I would love to know what words to emit at a logically untrained person to make them switch sides in a debate, rather than merely annoy them by wiping out their fallicious arguments. This article doesn’t seem to tell me. It does seem to hint at leaving him an obvious line of retreat though. Often that isn’t enough, though.
That really is the crux of the problem, isn’t it? I think it’s important to distinguish between two types of arguments, each with a profoundly different goal:
To persuade the person you’re arguing with,
To persuade the bystanders watching a public argument.
If your goal is (1), then the method I would go with is to pick one really good argument and push it hard. Take whatever is your strongest argument, and throw all your weight behind it. When the other guy comes up with a weak rebuttal, just quickly point out the flaw in it and reiterate your central point. Don’t let him squirm out, except through your line of retreat. Another thing that can help here is Socratically asking questions that expose the weak points in his beliefs. That tends to throw people off balance and help you seize the initiative. (Obviously, if the person you’re arguing with makes actual good points, listen. Stay away from the Dark Side.)
If your goal is (2), convincing bystanders, then it’s much easier. People passively watching others argue are not going to get as strongly attached to one of the sides right off the bat. They can be swayed much more easily than people actually arguing. What you need to do here is make yourself an attractive side to the bystanders. Try to be funny and charming, and trip up the person you’re arguing with. Bring out a few zingers; ask questions that the other guy isn’t expecting; and always, always be calm and collected. People like to follow a strong leader. Even the ones who will never join your side can be made embarrassed to speak up. And that’s victory, of a sort, if the view you’re arguing with is really repugnant.
This all sounds kind of contemptuous, doesn’t it? I think it’s true, though.
Have you really succeeded at type 1 situations this way? I’ve found that making my own counterarguments works better than arguing one-sidedly; the trust I build by raising my own objections helps them really listen when I counter them.
I have managed to get people to switch to marginally less ridiculous views, yes. It’s limited success, but still impressive considering how hard it is to get people to change their minds at all.
Your approach may work better, though. It certainly sounds plausible. I’ll have to try that next time I’m in a type 1 argument.
Here are some of the ways I go about trying to convince people of things. I have no idea whether it actually works or not.
Attacking someone else’s thought process has the problems the OP observes. So instead, I try to explain my thought process. The goal is that they will say, “hey, I can get on board with what this guy is saying.” Even if they aren’t ready to get on board, at least they might be more open-minded towards my position for the future, and be willing to “agree to disagree” (yes, it’s a fallacy, but don’t point that out). I want to gain some of their epistemic trust.
Even when I disagree, I do the following things:
Emphasize areas of agreement
Personalize and subjectivize my disagreement: “Well, in my view...”, “here’s how it looks to me”, “what worries me is this”, “I can’t quite get on board with that”
Use analogies, rather than pointing out fallacies. (Though be careful picking analogies, or you can get whole conversation trees discussing the aptness of the analogies.)
Respond to what I actually think their argument is, rather than trying to nitpick or trap them in what they actually said.
Point out implications of what they are saying, and ask them if they agree with those implications.
I also try to project a likable, trustworthy character that people can feel is a “good person.” Liking is an important tool of persuasion. You see, most people cannot consider arguments separately from people. By coming off as a likable and credible, I correct for people’s biases against views they don’t initially agree with. I want to minimize people automatically throwing out my arguments simply because they don’t like the way I come off. Of course, I can’t please everyone, and not everyone is going to like me. (Some people will consider my debate style passive-aggressive, and with them, all I can do is throw in a bit of sarcasm or anger.)
Luckily, since I have high Agreeableness and Openness, most of these strategies I describe are pretty authentic and fit my personality, most of the time. I have text files full of snippets of sarcastic stuff that I don’t post, because nowadays I try to post what I would post if I looked at the thread tomorrow, rather than what I feel like posting in the heat of the moment.
I could probably go even farther towards projecting a likable character, and being emotionally relatable. But that could get smarmy, and I’m not always in the mood. So the character I project probably comes off as more cerebral than I seem in real life.
I won’t claim the strategies of persuasion that I use to be successful or ideal; they are simply the habits I’ve fallen into over the years. Also, what I do in discussions where I’m only trying to convince onlookers, not the other person, can be different. YMMV.
Only if you use your powers for evil. I assume you’re aware of your moral compass at all times and would only ever use these powers for win-win being excellent to others.
You have to sell your idea. Some people have an immediate “ugh” reaction to the idea of selling anything in any way, but there are plenty of white-hat means to do so, e.g.12. This is a completely different skill to debating. It’s attracting people to your idea rather than pushing it on them. To herd cats, first work out the local value of tuna.
The specifics of that are rather beyond the scope of this post (and my understanding.) My point in the second part is that attacking fallacies is a facile and ineffective approach to persuasion because it fails to take into account the other person’s state of mind. Fallacies are surface-level manifestations of deeper beliefs, and if you’re really trying to convince someone, you have to address the underlying issue, not just the transparent one. It follows that you need to have an accurate model of their mental processes—that you need to understand not only what they’re arguing but why they’re arguing it.
Knocking down fallacies is easy and often fun, but it’s ultimately just a sport—effective counterargument requires a more empathetic approach.
Yeah, I guess it is hard. And I agree that empathy is neccessary. Maybe we should hold a “deconvert a christian” competition. Everyone goes out and finds christians, tries to deconvert them in a reproducible way, and then submits some evidence that they succeeded.
I’ve heard that the easiest way to do this is to be very attractive, and then pick a member of the opposite sex and then … well you get the idea. We’d have to ban that.
Even deconverting a global warming skeptic or a creationist would be something of an achievement.
Well, I did once deconvert an ID proponent, though I strongly suspect I was just the final straw between his humps.
But I did it by establishing a social relationship first and then trading on social capital, not by appealing solely to his rationality, which might be the sort of thing you meant to ban despite your exclusively heterosexual wording.
seems like enough qualifiers to avoid being called ‘exclusively heterosexual wording’.
Mm? That’s interesting.
Just to be clear:
I’ve heard that the easiest way to do this is to be very attractive, and then pick a member of the opposite sex and then … well you get the idea. We’d have to ban that.
You understand that to be proposing banning picking members of the same sex as well? Neat… I don’t think I’ve ever run into that convention before.
I’m not trying to get up on a queer-inclusivity soapbox or anything: you’re perfectly free to use “member of the opposite sex” to refer to a person who might find one sexually attractive if you wish.
But yeah, I often interpret “member of the opposite sex” to refer instead to a member of the opposite sex.
Oh, there’s no doubt it’s heterosexual. He is informally quoting someone; “I’ve heard”. I don’t think it’s fair to accuse him of being ‘exclusively heterosexual’ in his wording. I mean, true on point of fact, but the phrase connotes negatively, it implies the author is deliberate in his use of heterosexual wording. I think he put enough qualifiers in front of the sentence to not deserve that implication.
As for the idea: I got “be attractive, find someone who is attracted to you, get involved in an intense physical relationship, then make the relationship conditional on them deconverting”.
It’s clear from the very fact of this conversation that I came off, at least to some of my audience, as more accusatory than I’d meant to be, and I apologize for that.
I’ll try to be more aware of my connotations in the future.
Everyone goes out and finds christians, tries to deconvert them in a reproducible way, and then submits some evidence that they succeeded.
That might not be sufficient. The amount of effort to change a believe is often proportional to the strength of the belief after the change.
You do not want someone to react to your statements with ‘yes, you are right, whatever you say honey’.
Also it is not particularly rational to have more people following beliefs that are currently in fashion.
Communist countries had high numbers of atheists, but for what prize.
Just focusing on the logical issue, and not a strategy for persuasion:
Just because your discussant has a fallacious argument, it doesn’t follow that they are wrong. There might be another non-fallacious argument that proves their point.
An analogy: say you find an error in someone’s proof of a math theorem. It’s possible that an alternate argument can be constructed that avoids that error.
I would love to know what words to emit at a logically untrained person to make them switch sides in a debate, rather than merely annoy them by wiping out their fallicious arguments. This article doesn’t seem to tell me. It does seem to hint at leaving him an obvious line of retreat though. Often that isn’t enough, though.
That really is the crux of the problem, isn’t it? I think it’s important to distinguish between two types of arguments, each with a profoundly different goal:
To persuade the person you’re arguing with,
To persuade the bystanders watching a public argument.
If your goal is (1), then the method I would go with is to pick one really good argument and push it hard. Take whatever is your strongest argument, and throw all your weight behind it. When the other guy comes up with a weak rebuttal, just quickly point out the flaw in it and reiterate your central point. Don’t let him squirm out, except through your line of retreat. Another thing that can help here is Socratically asking questions that expose the weak points in his beliefs. That tends to throw people off balance and help you seize the initiative. (Obviously, if the person you’re arguing with makes actual good points, listen. Stay away from the Dark Side.)
If your goal is (2), convincing bystanders, then it’s much easier. People passively watching others argue are not going to get as strongly attached to one of the sides right off the bat. They can be swayed much more easily than people actually arguing. What you need to do here is make yourself an attractive side to the bystanders. Try to be funny and charming, and trip up the person you’re arguing with. Bring out a few zingers; ask questions that the other guy isn’t expecting; and always, always be calm and collected. People like to follow a strong leader. Even the ones who will never join your side can be made embarrassed to speak up. And that’s victory, of a sort, if the view you’re arguing with is really repugnant.
This all sounds kind of contemptuous, doesn’t it? I think it’s true, though.
Have you really succeeded at type 1 situations this way? I’ve found that making my own counterarguments works better than arguing one-sidedly; the trust I build by raising my own objections helps them really listen when I counter them.
I have managed to get people to switch to marginally less ridiculous views, yes. It’s limited success, but still impressive considering how hard it is to get people to change their minds at all.
Your approach may work better, though. It certainly sounds plausible. I’ll have to try that next time I’m in a type 1 argument.
Here are some of the ways I go about trying to convince people of things. I have no idea whether it actually works or not.
Attacking someone else’s thought process has the problems the OP observes. So instead, I try to explain my thought process. The goal is that they will say, “hey, I can get on board with what this guy is saying.” Even if they aren’t ready to get on board, at least they might be more open-minded towards my position for the future, and be willing to “agree to disagree” (yes, it’s a fallacy, but don’t point that out). I want to gain some of their epistemic trust.
Even when I disagree, I do the following things:
Emphasize areas of agreement
Personalize and subjectivize my disagreement: “Well, in my view...”, “here’s how it looks to me”, “what worries me is this”, “I can’t quite get on board with that”
Use analogies, rather than pointing out fallacies. (Though be careful picking analogies, or you can get whole conversation trees discussing the aptness of the analogies.)
Respond to what I actually think their argument is, rather than trying to nitpick or trap them in what they actually said.
Point out implications of what they are saying, and ask them if they agree with those implications.
I also try to project a likable, trustworthy character that people can feel is a “good person.” Liking is an important tool of persuasion. You see, most people cannot consider arguments separately from people. By coming off as a likable and credible, I correct for people’s biases against views they don’t initially agree with. I want to minimize people automatically throwing out my arguments simply because they don’t like the way I come off. Of course, I can’t please everyone, and not everyone is going to like me. (Some people will consider my debate style passive-aggressive, and with them, all I can do is throw in a bit of sarcasm or anger.)
Luckily, since I have high Agreeableness and Openness, most of these strategies I describe are pretty authentic and fit my personality, most of the time. I have text files full of snippets of sarcastic stuff that I don’t post, because nowadays I try to post what I would post if I looked at the thread tomorrow, rather than what I feel like posting in the heat of the moment.
I could probably go even farther towards projecting a likable character, and being emotionally relatable. But that could get smarmy, and I’m not always in the mood. So the character I project probably comes off as more cerebral than I seem in real life.
I won’t claim the strategies of persuasion that I use to be successful or ideal; they are simply the habits I’ve fallen into over the years. Also, what I do in discussions where I’m only trying to convince onlookers, not the other person, can be different. YMMV.
So.… am I using “Dark Arts”?
Only if you use your powers for evil. I assume you’re aware of your moral compass at all times and would only ever use these powers for win-win being excellent to others.
You have to sell your idea. Some people have an immediate “ugh” reaction to the idea of selling anything in any way, but there are plenty of white-hat means to do so, e.g. 1 2. This is a completely different skill to debating. It’s attracting people to your idea rather than pushing it on them. To herd cats, first work out the local value of tuna.
The specifics of that are rather beyond the scope of this post (and my understanding.) My point in the second part is that attacking fallacies is a facile and ineffective approach to persuasion because it fails to take into account the other person’s state of mind. Fallacies are surface-level manifestations of deeper beliefs, and if you’re really trying to convince someone, you have to address the underlying issue, not just the transparent one. It follows that you need to have an accurate model of their mental processes—that you need to understand not only what they’re arguing but why they’re arguing it.
Knocking down fallacies is easy and often fun, but it’s ultimately just a sport—effective counterargument requires a more empathetic approach.
Yeah, I guess it is hard. And I agree that empathy is neccessary. Maybe we should hold a “deconvert a christian” competition. Everyone goes out and finds christians, tries to deconvert them in a reproducible way, and then submits some evidence that they succeeded.
I’ve heard that the easiest way to do this is to be very attractive, and then pick a member of the opposite sex and then … well you get the idea. We’d have to ban that.
Even deconverting a global warming skeptic or a creationist would be something of an achievement.
Well, I did once deconvert an ID proponent, though I strongly suspect I was just the final straw between his humps.
But I did it by establishing a social relationship first and then trading on social capital, not by appealing solely to his rationality, which might be the sort of thing you meant to ban despite your exclusively heterosexual wording.
Eh,
seems like enough qualifiers to avoid being called ‘exclusively heterosexual wording’.
Sounds suspiciously like exactly the kind of behaviour being banned ;)
Mm? That’s interesting.
Just to be clear:
You understand that to be proposing banning picking members of the same sex as well? Neat… I don’t think I’ve ever run into that convention before.
I’m not trying to get up on a queer-inclusivity soapbox or anything: you’re perfectly free to use “member of the opposite sex” to refer to a person who might find one sexually attractive if you wish.
But yeah, I often interpret “member of the opposite sex” to refer instead to a member of the opposite sex.
Oh, there’s no doubt it’s heterosexual. He is informally quoting someone; “I’ve heard”. I don’t think it’s fair to accuse him of being ‘exclusively heterosexual’ in his wording. I mean, true on point of fact, but the phrase connotes negatively, it implies the author is deliberate in his use of heterosexual wording. I think he put enough qualifiers in front of the sentence to not deserve that implication.
As for the idea: I got “be attractive, find someone who is attracted to you, get involved in an intense physical relationship, then make the relationship conditional on them deconverting”.
It’s clear from the very fact of this conversation that I came off, at least to some of my audience, as more accusatory than I’d meant to be, and I apologize for that.
I’ll try to be more aware of my connotations in the future.
That might not be sufficient. The amount of effort to change a believe is often proportional to the strength of the belief after the change.
You do not want someone to react to your statements with ‘yes, you are right, whatever you say honey’.
Also it is not particularly rational to have more people following beliefs that are currently in fashion. Communist countries had high numbers of atheists, but for what prize.
Just focusing on the logical issue, and not a strategy for persuasion:
Just because your discussant has a fallacious argument, it doesn’t follow that they are wrong. There might be another non-fallacious argument that proves their point.
An analogy: say you find an error in someone’s proof of a math theorem. It’s possible that an alternate argument can be constructed that avoids that error.