Revisiting a post I made a long time ago...
It is effectively true that ALL arguments IRL, and most arguments in academia boil down to the following form.
Person 1: A and B, therefore C, D, therefore X
Person 2: P and Q, therefore R, S, therefore NOT X.
The two arguments are entirely unrelated...but they lead to opposite conclusions. The next part of the argument goes like this:
Person 1: Your premise Q is untenable because of Y, Z
Person 2: Q isn't really necessary, You can substitute in premises M, N, which gives even a stronger NOT X.
Note: What's happening here is that the argument has become about the conclusion. Person 1 doesn't like conclusion NOT X, and so he's trying to tear down the argument against X. Person 2 likes the conclusion NOT X, and so is trying to bolster the argument.
If I were to descend to psychologizing...most folks internal positions go:
Person 1: X is an attractive position....now, what are some reasons for X.
Person 2: NOT X is an attractive position....now, what are some reasons for NOT X.
Arguments can have 3 goals:
1. Try to convince (Opponent or bystanders or self), irrespective of the truth
2. Try to discover truth
3. Try to understand the other side.
My assertion...effectively all argument is position 1.
As evidence, I'd offer up the last 2 months of my arguing with RSF (mostly) about immigration. In general, the argument follows the progression described above beautifully.
As far as I can tell...the argument for immigration is 2-fold
1. Shooting people who want to come trade with us sucks. (Freedom)
2. Gain to the immigrants is insanely high. (Harm-care)
3. Economic impact is a/the huge/primary issue. (Econ)
4. Having the government do MORE is horrid. (Libertarianism)
As far as I can tell...the argument against immigration is
1. Paying welfare to foreigners is BAD. (Ingroup/Freedom)
2. The impact on us (minor) and our descendents (large) of low IQ immigrants is BAD. (HBD)
3. The impact to our polity of unacculturated subgroups (of immigrants) is BAD. (Conservativism)
A sane thinker reading this list will say: Damn...sounds like a hard topic, where the moral case is hard, and the practical case more so. A human being, on the other hand, will immediately begin attempting to dismantle one list or the other.
UPDATE: I hope I was clear in NOT attempting to lay blame on only half the participants in the argument.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
8 comments:
Arguments can have 3 goals:
1. Try to convince (Opponent or bystanders or self), irrespective of the truth
2. Try to discover truth
3. Try to understand the other side.
That's some nasty spin you've got on (1). Presumably most people argue a position because they believe it is true. But other than that spin, right.
We don't see much of 2 and 3 because you can do them once and move on, whereas convincing others never ends. For example, I understand the moral argument for free immigration; I have made it myself as a more callow youth. I don't need you to explain it further. Similarly, I believe most of what I believe about immigration because I have thought about the topic for years -- it is (or should be) a sore point to every libertarian, because of the glaring scale-based broken symmetry in the libertarian position. (I can shoot trespassers on my property, even though "shooting people who want to come trade with [me] sucks", the "gain to the [trespasser] is insanely high", etc. But the state cannot.)
Where I live there are a lot of British expats who moved here because they believe it is like the British countryside forty years ago. What they say (when drunk, which is often) is that immigration has changed their country so much that they left it. So your reason “the impact on us (minor)” isn’t minor for them – they left their country.
My conclusion from this is that there are some people for whom the social fabric is extremely important. America doesn’t have the same society as Britain, so it is hard to take the British example and apply it to the USA, but you do have people leaving, say, California for a variety of reasons including the changes wrought by immigration.
bc. (Living as an immigrant somewhere or other since 18 months of age.)
Leonard,
Good call on the nasty spin. It's a highly considered position of nasty spin. When I see someone (anyone, ever?) start by trying to convince someone of X, and then end up changing their position...I'd be inclined to soften that position. But it simply doesn't happen. Because it NEVER happens during an argument, I conclude that folks in arguments are not interested in truth, they are interested in convincing folks...and the truth is ACTUALLY immaterial.
2. You have a better handle on alternate (libertarian) positions than many. You've been there. Similarly, I think that I have a better handle on "vulgar libertarian" positions than most left-libertarians because I've been there (recently). Have you seen the big news out recently that everyone personally thinks that they understand the opposing view, but that the opposition doesn't understand their view?
3. For MOST positions...truth is complex. Mostly, 2, 3 are never done.
4. IRL, an awful lot of opinioning is about team-belonging, and has NOTHING to do with truth.
wobbly,
Thanks for the careful correction.
People think they care about truth. People do not act as if they do. Actions are honest about intentions, assuming the actor isn't an idiot.
The state can't shoot 'trespassers' because the state has no right the land in the first place. It just has a big army and isn't afraid to bully.
But anyway.
I was just reminded of why I end up sympathetic to the pro-immigration side. One of the arguments is that additional workers bid wages down. This is not true at equilibrium. Which explains why studies find that net economic harm for natives is so small.
When more people work, more stuff gets made. This causes deflation: the same amount of dollars chasing more stuff. Wages do go down but buying power goes up almost exactly in tandem.
Simply put, no situation where more actual wealth is around can end up with everyone poorer.
Of course the actual solution is to have a formal owner, with the right to decide, and hold them morally responsible even if nobody can hold them physically responsible. Uncertainty => violence. We try to argue to forestall physical violence but most arguments cash out to intellectual violence.
Because [a change of mind] NEVER happens during an argument, I conclude that folks in arguments are not interested in truth
You are implicitly assuming three things about conversions; that people convert:
(a) via arguments,
(b) during arguments,
(c) and that they promptly and openly admit to it
I find all three of these questionable. But this doesn't mean argument is unimportant in the search for truth. It just means that most of what you're interested in seeing happens outside of your observation.
Also, I think 2 and 3 happen all the time online -- it is just that the people doing them are not the "loud" ones. They are on the sidelines, partly or completely. Just reading. So, from the POV of the people actively arguing, it's all 1. From the POV of many readers, it's 2 or 3.
As an example, consider the recent argument at Foseti's about whether or not Eisenhower was a "communist" (aka "progressive"). Now, I have some opinion about the use of the label, and did chip in a little bit about that. But on the main issue, namely the historical facts about Ike's rise and his actions (and inactions) as President, I had no opinions due to nearly pure ignorance. So I did not argue any position. Instead I just let the big boys duke it out. By comparison to my opinion going in (i.e., that Ike was definitely not a progressive), coming out I was not as sure. So, I changed my opinion somewhat based on what I read. But not based on what I said.
Leonard,
I don't think we're much in disagreement, but we may be missing a communication.
I believe that people in arguments
(a) don't convert via arguments
(b) certainly don't convert during arguments
(c) that promptness is irrelevant, because of (a) and (b).
My claim is that an argument in which you try to convince the opponent is futile. Not gonna happen.
Arguments are useful insofar as they show bystanders the alternate positions. THOUGH...I'd wager that 17/20 people will join sides primarily based on who is arguing, rather than on the arguments. 19/20 is outside my betting range, but wouldn't suprise me.
Could we agree then, that
(a) argument is potentially about truth for the bystanders (only).
(b) truth is at least mostly irrelevant to the participants in an argument.
Could we agree then, that
(a) argument is potentially about truth for the bystanders (only).
(b) truth is at least mostly irrelevant to the participants in an argument.
No. Look, I'm using introspection here, and to me truth is quite relevant; I don't write down arguments I don't think are true. (I do hope the same is true for you, which makes me wonder what you were thinking to write that.) Truth is completely relevant to me. And I expect the same is true of many people online.
Also, I think that (some) people do, in fact, convert via arguments. However, I feel that conversion is a slow process, slower than any online argument. And that is the main reason why you don't see conversions online. Again, I base this view on introspection: I know that I have changed certain opinions, and I know that the process was very slow. Nonetheless, the process was mediated via the opinions of others I read online.
Thus, I never feel my efforts online are futile. (If I did, I would not post. And it is often the case that, i.e., I look at something Megan McArdle writes and want to say something. Then I see that there are already 400 comments; hence posting is futile; and I decline.) I do not expect to convert anyone immediately. I do hope to help people in the long run.
Now, it is true that I have run into plenty of people who argue in bad faith. And I can't say you are wrong in your estimate that 85+% of people just come down on the popular side, although I would put the number somewhat lower. I would quibble, though, that it is at least possible to believe that these people do care about truth; it's just that they are using a sloppy (yet often effective) heuristic for truth-determination.
Post a Comment