I like the heuristic, perhaps because it fits my own ideals and practice. I would suspect, however, that those who disagree would say that being "mellow" in the face of intellectual conflict signals greater power than it does rightness. I suspect that is the case at least sometimes.
There is often an asymmetry in emotionality due to differing stakes, no? Much of the harm in this world is done by impersonal institutions, many of which run on a twisted logic of their own, shaped by perverse incentives. Their activities are not intellectually respectable; the calm of their representatives is merely a product of insulation from consequences. Their victims tend to experience those consequences in a direct, personal, and unavoidably emotional way.
How about this: In a confrontation between adherents of some regnant orthodoxy and a dissenter, or dissenting minority, the former will generally be less inclined to remain civil.
"In general, opinions contrary to those commonly received [within a social set] can only obtain a hearing [from adherents] by studied moderation of language, and the most cautious avoidance of unnecessary offence, from which they hardly ever deviate even in a slight degree without losing ground: while unmeasured vituperation employed on the side of the prevailing opinion really does deter people from professing contrary opinions, and from listening to those who profess them."
Arbitrary description w/o validated context. Counter-examples: US Declaration Of Independence, speeches by Hitler, Trump. Sometimes moderration persuades and sometimes not.
None of those alleged counter-examples is pertinent. A politician delivering a speech to enthusiastic followers is not a confrontation between exponents of a regnant orthodoxy and dissenters. The Declaration of Independence is an accusatory document drafted and ratified by like-minded people, not a record of confrontation between disputants.
I think you are discounting the context here. If two people are debating something, and someone is obviously more emotional and overwrought, chances are they are not thinking clearly, because when people are emotionally activated their rationality starts taking a backseat while the elephant in the brain starts rolling hard. So if someone can't engage in reasonable debate without getting emotional, that's a strong signal that their internal state is not capable of dealing with issues well.
Now I would agree that it is not always the case, and some interlocutors excel at inflicting emotional responses on others, one way or the other. But as a general heuristic, barring such provocation, usually the one getting bent out of shape over discussion is wrong. I wouldn't only use that heuristic instead of thinking about the question at hand, but it is good evidence in case of uncertainty.
Man is a mind/body unity. Emotions are the concrete form in which man experiences his values. Values are the product of the choice to reason or evade. Emotions both help and hinder reasoning. Watch the YouTube vid w/Ayn Rand on the Phil Donahue Show. Rand pasionately holds her intellectual context. The Lincoln-Douglas debates may help to understand this, tho I've never read them.
I have seen many interviews with Rand, and never have I seen her get emotional in the way Caplan is referring to. When does she cry, scream, or even make emotional claims? Usually Rand is accused of being unemotional and hyper rational, not the opposite.
I think you might be misunderstanding what is meant when someone is getting emotional in a debate or discussion. Are you not a native US English speaker, perhaps?
Rand is passionate, not emotionalist. Lots of emotionalists on Fox News. My grandparents came from the border between Russia and Poland. The border changed after each war. Very traumatic. Im in therapy.
You are more likely to see the more emotional 🇵🇸 supporters, and indeed those more emotional are likely to present incorrect information. My friends who are passionate 🇮🇱 supporters are also factually incorrect.
This heuristic makes sense in a vacuum but will lead you to a directly wrong answer on a huge variety of questions less contrived than "should Hannibal Lecter debate his victims." It always suggests that the more sympathetic side of the debate is wrong when often it is, in fact, right, on a great number questions that have been resolved through history.
- should slavery be legal?
- should we have an age of consent?
- should schools be segregated by race?
- should we commit any given genocide?
These questions are hardly neutrally chosen but they are in fact some of the great questions of history that societies seriously considered both sides of at various crossroads in time, and, in fact, I think if you put almost any of the great questions throughout history to this test, you'll get an answer that thoroughly offends modern sensibilities.
One problem you run into with this heuristic is that it easily shades into becoming the "carelord heuristic", wherein caring about an issue makes you incorrect. This is attractive, because we would like to imagine that stoic apatheia contributes positively to being correct and is a sign of someone being assured of their argument. This will get you into trouble when you find yourself automatically agreeing with the mellower side that could not care less whether they are correct, only that they appear assured.
The (accused) former tormentor sitting stone-faced in court while his victim has an emotional breakdown on the witness stand is a real-world motif with countless examples. Which isn't to say we should automatically believe the witness just because she's having an emotional breakdown; best not to apply any heuristic here and just study the facts.
I like the heuristic, perhaps because it fits my own ideals and practice. I would suspect, however, that those who disagree would say that being "mellow" in the face of intellectual conflict signals greater power than it does rightness. I suspect that is the case at least sometimes.
There is often an asymmetry in emotionality due to differing stakes, no? Much of the harm in this world is done by impersonal institutions, many of which run on a twisted logic of their own, shaped by perverse incentives. Their activities are not intellectually respectable; the calm of their representatives is merely a product of insulation from consequences. Their victims tend to experience those consequences in a direct, personal, and unavoidably emotional way.
> The more emotional people are, the less clear thinking they do, so the less likely they are to be right.
non-seq
How about this: In a confrontation between adherents of some regnant orthodoxy and a dissenter, or dissenting minority, the former will generally be less inclined to remain civil.
"In general, opinions contrary to those commonly received [within a social set] can only obtain a hearing [from adherents] by studied moderation of language, and the most cautious avoidance of unnecessary offence, from which they hardly ever deviate even in a slight degree without losing ground: while unmeasured vituperation employed on the side of the prevailing opinion really does deter people from professing contrary opinions, and from listening to those who profess them."
--J.S. Mill "On Liberty" chapter 2.
Arbitrary description w/o validated context. Counter-examples: US Declaration Of Independence, speeches by Hitler, Trump. Sometimes moderration persuades and sometimes not.
None of those alleged counter-examples is pertinent. A politician delivering a speech to enthusiastic followers is not a confrontation between exponents of a regnant orthodoxy and dissenters. The Declaration of Independence is an accusatory document drafted and ratified by like-minded people, not a record of confrontation between disputants.
Agreed.
I think you are discounting the context here. If two people are debating something, and someone is obviously more emotional and overwrought, chances are they are not thinking clearly, because when people are emotionally activated their rationality starts taking a backseat while the elephant in the brain starts rolling hard. So if someone can't engage in reasonable debate without getting emotional, that's a strong signal that their internal state is not capable of dealing with issues well.
Now I would agree that it is not always the case, and some interlocutors excel at inflicting emotional responses on others, one way or the other. But as a general heuristic, barring such provocation, usually the one getting bent out of shape over discussion is wrong. I wouldn't only use that heuristic instead of thinking about the question at hand, but it is good evidence in case of uncertainty.
> good evidence in case of uncertainty.
Not much of a recommendation.
Man is a mind/body unity. Emotions are the concrete form in which man experiences his values. Values are the product of the choice to reason or evade. Emotions both help and hinder reasoning. Watch the YouTube vid w/Ayn Rand on the Phil Donahue Show. Rand pasionately holds her intellectual context. The Lincoln-Douglas debates may help to understand this, tho I've never read them.
I have seen many interviews with Rand, and never have I seen her get emotional in the way Caplan is referring to. When does she cry, scream, or even make emotional claims? Usually Rand is accused of being unemotional and hyper rational, not the opposite.
I think you might be misunderstanding what is meant when someone is getting emotional in a debate or discussion. Are you not a native US English speaker, perhaps?
Rand is passionate, not emotionalist. Lots of emotionalists on Fox News. My grandparents came from the border between Russia and Poland. The border changed after each war. Very traumatic. Im in therapy.
That makes a lot of sense. Best wishes to you.
Progressives: hysterical, and factually incorrect.
🇵🇸/Hamas supporters: violent bullies, and factually incorrect.
Checks out.
You are more likely to see the more emotional 🇵🇸 supporters, and indeed those more emotional are likely to present incorrect information. My friends who are passionate 🇮🇱 supporters are also factually incorrect.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bb3WpOJvsug
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2S1nmxYmUg
This heuristic makes sense in a vacuum but will lead you to a directly wrong answer on a huge variety of questions less contrived than "should Hannibal Lecter debate his victims." It always suggests that the more sympathetic side of the debate is wrong when often it is, in fact, right, on a great number questions that have been resolved through history.
- should slavery be legal?
- should we have an age of consent?
- should schools be segregated by race?
- should we commit any given genocide?
These questions are hardly neutrally chosen but they are in fact some of the great questions of history that societies seriously considered both sides of at various crossroads in time, and, in fact, I think if you put almost any of the great questions throughout history to this test, you'll get an answer that thoroughly offends modern sensibilities.
Um...females? Poll the sexes, adopt the policies and positions with the fewest female supporters. Enjoy a long, productive, and peaceful life.
One problem you run into with this heuristic is that it easily shades into becoming the "carelord heuristic", wherein caring about an issue makes you incorrect. This is attractive, because we would like to imagine that stoic apatheia contributes positively to being correct and is a sign of someone being assured of their argument. This will get you into trouble when you find yourself automatically agreeing with the mellower side that could not care less whether they are correct, only that they appear assured.
Mellow yellow.
-Donovan
A well-known heuristics, I believe, but I don't quite understand how the first part of the post connects to it.
Hannibal Lecter is a FICTIONAL character. Proof of the heuristic.
The (accused) former tormentor sitting stone-faced in court while his victim has an emotional breakdown on the witness stand is a real-world motif with countless examples. Which isn't to say we should automatically believe the witness just because she's having an emotional breakdown; best not to apply any heuristic here and just study the facts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dkk9gvTmCXY