
How to Disagree Better [video] - Jun8
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/09/18/opinion/peter-boghossian-interview.html
======
0xcde4c3db
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.

~~~
9q9

       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].

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lied_der_Partei](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lied_der_Partei)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handicap_principle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handicap_principle)

[3]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspicuous_consumption](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspicuous_consumption)

~~~
kurthr
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?

------
Jun8
Three important lessons from Peter Boghossian
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Boghossian](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Boghossian))
on managing deep disagreements:

1\. Measure your differences. Rather than devolve into Yes, it is/No, it isn't
black and white argument create a scale and place your positions on it. To
someone defending "US is a patriarchy", say "If Saudi Arabia is 9/10 on the
patriarchy scale where do you think the US is?"

2\. Imagine a world where you are wrong. Ask them "What evidence would change
your mind?" or "Under what condition may that belief be wrong?"

3\. Know what you know. People often confuse the ability to know something
with actually knowing something, i.e. they overestimate their actual knowledge
on most topic. Ask explanations and questions like "How do you know that?"

~~~
watwut
> To someone defending "US is a patriarchy", say "If Saudi Arabia is 9/10 on
> the patriarchy scale where do you think the US is?"

That does not measure difference. That sounds like bad faith attempt to shift
the topic. It is the sort of tactic that makes it impossible to discuss X as
long as there are places and people who got it worst.

It is not managing disagreement, it is just rightfully annoying the other
side, because they cant talk about original topic and definition of patriarchy
and what not.

~~~
emj
I'm a believer in those kind of questions, but I think you are right it's hard
to be able to judge such things you easily fall in the binary trap. Your
disagreemnet leads you to formulate your questions in a non-neutral way, so it
feels like trolling.

------
mdturnerphys
My favorite idea about arguing positions is the "steel man" approach. From
[0]:

 _A straw man is a misrepresentation of someone 's position or argument that
is easy to defeat: a "steel man" is an improvement of someone's position or
argument that is harder to defeat than their originally stated position or
argument._

This idea is also given as the highest level of disagreement in the hierarchy
given in [1], which builds upon pg's hierarchy given in [2].

[0]
[https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Steel_man](https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Steel_man)

[1] [https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/FhH8m5n8qGSSHsAgG/better-
dis...](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/FhH8m5n8qGSSHsAgG/better-disagreement)

[2]
[http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html)

~~~
Joe-Z
I think the 'steel man' idea is more commonly known as the 'Principle of
charity'?[0]

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity)

~~~
mdturnerphys
That seems to be taking the most charitable interpretation of someone's
argument. The next step is to improve their argument for them.

~~~
Joe-Z
Seems patronizing

~~~
TeMPOraL
Only if you treat discussion as competition of egos.

If you're interested in the actual point of the discussion instead, then
everyone benefits from a steelman.

~~~
Joe-Z
I'm not convinced. To me it seems more ego-centered to not even let the
argument of the person you are arguing with stand on its own but make up your
own version - which you deem better than theirs - and argue against that. Kind
of like arguing with yourself then.

~~~
TeMPOraL
The prerequisite for steelmanning is that the argument presented to you does
_not_ "stand on its own", that it has flaws that you'd normally use to reject
it - but instead, you decide to patch up the flaws and see if the stronger
version works better.

It's an obviously good thing to do once you stop viewing arguments as
competitive endeavor, but cooperative problem solving. If your co-worker was
proposing a way to solve a programming challenge and you saw some flaws in it,
you wouldn't shoot them down with "oh but this is wrong here, here, and it's
also offensive". You'd say, "yeah, that could work, but it would be better if
we did Y instead of X, and maybe let's not do Z because of $reasons". Applied
to discussions in general, that's steelmanning.

~~~
Joe-Z
Okay, I see your point with the competition and you‘re right (the coworking
example really drove that home). Still what you describe would fall under the
principle of charity for me as well.

To build on your example: You‘d patch up the flaws in your coworker‘s argument
(p. o. c.) and by doing that you are then able to derive new insights on the
issue (just the normal function of a discussion)

~~~
abdullahkhalids
Here is the difference between charity and steelmanning. Most real world
arguments are not fully specified like a philosophy book because people have
limited time to fully lay out all their assumptions, to treat edge case, and
explore all relevant consequences of their argument.

The principle of charity is that that whenever there are two possible
interpretations of the other person's words (because of limited specificity as
above), you assume the one that makes their argument stronger. Eg. I was
arguing with someone about veganism and omnivorous diet, and at one point they
said, "aha, because you didn't explicitly say that you are against eating
brain-dead humans, you must be for it." That is them NOT giving the charitable
interpretation of my words.

The principle of steelmanning goes far beyond charity. You actually play the
devil's advocate and reconstruct the argument, so that flaws are removed and
strengths introduced. Eg. someone is trying to convince you of the benefits of
nuclear power, and they use stats from 2005. You go out there and find stats
from 2018 that even more strongly support their viewpoint. So in your opposing
argument, you criticize their argument as if they had quoted the 2018 stats.

------
siruncledrew
Discussion/Debate is an aspect the karma/voting system does not address well,
and is something that could be improved upon.

This is a pet peeve of mine because karma/voting serves as a detracting
feature of conversation by trying to "gamify" it, which then _promotes_ virtue
signaling, personal attacks, and a lack of personal belief development for the
sake of optimizing analytics ($$$ and user engagement).

In a nutshell, it's an easy way to either throw kindling on the fire or
extinguish opinions that are different.

Think of how annoying it would be to try and have a real life conversation
only for people to butt in and add "Lol what a retard", "yOuRe So sMaRt", or
"Fuck ____" to get handed a few pretend points and boost their ego.

------
vasilipupkin
In my opinion, it’s better not to have these discussions at all. The
probability that they will be productive is very low. Unless you are an
activist or a thought leader who is actively trying to change public opinion,
your time is likely spent better elsewhere.

------
woodruffw
It's not clear to me that someone who presents "grievance studies" as a
legitimate labeling for fields that he isn't politically sympathetic to is
well-positioned (either morally or practically) to tell me how to "disagree
better."

------
EricE
The main problem with modern discourse is coexistence is not enough. You
either convert to the other persons position or you are sub-human and
therefore not worthy of even existing.

I love how often those screeching the loudest about "tolerance" are often the
least tolerant of anyone who happens to have an alternate opinion.

------
tofflos
I think one of the most forgotten "rules" is that it's okay to disagree.
Usually once a group realizes that, it opens up a window of opportunity where
you can transition from an argument into a conversation - in which the
different positions are being explored with curiosity.

------
ilaksh
Worldviews resist rational arguments very robustly. Even those that are
supposedly scientific. The human brain has a belief system that by it's nature
tries to stay fixed. It's a cognitive foundation.

The other part of it is that worldview are tied to group identity. In order to
integrate into any sort of community or group, people generally have to accept
that worldview.

These are a couple of reasons why the idea of opposing political groups having
a rational discussion may be far-fetched.

------
denton-scratch
If you want to share some videos, there must be a more sensible place to do
that than this resolutely old-school hacker site (I block a load of stuff,
including 3rd-party just-about-anything).

------
karmakaze
Should have (video) in the title. Doesn't auto-play but it's all the content.

------
Judgmentality
This comic does a great job describing the problem with arguing on the
internet.

[https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2013-04-07](https://www.smbc-
comics.com/comic/2013-04-07)

~~~
friendlybus
That process of one side's majority squashing the other side's crazy is a
massive political lever used to take out the trash.

The public is used to enforce the basics and actual politicking goes on
between politicians.

------
yodsanklai
> The 2020 election is looming, and things are going to get heated. Having
> civil disagreements may seem impossible. But it isn’t.

My experience with the previous election (I'm in Europe, but it has us
polarized as well) is that there are some disagreements not worth having.

For instance, I don't want to argue with a climate change denier, or a vaccine
denier. If we reached such opposite conclusions, it means our ways of
processing information are so hugely different that nothing constructive can
emerge from a conversation on these topics.

~~~
ilaksh
People who believe different things don't process information differently.
That's a sneaky way of suggesting there is something wrong with their brain.

I have a twin brother who I often find has exactly the same thinking as me
when discussing a topic. He is very religious. I am an atheist.

The reason people believe different things is because they are part of
different communities and/or are exposed to different streams of information.

I agree though that it's unlikely to have a constructive conversation on a
topic where the two worldviews contradict each other.

