The "ignore the dummies" rule actually functions as divide-and-conquer, to keep people from engaging and learning from each other. It isn't new, it's been promoted in public discourse now for years. But it's a significant departure from my upbringing decades ago.
Problem is, everyone is, at times, stupid, or ignorant or both. Not everyone knows these "rules" or others, and not everyone will magically understand them once they are shunned. Use your intelligence to find out, instead, how to *reach* the unreasonable, and connect.
So if you value restoring the polity to civility, take Caplan's advice with a grain of salt.
Isn't there some value in a social media setting in offering an argument that remains calm, takes nothing personally, use probabilities, faces hypotheticals head-on, spurns Social Desirability Bias, and so on in response to a comment that does not have these features? ie Model those argumentation characteristics for a particular social media's consumers and, in the process, introduce specific arguments to foster more productive follow-on discussion?
Yes, probably pointless to persist in countering a chronic 'offender' via this strategy.
"“Being unreasonable” is not a close synonym for “Agrees with me.” "
One too many negatives in here, I fear. But the next sentence straightens things out.
The "ignore the dummies" rule actually functions as divide-and-conquer, to keep people from engaging and learning from each other. It isn't new, it's been promoted in public discourse now for years. But it's a significant departure from my upbringing decades ago.
Problem is, everyone is, at times, stupid, or ignorant or both. Not everyone knows these "rules" or others, and not everyone will magically understand them once they are shunned. Use your intelligence to find out, instead, how to *reach* the unreasonable, and connect.
So if you value restoring the polity to civility, take Caplan's advice with a grain of salt.
Intelligently wise.
Right on!
Isn't there some value in a social media setting in offering an argument that remains calm, takes nothing personally, use probabilities, faces hypotheticals head-on, spurns Social Desirability Bias, and so on in response to a comment that does not have these features? ie Model those argumentation characteristics for a particular social media's consumers and, in the process, introduce specific arguments to foster more productive follow-on discussion?
Yes, probably pointless to persist in countering a chronic 'offender' via this strategy.