Read more Dead by Daylight ➜ https://deadbydaylight.mgn.gg
http://www.twitch.tv/ScottJund
https://discord.gg/TheBreaderhood
source
Read more Dead by Daylight ➜ https://deadbydaylight.mgn.gg
http://www.twitch.tv/ScottJund
https://discord.gg/TheBreaderhood
source
Let's just meet in the middle and nerf Pig
honestly i don't think it can be called authority from a streamer anyway. Otz is one person with one perspective, he is however in no way shape or form more qualified than anyone else in DBD, he just has a lot of hours. Its one thing when a doctor is telling you to eat healthy, that's a qualified professional giving advice that should adhere to, when Otz tells you sloppy butcher is a top tier perk, it's one gamers opinion. streaming does not put someone in a position of authority at all
Now I have a video to show someone when I'm arguing about using streamers or not using them because Scott made a video about it. Get shit on.
This video is in no way correlated to the mass amounts of polls and posts thats popped up about what killer is most difficult to play.
😉
Scott lowkey throwing shade at his own nutriders 🤣🤣🤣
Turns out that "Streamers are always wrong" is just as useless for achieving truth as "streamers are always right". If not moreso. Who knew
It's also a bit of confirmation bias. Someone will have good or bad experiences and then only believe their experiences as the truth.
That title destroys my small brain
Very true. People are to polarised when it comes to authority figures.
Wouldn't that be ad hominem? Since it's about ignoring an argument because of said person, instead of refuting the argument itself (English it's not my mother language).
Streamer dectected, opinion rejected. Otz said so.
your argument is very logical scott, but unfortunately i have to disagree because your are a streamer and i don't wanna be a mindless zombie sheep
Holy shit that wraith build is soo oppressive holy
You're going bald Scott. Stop thinking so hard.
Ye omega blink nurse is op Ive been playing her with a brown and a yellow addon and almost always 4k and when I don't its my fault not the addons
if anyone agrees with this, stop. just because scott said it doesn't mean it's true. actually it means it is definitely false as scott is a streamer and you should form your own opinion.
It’s like citing a source lmao
For me it has less to do with “they’re a streamer” when i hear about otz this and otz that and more to do with “they ruined the game since they joined the community”. Food for thought.
This makes me laugh because imagine doing a university assignment and the lecturer marks your paper and goes “sorry I refuse to mark this, you referenced someone else” when that is THE BEST thing to do in order to reinforce your point. I understand not taking someone seriously if they say a bunch of nonsense but then reference a streamer even tho their points aren’t actually the same. But when someone has their own opinion and backs it up with evidence from a respected person in the community then there’s nothing wrong there
Alright Scott…… if Evil Dead gets over 1k viewers on twitch tomorrow, you have to try it?
Deal?
Okay cool, deal!
Myeah.
People either take it as gospel that some content creators are right and some take it as gospel that they are wrong.
Personally I enjoy listening to all sides of the argument before testing for myself and then forming an opinion, which it would seem very few actually bothers doing nowdays.
yeah because ppl are inherently flawed and scared most "GrEat ConCTS CT CREAZTORS" are too scared to say the truth thats why i stick to numbers and research, fuck your opinion fuck your following fuck your status give me data '"the you here is not at scott its at hypothetical person" also omega blick nurs is ok so long as SWF are ok .
Scott teaching the DBD community how to debate properly, this is much needed
5:22 anomaly
Sounds like an appeal to anarchy, or an appeal to hipster even. Always worth referencing the opinions of more educated people than you as long as you both give it appropriate weight and don’t put it on a pedestal as infallible. Imo if you’re not referencing someone else’s thoughts to supplement your own you’re deliberately handicapping the extent of your understanding.
This for a long time was the For Honors communities attitude to the competitive players and their opinions, even advice for personal skill improvements.
I will still only listen to Scott’s opinions. Our parasocial relationship is strong because of this . Thanks bestie.
I believe it is easier for people to say "Just because this individual is knowledgeable in this subjects matter, it doesn't mean they're necessarily right" instead of coming up with arguments backed up by empirical data. It's just something everyone can say in almost every situation to feel smarter, without backing it up.
Basically:
-> Keep an open mind and acknowledge you might be wrong
-> Consider the source, but don't rely on it to be 100% accurate or 100% INaccurate
-> Focus on the facts/logic at hand and avoid personal attacks and subjective views on anyone involved in the argument
Scooter Spundotle is our modern day philosopher
People are trying to mix science with religion and are coming up with madness.
They want to be right, which is religious.
They want things to change and be different, which is science.
If things change and are different, you cannot be right as things have changed or will change.
Madness is the result, where you boldly with all the conviction in the world claim to be a woman, then in the next sentence claim a woman is ever changing and has no definition.
Aaaaand now those people will point to this video saying "Look. See? It's okay to get all my opinions from streamers. You're just being a contrarian."
The real issue however is that no one tries to prove their own opinions wrong. If you believe something to be true then at the very least you should be able to entertain the arguments of it being false.
The issue with people getting their opinions from others in positions of power/popularity is that it then reinforces it to the point they go no farther in thought. They don't challenge it because they have already gotten the validation of having people agree with them- more importantly people they admire agreeing with them.
This is even applicable to like. The government. And the pandemic. The amount of people that went "hurr durr I don't trust the government so this clearly isn't real and they're just trying to control us"
Not to get political, but this is how people act about global warming in America.
no, that's not the problem, you're just being a streamer 😒
Thankfully yet to see this, but that’s goofy lmao
"A highly experienced player who streams this game also said this, so therefore it's invalid" is the DBD equivalent of a science-denier, especially when said highly experienced player has really clear reasons with data to explain why they believe the thing they believe. It's just people going "streamers are stupid and don't know anything." That's an idiotic worldview to have.
It's funny this is targeted for gaming in general because this straight up a trend in the USA about everything (maybe the West in general?).
I'm gonna be that guy… Your overarching argument is correct, but you violate your own argument at 1:55 by appealing to authority yourself…! Hear me out… The claims and truth value of the argument is what matters not the people involved, or what they've done, unless it's relevant to the conclusion of the argument. As you explain, in appeals to authority someone tries to leverage their argument by calling on something said by a person the community respects, but that authority has no valuable evidence to support the person's claims. Just because the community agrees someone has met the requirements to be respected, does not mean everything they say is true, nor does it mean everything they say is false. In this case, scott, someone can't be even slightly correct because they've invested more time into something than another person – this is what appealing to authority is. If that time invested resulted in information that proves the claims being made, then it would be valid to cite them, but being an authority doesn't make their claims valid. Like, you probably have more hours in the game than I do, but that doesn't make the things you say about the game any more true than what I say, it simply means you have more hours in the game. What matters is the evidence being used to support whatever is being claimed. Basically, there is no grey area with logic – fuzzy logic doesn't apply here.
As an example, say I'm arguing with someone and I tell them "Ghostface does not have a white mask", then someone replies "Scott says he does". Then I say "Just because scott is reputable in the community does not mean his comments are true." Then the person replies "but he has more hours in the game than you do, I checked both of your hours played, and scott has more". It's true that scott has more hours in DBD than I do, but the argument was not about who has more hours, it is about whether ghostface has a white mask. Mentioning hours proves that scott would likely be considered more of an authority by the community, but that doesn't say anything about the color of ghostface's mask, only that Scott is more experienced than I am. Calling attention to Scott's hours to substantiate their point about a mask would be using another fallacy (red herring) to substantiate their appeal to authority (Scott), in which case the entire argument would be false. However…! If instead of mentioning scotts hours, that person said: "Scott has a video showing that the mask is white. You can take a screenshot, and check the hexadecimal value of ghostface's mask on a color picker, if you don't believe him – it will read #FFFFFF in hex, or (255,255,255) in decimal" then the argument would be valid, and referencing scott's claims would be suitable – meaning, it would not be an appeal to authority to reference scott's claims. In this case, the person is just citing where they are getting the information from. Which is essentially why we fact check, and cite things – if someone has done the research, why reinvent the wheel?
To keep deeper into why this happens… No one should feel dumb or silly for making this mistake, and no one should give anyone else a hard time for making these mistakes, it's incredibly common for humans to argue opinions they think are statements – even if there's really no point in arguing an opinion, we do it. Statements have a truth value, in that they can be proven, whereas an opinion cannot. As an example: I can say "My monitor emits light" because if it's on, and working, the light is clearly visible. But if I were to say, "I don't like the color of light my monitor is emitting" I can't prove that to you, because it's my opinion – because maybe you like the color it's emitting. In logic courses, they usually illustrate this by having you consider this sentence: "This statement is false." It can't be true, because if it were true, it would be false, and if it's false, then it would be true. Meaning It's not an actual statement, but an opinion because you can't prove it. (fun fact: a few people trying to prove that you can't prove these things went insane or killed themselves trying to do so [it's a little more complicated than that, but the documentary "dangerous knowledge" has a segment on kurt godel that can fill you in])
The point of fallacies is to recognize when people make invalid arguments that they try to leverage with cognitive bias, mental gymnastics and other tricks. Once you identify that fallacy, you use that structure to disprove their argument – calling them on the fallacy isn't enough if you don't know how to prove it. For an argument to even be provable, it has to have a truth value, or, it has to be a statement – it cannot be an opinion. But, it is possible that a streamer can make a valid argument, which can then be cited by a player, and that player will be right. If people claim by citing a streamer you are appealing to authority, they must provide a counterexample, showing why your appeal to authority is exactly that.
You're calling it a reverse appeal to authority, but really the person citing the streamer is being called on appealing to authority (calling it a reverse appeal to authority does make it easier to explain in this context, I suppose). But, all you have to do to properly challenge this person when they call you on this, is ask them why the streamer is wrong – assuming you gave them evidence from the streamer that supports your argument. Then again, this might be where they ask you to provide evidence from that streamer that proves your point if you haven't yet – referencing the streamer alone is not enough.
Again, it's incredibly easy and closer to a human's natural state of mind to say fallacious things. I'm not trying to defend anyone by saying this, it's just that we're emotional creatures, and the thinking required for (nerd incoming) "propositional calculus" is not a natural way to think about things for most people. As you can tell, I'm not very good at explaining it myself. I'm just trying to add some more technical insight, but I think I'm failing, lol. Most of what I studied had to do with math, not propositions, but hopefully this helps a little.