I don't buy the tacit premise that most political disagreements are primarily about issues of facts and knowledge. People obviously do bicker over facts, but in most cases I've seen the hard nut to crack is that people disagree about what matters. We have different priorities shaped by different experiences. Different individuals and groups hold very different kinds of things as central to our various identities and senses of well-being and security. Something that is a mere disagreement to one person can be deeply threatening to another person (see e.g. the almost routine vandalism that occurs against atheist monuments or advertisements in some parts of the US). And especially when it comes to sociopolitical issues, our disagreements aren't just abstract philosophical disagreements; they're situated in power struggles that exploit, hurt, and kill people.
Beyond that, there are phenomena that suggest that some beliefs are held because they're indefensible on the merits, as a kind of identity signaling. By proclaiming something to be true that wider society holds to be false, one signals their commitment to the group that identifies with the belief. The more difficult it is to defend the belief in the face of mainstream arguments and ridicule against it, the more value there is in continuing to proclaim it. It demonstrates a steadfast willingness to shoulder the burden of defending the group against outsiders.
So I guess this advice is all fine as far as it goes, but I don't believe that it's especially relevant to the most pressing disagreements in the world.
> I don't buy the tacit premise that most political disagreements are primarily about issues of facts and knowledge.
I don't think that's the premise at all, tacit or explicit. I think the idea is that belief has very little to do with facts and evidence. That's why bringing facts and evidence to a political conversation often destroys the conversation and actually strengthens your partner's beliefs instead of instilling doubt.
Trying to deliver a message to enlighten my ignorant, emotional partner isn't going to work. It's condescending, confrontational, and will instantly trigger every defense mechanism.
Sometimes it's better to ask questions about why they believe what they believe, and how they know what they think they know. Instead of proving them wrong, ask them what evidence they would need to see to change their mind.
Some people believe story of Noah's Ark is literally true. They can cite can many "facts" to back their belief. But, hypothetically, what evidence would they need to see to make them even 1% less confident that one boat actually sustained two of every animal on Earth for 150 days?
Is there any evidence at all that would diminish their belief? Or is their belief not based on evidence at all? Perhaps they believe the story because if they didn't believe it, then it would mean the Bible wasn't literally true, which would undermine their faith and identity and make them a bad person.
Conversations like this often turn up gaping holes in my own beliefs and rationales. So at the end of the conversation, I've learned something, whether or not I've changed my partner's mind about anything.
beliefs are held because they're
indefensible on the merits
I wonder if this phenomenon has a name. If not, it should! (Maybe an analysis using terms of Shannon-style information theory is apt: the less probable an event, the more information it carries.)
It has been argued that the accused in
Stalin's 1930s show trials were forced to confess to their 'crimes' before execution (e.g. Bukharin) precisely for this reason: this enabled other party members publicly to defend those absurd trials, hence signalling absolute obedience to the party. It has also been argued that verses like "The Party, the party, the party is always right" of the East German communist party [1] had the same function.
There is an obvious similarity with a certain dogma in 2019 Silicon Valley culture, but I am afraid to spell it out.
There also seems to be a similarity with the controversial
handicap principle [2] in biology, and the absurdity of certain forms of conspicuous consumption [3].
I agree this signaling should have aN interesting name, but I’d also really like to know what this dogma is as well... or is the first rule of dogma that you never talk about dogma?
Beyond that, there are phenomena that suggest that some beliefs are held because they're indefensible on the merits, as a kind of identity signaling. By proclaiming something to be true that wider society holds to be false, one signals their commitment to the group that identifies with the belief. The more difficult it is to defend the belief in the face of mainstream arguments and ridicule against it, the more value there is in continuing to proclaim it. It demonstrates a steadfast willingness to shoulder the burden of defending the group against outsiders.
So I guess this advice is all fine as far as it goes, but I don't believe that it's especially relevant to the most pressing disagreements in the world.