As a betting man, why not ask people to furnish a bond before speaking with you? That way, people will think long and hard about whether what they say is worthwhile, and if they don't, at least you've been compensated for having to suffer through their inanities.
Well. My framing is, when I was younger, I wanted to win the discussion (and often lost the person). Now, most of the time I want to win over the person. Oftentimes it's in a different context now, I don't debate to be right any longer. My job evolved to be part sales instead of science. So now the purpose of my reasonings is different: it is to exchange information in order to build relationships.
Back to your post, in that vein, you can end the argument by agreeing that everyone made some good points and that it was an interesting exchange of ideas where we all can learn something, seeing the other side's points was enlightening, thought provoking and gave you a different perspective. Etc etc etc. It's not hard 😁.
Except that doing so foments a culture of anti-intellectualism and falsehood, by letting people think that "the sky is green" or "gravity doesn't exist" is a good argument.
I'd have to disagree, or rather, gently push back on this. I am sympathetic to your point: many tes, though not always, we debate for two reasons, one, to get closer to "truth", and two, to convince the other person of that truth. As I see it, many arguments arise either from different framings of the same facts, or increasingly, from distrusting facts presented by the other side. It shouldn't be hard to show people that different framings may have value. As for trusting the other side's facts... This can only be achieved by building trust to begin with. That means that building a relationship is necessary too. Again, I would love it if mere facts would suffice so I am sympathetic here. Just that I have learned the hard way that the human side matters a lot in an argument.
The thing that people must keep in mind (and political debaters almost never consider) is that they could be wrong. No one knows everything. In fact, the level of felt certainty is often negatively correlated with the amount of information available. The surest people are often the most ignorant.
Now I'm settled into using a "debate" as a way to get to know the other person. I talk about what I believe and why, and am curious about the same from the other person.
Arguments aren't very rewarding even when you win, but getting to know people is always rewarding.
You may still convince someone to change their mind, or be convinced, but to me that's a sidequest.
"The classic move is to make “one last point,” then terminate the conversation... ...The other side rushes to get in their “one last point” and the cycle of suffering resumes."
Yes. But when we're not getting anywhere (or we're at an impasse, I might say now), I sometimes announce that "I'll make one last point and then give you the last word, and I won't answer."
Yes, often their last word is incitingly ignorant and so easily countered, but I try my best nonetheless to just end it. I might make a face, but still go through with nothing more. It's not gonna do anything with this thick skull, and because I have announced no more, I don't feel I've conceded anything by not rebutting.
>if your goal is to manipulate into purging you
Meaning remove you from their life? Why would that be your goal?
As a betting man, why not ask people to furnish a bond before speaking with you? That way, people will think long and hard about whether what they say is worthwhile, and if they don't, at least you've been compensated for having to suffer through their inanities.
So an actual real life version of the Monty Python Argument Clinic, where you have to pay someone to argue with you?
Except that, if your points are good, you get your money back.
Well. My framing is, when I was younger, I wanted to win the discussion (and often lost the person). Now, most of the time I want to win over the person. Oftentimes it's in a different context now, I don't debate to be right any longer. My job evolved to be part sales instead of science. So now the purpose of my reasonings is different: it is to exchange information in order to build relationships.
Back to your post, in that vein, you can end the argument by agreeing that everyone made some good points and that it was an interesting exchange of ideas where we all can learn something, seeing the other side's points was enlightening, thought provoking and gave you a different perspective. Etc etc etc. It's not hard 😁.
Except that doing so foments a culture of anti-intellectualism and falsehood, by letting people think that "the sky is green" or "gravity doesn't exist" is a good argument.
I'd have to disagree, or rather, gently push back on this. I am sympathetic to your point: many tes, though not always, we debate for two reasons, one, to get closer to "truth", and two, to convince the other person of that truth. As I see it, many arguments arise either from different framings of the same facts, or increasingly, from distrusting facts presented by the other side. It shouldn't be hard to show people that different framings may have value. As for trusting the other side's facts... This can only be achieved by building trust to begin with. That means that building a relationship is necessary too. Again, I would love it if mere facts would suffice so I am sympathetic here. Just that I have learned the hard way that the human side matters a lot in an argument.
I think you're probably right, and your approach is prudent. I just hate the perverse incentives.
The thing that people must keep in mind (and political debaters almost never consider) is that they could be wrong. No one knows everything. In fact, the level of felt certainty is often negatively correlated with the amount of information available. The surest people are often the most ignorant.
https://jmpolemic.substack.com/p/what-if-youre-wrong-or-not-perfectly
I've gone through several of these approaches.
Now I'm settled into using a "debate" as a way to get to know the other person. I talk about what I believe and why, and am curious about the same from the other person.
Arguments aren't very rewarding even when you win, but getting to know people is always rewarding.
You may still convince someone to change their mind, or be convinced, but to me that's a sidequest.
"The classic move is to make “one last point,” then terminate the conversation... ...The other side rushes to get in their “one last point” and the cycle of suffering resumes."
Yes. But when we're not getting anywhere (or we're at an impasse, I might say now), I sometimes announce that "I'll make one last point and then give you the last word, and I won't answer."
Yes, often their last word is incitingly ignorant and so easily countered, but I try my best nonetheless to just end it. I might make a face, but still go through with nothing more. It's not gonna do anything with this thick skull, and because I have announced no more, I don't feel I've conceded anything by not rebutting.