection” money to, can it be really argued that he is making a “free” choice? If a woman can choose between two potential husbands – but will be forced to marry one of them – can she said to be really “choosing” marriage? People can only freely choose governments, if they have the choice not to choose governments.

Statist: Well there is a “social contract,” that binds people to their governments.

Me: There is no such thing as a “social contract.” Unless they have been granted power of attorney, people cannot justly sign contracts on behalf of others. If one man has the power to unilaterally impose his will on another and call it a “contract,” then logically a man can steal from a woman and call it “charity.”

Statist: But I accept the social contract – and so do you if you drive on the roads.

Me: First of all, your choice to honour a contract does not give you the right to force me to honour it. You can choose to buy a house, but you cannot justly force me to pay for it. If you forge my signature, I am not bound to honour the contract – and I have never agreed to a “social contract” of any kind. Secondly, it is true that I use government services, but that is irrelevant to the central moral question of coercion. If a slave accepts a meal from his master, is he condoning slavery?

Statist: I suppose not. But still, you implicitly accept the social contract by continuing to live in a country, as Socrates argued.

Me: Can I justly create a “social contract” that allows me to rob anyone who lives in my neighborhood – and say that if people continue to live in “my” neighborhood, they are expressly consenting to my new social contract?

Statist: Well, no, but we are talking about governments, not individuals . . . .

Me: Is the government not composed of individuals? Is “the government” not just a label for a group of individuals who claim the moral right to initiate force against others – a right they define as evil for those they use violence against? If you take away all the individuals who compose “the government,” do you still have a government?

Statist: I suppose not. But that is beside the point – you say that taxation is coercive, but I have paid taxes my entire life, and I have never had a gun pointed at my head.

Me: Sure, and a prisoner is not shot if he does not try to escape. If a slave conforms to his master’s wishes because of the threat of violence, the situation is utterly immoral. Does the Mafia have to actually burn your shop down for the threat to be violent?

Statist: No – however, I do not accept the premise that the government uses force to extract taxation from citizens.

Me: All right - is there anything that the government does that you disagree with? Do you agree, for instance, with the invasion of Iraq ? [Keep asking until you find some program the statist finds abhorrent.]

Statist: Now, I think that the invasion of Iraq was morally wrong.

Me: Why?

Statist: Because Iraq had done nothing to threaten the US .

Me: Right, so it is an initiation of force, not self-defense. Now – you do realize that the war in Iraq is only possible because you pay your taxes.

Statist: To some degree, of course.

Me: If the war in Iraq is morally wrong, but it is only possible because you pay your taxes – and your taxes are not extracted from you through force – then you are voluntarily funding and enabling that which you call evil. Can you explain that to me?

Statist: I pay my taxes because I’m a citizen of this country. If I disagree with the war, then I should run for office and try to stop it.

Me: All right, if you were against child abuse, would you voluntarily fund a group dedicated to abusing children?

Statist: Of course not!

Me: And if you did claim to be against child abuse, and you voluntarily funded a group dedicated to abusing children, and I said that you should stop doing that, and you replied that you would not – but that if someone did oppose this abusive group, they should try to infiltrate this group, take control of it, and somehow stop it from abusing children, would that make any sense at all?

Statist: I guess not.

Me: If you were against the war in Iraq , but volunteered for it – and agreed to fight without a salary, and spent your own money to cover all your expenses, do you understand that your position would be utterly incomprehensible? You would claim to be against something – and then expend enormous amounts of time, effort, money and resources supporting it?

Statist: Yes, that would make little sense.

Me: Thus do you see that your position that the war in Iraq is a moral evil, but that you are voluntarily funding it through your taxes, makes no sense at all? If the war in Iraq is a moral evil, but is only enabled through your voluntary funding, then continuing to fund it is to openly admit that it is not a moral evil. If you are forced to fund the war in Iraq , you can maintain that it is a moral evil, because it is the initiation of the use of force. However, the taxation that is also the initiation of the use of force against you must also be a moral evil, because you are forced to fund the initiation of force against others. Thus either taxation is coercion, or you are the worst form of moral hypocrite, by voluntarily supporting that which you call evil. Does that make sense?

Statist: I can certainly see that position.

Me: Can you find any logical flaws in my position?

Statist: No, but I still think that you are wrong.

Me: Well, I’m certainly glad that you are reading this article, rather than debating me directly, because as I said at the beginning, life is far too short to waste time arguing with fools.

#13 Vgamer1

  • Guest, F@H
  • 763 posts
  • 39
  • Location:Los Angeles

Posted 02 December 2008 - 08:36 PM

I would say he's helping them overcome their biases.

I have, on more occasions than I can remember, simply told people the truth and provided the logical proof for my argument, and 95% of them will reject it.

Most people here already agree with the idea that aging is bad, so it's easy to point the finger at other people who are just being silly. But what about things where we ourselves are biased? I hardly think immortalists are free from all bias.

The following dialogue written by Stefan Molyneux highlights my point. See you reach the same conclusion as the statist here does:

...


JLL, I agree with you that we can't free ourselves from bias (at least not yet), but I don't see that point coming across in your dialogue example. Maybe I'm missing something.

In today's age you can't just argue logically and convince people as easily as we would like to believe. In order to sway people emotional appeals must be used.

I'm slowly discovering effective methods for changing people's attitudes about aging through discussions on this forum and from my own experience - and I've had some success.

What's important I think is to find a middle ground. Don't stand silent among people who believe that they must die by 85, but don't antagonize them either.

Educate and inform, but don't unload too much at once as to scare your listener or to make him laugh in your face. Let them know that it is something you care about personally. Try to have a discussion and not an argument. Avoid telling people they are "wrong" or "stupid" because you know that tactic would not convince you of anything.

Please continue to contribute to this thread and any other related ones. I'll be compiling the collective ideas among them into a new topic so as to concisely cover this issue.

The thread will be where people can discuss tactics for changing people's minds, report successes, and ask for help when needed. I'll be working with brokenportal over the next couple of weeks to turn this into an active project of imminst. So keep the ideas flowing.

#14 brokenportal

  • Topic Starter
  • Life Member, Moderator
  • 7,046 posts
  • 589
  • Location:Stevens Point, WI

Posted 02 December 2008 - 09:09 PM

I think internet donations are the way to go because who goes door to door anymore? C.A.R. has a web page where one can donate.



dfowler- Could you rephrase that? Im not sure what you mean. I thought you were going to go door to door. I hope you do, and when you do I look forward to hearing about your results, we can help each other tweak approaches that work the best and catalogue them and work them into various projects that we are working with like 36, 37 and 38 (soon to be combined into one) of this list.

vgamer and cyborgdreamer- Its not manipulation, I guess if I had to call it something its more like sagacious persuasion

The difference being that one tricks them and the other cleverly persuades them.

One leaves them happy, the other doesn’t. If somebody persuade me to believe in beneficial concepts faster than not, then I want them to do that.


Jll- Are a lot of life extensionists still not fully free of the pro aging trance? Yes, for sure. That reminds me of this blog: “I wish our chemical physiology would match the intensity of reality.”

That statist wasn’t convinced by “me” from what I can see because they were goaded into an argument. If it were proposed in a more informative rather than asking for an opinion sort of way then I think the objective of convincing the purpose that not supporting the iraq war, but supporting paying taxes was in conflict with itself. As a digression, statist says that iraq doesn’t effect us, but we are in a social contract with not only our towns states and country, but the world. I support the stopping of douche bags everywhere, and if they want to start with the ones that control vital resources like oil then so be it. If your going to fight bullys then knock one out that has a big gun and take his gun. Why not?

#15 JLL

  • Guest
  • 2,192 posts
  • 161

Posted 02 December 2008 - 09:42 PM

I appreciate you taking the time to read the dialogue.

I'm sure you're right about why it doesn't convince people, but it's still not entirely clear to me. Had this dialogue been presented to me when I was the statist, I'm pretty sure it would have made a strong impact on me. That's probably because I've always considered myself a very rational person, which is something that most people don't seem to be - or even want to be.

So what do you mean by "more informative" specifically? I'm a big fan of that whole Socratic method where you ask questions and things logically end up to their conclusion, but it doesn't seem to go down well with others. But on the other hand, if you just try to lecture people (which in my mind is close to being "informative"), they'll think you're arrogant and make up their minds beforehand. Only a handful of people are truly willing to objectively listen to arguments that are completely different from their own worldview.

Vgamer1, I've never been a big fan of emotional arguments, because it seems kind of like cheating (terrible things have been done by appealing to emotion instead of reason), but you might be right.

The dialogue was meant to be an example of another worldview that is completely opposite to what most people believe in. The first one, of course, is defeating aging; this is very difficult for most people to accept, and I think you'll run into much of the same problems when presenting immortality that I do when presenting voluntarism. But because everyone here already accepts immortality, it can be difficult to see why other people don't - so when you replace "immortality" with "anarchism/voluntarism", you can maybe see the difficulties you yourself have in accepting a logically valid but different worldview and then use that to your advantage when spreading the gospel of immortality.

EDIT: And of course, I just like to paste that dialogue wherever I can, because it nails the issue perfectly.

Edited by JLL, 02 December 2008 - 09:44 PM.


#16 Vgamer1

  • Guest, F@H
  • 763 posts
  • 39
  • Location:Los Angeles

Posted 03 December 2008 - 02:19 AM

Vgamer1, I've never been a big fan of emotional arguments, because it seems kind of like cheating (terrible things have been done by appealing to emotion instead of reason), but you might be right.


It's strange because I consider myself a very rational person and I am now actually slightly surprised that I made such a statement. I think you may have taken my point in the wrong way, however. I didn't mean that we should use fallacious emotional appeals such as evoking people's fear of death in order to scare them into the cause. What I mean or at least what I think I mean is that you have to be empathetic towards others' feelings, emotions, and beliefs before they will take you seriously.

It seems to me that logic alone has failed simply on the grounds that (as shown in your dialogue) one may accept another's argument as logically valid and yet still reject the argument based on intuition or some deep rooted belief.

I hope someone can elaborate more on what I'm trying to say because I'm having trouble describing it coherently. Basically both logic and empathy are required to relate to someone and come to a mutual consensus (hopefully one that is in the best interest of both parties).

Edited for clarity...

Edited by Vgamer1, 03 December 2008 - 02:21 AM.


#17 brokenportal

  • Topic Starter
  • Life Member, Moderator
  • 7,046 posts
  • 589
  • Location:Stevens Point, WI

Posted 03 December 2008 - 02:39 AM

By "more informative" I mean take out all the potentials for hooking them into an argument and promting them to give an opinion. Like with the Iraq thing, the statist was backed into a corner, the person set them up to have to argue and opinion there way out of the predicament that "me" put them in.

The person could have gone around that by saying something like, "I suppose that with so many things going on in the government that when we put our money into the pot we know that its not all going to go towards things we like, such as the iraq war, and Im sure you would agree that sucks right?" and the person would have them probably agreed and the arguement would have been avoided, the same technique applies to pro aging trancists, or "p.a.t.'s" as we are calling them. The key technique in that example is the negotiation tactic of "I agree with you, but Ive found, Im sure you would agree."
Follow that general formula and it almost always disarms the persons natural inclination to argue against you.

As far as emotional appeals, if some people can only be gotten through to primarily through emotional appeal, then thats what we have to use. Emotional appeals like authority, bandwagon, and stuff like that. "Say it, if its worth saving them" This topic reminds me of the first video I posted at This Link. Please comment at that topic too if you would.

You brought up the Socratic method. Thats another good one to work into our projects for combating the pro aging trance. Im going to go look for a video that teaches it right now. I used to know it well, but Im a little rusty. Maybe we can incorporate the video into a combating the pro aging trance, c.p.a.t. "training course" that me and vgamer are starting.


I appreciate you taking the time to read the dialogue.

I'm sure you're right about why it doesn't convince people, but it's still not entirely clear to me. Had this dialogue been presented to me when I was the statist, I'm pretty sure it would have made a strong impact on me. That's probably because I've always considered myself a very rational person, which is something that most people don't seem to be - or even want to be.

So what do you mean by "more informative" specifically? I'm a big fan of that whole Socratic method where you ask questions and things logically end up to their conclusion, but it doesn't seem to go down well with others. But on the other hand, if you just try to lecture people (which in my mind is close to being "informative"), they'll think you're arrogant and make up their minds beforehand. Only a handful of people are truly willing to objectively listen to arguments that are completely different from their own worldview.

Vgamer1, I've never been a big fan of emotional arguments, because it seems kind of like cheating (terrible things have been done by appealing to emotion instead of reason), but you might be right.

The dialogue was meant to be an example of another worldview that is completely opposite to what most people believe in. The first one, of course, is defeating aging; this is very difficult for most people to accept, and I think you'll run into much of the same problems when presenting immortality that I do when presenting voluntarism. But because everyone here already accepts immortality, it can be difficult to see why other people don't - so when you replace "immortality" with "anarchism/voluntarism", you can maybe see the difficulties you yourself have in accepting a logically valid but different worldview and then use that to your advantage when spreading the gospel of immortality.

EDIT: And of course, I just like to paste that dialogue wherever I can, because it nails the issue perfectly.



#18 JLL

  • Guest
  • 2,192 posts
  • 161

Posted 03 December 2008 - 12:12 PM

Vgamer1 and brokenportal,

Your suggestions are very good. Thank you.

I know I could be informative up to a point, say, the Iraq thing in the example, but as for the final conclusion (that the state must be abolished because it is evil) is hard to present in the same manner. And yet 99% won't accept it if you just blurt it out. Maybe I should read a book on how to appeal to people or something.

Personally, when someone uses the Socratic method on me, I love it, but quite a few people seem to think of it as a harsh interrogation method, no matter how calmly you present the questions. They feel like you're attacking them. The whole point of the Socratic method, to me at least, is that ideas, not people, argue. A lot of folks will say "yeah, I can do that, let's go" but in reality they can't or don't want to.

#19 Shannon Vyff

  • Life Member, Director Lead Moderator
  • 3,884 posts
  • 670
  • Location:Lubbock, TX

Posted 03 December 2008 - 04:55 PM

I spent time going door to door with my daughter when she raised 3000 for Mprize, and really it was quite illuminating to talk to people one on one. Some had religious objections, but most were interested in hearing that humans are combating the disease and diseases of aging as they have solved many other problems over the past few hundred years through technology, medicine, science. I've been in a few situations where the other person actively disagrees with me, but that is rare. At those times I'm polite, acknowledge their views and say my one :) Yeah, my husband loves the Socratic method, drives me nuts--but then again I love to engage in debate no matter what type :)

#20 brokenportal

  • Topic Starter
  • Life Member, Moderator
  • 7,046 posts
  • 589
  • Location:Stevens Point, WI

Posted 04 December 2008 - 10:26 PM

I think the trick is to use the socratic method on them with out making it sound like an interrogation. Like, "Oh, so you you think that the iraq war is bad then?" then lead into something like "man, if we could only do something about it, I wonder if theres a way we can cut off their funding." Then change the subject completely like, with whatever, and then come back to it so they dont connect your questions, with something like, "so you pay taxes, taxes go to the war right?" or something like that, you get the idea. You know what would be awsome is if we could get project number 38 of the google doc list of life extension expedition projects going in video chat so we could record it for future reference and example. Vgamer and I are working on it but we need more people to join our weekly team, about 3 more.

To me the Socratic method isnt about trying to make the convo about ideas rather than people so much as it is in trying to convince people of your point of view by getting them to convince themselves.

As for looking for a book or something, we are also going to outline some useful material for helping in those projects such as Secrets of Power NegotiatingI have that on audio and have listened to it about a thousand times. Havent mastered it, but its very useful. How to Win Friends and Influence People is an invaluable classic. Studying fallacy in general is a key I think. And a host of others, that 21 ways to be successful or whatever it was called was good for this, practice practice practice in general is good for this (I dont agree with people that cut off discussions they say are going in circles for that reason, it ends up being a slow upward spiral) and there are many more.


Vgamer1 and brokenportal,

Your suggestions are very good. Thank you.

I know I could be informative up to a point, say, the Iraq thing in the example, but as for the final conclusion (that the state must be abolished because it is evil) is hard to present in the same manner. And yet 99% won't accept it if you just blurt it out. Maybe I should read a book on how to appeal to people or something.

Personally, when someone uses the Socratic method on me, I love it, but quite a few people seem to think of it as a harsh interrogation method, no matter how calmly you present the questions. They feel like you're attacking them. The whole point of the Socratic method, to me at least, is that ideas, not people, argue. A lot of folks will say "yeah, I can do that, let's go" but in reality they can't or don't want to.


Edited by brokenportal, 04 December 2008 - 10:27 PM.


#21 brokenportal

  • Topic Starter
  • Life Member, Moderator
  • 7,046 posts
  • 589
  • Location:Stevens Point, WI

Posted 05 December 2008 - 12:14 AM

I spent time going door to door with my daughter when she raised 3000 for Mprize, and really it was quite illuminating to talk to people one on one. Some had religious objections, but most were interested in hearing that humans are combating the disease and diseases of aging as they have solved many other problems over the past few hundred years through technology, medicine, science. I've been in a few situations where the other person actively disagrees with me, but that is rare. At those times I'm polite, acknowledge their views and say my one :) Yeah, my husband loves the Socratic method, drives me nuts--but then again I love to engage in debate no matter what type :)


So you find little resistance to the meme too? How long has it been that way for you? You also have the added advantage of being a woman, and your daughter the advantage of being a kid, who people seem to tend to listen to more often. I wonder how much that plays into it. What are some examples of particular things you say that sway people to support life extension? It looks like you take the calling aging a "disease" approach, which is very important, and then also bring up the fact that weve been progressing in great strides a lot in the last couple hundred years. I havent gotten that latter approach to work quite right yet but Im working on it.

#22 brokenportal

  • Topic Starter
  • Life Member, Moderator
  • 7,046 posts
  • 589
  • Location:Stevens Point, WI

Posted 11 December 2008 - 08:37 PM

Another great way to chip away at the pro aging trance is by telling people about how aoristos/indefinite healthy life extension is possible in our life times and then in addition to hard work to make it happen in general, go over the longevity escape velocity with them. It is outlined in the first 1/3 or so of this Aubrey Google tech talk video here:



Vgamer and I have begun putting together an outline for a quiz on combating the pro aging trance, (cpat for short) on line 36 of this google doc of life extension projects. We have about 8 techniques in addition to the faqs outlined so far. If you have any more good techniques that havent already been gone over then please add them there. I might have missed some when extracting ideas from topics like this and Im sure there are plenty more around the forums that Im not sure of the location of. We are probably going to get this cpat quiz done up here in the next month or so, so please get that stuff in as soon as possible.

#23 brokenportal

  • Topic Starter
  • Life Member, Moderator
  • 7,046 posts
  • 589
  • Location:Stevens Point, WI

Posted 17 December 2008 - 01:04 AM

Any more discussion here anybody? Every bit of thought added to this topic is like helping wheel another Gatling gun to the front lines of a war against a bunch of pro aging trancists.

If more people could make it a point to dwell on this topic, book mark it and add to it a couple of times a week or whatever then please do.

Its hard continuosly unburying these topics myself, not as hard as its going to be for us to unbury ourselves though if the pro aging trancists defeat us and let the reaper come marching unabated into town like a bunch of nazis in blitzkreig tanks.

Hey that would make an awsome picture Jedimasterlucia, or anybody who draws and views this. Jedimasterlucia has been making really great drawings for the cause. There is one here: http://www.imminst.o...showtopic=26196

#24 HereInTheHole

  • Guest
  • 105 posts
  • 2

Posted 19 December 2008 - 09:31 PM

The only people I know who object are unimaginative. These types say things like they'd get bored. I'd be shocked, though, if most people don't want to live for hundreds (or more years).

If the root of your question is really how can you get people to invest more time or money in anti-aging, then I'd say talking to people one-on-one probably isn't the most effective route. To reach the masses, you have to popularize the idea like any product.

In popular culture, the characters who live much longer than regular people are often evil: witches, monsters, etc. First, work on removing that association. This might seem silly, but if you want to reach millions and make anti-aging a cultural movement, you have to reach people emotionally.

Another tactic is to make it seem truly reachable. People want more of what's attainable than of what's clearly impossible.

You could also approach this as a right for all people. This could be the next great social movement.

Edited by NarrativiumX, 19 December 2008 - 09:41 PM.


#25 Mind

  • Life Member, Moderator, Secretary
  • 16,891 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 19 December 2008 - 10:37 PM

Another tactic is to make it seem truly reachable. People want more of what's attainable than of what's clearly impossible.

You could also approach this as a right for all people. This could be the next great social movement.


Good ideas. People made up the right to health care just a few short years ago. It didn't exist 50 years ago. If everyone now has a right to health care then they should have a right to live as long as they want if the treatments are available (they will be soon). What are people or the government going to say? Health care is a basic human right until you reach 80, 100, 150. Taking away the basic human right of health care would be downright evil. Wouldn't it?

Also, you have mentioned something that many others have mentioned about emotionally connecting with people. Music/art/film is very effective. More effective than a heptillion mass emails. The Imminst film and book were successful and effective. We could use more efforts like these.

#26 brokenportal

  • Topic Starter
  • Life Member, Moderator
  • 7,046 posts
  • 589
  • Location:Stevens Point, WI

Posted 19 December 2008 - 11:02 PM

Another tactic is to make it seem truly reachable. People want more of what's attainable than of what's clearly impossible.

You could also approach this as a right for all people. This could be the next great social movement.


Good ideas. People made up the right to health care just a few short years ago. It didn't exist 50 years ago. If everyone now has a right to health care then they should have a right to live as long as they want if the treatments are available (they will be soon). What are people or the government going to say? Health care is a basic human right until you reach 80, 100, 150. Taking away the basic human right of health care would be downright evil. Wouldn't it?

Also, you have mentioned something that many others have mentioned about emotionally connecting with people. Music/art/film is very effective. More effective than a heptillion mass emails. The Imminst film and book were successful and effective. We could use more efforts like these.


Talking about 50 years ago and how quickly things are coming along reminds me of a analogy to how fast progress is coming along that Kennedy gave in the 6th and 7th paragraph ofthis speech. We have to keep up with health care because at this rate, we may have the need for it 'a week from today'.

As for emotionally connecting to people through songs and stuff, Jedimasterlucia and a few others are working on some representational drawings that I think do exactly that. Pictures speak a thousand words and convey it in a more connected way. Check this one out here. There are more in development right now. I cant wait till Jedimasterlucia and the others release them all.

We are also working on getting some songs together. Here is one set of lyrics if anybody wants to brainstorm further with getting them together into a song. Please do help write more lyrics to support the cause too. There is a project team you can join for it in the life extension exposure expedition projects list, "leeep" if you want. Its line #19 here, and the art team is line #18.

Ill attach Jedimasterlucias first drawing here too. (stay tuned, the next one is on its way)

Attached Files



#27 .fonclea.

  • Guest, F@H
  • 300 posts
  • 2
  • Location:none

Posted 11 February 2009 - 10:29 PM

I would defenetly not use some of the points developed by some people in the forum... The first time i hear about life extention or similar sounds insane, selfish,... we call that "jeunisme" and the fact is more than 50% of members here are under 30.

Another tactic is to make it seem truly reachable. People want more of what's attainable than of what's clearly impossible.
You could also approach this as a right for all people. This could be the next great social movement.

That is the perfect tactic to develop. I would just target the personnal developpments, a more psycologic approach putting towards the own experience of the "public".
Your first years as an adult, after adolescence ? don't you think we need time to take decision ? Do you consider you had time to choose the right way ? Don't you feel flowed by informations ? Don't you think you need TIME ?

I guess asking questions and making a discours more interacive could bring people to choose another option. Starting with the beginning, more concret.... more reachable. After peole will individualy develop their opinion about more extreme option like transhumanisme.

Vgamer1, I've never been a big fan of emotional arguments, because it seems kind of like cheating (terrible things have been done by appealing to emotion instead of reason), but you might be right.

the diversification in the talks multiply the chances.




Hope i understood well this thread *blush*

#28 brokenportal

  • Topic Starter
  • Life Member, Moderator
  • 7,046 posts
  • 589
  • Location:Stevens Point, WI

Posted 15 February 2009 - 06:45 AM

One thing we have to remember is that practicing and trying is something we have to continue doing. There is definently no success when we dont try, and practice makes perfect. Some persuasion isnt going to work on some people but it will work on others. Practice brings that out and we are catagorizing it as we go in that project #39 listed.

There are famous quotes that talk about how it wasnt the enemy that was as hard to battle as it was the deafening silence by those that had the power to speak up but didnt. I know we all are, but what Im saying is never be afraid to try out a meme. Meme wherever you go. One thing I suggest is for everybody to keep a stack of flyers handy to give out and post wherever they go.

People usually scoff or dont pay attention to new ideas right off the bat but thats fine. Follow ups and giving time for people to absorb the info is good. Ive heard many times that a person has to hear about something from around 3 or more credable sources before they begin to beleive it. Also when you even just mention it, it creates what some marketers call the "wedge" in peoples minds and allows more information to flow in behind it in an ever widening way. Like, if we mention life extension in any way to a group of people, whether they scoff it or think its great, chances are if they hear "life extension" on the radio or something in the periphreal of their hearing then they are going to perk up and pay attention to it.

Some demographics can be memed in softly, this is true, but not all can and not all need to, and even those softies can be memed in with hard memes in the ways mentioned. Billions and billions of people beleive in an invisible person in the sky, its not going to be that hard to get people to make the leap from a world of internet and space travel and gene splicing and nanobots and chemistry to curing diseases that cause aging. This is evidenced in part by the increasing volume of converts that are already coming in. Imminst is growing at a tremendous rate and thats mostly just from people who stumble upon us and kind of support the idea from the internet. Imagine what say, thousands of billboards around big cities would do.

This is the next great social movement, that is true. This is the most monumental cause ever undertaken in the history of humanity and its well on its way and there is no stopping it. The more momentum we can help put into it now, the more impact its going to have as it bulldozes through the pro aging trancists and the diseases of aging, and diseases in general in the coming years. The grim reaper has got a rough decade ahead of it.

Do some people need time to choose this cause? Yes, and we are giving it to many of them. They have all the time in the world to let this sink in, but like I said, one key thing to remember is that they need to hear of it from 3 or more credable sources, and the wedge will start working on them the sooner it gets there. The meme is on, whatever you think is a good way to get through to people, do it, try it, grab the bull by the horns and ride it till you fall off and then jump on another one and keep going. We'll hone and collect and improve on and expand on and share and spread and teach and demonstrate them as we go.

I would defenetly not use some of the points developed by some people in the forum... The first time i hear about life extention or similar sounds insane, selfish,... we call that "jeunisme" and the fact is more than 50% of members here are under 30.

Another tactic is to make it seem truly reachable. People want more of what's attainable than of what's clearly impossible.
You could also approach this as a right for all people. This could be the next great social movement.

That is the perfect tactic to develop. I would just target the personnal developpments, a more psycologic approach putting towards the own experience of the "public".
Your first years as an adult, after adolescence ? don't you think we need time to take decision ? Do you consider you had time to choose the right way ? Don't you feel flowed by informations ? Don't you think you need TIME ?

I guess asking questions and making a discours more interacive could bring people to choose another option. Starting with the beginning, more concret.... more reachable. After peole will individualy develop their opinion about more extreme option like transhumanisme.

Vgamer1, I've never been a big fan of emotional arguments, because it seems kind of like cheating (terrible things have been done by appealing to emotion instead of reason), but you might be right.

the diversification in the talks multiply the chances.




Hope i understood well this thread *blush*


Edited by brokenportal, 15 February 2009 - 06:56 AM.


#29 JLL

  • Guest
  • 2,192 posts
  • 161

Posted 08 March 2009 - 07:22 PM

I had a conversation a while ago where I heard the "I'd get bored" argument for the first time. I replied "Okay, maybe you would get bored; if you eventually want to die, nobody will force you to stay alive. But isn't it better to have that choice than to be forced to die of old age and decrepitude?" That seemed to go down pretty well (even though I of course can't imagine how anyone would get bored with life).

#30 brokenportal

  • Topic Starter
  • Life Member, Moderator
  • 7,046 posts
  • 589
  • Location:Stevens Point, WI

Posted 08 March 2009 - 08:30 PM

I had a conversation a while ago where I heard the "I'd get bored" argument for the first time. I replied "Okay, maybe you would get bored; if you eventually want to die, nobody will force you to stay alive. But isn't it better to have that choice than to be forced to die of old age and decrepitude?" That seemed to go down pretty well (even though I of course can't imagine how anyone would get bored with life).


That is a part of the http://imminst.org/faq

I come across that one sometimes too. Ive found an approach that is successful too, I tell them something similar, that, "well, ok, maybe you would get bored, but you should let yourself decide you want to die if/when you get bored, like, if your 245 and your so bored you want to die, then you can choose to die, but you shouldnt want to choose an arbitrary date for your future self to die because you think you might be bored then."

That has been working every time I use it lately.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users