7 уровней спора. От хейтера в комментах до философа

Hello everyone. Today, we are going to break down seven levels of argumentation, from basic layman's terms to more advanced, philosophical, professional, and abstract ones. All useful materials, as well as my script, can be found in the links in the description. My debate course, designed to help you learn how to argue and move from one level to the next, is also linked in the description. How will this video be structured? First and foremost, we will look at what this phenomenon is, how it is built and how it works, what typical characters argue at this level, what this kind of argument looks like, and why we don't always succeed in conveying our thoughts or winning an argument at this level. And, naturally, what needs to be done to move forward, or to win, if such an option even exists. All right, let's start with the first level. The first level is the level of observing a set of subjective facts. What is a subjective fact? Well, there are objective facts. For instance, the Earth is more or less round. Yes, if you're a schizo, write about it in the comments. But we know it's a geoid. That is a more or less objective fact; it does not depend on the observer. There are social facts. Well, you can take some axioms, like society believing that you should give up your seat on the bus to elderly women. Or, for example, if you trip and fall in the mud, people should point and laugh at you. So, there are some social facts, some quasi-axioms. Then there are subjective facts, that is, knowledge that is personally subjective to me. For example, I don't like raisins. You can burst or crack, say whatever you want. I don't like raisins. And you won't be able to argue me out of that, either. My subjective facts are in the realm of my personal opinion, my sensations, my assumptions, and what has happened around me. And people at the first level argue in exactly this way. They, I don't know why—or rather, I do know why, I'm just not going to tell you—are unable or unwilling to analyze large, complex events happening around them. They are unable to analyze principles or logical chains. They see something. And it seems to them that this is how it works. They are incapable of understanding how these processes are constructed. What can you do? Is there any possibility of winning here? In reality, no. Well, unless you provide a counterexample. Why? Simply because you cannot construct, as I’ve already said, any set of logical chains to out-argue that person, since they rely only on what they saw, and what they saw is the truth for them. I mean, you can’t tell me that I don’t like raisins. So at this level, you essentially have to crawl inside my head, inside my brain, and try to find an explanation that doesn't exist, because I have no explanation. I have an observation; there is no logical structure beneath it, there is no justification of any kind, there is just a blunt fact. And honestly, because you cannot argue with a fact, you cannot argue with my conviction either. And this is 90% of the content on the internet. You just open the comments written under my videos and go crazy, because one person writes some observation, "I didn't like this," and another person tries to convince them that for some reason they should have liked it. Like in the previous video where Abdullah reads from the teleprompter. I don’t like it. Other people say, like, why don’t you like it? You should like it. The other person says, "I don't like it." And Grigor says, "Well, I like it because he doesn't just make things up off the top of his head and he isn't emotional." And it turns into an absolutely pointless discussion, an absolutely pointless conversation where people aren't trying to achieve any result, aren't trying to find any truth, but are simply pushing their own ego forward. That is why we don't argue at this level. At this level, it is meaningless. Well, unless you want to have a fight with someone. Who argues at this level? Well, if we’re talking about famous people, we could say Donald Trump. I mean, that classic story, where he gets some absolutely inexplicable facts about things he "saw with his own eyes." Or things like—to use the expression, mushrooms with eyes, they get eaten while they look at you—about people in Puerto Rico eating dogs, cats, and so on. I mean, it's an absolutely senseless story, but it influences people. Because if you've hit and resonated with that person, then you aren't going to be able to change their mind. I mean, they’re already yours. For example, right, how does a typical argument at this level take place? Let’s take two examples that will stay with us from the beginning to the very end. First, the smoking ban. Let’s say we need to, well, I don’t know, ban smoking or restrict it in some way, for example, ban smoking in public places. Someone might say to you, because it’s harmful to health, yes, an absolutely basic, understandable thing. Smoking is harmful to health. If you smoke, you die. What can a person say? Nonsense. My grandfather smoked until he was 100, lived his whole life, was fine, didn't worry, was running and jumping, and so on. In all fairness, my grandfather was born in '43, and he’s been smoking since he was 8. Since he was 8, he’s been smoking hookahs, and from fourteen, cigarettes every day, sometimes filterless, those disgusting ones. You can’t even imagine them, well, I don’t know if they even have filters in principle, but they cost absolutely pennies. So he smokes them, runs, jumps, builds houses. I mean, based on my own subjective experience, I could say that smoking isn't harmful at all, because look, my grandfather smokes and is doing just fine, probably. I don't know. Well, if you live to that age and function absolutely normally, then clearly things are working out much better for you. So, at this level, you can’t argue with me. And most people work this way. They use the survivorship bias. As you may note, I’ve already discussed cognitive biases and logical fallacies in a video regarding the survivorship bias: yes, Steve Jobs dropped out of university, Bill Gates dropped out of university, Elon Musk dropped out of college—look at who they became, while you dropped out of your Saratov tractor-building school, and look at who you’ll become. So people at this level are unreceptive. You can’t win the argument, you can’t tell me that, well, my grandfather functions somehow differently. Okay. Let’s take another example with COVID restrictions, well, you remember, right, there was this COVID thing when we wore masks and lockdowns were introduced. Why were lockdowns needed? Lockdowns were needed so that people wouldn’t infect each other. Why? Because the virus is quite serious. What, what will your opponent tell you? It’s written right here, what will your opponent tell you? And what were people saying? They were saying: "I’ll go to church now and pray to the Lord God for him to destroy the virus. At the same time, I’ll be kissing icons and relics." After all, that’s just how it works, on one hand. On the other hand, people are like: "This is a conspiracy theory. The virus doesn’t even exist. You’re all just sneezing for no reason." You get a fever because you’re mental fools and so on. Third, people say: "But I, I didn’t get sick at all. Nobody I know got sick and nobody died." That’s all a fabrication, of course, and pure delusion. The virus isn't dangerous at all, it's just like the flu. And whoever died, well, they would have died from a regular flu anyway. And that is no fiction. I mean, you understand, 90% of people use this kind of logic. People. Well, to be more precise, not 90, 50% of people have below-average intelligence. The second half of that amount lacks the intelligence to develop, well, the cognitive ability to analyze pattern recognition or complex systems. So, for about 75% of people, well, it’s very hard for them to go above that level. And they sort of function at that level. And they really do m

description. My debate course, designed to help you learn how to argue and move from one level to the next, is also linked in the description. How will this video be structured? First and foremost, we will look at what this

phenomenon is, how it is built and how it works, what typical characters argue at this level, what this kind of argument looks like, and why we don't always succeed in conveying our thoughts or winning an argument at this

level. And, naturally, what needs to be done to move forward, or to win, if such an option even exists. All right, let's start with the first level. The first level is the level of observing a set of subjective facts. What is a

subjective fact? Well, there are objective facts. For instance, the Earth is more or less round, yes, if you're a schizo, write about it in the comments. But we know it's a geoid.

That is a more or less objective fact; it does not depend on the observer.

There are social facts, well, you can take some axioms, like society believing that you should give up your seat on the bus to elderly women. Or, for example, if you trip and fall in the mud, people should point and laugh

at you. So, there are some social facts , some quasi-axioms. Then there are subjective facts, that is, knowledge that is personally subjective to me.

For example, I don't like raisins. You can burst or crack, say whatever you want. I don't like raisins. And you won't be able to argue me out of that, either. My subjective facts are in the realm of my personal opinion, my

sensations, my assumptions, and what has happened around me. And people at the first level argue in exactly this way. They, I don't know why—or rather , I do know why, I'm just not going to tell you—are unable or unwilling to

analyze large, complex events happening around them. They are unable to analyze principles or logical chains. They see something. And it seems to them that this is how it works. They are incapable of understanding how these processes are constructed. What can you

do? Is there any possibility of winning here? In reality, no. Well, unless you provide a counterexample. Why? Simply because you cannot construct, as I’ve already said, any set of logical chains to out-argue that person, since they rely only on what they saw, and what

they saw is the truth for them. I mean, you can’t tell me that I don’t like raisins. So at this level, you essentially have to crawl inside my head, inside my brain, and try to find an explanation that doesn't exist,

because I have no explanation. I have an observation; there is no logical structure beneath it, there is no justification of any kind, there is just a blunt fact. And honestly, because you cannot argue with a fact, you cannot argue with my conviction

either. And this is 90%of the content on the internet. You just open the comments written under my videos and go crazy, because one person writes some observation, "I didn't like this," and another person tries to convince them that for some reason they should have

liked it. Like in the previous video where Abdullah reads from the teleprompter. I don’t like it. Other people say, like, why don’t you like it? You should like it. The other person says, "I don't like it." And Grigor says, "Well, I like it because

he doesn't just make things up off the top of his head and he isn't emotional.

" And it turns into an absolutely pointless discussion, an absolutely pointless conversation where people aren't trying to achieve any result, aren't trying to find any truth, but are simply pushing their own ego forward. That is why we don't argue at

this level. At this level, it is meaningless. Well, unless you want to have a fight with someone. Who argues at this level? Well, if we’re talking about famous people, we could say Donald Trump. I mean, that classic story, where he gets some absolutely

inexplicable facts about things he "saw with his own eyes." Or things like—to use the expression, mushrooms with eyes , they get eaten while they look at you —about people in Puerto Rico eating dogs, cats, and so on. I mean, it's an

absolutely senseless story, but it influences people. Because if you've hit and resonated with that person, then you aren't going to be able to change their mind. I mean, they’re already yours. For example, right, how does a typical argument at this level

take place? Let’s take two examples that will stay with us from the beginning to the very end. First, the smoking ban. Let’s say we need to, well, I don’t know, ban smoking or restrict it in some way, for example,

ban smoking in public places. Someone might say to you, because it’s harmful to health, yes, an absolutely basic, understandable thing. Smoking is harmful to health. If you smoke, you die. What can a person say? Nonsense.

My grandfather smoked until he was 100, lived his whole life, was fine, didn't worry, was running and jumping, and so on. In all fairness, my grandfather was born in '43, and he’s been smoking since he was 8. Since he was 8, he’s

been smoking hookahs, and from fourteen , cigarettes every day, sometimes filterless, those disgusting ones. You can’t even imagine them, well, I don’t know if they even have filters in principle, but they cost absolutely pennies. So he smokes them, runs, jumps

, builds houses. I mean, based on my own subjective experience, I could say that smoking isn't harmful at all, because look, my grandfather smokes and is doing just fine, probably. I don't know. Well, if you live to that age and

function absolutely normally, then clearly things are working out much better for you. So, at this level, you can’t argue with me. And most people work this way. They use the survivorship bias. As you may note, I’ve already discussed cognitive

biases and logical fallacies in a video regarding the survivorship bias: yes, Steve Jobs dropped out of university, Bill Gates dropped out of university, Elon Musk dropped out of college—look at who they became, while you dropped out of your Saratov tractor-building

school, and look at who you’ll become . So people at this level are unreceptive. You can’t win the argument, you can’t tell me that, well, my grandfather functions somehow differently. Okay. Let’s take another example with COVID restrictions, well,

you remember, right, there was this COVID thing when we wore masks and lockdowns were introduced. Why were lockdowns needed? Lockdowns were needed so that people wouldn’t infect each other. Why? Because the virus is quite serious. What, what will your opponent

tell you? It’s written right here, what will your opponent tell you? And what were people saying? They were saying: "I’ll go to church now and pray to the Lord God for him to destroy the virus. At the same time, I’ll be

kissing icons and relics." After all, that’s just how it works, on one hand . On the other hand, people are like: " This is a conspiracy theory. The virus doesn’t even exist. You’re all just sneezing for no reason." You get a

fever because you’re mental fools and so on. Third, people say: "But I, I didn’t get sick at all. Nobody I know got sick and nobody died." That’s all a fabrication, of course, and pure delusion. The virus isn't dangerous at

all, it's just like the flu. And whoever died, well, they would have died from a regular flu anyway. And that is no fiction. I mean, you understand, 90%of people use this kind of logic. People. Well, to be more

precise, not 90, 50%of people have below-average intelligence. The second half of that amount lacks the intelligence to develop, well, the cognitive ability to analyze pattern recognition or complex systems. So, for about 75%of people, well, it’s very hard for them to go above that level.

And they sort of function at that level . And they really do make decisions that way. If it isn't found within, if it contradicts my subjective experience , then it’s a lie. And no matter what you do, you can't change that. If you

see an opponent like that, well, I have the strategy written right here. You see an opponent like that, just drop it . Thanks, goodbye, this is my stop.

I’m like, well, thanks for the discussion, very uninteresting and useless. It’s a waste of time. Yeah.

Well, that’s why you can see that I don’t argue in the comments. I see absolutely no point in it, so to speak.

It’s like arguing with a fool, right? At some point, you’ll drop to their level, and they’ll crush you with their experience. Alright. Well, let’s say we want to leave this level and move to a higher one. What do we

need to do? First of all, we highlight the manipulation they’re using, the logical fallacy they’re using, and then we move to a higher level. Roughly speaking, you can say, yes, interesting case. I’m glad that your personal experience tells you that the situation

works a bit differently. But again, there are examples like yours, well, there are examples like yours, and there are other examples that differ.

But how can you explain this other thing, then? Because there are some people who smoke, they get lung cancer, and they die. There are some people who develop other diseases. There are medical studies. So we are saying that

there is your own example, and there are other examples. So, you see again, a person? See? A person does not think at a systematic level; they do not think at the level of mechanisms. And since they do not think at the level of

mechanisms, to pull them up a level higher, to the mechanism level, we need to show them that there are counterexamples. And if there are counterexamples, it means the position is not binary, it is spectral. That is, there are outliers, yes, at the edges,

or, conversely, smoothing at the edges. There is some dominant thing. That is, you show them that these are not black-and-white situations, because there are many examples. That is, you just pelt them with examples, which are enough to draw a graph into which

people can shove their position. And after that, you show them: let's think about why this happened, right? That is , let's mull it over. I don't know why you need this, but if you need it, so be it, we'll analyze it. And again, I

forgot to say this at the beginning of the video, but this is all built on the matryoshka principle. Each subsequent level covers the previous one. In other words, the third level covers the second, the fourth-fifth, sixth, the fifth level covers the, uh, six. At the

level of mechanisms, our fundamental task is to analyze the cause-and-effect relationships that underlie the observations we see. That is, roughly speaking, if a person says: "My grandfather smoked until he was 100, and he was absolutely fine," we say: "

Look, there is a large number of other phenomena and observations that show us it doesn't always work that way." Let's think about why that is. That is, there are people who smoke for 40 years and get lung cancer. There are people who

smoke for 20 years and have shortness of breath and acid reflux. There are people who smoke for 10 years and have high blood pressure, can't walk properly, and are falling apart. Please , let's analyze why this is happening.

Because there are people; that is, if something affects our lives, it means we can see how it affects it. That is one thing. Plus, let's think about what smoking is in principle. What are you smoking? What are you inhaling, and how

are you inhaling it? What combustion products, decay, and other things are there that get into your lungs, do something there, enter your bloodstream , and so on. Let's analyze this together. The problem is that having your own opinion is very cool. And you

love having your own opinion. You like having an opinion. Backing up your opinion isn't cool, because then you have to—well, you know, like the classic scenario where you're in a bar and get into it with someone and they

say "let's step outside," the person doesn't want to fight you, they just want to hit you. And when you start hitting back, they get upset, because their goal was never to improve their position, get smarter, move forward, or

somehow get to the bottom of things— to actually think, apply some cognitive effort, and burn some glucose in their skull. That was never their goal. And when you move to this level and every level deeper, you sound stuffier and

stuffier and more and more pedantic to that person. And their motivation to engage in dialogue with you just disappears. Therefore, firstly, many people who are into debating don't argue in principle, because, well, it's a completely pointless endeavor. Plus,

it's a chore. And secondly, when they do start to argue, most people drop off simply because, well, they can't handle that pace. Like, hitting me is fun, but when I start hitting back, that's not fun anymore. The streamer was too

intense. Goodbye. Fine. That's why I'm not sure that here, too—here, you can't really win. Here, you start examining things with another person in order to get to the truth of the matter . Okay? And who debates at this level?

Ben Shapiro is the clearest example, when he takes some student who just wants to get on stage and say something nasty to Mr. Ben, and Ben starts unloading logical chains, cause-and-effect relationships, and begins to ask: "Have you even thought

about where this came from and why this happened?""Let's see how this works in other situations, how all of this manifests.""And if we change just one element, then everything changes." I mean, roughly speaking, let's take crime statistics: when it's Asians,

well, in a neighborhood where Asians live, there's this level of crime; when white guys live there, there's that level of crime; when Hispanics live there, there's another level of crime; when Black people live there, there's a third level of crime. When we change

different levels of education—he just has a lot of data. And just like we analyzed the debate with Stas, it's the same thing happening there, just clumsily. He just dumps data, overwhelming his opponent. And when you dump data that is systematized,

categorized, and linked by logical chains, for any person with, well, a basic level of training, it becomes extremely stifling: they immediately give up, bail out, stop responding to you, or try to lash out, because it's the easiest way if you, well, sort of

lack the cognitive abilities for this. That is why Ben Shapiro, as you might notice, evokes a large amount of conflicting emotions. People get angry at him, people get furious, people like him, people think he is a top-tier debater. If you are interested in

watching a top-tier debater lose miserably to some dude in a minute and a half over three questions, you can go to Alex O'Connor's channel, where they argue about the Talmud or the Old Testament. Right there around the forty-fifth or fiftieth minute, Ben

Shapiro is, well, lost, scared, contradicting himself, admits it, and gives up. Okay, let's break down how this looks using the examples I already mentioned regarding smoking bans and COVID restrictions. We can say, well, first, let's just analyze how smoking

works, right? We say that it contains heavy metals, resins, and other contents that, upon entering your lungs , are toxic to them. They are toxic to, well, everything, starting from the lips and ending with the alveoli inside the lungs, right; resins stick, other

things poison, and so on and so forth. And all people have an absolutely different reaction to these kinds of negative contents. So, here you can draw an analogy, because most people who like the observational level, who are at the observational level, find it

difficult to consider logical chains in a vacuum, right, because that requires, well, somehow maintaining a high level of abstraction. They like analogies.

Analogies don't prove anything, they only illustrate. And you can say, well, look, some people get full from a small bun, while others need to eat a three-liter pot of soup. Some people go to the gym, and they have a very quick

muscle response. Some people go to the gym, do the exact same thing, but their muscle response is a bit different, right. Someone has a bicep of one shape , another has a bicep of a different shape, ligaments are different, height

is different. So, we show this with a very simple, understandable example. People are all very different, tall, short, thin, fat, fast, slow, and so on . They are all different. They react to different things in different ways.

It's the same with smoking. But we can kind of see the pattern with you, that there are some things that are harmful, right? If you drink gasoline, will you feel better? No, you won't. But one person will die from drinking gasoline

quickly, and another will take longer. Damn, there's a guy on YouTube who drank windshield washer fluid and all, and he didn't even die from that. Well, I think you're not supposed to talk about that on YouTube, but still. Yeah.

So, in this case, either the opponent has to admit that it’s not all black and white and that this is a system we can observe and draw conclusions from, or they'll start nitpicking, spinning, twisting, bringing up other examples,

and at some point, they'll either ghost you or just call you an idiot. Okay.

And with COVID restrictions, yeah, it's the same thing. People say: "No, we didn't need COVID restrictions because COVID is a hoax." And you can say: "We have corpses, we can see them." Even if a person doesn't believe the statistics

, there are a huge number of people on the internet who lost their friends and family, who were very sick, who could explain a thing or two to that person.

That's the first point. And the second, when they say something like, "No, lockdowns don't work," you can say: " Okay, if it’s a disease that spreads through airborne droplets, well, like any virus—well, like a virus—not all viruses spread that way, see?""You

shouldn't take everything as an absolute." So, if it spreads through airborne droplets, then by increasing the distance between people and reducing the number of people, we are simply reducing the volume of interaction, the number of contacts between people. And people are at a

distance so that the virus is transmitted less. And if the person says: "Well, but people still got sick.

" Yeah, brother, people still got sick. We never said that it would solve the problem. We said it would reduce it.

More people could have gotten sick, this just means fewer, right? So, you see, when someone says to you: "No, but people still got sick." That's the Nirvana fallacy, an argument to perfection. Nobody demanded an ideal solution from us. An ideal solution is

impossible. We are required to have a solution that is better than worse, that is better than any other solution that could have been slightly worse.

And moreover, they say: "Well, COVID restrictions didn't help us beat the disease anyway." No, COVID restrictions were never aimed at defeating COVID.

They don't fight COVID. They provide an opportunity for the medical infrastructure not to collapse. You do understand what the primary problem was , right? It wasn’t that you caught the flu and died. The problem was that your healthcare system wasn't built for

any of that. It wasn't designed for this. I mean, the domestic healthcare system was built in the Soviet Union, which planned for every emergency by suddenly setting up a village hospital designed for 10 times as many people.

Because the Soviet Union had learned from bitter experience that you might have a huge number of people needing medical help all at once. And the Soviet Union prepared for war by making sure every village hospital could take in 10,000 people. But in the rest of

the world, it wasn't calculated that way. The focus was different. The focus was on having a certain number of people, and when there's an epidemic, having a few more of those people. You don't need a 10,000-bed hospital; you

need, I don't know, an intake ward for 1,000 beds, a small clinic, or something similar. And people gradually come in and leave. But when a huge number of people suddenly poured in, a portion of them simply didn't get

medical help. And some people started dying indirectly because, well, I got sick with something else and there was no bed for me, so I kicked the bucket —like, I don't know, cancer patients being sent home from the hospital so

COVID patients could take their beds. Exactly the same thing. So, COVID restrictions weren't just needed to, well, to defeat COVID. They don't cure it. They were needed so that if you got sick, and there were just fewer people

getting sick overall, the healthcare system could treat everyone, right? It’s a more aggressive type of flu, right? And it has side effects, and for the elderly and other vulnerable risk groups, it's very bad. But, man, if you're 25, let's at least make sure you

don't get sick, right? How about you don't stand in a crowded Pyaterochka without a mask, sneezing directly into each other's faces every millimeter, get sick, show up at the clinic, infect some old lady who just came for a

routine check-up, and she ends up dying , while you're like: "3 days, just like me, I lay there with a fever for 3 days ," and you see the connection, right?

And other people, my friends, young ones, they're like: "Nah, I just had a fever of 39 for a day," coughing, sore throat, but overall it passed, right?

And 10 old ladies died, you understand? Right? So that’s what it’s needed for. You see, saying "nobody I know got sick and everyone stayed alive and healthy" takes 2 seconds. Explaining why the COVID restrictions were actually necessary takes an order of

magnitude longer. You get it? That’s the problem. When you argue with someone who is on a lower level of interaction, on a lower level of debate , you have to put in an order of magnitude more effort to win the

argument. The question is: why? Okay. You might say: "Oh, great, the mechanism level, the connection, cool, I'll argue at this level." It doesn't answer global questions, when—well, more global ones—it doesn't answer the question: "Why is this happening?" Right? I mean, if we limit or ban

smoking, or rather, I'll tell you even more, if we know that smoking is harmful, that doesn't answer the question of why people smoke. And even if we know that—I mean, people do know that smoking is harmful, that's no

secret to anyone, right? It’s written on the cigarette packs, and I know that smoking is harmful, and I choose the one about stillbirth, since I’m not giving birth, but I don’t smoke cigarettes anyway. It's the same with COVID restrictions. But if we know

these mechanisms, if everyone knows these mechanisms, it still doesn't answer the question: "Why would we do that?""Why do people function this way?

" And these questions are answered by the next level—the level of incentives. At the incentive level, we are trying to answer the question: why are decisions made in the way they are made? Why do people, despite having all

this data, knowledge, statistics, and everything else, still make the decisions that they make? The point here is that very often during an argument, you proceed from one specific decision-making criterion or evaluation criterion, from one field or, as they

say, a frame—yes, a point of view from which you perceive the issue being discussed. And, for example, in debates , if you’ve watched a tier list of advanced arguments, you can see that framing—namely, the ability to change decision-making criteria, evaluation

criteria, and the field of debate, the field of discussion, to look at a problem from another angle—is a fairly powerful tool. I would say one of the strongest tools, along with recontextualization, which allows you to abruptly change the entire dynamic.

Because a person who says: "Let's ban smoking or limit smoking because it's harmful." is looking at smoking from one point, from one side. He is looking at it from the side of health. He says: "It harms health, therefore it is

necessary to give it up." Because for some reason he believes that health is the only correct decision-making criterion. And that it is the most dominant decision-making criterion.

Although, obviously, you can tell me that is not true. And as you might note , all his mechanization, all his data, all his statistics, they don't really make much sense, because I can always just say: "Bro, health is not a

decision-making criterion for most people." More precisely, it is, but it is not fundamental. In the decision-making system of most ordinary people, there are many different factors. And this is called a multifactorial decision-making model.

Or, for example, as Dan Ariely said, predictable irrationality. If you were right, we wouldn't need to ban smoking; people simply wouldn't smoke. But because there are many more things in life that can sometimes be more important than health, because

perceiving health as some kind of bargaining chip—because health will end for everyone, right? Everyone will die, it will end. And health is not the fundamental value of life. The fundamental value of life, probably for most people, is happiness. And since

this is—oh, damn, I'm moving to another level, sorry, deformation from debates. No, no, no spoilers, no spoilers. We are saying that a multifactorial decision-making model exists. Health is one of the incentives in it. There are other incentives. For

example, smoking is fun because it relaxes you, right? That is, I am ready to prioritize short-term things over long-term ones sometimes. I came home from work, very tired, have a headache, friends invited me to relax. I went, had a drink, I don't know, a beer or

smoked a hookah, yeah, relaxed a little bit there. Okay, I traded my long-term value of health for a short-term treat.

It’s the same as if you ate a piece of red meat, some unhealthy burger, or drank some soda. Well, I’m sure you understand that, right? You sit at home and don’t go for walks, don’t exercise, and, in fact, you even live

in a city with toxic emissions. We don't live in the woods, after all. You’re even watching this gibberish of mine on a gadget that hits your eyes with blue light and flickering bulbs.

But are you willing to do that? Are you willing to trade your health for a certain amount of treats? Because in your life, perhaps, those treats are sometimes more valuable. You do refuse some treats. For example, you don’t

do hard drugs like meth. There. Because that’s too much damage and too little fun. Just like that, you’ll ride the escalator instead of walking up, right?

Likewise, you wouldn't go for a ninety-minute walk in the rain, would you? You’ll take a taxi or public transport because you understand that some kind of trade-off has happened; you’re willing to sacrifice some health or health improvements because

you’ve chosen comfort—because there’s something in your head, like the Pareto principle, marginal utility, or diminishing returns, which means you can’t be extremely healthy. So, relatively speaking, one glass of wine a week probably won't affect your health much. And, relatively speaking,

the difference between 10,000 steps and 30,000 steps for your health is about 20,000 steps. And that’s it. Yes, so you can say something like: "Okay, I’ll walk 10,000 steps a day, and to heck with the rest.""Once a week I’ll

meet with friends, I’ll have a glass of dry red wine, and I’ll be fine." Yes, because you can't give up everything. And that is the principle of victory. You see, I’ll explain the algorithm to you now. We accept

everything the person says, and we say: "Yes, that’s true." Well, by the way, this is one of the techniques of counter-argumentation, when we acknowledge the opponent's argument and say that it isn’t primary, that it’s included in our position. Then

we construct our own position. We say: "Yes, you are right about everything, but it is not fundamentally important." There are more important things. Show a more important thing. And that's it; the person's position, it’s true, it’s well-argued, it’s reasonable,

it’s just not as important. And then you simply provide your own rationale. And therein lies the power of skill, well, the power of debate, of understanding and knowing how to argue, because you can spend much less time and much less effort to deliver a much

higher-quality take and outweigh all that nonsense your opponent just told you. For example, take Daniel Kahneman, who won the Nobel Prize in Economics— he studied behavioral economics, where he showed that people very often make irrational decisions and that there is

a huge number of diverse incentives for people, things like that. Okay, let's look at what this looks like, how this argument looks at the level of incentives. You could say: "Yes, absolutely, the fact that smoking is harmful and should be banned would be

reasonable if all people fundamentally considered health to be the most significant function." But then there would be no need to ban it; people would give it up voluntarily. But a huge number of people, for example, have other priorities in life. For

instance, they want to have fun, relax, or treat themselves. Some people have various addictions, different things that relieve their stress. Therefore, it is normal for people to ignore some factors or, in the moment, consider some factors less significant than

others. For example, some people go on vacation instead of saving that money, I don’t know, for the future, say, for a future apartment. People buy cars even though it is often a completely ill-advised financial decision, but they buy a car because they want it.

The fact that people buy expensive phones for themselves is also ill-advised. It would probably be better to save the money, or buy nice clothes, of which there are many. Why?

I mean, you have one, I have one pair of winter shoes, one pair of summer shoes, one pair of jeans, and you surely have more clothes. Why? Because sometimes you want to show off. And we are saying that, yes, sometimes people

make short-term decisions that are more significant to them than others. They get some kind of pleasure. So, here we can say that the harm to health itself is not the sole reason why we should ban smoking. Because people themselves

do not prioritize it that way. The same goes for COVID. Yes, people broke lockdown and violated quarantine. Not because they wanted to get infected, get sick, or infect someone else so that person would suffer or feel bad.

People broke COVID restrictions because they had to go to work, they had to buy groceries, they had to visit relatives, and they had to live their lives. And they prioritized it that way. Their prioritization went differently.

Meaning, yes, I can risk my health. But on the other hand, I can risk my career , my job, and other opportunities, especially if I am in a vulnerable group. Because if I am in a vulnerable group, it will be very hard to recover

later if I don't have a financial safety net, if I don't have proper skills, or if I lack the career opportunities to switch to remote work and so on. For me, these are much bigger long-term risks than sneezing,

coughing, and such. Again, why? Because most people have a cognitive bias. It is called optimism bias. Optimism bias consists of people believing that the outcomes will be better for them. For example, ask yourself: "What is the probability that you will get cancer?"

You will say: "Quite low." And you will find a million reasons why. If you ask: "What is the probability of the average person getting cancer?" You will say: " Average probability." Yes, well, it doesn't apply to you, but it applies to

the average Joe. Think about it, it's the same with the lottery. What is the probability of winning the lottery?

Absolutely minuscule. Ask a person buying a lottery ticket what they are hoping for; they are hoping to win.

They cannot all be right. It is the same thing here. Therefore, if we consider health the only criterion for decision-making, the only incentive on which a decision is based, then you won't be able to explain the behavior of people who risked their own and

others 'health during COVID just to go to work, buy groceries, and so on. But if we take a multi-factor model of incentives, we will see, well, a multi-factor model of decision-making.

We will see that, in reality, people have a complex system for making decisions. Each of these factors has its own weight. And that is the mastery of debate and the complexity of debate.

You constantly have to juggle various weights and compare and analyze these weights. There it is.

But again, it still doesn't fully work. Why? Because incentives don't just appear out of thin air. Incentives have to come from somewhere. There are probably some natural stimuli, but we, as they say, are people, social creatures, social animals. And this

means that our stimuli and decision-making systems have roots, and they come from somewhere. And the person who can justify where these stimuli come from will probably be able to win an argument against you. And we are just now moving on to the fourth

level. And this is the systems level. What is a system? A system is a matrix.

If we are all biologically similar humans, yet we all have different mindsets, characters, decision-making criteria, and stimuli. Some people prioritize health, others joy right here and now, some prioritize long-term values, some prioritize family, some career; someone is a liberal, someone a

libertarian, someone a communist, someone a socialist. That is, we are all more or less biologically uniform, but in terms of our mindsets, ideas, culture, and values, we are all absolutely different. Why? Because in the process of our development and

growing up, we go through a huge system that, you know, takes us like modeling clay and sculpts a figure. We were molded from whatever was available. And in the end, we are the people who are a mold of that society, that specific

cluster of society we are within. And this is the fourth level of analysis. Pierre Bourdieu called this habitus, a certain set of reactions, habits, and assessments that a person internalizes so early and so deeply that they perceive them as natural, so we don't

perceive them as the result of a system of upbringing. In simpler terms, it is what we all consider common sense. It is our culture. Certain attitudes and so on. But you know, Americans don't take their shoes off at home, and it

seems absolutely reasonable to them. And to you, it seems absolutely reasonable to take your shoes off when you enter your home. It seems so obvious to you: you walked in from the street, take off your shoes. It wouldn't occur to you to come in from

the street, wipe your shoes at the entrance, and walk around the apartment , and if they got dirty, then clean it up. You don't have that. Or the same thing, for example, spitting in the street seems like complete nonsense to

you. Or, for example, dropping your pants and pooping right there. Does that seem absolutely natural to you?

And normal for me to poop in the street . But, for example, in India, it doesn't seem normal to people. It seems normal to people to just drop their pants right in the middle of the street and do their business. So, it’s a

question of how the system—the social , educational, and institutional environment you live in locally, your inner circle—shapes you so comprehensively, deeply, and fundamentally that you cannot separate it from yourself or perceive it as something separate and integrated into

you, so you take it all at face value. Let me give you an example now, and you'll understand. Let's say, for example, you get on a bus, and you are sitting there, and an old lady gets on the bus—you're sitting there, and an

old lady walks in. And depending on the social structure you were raised in, and what was considered normal there, your reactions will vary. In our society, everything is very clear. Some old lady gets on, and you stand up and

give her your seat. A very clear response. An old lady gets on, and you must give up your seat. There are no huge mental operations, logical constructions, internal disputes, or conflicts happening in your head. An old lady got on, give up your seat. Why

? Because from childhood, you were raised in a cultural paradigm where, if an elderly woman gets on, she is old, it’s hard for her, her legs might hurt, she might be tired, and you have to help your elders. Imagine your own

grandmother getting on a bus and no one giving her a seat; she would feel bad.

You would want her to be better off, for someone to give her a seat. So you must also give up that seat. It feels absolutely natural to you. You didn't see any alternatives because when you were little, you saw an old lady get on

, and some man would stand up and give her his seat. So, the question didn't even arise that there could be an alternative reaction. You took it at face value. You just do it. In another society, there might be a different

idea: an old lady gets on, she walks up , and you think, "No, granny, I'm not giving you anything, simply because we live in a society of individualism." We are focused on ourselves. It's your personal problem that you don't have

the money for a taxi, that you didn't earn enough money to have your own car or a driver, or that you don't have children to drive you around. I shouldn't have to limit my own comforts just to make things better for you,

right? So, we have this individualistic society where everyone defends their own interests and doesn't think about others. Because if that were my granny, I probably would’ve done a lot to make sure she wasn’t riding the bus.

That’s it. That’s why I never even end up in a situation where I feel I must give you my seat. You should have taken care of yourself. I have absolutely no solidarity toward you.

That’s the second reaction. The third reaction. I’m sitting, a granny walks in, and I’m like: "I won’t give her my seat, because by giving her my seat, I’m broadcasting to her and to society that she is a weak person who

needs help, who can't handle her own problems independently." And that is a fairly belittling idea. Well, you know, it’s like when—obviously you haven't faced this yet—but when people call me "man," it starts to grate on me, like, in what sense? Or

when people try to help me with something, it’s as if they’re trying to show me that I can’t handle it myself, that I can't manage on my own. So, this display of superiority by one person over another can be

perceived as toxic. And so, say, we don't give up our seats to grandmas, because it’s just another demonstration that she’s already got one foot in the grave and can’t do anything in her life anymore. And that’s why, for instance, many

elderly people don’t sit down. I mean , you know, you offer a seat, they walk in, you offer it, and they say: "No, no , I’m not that old." And for each of these three people, it will be

absolutely natural from a common-sense perspective. They will have their argumentation model, their parents' example, the example of what society said, how they taught it in school, how they taught it in kindergarten. They will all have a clear understanding

that they are right. And when all three meet, their heads will, well, it’ll end up in some kind of mess. Meaning they won’t understand how that’s even possible, right? So they will clash and they won’t be able to

achieve much, in terms of reaching any kind of agreement. So, when someone tells you that, "well, it's obvious that health must be prioritized over anything else," or, "obviously, as a state, we must step in and protect people when they are, for example, ill,

or when they are, how should I put it, under COVID restrictions, when they have COVID," you can say, like, "no, that is normal within your specific decision-making system." In the upbringing system you are in, the one you were raised in, and the one you

function within, this is considered normal. It might not be normal for people from other cultures, with different upbringings, and everything else. It’s the same as, you know, that big debate people have about whether or not to pay for a girl on

dates. People who grew up in one absolute paradigm don't even have the thought in their head that I should split the bill. Just as other people don't have the thought in their head that why on earth should I pay for a

girl I'm meeting for the first time, who I invited to a restaurant, right? Meaning, they were raised in completely different paradigms. As long as they are in completely different paradigms, they cannot find common ground. And so, a very clear tool for debate is to show

a person that they are inside their own bubble of perception, their own bubble of information analysis. And if they want to argue with you, they need to step out of this bubble and accept that there is a large number of other

decision-making systems, and systems that raise people in general, and then move forward from there. That is, to pull them out of their safe position, from a position they understand, feel confident in, and know how to argue for , into a position that is an order of

magnitude more complex, comprehensive, and so on. And most people get lost there, they immediately start to waver, because they only stand firmly on their feet within their own, what they consider to be their rock-solid position. But as soon as you pull them

out of there, as soon as they realize that there is a huge number of such positions and each one is legitimate— yes, because, say, you grew up in a family where your father always, I don't know, provided for everything—

yes, and he always said, like, a man should take responsibility for a woman, should be a man, protect her so she feels secure with him, he should make her happy and so on, and she should make him happy in return. You grew up

in such a family, you grew up in such a society. Try explaining to that person that they’ve been living their life the wrong way. If they were happy and content, right, and they didn't have these problems, but now there are other

guys who grew up in an absolutely different family, right, and they have a completely different approach. I mean , you can’t just say that you're living wrong. Why on earth am I living wrong if I’m happy, content, joyful,

everything is working out for me, just because you don't like it and you don't live that way? Well, that's it then. Go to hell. Goodbye. That’s exactly what I’m talking about. Therefore, when you pull a person out of their comfort

zone, they get lost and they can't argue properly. So, most arguments end at this level. As soon as a person realizes that their perception of reality isn't the only correct and unique one, and there's no alternative, it’s hurtful. So, we can say the same

thing here, let's go back to our example with the smoking ban. We can say that for the most part, smoking isn't always, well, not that it isn't your personal choice—of course, it absolutely is—but it's very often determined by where you come from. Yes,

if your parents smoked, your friends smoked and offered you a cigarette, and all those cool Marlboro cowboys or John Waynes and other guys smoked too, then you’ll also have a tendency to smoke.

Simply because you grew up in a system where smoking is normal. And the people who are authorities or idols for you were also smoking just the same. The same goes for if your parents work out and your idol is Arnold Schwarzenegger,

it’s highly likely you work out, simply because you grew up inside that system. It’s the same thing with the COVID restrictions. The fact that hospitals weren't ready for such an influx of patients isn't the fault of some specific head doctors; it's a

system that was built by society, because society prioritized other areas over increasing the number of beds for patients and increasing the number of ventilators. So society prioritized other things, just as people do. Well, that's why head doctors acted the same

way—I mean head doctors, politicians, people who allocated budget resources for all these healthcare systems. They very often acted based on what people voted for, based on what priorities the state and the citizens have. So, this isn't just local tyranny; it's a very

clear and distinct manifestation of something much larger, not just the local stuff we see around us. Alright, you might be thinking: "Damn, that's cool. System levels are a powerful connection and a very good toolkit." Well, yes, systems analysis does a good

job of showing where people's beliefs come from and how they form their own positions and perceptions. But that doesn't answer the question of what this system was built on in the first place. There are a lot of systems in

the world, after all. Even when I was explaining the example of giving up a seat to an elderly woman, you understand that, for some reason, they built three different systems. This means that a decision was made somehow, and there were certain premises for

building such different societies. But why were those societies built that way ? And that is where the fifth level answers the question. It is the level of models. What is a model? A model is a set of principles used to make

decisions that guide us when we build the systems around us. I can best show you the difference between a system and a model. Again, using the example of COVID restrictions and hospital beds.

We could say that, obviously, not having enough beds was a problem of not allocating enough budget. So, it's a problem: there wasn't enough funding for us to have enough beds, or optimization tools were used where a large hospital was restructured to

include outpatient clinics, additional features, dentistry, and other things, just to optimize space. Or, for example , they optimized the staff: some people were laid off, some were grouped into clusters, some were given extra workloads, and some were moved to

remote work, and so on. So, we can see how the processes in that system were structured. What did it rely on? It relied on capitalism, because we believed it was necessary to save money or use our financial resources

efficiently, and so on. And you could argue that capitalism is bad, and that capitalism is to blame for this specific manifestation. That doesn't sound great, right? So, with the help of capitalism, we can explain why hospitals looked the way they did. That

is the system. But the model is the answer to the question: "Why did we choose capitalism in the first place?" So, you might say: "Capitalism is bad.

Okay, people died because of capitalism ." Then why did we choose capitalism again? Ah, right, because capitalism is our answer to the question. Which resource redistribution system seems more effective to us for increasing the volume of goods and redistributing them

in society? That is our answer to the question. All the systems we see in reality are based on this idea. They are derivatives of this idea: that we decided a free market, where everyone competes, produces goods, and has

access to those goods to produce what they deem necessary or what people deem necessary for them. Is a more effective model than the alternative. We could say there might be some alternative communist model, right, theoretically, where we have a collective, where

everything produced is shared, and we more or less assume what everyone wants and produce what people need, right? So , you don't have the option to choose what you want, but we come to you and tell you what you need. For example,

there could be such a system, there could be an alternative system of resource redistribution. And, of course , you people who will be taking the Unified State Exam next year are going to write about why communism is cool,

right? Why socialism is cool, citing as examples capitalist countries that just have a slightly different system of wealth redistribution. We're already waiting, yeah, just you wait. Yeah, if I were paid every time for that, I would have been rich by now. Okay? So,

we need to understand that a model is a set of principles, basic principles, on which a multitude of diverse systems is built. And the decisions we make have this principle at their foundation. We have many different models for

justifying why you make decisions. We can say that we have the rational choice example. Well, for instance, as a person, you compare the pros and cons and choose the solution that seems more effective for you right here and now.

So, that is one model of decision-making. For example, I am tired today, I feel bad today, I am in a bad mood, I don't feel well, so I can go get a dose of nicotine and feel better. For me, locally losing some

amount of health is more justified, considering that I will get a greater amount of joy, happiness, and a reduction in some stress. Or for me, the amount of stress I receive right here and now is large enough—greater than the damage to my health that I

will receive. So, I am willing to trade the health damage from stress for the health damage from smoking, because the damage from stress is greater than the damage from smoking. So, in a way, I am taking damage either way, but the

damage from smoking is simply cheaper for me. Okay? I am proceeding from— well, I have explained the rational choice model to you. If we assume that a person is a rational being, or that something is going on in their head, I

can tell you that there is a different decision-making model, for example, the "nudge" theory. It implies that you are not necessarily a rational agent who makes decisions by weighing everything that is happening here, everything happening to you, but rather you tend

to choose decisions that are easier for you to make, which, from the point of view of the availability heuristic, are in your immediate vicinity, and that the environment stimulates you toward something. For example, I have a large amount of stress, and I want to

understand how I should relieve this stress. And if I live in a society that is healthy, where I have ads for healthy lifestyles, my partner is a healthy person, my parents raised me to be healthy, I follow fitness bloggers

and influencers, if I don't drink, don't smoke, and generally think it's harmful, if I'm a supporter of the health movement, what will I do? I'll get moving, head to the gym, run around , walk, and so on. If I am in a

completely different habitus, in a different community of people, and I am surrounded by other things, then my decision-making process will be different. So in this case, the rational choice model doesn't exactly work, because the rational choice model should have suggested to me that if I

am experiencing some stress, what should I have done? I should have gone, I don't know, for a walk. I should have , for example, walked down the street, worked out, slept, maybe, I don't know, read a book, read some rap, watched a

funny movie, or hung out with friends. But because of how the environment around me is structured, I make a decision in favor of smoking, having a beer, lying around, eating chips, watching a TV show, and so on. So, in

the end, existence determines consciousness. And depending on which model we consider fundamental for our society, this will influence how we will change society. Because if we assume that we have some principle of decision-making, some rational agent who makes decisions, our fundamental

task is simply to provide them with the information that, well, this is harmful to their health. First. Second, explain what helps their health. And then the rational agent, having access to that information, will choose the best available alternative, which is to go

and play sports. If we believe that a person's decision-making model is fundamentally based on the environment, then we will focus on changing that environment, right? That is, we will, so to speak, put curtains over cigarettes and such, we will

disincentivize tobacco shops, we will raise excise taxes, we will restrict the opening of hookah bars and where they can operate. We will build additional sports grounds, we will additionally push healthy lifestyle propaganda everywhere, and so on. That is, depending on which model we use,

the system will act differently. In one case, it's about informing; in the other case, it's about changing the environment, right? These are two absolutely, two completely different things. Okay? Yes. Regarding COVID restrictions, we can apply those same things. We can have different

decision-making models. For example, we can use—well, why were there COVID restrictions, why were there lockdowns —we can use Michel Foucault's concept of biopower, which states that the state, in certain cases, can take control not just of a disease, but of

biological life itself. I mean, figuratively speaking, the state has the right to manage our health and has the right to influence our health.

Therefore, lockdowns are a direct manifestation of the idea that the state should have the right to influence our health and the health of society. This is, for instance, very noticeable in the case of vaccination.

I mean, people were directly pressured to get vaccinated; like, if you don't get vaccinated, they will limit your work opportunities, right, and there was vaccine propaganda, and all the rest. So, we assume that the state has power over our health. We could have

another idea. The state of emergency model, well, a somewhat conditionally tyrannical one, right, by Carl Schmitt, which states that in extreme situations , the state can break the laws. Do you understand? I mean, this is a subtle point. It seems absolutely natural to

you that if something special happens, the state should have the authority to impose some kind of emergency measures that become stronger than regular laws.

That is an incredibly non-obvious thought. Yes, you understand? I mean, for me, it's not obvious. Well, as someone who spent, like, 13 years doing debate. And all these models, when you juggle them, these basic assumptions themselves, they stop being basic,

right? I mean, someone chose this; someone decided that, in some cases, the state has the ability to break its own laws. Why on earth, it’s unclear, just like the idea that in some cases —well, not even in some cases—that

the state has the right to control my health. Honestly, I wouldn't really want that, because today it's mandatory vaccination, tomorrow it’s mandatory microchipping. You can laugh now, but Roskomnadzor will slap a chip right here in your noggin, and that’s it,

good morning. And for what? And not when you're an adult, but when you're a child. They’ll tell you, they’ll say today. As soon as children are born , they will be subject to mandatory microchipping so that if your baby is

kidnapped, we can always find that baby . We’ll implant it into some vertebra in their neck, or we’ll insert some little seal, or whatever else, we’ll stitch it under the skin like we do with animals, so we always know where

the child is. Because if something happens to your child, we will know exactly where they are. If you happen to get lost in the forest, we will know exactly where you are. If you go missing, we will know exactly where you

are. If you’re caught in an avalanche , we will know exactly where you are.

And they will act through the Overton window. They will do it first for people who have actually found themselves in these kinds of situations . They will find ambassadors who will talk about how this chip, absolutely, wonderfully, perfectly saved them.

There will be teary-eyed moms with their little children or preschoolers or school-aged kids who got lost in the forest somewhere in the Amur region.

They will tell you that this is an amazing, incredible solution that helped save my child so they wouldn't be eaten by a bear. And after that, this kind of solution will be rolled out to the entire society. And you’ll

be absolutely floored. Simply because the principle that the state has the ability to intrude into your security, your location, your personal data, and even your health is the model upon which society is based, which was accepted, but it is chosen. It's not a

basic setting; it is chosen. If you have never analyzed reality at this level, if you have never debated at this level, it seems natural, obvious, unshakable, and just plain common sense to you. Although it absolutely isn't. I just explained to you very simply how

you can easily go and microchip all the children, and then these children grow up, and you have an entire population of chipped adults. And then, just like with vaccination, a regular person who doesn't have it will look like some

strange, incomprehensible nutcase. And this is not to say that I am against vaccination. No, you need to get vaccinated. Go get your vaccines, stay healthy, and build herd immunity. We shouldn't be tracking people, but we should be getting vaccinated. I'm not

one of those, I'm not a nutcase, not an anti-vaxxer. Okay. But then again, you might say, "Wow, models are cool." No, no argument there. Models are super cool. It's just that a model is always a simplified reality. Models are based

on something, aren't they? I mean, they have to be based on something. And somehow we choose between models, right ? I’ve already told you, there’s biopower, there’s a state of emergency, different models exist.

There’s the nudge theory model, there’s rational choice theory, there are different models, right? That doesn’t answer the question of why we chose exactly this. Why did we choose biopower and not a state of emergency?

Why did we choose one and not the other ? And it’s the same thing here as at the systems level; if a person starts to justify their own model in great detail, we can simply ask them a fairly

simple question: "Why do you consider this specific model to be the only one, the only correct one?" Did you consider others, and when you were choosing between other models, on what basis did you make your decision? Let’s argue

about that. Because if we realize that the criteria you used to choose the model were incorrect, unfortunately, the whole model, the system based on it , the incentives it justifies, the specific mechanisms of manifestation, and the observations you have are all

incorrect or flawed. We are moving to the level of metamodels. A metamodel is a model of models. That is, it is a decision-making system for us to choose from the models that are in front of us . Because when I talk to you about

capitalism or socialism, communism, or whatever else, I'm telling you: "We chose capitalism and not communism." I base my decisions on something when I justify them. And this is a deeper level of debate, when we need to understand from which set of factors,

from which multifactorial model, we should make decisions in order to choose one solution over another.

Because I can always tell you, or you could say, that communism is a fairer system of decision-making. I can ask: why is fairness a criterion for decision-making? Perhaps we should have a different criterion. What difference does it make if a decision is fair or

not if it makes things worse for people ? You might say, "Well, free voting and democracy are values." I can say, "Why is that a criterion for deciding how to structure a state?" Because there can be a huge number of systems for

structuring a state, right, well, governance formats. It could be a democracy, a monarchy, a religious monarchy, a theocracy, it could be ochlocracy, and so on and so forth. It could be a tyranny, a police state.

That is, the principle of interaction between citizens and the state can be absolutely different. When you say that you want to use democracy because it is fairer or more representative. A reasonable question arises for me: why is representativeness a criterion? Why

do we use precisely this when making this decision? Why don't we use feasibility? For example, I can say that feasibility is more important. Why ? Because feasibility, well, in short, this is where the debate actually begins. This is where the debate begins

. This is the deep level at which good speakers play in a good debate. For them, the debate and the arguments start right here. For laypeople, they start at the first or second level, but for people who have been debating for a

long time, they start here. Because until you explain to me on what basis, what criterion, and why exactly that criterion you are making a decision, I won't even listen to you further. But until we sort this out, we won't move

forward, because if you tell me democracy is important because it represents, I ask you, why is representation significant? Maybe feasibility should be more important, or maybe justice is more important?

Maybe, I don't know, our sense of how a state should function, some sort of ideal, should be more important. Why exactly this? And this is a very complex and tedious story that the dispute revolves around, because I can

say that democracy can be a wonderful model, just like communism, just simply unrealizable. Undoubtedly, you will write in the comments that no, because there has never been real communism anywhere. Well, perhaps that is its problem, that it is unrealizable. Maybe

it is incredibly fair, just unrealizable. It’s the same as the fact that I’m not very tall; that’s unfair, but quite realistic. Therefore, instead of playing basketball, I might go do something else. No, it’s the same thing here. We are saying that a

metamodel is a certain set of concepts, constructs, and justifications, based on criteria upon which we decide which model we are going to construct. Here, certainly, an understanding of metacognition will be useful to you all . Metacognition is thinking about

thinking. When you open your mouth and some meanings start to tumble out, some ideas start to occur, you—well, most people know there is some kind of internal dialogue, although for most people an internal dialogue doesn't exist, but that's not the point. It’s

as if you have an internal little person sitting in your head who looks at what’s written on your notes—at your little scraps of paper—that is, some set of decisions, some scenarios, and they answer the question for you of

why you are making a certain decision. That is, metacognition is thinking about your thinking so that you can step back and consider where I got this information, why this information is important, why I am drawing these conclusions based on this information,

why I am basing my decision on these conclusions? Why am I not basing my decisions on other conclusions? Why is my decision-making framework the way it is and not otherwise? Why do I prioritize one thing for myself and not

another? On what basis am I doing this? So, it is difficult, but it is incredibly useful. And I will tell you once again, debates simply develop this skill because you are constantly asking yourself the question: "Why do I think

what I think?" Am I the one thinking what I think, or has someone else thought it for me? I read it, and I believed it. "You know how people love to write in the comments? People love to write in the comments:" Oh, I

watched the video, now I have my own opinion. "Right. I mean, I'm basically just signing off on the fact that I'm, well, a mentally incompetent person who is incapable of analyzing a situation in isolation from others, incapable of

separating myself from the reality around me, and of looking at it outside of my own position, outside of my personality, outside of everything, and objectively perceiving it, weighing it, and making a decision. There. So how do you argue at this level? How do you win

at this level, the metamodel level? By demonstrating that the criteria a person uses to base their decision on for building a model are not fully justified and are not important enough.

This is exactly what is considered a very professional level of flipping through premises, or reframing. All the strongest argumentative tools are used at the metamodel level, because while you could apply them at the seventh level, they just wouldn't work the same

way there. They would work differently. You'll understand why in a moment. Getting back to our topic about smoking . The logic here is very simple. So, when we want to ban smoking, what should we prioritize? What should we

base our premise on? Should we assume that we, as a state—well, the whole idea of a ban—should we assume that the state must make a decision based on what? Based on the fact that I, as a human, have the free choice to decide

what happens in my life, or should it make certain decisions for me and protect me? This is the structure of a paternalistic state. And this is actually discussed very often in debates. And most people don't understand it. Let me make a small

digression. This video has probably been going on for, wow, over an hour now. Oh, to hell with it. Look at who made it this far. Respect. We currently live, for the most part, in a social state built on the principle of

paternalism. What is paternalism? It's when the state considers itself the parent and you the child. This means it is capable of restricting you as an individual and offering you something more valuable that it deems necessary.

For example, it can decide in advance that you will be an organ donor. It can say that you will set aside a portion of your money for your future pension.

It can restrict you, let’s say, from smoking, from drinking alcoholic beverages, from using certain substances, and so on. So, the state acts like a parent toward a child, just like your parents forbid you from eating sweets while you're small,

because, well, I don't know, for some reason. Or they say:" Read books, sit down, do your homework, study, keep busy, even if you just want to go out and kick a ball. "The problem here lies precisely in the conflict between the

individual and the collective, the public and the state, because I want something for myself personally, but the state forbids it and says," Goodbye . "And this sort of paternalistic principle is based on a very simple model and the idea that the state knows

best, and to take—look, that the state knows best. That doesn't answer the question of why it should be the one making the decision. We go a level deeper; we say:" Here, decisions are made by those who know better. "For us,

competence, expertise, and being informed are more significant than your desires. Decisions are made by those who know better. This is the tyranny of knowledge over ignorance. And this is the foundation of ideas based on the nature of people who say:" Voting

should only be for the educated. " Because deep down in their position, they believe that expertise and knowledge are the basis for governing life and making decisions, which is absolutely questionable. At this level, when I say this to you, the question

arises of what to say—like, why on earth, right? Why should I have to limit myself? Or why should I be deprived of making decisions? Because someone decided that a" smart person " should make the decision for me. I can

make decisions for myself because I am more informed about myself. And that's why all these, well, it sounds a bit stifling, very abstract. And all these enthusiasts. Why do stupid people vote in elections? Because intelligence is not a criterion for making a decision

in an election. Because people live in a state not to be smart, but to be happy. And to be happy, you don't need to be a super-intellect. And if you don't like that, well, in short, I'll just record a separate video on why

everyone has the right to vote. Well, when I say everyone, obviously excluding some outliers, but in the dominant position. Why does everyone have the right to vote, right? Why is this idea of yours that it's inefficient—well, who cares that it's

inefficient, that it lets other people down—what difference does it make? So all the arguments based on the fact that we should limit someone's ability to vote in elections are all based on the fifth level of acceptance, on models, on systems. Well, that's just

nonsense that can be refuted in two or three sentences, which is actually what happens in debates. That's why these topics are played out in debates, you know, regarding the introduction of additional suffrage requirements and extra restrictions. And in the real

world, they have been introduced as well. And every time they fell flat and failed to achieve, what they were created for. And every time they were repealed, because the meta-model of societal decision-making is different.

Different. It’s the same thing with the COVID restrictions. We made decisions based on an economic and epidemiological perception of reality.

That is, we deemed the economy and health to be more important than anything else. And that’s a questionable criterion too, right?

Answer the question. Well, clearly, we can answer that life is a more fundamentally significant value and that the decisions we make are to maximize human lives and the quality of human life. And therefore, based on this, we are, we consider these to be

the fundamental criteria. We use information that implements this criterion. We believe that freedom is secondary to life, because if you are not free, you are unable to exercise all your rights, and you are unable to live if you are dead. And so our

fundamental task is to ensure life. And we must choose the tool that best ensures our life. The best tool for ensuring our life is a tool that, well, is oriented towards efficiency, right?

That is, the efficiency of the tools is the criterion. And this means we must choose implementers who will best demonstrate the efficiency of the tool being used. Therefore, we can choose any tool that will be implemented by people who are capable of executing

this tool efficiently. So you will sit at home because a smart guy with a lot of education decided so, because the authorities use this very criterion: that smart guys, based on smart data and not your personal whims, have

decided to restrict your life. Deal with it. In general, that's fair. What is the problem with meta-models?

Because meta-models—even as I’m speaking, you see—people who were paying close attention to what I said, and in debates it's exactly the same, they would come out and say:" Abdulla, who the hell decided that life is the most important value? "Do you really

believe that life is the most important ? Well, it's not about whether you really believe it, because I can always say:" Yes, that is what I believe. " What about the idea itself? This is where we move to a philosophical level,

to the level of values. Well, let's move on to that seventh level, to the level of philosophy. I will start with the problem right away. The problem with philosophy is that we cannot universalize it for everyone. It is

based on some of our own sensations and understandings, because later on we justify it in the real world. That is, philosophy is such a deep, abstract level of perceiving reality that it stands a bit apart, it is somewhat

detached. It is very difficult for us to argue for things that stem from completely different value concepts, which, you know, are self-contained, right? I could say that life is not the most important value a person has, right? Because people are willing to

give up their physical life for the sake of their spiritual life. People are willing to give up their physical life just to avoid suffering, right?

For example, when they jump out a window, when they opt for euthanasia, or when they have severe depression and so on. People do not consider life universally valuable, even when we take another person's life, when we execute someone, when we have someone

committing a crime and police empty their clips into them, or when military operations are underway. So, this philosophical level is complex because it is based, for the most part, on a set of subjective facts. We don't understand what a moral decision-making

system means, do we? We can say that we need to make decisions based on something. There are simply different philosophical models of evaluation, and none of them is the" correct "one. How is it better to live? From the

perspective of consequentialism, evaluating events by their outcomes, or from the perspective of deontology, or some Kantian imperative—should we evaluate actions by the motive or by the consequences of those actions? What if I wanted something good to happen, but it turned out badly? And what if I

wanted something bad to happen, but it turned out well? For example, there is this idea of moral luck. Imagine two people who were drinking at a bar. Both of them were drinking at a bar, and then they got behind the wheel. One got

home completely safely, while the second one struck and killed a person. How should we evaluate this? Should we consider that a person who drove drunk is a murderer from the start? It's just that one was unlucky enough to hit

another person. Or do we evaluate it by the consequence, that the problem here lies specifically in the fact that you hit a person? So it turns out the difference between a murderer and a non-murderer is just a matter of luck.

Then why on earth should we restrict and condemn a person who gets behind the wheel drunk? Because if they get behind the wheel drunk, then we consider them a murderer. But he didn't kill anyone. A murderer is a person who

has struck someone down. Should a person who drives drunk but never hits anyone consider themselves a moral person? And is a person who drove drunk and accidentally hit someone an immoral person? What if that person was also drunk? What if they were wearing

non-reflective clothing? What if it was very dark outside? And what if they were crossing the road in an unauthorized place? Yes, for example, you are driving along some, I don't know, suburban road, there are no streetlights, nothing, and a drunk man

just flies out in front of you, and you hit him, and you were also drunk, what is considered more moral in this regard , and what is not considered moral in this case? And the problem is that there is a huge number of these

justification concepts, there is not a single one that is correct. That is, we cannot prove a philosophical position, we can only argue for it. If before I could tell you that at the sixth level, at the fifth, at all others, there are

toolkits, frameworks that we can use to somehow turn the tide of a debate, then at the philosophical level, it is purely the volume of that argumentative , well, mechanical justification that you have from the previous levels. How qualitatively can you argue?

Qualitatively, differently, in various ways, in another way, then here it is quantitatively about how much more justification you can provide, how accurately, thoroughly, and in detail you can justify your position, how well you can compare this position. That is,

if the limitation of models is their simplicity, their mismatch with reality , then here your strong point is, on the contrary, the creation of such a maximally voluminous, large-scale decision-making context. Returning to our same example about smoking, the

philosophical question here is: can I, as a person, independently influence my life and decide for myself what is important for me in life? Can I voluntarily, consciously, and meaningfully have the right to harm myself? Can I be given such a right or

not? Can the state, or rather, should I not have this right? Should I be a subject in my own right? Should I have the right to harm myself or should I not? Can I harm myself or should I not?

Should we evaluate this from the perspective of my desire or from the perspective of the consequences?

Parents who overfeed their children, yes, their children are big, they only want the best for them. Should we punish these parents because their children are overweight? Alright. So then we should punish them based on the consequences. But, you know, I love my

child. I want to do what's best for my child. Is a parent who overfeeds their child a bad parent if they want what's best for them? How should they perceive themselves? Should they be told:" You are a bad parent because the

consequences are bad "? But what if I absolutely don't care about my child, yet my child eats healthy, even though I couldn't care less about them? Does that make me a good parent because the consequences are good? And if I have a

child that I love, cherish, help with everything, and I give them sweets and such out of a belief—out of a belief that I am doing the best for them, should I be perceived by society as a worse parent than someone whose child

is fine, but who doesn't love them? Misunderstanding, yes, it’s the same thing with the COVID restrictions. What is more important? Yes, that argument from Slavoj Žižek, it seems. What is more important? My biological survival or my sense of dignity? What would you

choose, so to speak, to die like a dog or live like a rat? And, which of these is better? And can the state even make that decision? Maybe I want to live my life shorter, but more intensely? I

want to drink, I want to smoke, I want to eat steaks every day. I want to, I don't know, have promiscuous relationships with people, just enjoy it. I want to skydive, I want to ride, I don't want to save for retirement, I

want to live here and now. I want to go traveling, I want to relax, to hell with it, after me the deluge, because I want to live a full, happy life. Is such a thing even allowed for me? Or

should the state say:" No, your old age is important and meaningful, therefore this must be important, so your youth will be restricted. "Is it important or unimportant, what is more important: my security or my sense of self-worth?

Should I hand over my personal data and correspondence to the chief, to Comrade Chief, in order to be protected? Are there limits to security? Are there limits to freedom? And where do they arise? And to hell with it, you'll

figure that out. But, well, how do you think one can win at this level of argument? At this level of debate, to win, you have to challenge the framework itself. You just have to overwhelm them with meat, bury them in

argumentative meat. It's a complex thing. And in intense debates, one question, one take, one point can be unpacked for a very long time simply because your task is to pile a lot of content in there, right? because this

is a standard dilemma...let me give you another example, I just want to show you more examples so that you understand: what is more important— security or freedom? I can explain this in different ways. I can say that security is more important because

security serves your freedom. If you aren't safe, you aren't free, right? That is, I use the concept of primacy.

This, this is part of the toolkit. Primacy and secondary nature. Security is primary, because without security there is no freedom. If I’m afraid to go out because there are thugs out there, I’m not free. I cannot go out

into the street because I am afraid. If I were safe, if there were no thugs there, I would have the opportunity to go out. That is, I would have more freedom. I can say it differently.

Without freedom, there is no security. that security is a part of freedom, the other way around, a part of the whole.

This is a different technique. I can say that if I feel that physical security is a sub-type of security, that is, I have this mental security of mine, my sense of it, and there is physical security. For example, if I

believe the state is watching me, or, for example, neighbors are spying on me , or right now you are watching me, it means someone can find out what I am doing, what I am occupied with, why, and so on. Yes, you know how unpleasant

it is when someone reads your correspondence. It seems like nothing happened, but it’s unpleasant, it leaves a bad taste, or knowing that someone has access to your account, or your mom walks into your room and starts rummaging through your things.

Well, it’s unpleasant, right? And why is that? And you start to limit yourself. That is, freedom includes security, but both physical and your mental security. And therefore, trading mental security for physical is just a bad deal. So this is not a dispute

between security and freedom. This is a dispute about which security is more significant for us, which security is more important. Why? Because it gives us more freedom. Why do we need more freedom? To manage our own lives. Why?

To live the way we want to. Why? To be happier, more joyful, more fulfilled, more enriched. Who the hell knows why.

That is the point. Why did we give you this opportunity, this agency? We gave it, because none of you would want to live in a tyranny where people tell you how to live, what to do, what is good,

what is not, so that they trap you in this cage, in a framework where you live unhappily. And this is the veil of Rawls, yes, of ignorance. So I have just explained this concept to you. You reasonably have questions like:" Why

the hell should you live freely? "" Because your freedom always ends where another person's boundaries begin. "And we, well, you see, right? That is, this is a debate about boundaries. And there are many of these boundaries. And, well

, it's not like you can arrive at anything here. Everyone will most likely stick to their own opinion. We won't go any deeper than this level, because to globally answer the question of what life is, well, everything deeper, like what physical life is or

your, well, conscious, free one, right? Is being a slave considered a life, and is the fact that you are, I don't know, physically alive considered a life?

What should we protect? Life, physical life, or a happy life? Yes, because euthanasia answers the question that physical life is not an end in itself, that behind physical life there is a deeper value, namely a happy life.

Therefore, if your life brings you suffering, euthanasia should free you from it. Yes, if you are in a coma, connected to life support, we believe that physical life can be ended. If you do not want to be resuscitated, to then

...well, or do not want to spend the rest of your life in a hospice, yes, be bedridden, unable to move, constantly be on painkillers, on sedatives, constantly be in a half-sleep, not understand who you are, be away from

your family and loved ones...yes, your physical life will exist, and it will be longer, and it will probably be of higher quality physically. But we can give you the opportunity to say:" To hell with it, I'd rather die sooner,

but I will be surrounded by my family and loved ones. "I will eat what I want , drink what I want, smoke what I want, go where I want. Yes, I won't live an extra half-year, but if all those extra

six months mean being bedridden in a daze, not understanding what is happening, what is the point of it.

There. So, you see, we are going around in circles. So, at this level, it's difficult and requires advanced skills.

And all these advanced skills, if all this seems reasonable to you—you can acquire all these advanced skills, play , practice, and get this level of analysis and breakdown across all seven levels of argument, yes, because, well, you see, I have enough skills for this

—then follow the links in the description. That's where my debate course is, my debate course. Three times a week we host debate games, where I either play. Well, where I also play if there are spots available. If there are no spots, I judge. I always

judge. There. I hope you liked this video. Yes or no, leave a comment, subscribe. Keep in touch, let's go.