If there weren't such a plethora of superheroes named XYZ-man, this would be an easier post to title.
Among the standard tactics used for arguing in front of a sympathetic group is to build a facade of a position, referred to as a straw-man, and tear it down. This is very effective red-meat tactics, and a pure indication that someone is not trying to understand the value in the opposing position, just to argue against it.
Basic epistemological humility suggests that if there exist lots of smart people who believe stuff opposed to what you believe, they have good reasons for believing it. Hence, dismissing their position as stupid/evil/corrupt is (in an epistemologically sound company of mixed opinions) simply an admission of intellectual inadequacy.
The correct behavior, in idea-first, rather than tribe-first behavior, is to figure out what the opposite of the straw man is for the opposition. What is the strongest argument that they have? What is their steel-man position (Feel free to suggest a non-superhero name here)? And how is it true? If you're busy arguing for your side, this probably isn't a useful path (and probably no one is listening on either side), but if you're trying to understand the opposition, you start with the assumption that there are really smart, honest, ethical people on the other side. And that they believe differently than you do. And then you construct the best position you can for them. If it's easy to knock down, you failed...you're not smart enough. Find someone smarter to do it for you.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
7 comments:
>>>The correct behavior, in idea-first, rather than tribe-first behavior
I think that you're having a real problem with a distinction that's easy for normals to see. Behavior that looks "tribal" to you may not be tribal! It's the same problem Caplan seems to have. Not all groups of strangers are equal. You know this when it's not theoretical. This is why you wanted your son to avoid the South Side of Chicago. You and he may not have had warm feelings for the strangers you lived among, but you knew that they were less inclined to shoot you than the strangers on the SSoC. So those were the strangers you preferred. This is something that even Jessie Jackson (tribal king) understands.
Find someone smarter to do it for you.
That's your job here. Get busy. I'm waiting for you to tell me about all the great arguments the other side makes.
dismissing their position as stupid/evil/corrupt
I'm glad to point out those instances, but it often comes down to end goals: some want to maximize human happiness, some want to maximize GDP, some want to maximize equality,...and some want to maximize survival.
If some want to burn down the village to increase equality, maybe it is time to exit.
RSF,
"I'm glad to point out those instances, but it often comes down to end goals"
I think that on the order of 50% of our (your and my) disagreements come down to this.
Meh,
I'm not arguing one should be idea-first. I'm arguing that there's a different modality of thought needed to be idea-first...and it's very very different.
Aretae,
You're missing it again! One can be idea-first while doing stuff that looks tribal. When you say that 80% of the violence is in some small (black) part of town, and that that's why you want your family to avoid it, that's idea-first, but a bigger leftist than you would say it's tribal. You're the biggest leftist here, so you end up being the one calling the rest of us tribal.
Meh,
1. Removed double comment.
2. This was only cursorily about race issues. This was a discussion of a feature of human cognition.
3. I am not missing it. I may be poorly explaining my response.
How many folks do you know who say "I did it because of XYZ", and are wrong about why they did it?
My assertion is that this state of affairs is the normal state of affairs in human behavior. People act, then make up reasons after the fact. This is true almost all the time.
If you act, and you can make up good reasons after the fact...it doesn't mean you acted for those good reasons. It does mean you're good at argument. And it's pretty independent of the truth-value of your position.
By observation, people agree with their group at 80+% likelihood, regardless what the group says.
Is it proper for an idea driven individual to decide to join a group and follow their rules for behavior? e.g. Aretae joins left-libertarians, agitates for Sharia loving Muslim immigration, even though it is against his long term personal interest.
Post a Comment