Home » How to Be Right

Comments

<i>How to Be Right</i> — 12 Comments

  1. Well, if you read the material available from the “Look Inside” pages it seems clear that just spinningout one liners isn’t his primary purpose.

  2. I often watch “The Five” on Fox News where Greg Gutfield is a regular panelist. He is clearly the sharpest one on the show, although he does do a considerable bit of verbal mugging for the camera. He has a talent for going right for the quick of an issue. I have read another of his books and will order this one ASAP.

  3. It really seems rather pointless to try and have a rational discussion with people who don’t believe in reason.

  4. I’ve just read the sample on Kindle. “How to Be Right” looks good and I’m going to order it.

    Just a reminder to everyone… Anything you order from Amazon, order through the link on Neo’s blog.

  5. I’ve listened to the audio book, and it was so useful I had to buy a physical copy as well.

    Honestly, it should be mandatory reading for those of us on the right. I learned a lot from the book, as well as had a few good laughs.

  6. Mandatory reading doesn’t do anything in and of itself, since reading doesn’t allow people to acquire skills.

  7. I like Gutfeld and will read it. I would also recommend “SJWs Always Lie” by Vox Day.

    People are quite divided on the man but there is no denying the use of the book.

  8. snopercod: “It really seems rather pointless to try and have a rational discussion with people who don’t believe in reason.”

    In a public setting, including social media, you’re talking to an audience, not just the person you’re talking with.

    I don’t know what Gutfield says, so my recommendation may fit his recommendation:

    Think in terms of narrative and counter-narrative like an advocate arguing in front of a jury. Lay the foundation with premises and set the frame and then take to direct argument on the issue.

    Litigators aren’t trying to convince each other. They’re competing to convince a jury.

  9. Litigators aren’t trying to convince each other. They’re competing to convince a jury.

    In America before 1860, lawyers who ended up losing arguments, could always take offense and challenge the other lawyer to a duel. It had a certain effect.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>