Conversing for Adults
Using Critical Intelligence to rise above trolling and arguing
When is the last time you had a healthy, calm (and possibly enlightening) conversation with someone you might fundamentally disagree with? It is extraordinarily rare, right?
That is largely because nuance, discernment, and curiosity have been replaced by cheap knock-offs of conversations - most often in social posts and comments sections. The most certain and rigid are certain their ideas are original, well-researched, devoid of irrationality. In reality, they’re often just karaoke singers covering the talking points of their favorite bias-affirming talk show host; repeating the same empty arguments without thinking. What passes as dialogue is often just an addiction to the empty calories of cut-and-paste arguments—they feel satisfying in the moment but leave you malnourished and nowhere closer to what is real.
Yes, social media has been the cess pool out of which all of this grew and amplified. But the issue goes further back to education; where philosophy, debate, and critical thinking are electives and not requirements.
In short, we’ve forgotten how to talk to each other. We’re either braying opinions, tearing someone else down, or just checking out completely. And it all comes down to binary thinking—this “you’re either with me or against me” garbage that fuels extremism. It’s toxic, and it’s everywhere.
Trolling vs. Arguing vs. Debating
Trolling: Trolling is shit posting; saying something intentionally outrageous just to provoke people. It’s about getting a reaction, not having a real conversation. Examples: Trump (all of them), Musk
Arguing: Arguing is obsessively trying to prove you’re right, ignoring anything the other person says. It’s about winning, not understanding. Examples: Ben Shapiro, Bill Maher
The Difference? Trolling is about creating drama, while arguing is about bolstering your ego and identity. Neither involves actually listening or learning. Interestingly, neither have much to do with IQ. There are plenty of higher IQ people that are unrepentant trolls (looking at you, Elon). And there are plenty of dumb people that know how to argue.
Debating: Mature adults have developed the skill of debating. This is where real conversation happens. In a debate, both sides show up with their opinions but are willing to explore and understand. You walk into it knowing you might not change minds right away, but you’re there to think critically and maybe, just maybe, learn something new. This requires real effort, humility, and the willingness to admit when you’re wrong. Examples: Pete Buttigieg, Lex Fridman
“Arguing is escalating.”
- Dr. Israel Calzada (my psychiatrist)
Cognitive Biases vs. Logical Fallacies
If you’re going to engage in a real debate, you need to understand two things that screw up a lot of discussions: cognitive biases and logical fallacies.
Cognitive biases are the mental shortcuts that influence how we process and filter information. Think of confirmation bias—where you only pay attention to stuff that backs up what you already believe. In a discussion about a topic, someone with confirmation bias might only pull stats or studies that support their stance, completely ignoring anything that contradicts their beliefs. It’s not intentional; it’s just how the brain works when it’s unchecked.
But logical fallacies are different. Unlike cognitive biases, which are automatic and hardwired into us, logical fallacies are intentional and optional. They’re deliberate attempts to distort truth, often used to manipulate an argument and sidestep reason. Logical fallacies don’t happen by accident—they’re calculated moves to win an argument at any cost, usually at the expense of the truth.
Nothing kills a debate faster than logical fallacies. These are the sneaky gaslighting tactics people use to win an argument without actually engaging with the other person’s point. They’re cheap tricks that get in the way of any real understanding. There are dozens of them (I’m happy to send you a list) but these are the most common when it comes to intense, heavy topics - often related to ideology or theology:
Strawman: Misrepresenting the other person’s argument to make it easier to attack.
False dilemma: Presenting only two extreme options of a complex situation.
Slippery slope: Claiming that one small action will lead to some wild, extreme consequence.
Ad hominem: Attacking the person, not the argument.
“A good leader can engage in a debate frankly and thoroughly, knowing that at the end he and the other side must be closer, and thus emerge stronger. You don't have that idea when you are arrogant, superficial, and uninformed.”
- Nelson Mandela
Mea Culpa: I Used to Troll and Argue Too
Here’s the truth: I’ve been that person—trolling and arguing like it was some kind of sport. I threw out logical fallacies without even realizing it. Hell, I enjoyed it. There was a time when I cared more about making someone look stupid than actually understanding where they were coming from.
I used to think it was all about winning. I’d drop one-liners designed to shut the other person down and walk away feeling victorious. I was that guy, throwing gasoline on the fire, convinced I was in the right. But looking back, I wasn’t listening, I wasn’t learning, and I sure as hell wasn’t contributing to anything meaningful. It was a waste—an ego-driven cycle that just left everyone more pissed off than when we started.
I didn’t care about nuance. I didn’t even want to hear the other side. I was stuck in my own binary world, where I was right and they were wrong. And it was easy. Trolling and arguing are easy—there’s no vulnerability in it. You never have to admit you don’t know something. You never have to stretch your thinking. It’s all surface-level, ego-driven noise.
But then I started to realize something: I wasn’t growing. I wasn’t learning. I wasn’t becoming any wiser or more empathetic. I was just getting louder, angrier, and more disconnected. That’s when I started developing Critical Intelligence—because I knew there had to be something better. I knew I had to be better.
Critical Intelligence: The insipidity killer
Critical Intelligence is a term and framework I designed to elevate dialogue and decision-making. It’s about combining critical thinking, self-awareness, and ethical values to make more informed, balanced decisions. Unlike standard critical thinking that often focuses on logic alone, Critical Intelligence digs deeper, asking you to confront your own cognitive biases, question assumptions, and prioritize ethical considerations.
It’s not just about being smart or well-read; it’s about approaching discussions with humility and a willingness to challenge your own beliefs. This mindset turns a debate from a battle of wills into an opportunity for understanding and growth. Critical Intelligence encourages you to step back, recognize the social conditioning that shapes your thoughts, and engage in a conversation with open-mindedness, empathy, and integrity.
You can’t practice Critical Intelligence if you’re not willing to challenge your own thinking. That’s what sets it apart from other forms of debate. It’s designed for people who want more than just to be right—they want to get it right.
Critical Intelligence is more than just fancy critical thinking. It’s about combining self-awareness, ethics, and deep reflection to make decisions and engage in conversations that actually matter. It’s grounded in the fact that we’re all full of biases, conditioning, and ego—but that we can rise above that if we choose to.
In conversations, Critical Intelligence isn’t about flexing intellectual muscles—it’s about using both your head and your heart. Critical Intelligence is what separates shallow arguments from real, meaningful dialogue. It makes you stop and ask:
• Where am I missing something?
• What’s the deeper truth I’m not seeing?
• Am I just trying to win, or am I actually trying to learn?
It’s about staying open - open to being wrong, open to other perspectives, and open to the idea that every conversation is a chance to grow, not just a place to dominate. I will say that again in a different way …
Critical Intelligence is not about sides. It’s about perspectives. At its best, it gets to the messy, complex, and evolving truth of things. In addition, Critical Intelligence is also not about moral or ethical relativism. There are some things that are good vs evil - especially any behavior that harms or dehumanizes. And those should always be confronted with vigilance and vigor.
“The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.”
- F. Scott Fitzgerald
Critical Intelligence Example: Abortion—Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice
Some context and disclaimers:
Abortion may be the most intense and heavy topic of our times. That’s why I chose it as an example and a test of Critical Intelligence.
This is essay is not about abortion, however. Nor is it about my opinion about abortion.
The dialogue presented below is an example only. There are thousands of ways a conversation on this issue could go.
Abortion is a perfect example of where binary thinking and logical fallacies thrive. It’s a heavy and highly emotional, complex issue that crosses ideological and theological lines. Without Critical Intelligence, here’s how the conversation usually goes:
Pro-life person: “You’re okay with killing babies? How can you live with yourself?”
Pro-choice person: “You just want to control women. This is about freedom!”
The pro-life person is throwing a strawman fallacy, reducing the pro-choice stance to “killing babies.” The pro-choice person responds with a false dilemma—either it’s about freedom, or it’s about oppression. Nobody’s learning anything. Nobody’s listening.
Now, let’s flip it. Here’s how Critical Intelligence transforms the conversation:
Pro-life person: “I believe life begins at conception, so abortion feels like taking a life to me. But I’m curious—why is bodily autonomy such a critical value for you?”
Pro-choice person: “I see where you’re coming from. For me, it’s about a woman’s right to control her own body. But I’d like to know—how do you feel about situations where a woman’s health is at risk?”
You see the difference? They’re not throwing out logical fallacies or trying to shut each other down. They’re asking real questions. They’re digging deeper, using Critical Intelligence to get beyond their initial reactions.
Let’s go further with a back-and-forth:
Pro-life person: “I see life as beginning at conception, so to me, being against abortion is about protecting the right to life. But I know you value reproductive rights. How do you see those two rights coexisting?”
Pro-choice person: “I understand your perspective on life at conception, but I see reproductive rights as fundamental to a woman’s autonomy—her ability to control what happens to her own body. But I’m curious—how do you view cases where forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy might severely impact her health or future?”
Pro-life person: “That’s where it gets even more complex. I do think there are situations where a pregnancy could risk a woman’s health. But I struggle with the idea that the solution is to end a potential life. How do you think society should weigh a woman’s right to her body against what some see as the unborn’s right to life?”
Pro-choice person: “It’s definitely a hard balance. I believe that forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy against her will, even if it doesn’t threaten her life, can infringe on her basic rights. But I also understand the desire to protect life from the moment of conception. Do you think there are situations where reproductive rights should outweigh the potential for life?”
Pro-life person: “I’m not sure I would ever say one should outright outweigh the other, but I do think we need to do more to address the circumstances that drive women to feel abortion is their only option. What about cases where there’s clear evidence the pregnancy is non-viable or will result in severe suffering for the child?”
Pro-choice person: “I agree those are heart-wrenching cases, and that’s why I believe the decision should ultimately rest with the woman—it’s her body, her life, and her future. But I also see why you’d want to protect life, even in those scenarios. How do you reconcile that protection of life with the reality that some pregnancies can cause profound physical and emotional harm to women?”
Pro-life person: “That’s where I struggle. I don’t think there’s an easy answer. I value life, but I also don’t want to dismiss the struggles and rights of women. Maybe the solution lies more in providing better support, both before and after birth, so women feel like they have real choices beyond abortion.”
In this exchange, both parties are actively engaging with Critical Intelligence. They’re questioning their own assumptions, considering the opposing perspective, and recognizing the complexity between reproductive rights and the right to life. Neither is simply defending their position; they’re working to understand how these two fundamental rights might coexist and where the limits should be.
This is how real conversations happen. It’s about exploring nuances and dichotomies without fear. When you walk into a discussion armed with Critical Intelligence, you’re not trying to impose your viewpoint or dominate the conversation. You’re asking real questions—questions that challenge your own assumptions as much as they challenge the other person’s. It’s about respecting the complexity of the issue, recognizing that most meaningful topics—like abortion, or any heavy ideological or theological debate—aren’t black and white. They’re messy, layered, and require us to think beyond the simplistic narratives we’ve been fed.
This approach is not about winning. There’s no prize for being the loudest or the most stubborn. Instead, it’s about understanding—about coming out the other side of a conversation with more insight than you had going in. Critical Intelligence forces you to dig deep, to engage with the real substance of an issue rather than skating by on surface-level slogans or rehearsed talking points.
And here’s the thing: the beauty of Critical Intelligence is that it won’t work if your views are extreme or thinly developed. It thrives on open-mindedness and a willingness to question, adapt, and grow. If you’re locked into rigid, binary thinking, Critical Intelligence will unravel those shallow convictions quickly. Extremism, with its refusal to engage in nuance or admit the possibility of being wrong, collapses under the weight of Critical Intelligence.
When you embrace Critical Intelligence, you’re not just sharpening your own mind—you’re helping others step out of their ideological corners and into a space where real, human conversation happens. It’s not easy. But it’s how we move from division to understanding, and from debate to meaningful dialogue.
Get Started with Critical Intelligence Prompts
If you’re tired of dealing with shit-posters and shallow, repetitive arguments and want to engage in real dialogue, try my Critical Intelligence framework. I’ve created ChatGPT prompts to guide you through the model—whether it’s abortion, religion, climate change, or any other high-stakes issue.
These prompts help you break down arguments, spot logical fallacies, and keep your ego in check. They’re designed to move you from surface-level sparring to meaningful, transformative conversations.