I actually am not convinced that this is a good format for intellectual discussion based on past experiences I've had. If you have, say, ten people and are meeting for three hours, that gives 18 minutes of speaking time at most if speaking were divided equally. Of course it won't be and certain people in the group will disproportionately hog the talking time (btw, it is this kind of person who will be most excited about the format). The more nuanced your position, the more difficult it is to express in the short amount of time that you may have to speak. Also consider that some people are simply better at speaking in a group environment even if the quality of their arguments are weak (or at least one sided). One or two people can easily dominate the whole group. It can devolve into a series of lectures rather than a conversation. Or the entire conversation can be sidetracked by something inflammatory that hijacks the group's attention. These issues can be addressed in part with a great moderator, but a poor moderator is a disaster and you may not find out the moderator's weakness until there have already been major problems in the group.
It is no surprise to me that the format is attributed to Jefferson. He seems like he had exactly the personality that would thrive in this tightly controlled environment with rules that he set for his own benefit.
That being said, good intellectual conversation over a meal is one of life's great gifts. I just prefer other formats.
> These issues can be addressed in part with a great moderator, but a poor moderator is a disaster
Or a moderator who is not allowed to cut the mic of a presidential candidate who is talking over the other person. Moderators need to have teeth; the latitude to enforce the ground rules.
Jefferson would have had such moderation power, because he was the host.
I have a lot of experience with panels at events and they can be pretty great with the right panelists and the right moderator. And there are a few events I attend that are well above average. But on average I avoid panel sessions at conferences like the plague unless it's a topic I'm really interested in and know people involved.
>The more nuanced your position, the more difficult it is to express in the short amount of time that you may have to speak.
My experienced with nuanced positions I have held and heard others present is they are either overthought and as a result overly complicated OR the presenter is really a salesperson and has something for you to buy.
Widely-known concepts are like black holes; they swallow anything that dares come near. A nuanced idea doesn't have to be a complicated one, in absolute terms; it is just one that happens to have enough surface-level similarities to locate it close to a different, but much more widely-publicized idea, such that it's necessary to explain the differences carefully or else the listener's mind will leap to treating them as identical. This takes even more careful and time-consuming explanation if there is a debate partner who deliberately attempts to conflate such ideas.
I agree. Clarity of speech is representative of clarity of mind, "complicated" ideas are often half baked and use the supposed complexity to hide the flaws in the argument.
Or those 'simple' arguments might only make sense in a vacuum when no real word implications are considered.
Of course it depends on the discussion and the topic but actual problems (which are worth discussion) almost never have simple or straightforward answer.
The initial argument was about a time limit. Complex ideas certainly can be expressed in simple terms which might be sufficient for a presentation or a performative 'discussion' (like a debate).
If you're having a good faith discussion/argument? Well, it depends..
If you idea is complex provide a summary and allow others to ask questions.
People with complicated ideas tend to get upset when you do that. Recently the socratic method was called a misinformation tactic in the media, to serve as an example of this.
> People with complicated ideas tend to get upset when you do that.
Presumably because they don't actually understand their 'ideas' themselves and not so much because they are complicated (I don't agree that most complicated ideas are nonsense it's just that it's rarely possible to discuss them without splitting them up/narrowing down to specific aspects. So chances are that a person who proposes one is incapable of doing either of those things so we end up with nonsense). But yeah that's a definitely a good approach
Any argument about US constitution that isn't just a literal reading of the text is complicated.
Ask Hawking about string theory and he can answer your question.
Ask a judge why civil asset forfeiture is constitutional and after a while he will refuse to talk to you anymore and insist that your uneducated mind can not possibly comprehend this complexity that he is unable to articulate or defend.
It is no surprise to me that the format is attributed to Jefferson. He seems like he had exactly the personality that would thrive in this tightly controlled environment with rules that he set for his own benefit.
That being said, good intellectual conversation over a meal is one of life's great gifts. I just prefer other formats.