I would name two communication styles. One being adversarial truth seeking. The other being collaborative truth seeking.
Adversarial: only one of us is right and we have to fight it out. May the best gentleman win.
Collaborative: hmm. We seem to disagree, let’s work together to find out why and how and form a better understanding for us both. We agree on truth seeking so let’s work together.
I would certainly like there to be more collaborative truth seeking.
But, as said above, I don’t see it becoming the norm, certainly not in
the short term. Tetlock and Mitchell, for instance, deem it “least
feasible when most needed”. (1)
I think my concern is “By the time you’ve gotten people to agree to something like what you’ve depicted above, you could probably also get them to do actual collaborative truthseeking. Adversarial Truthseeking seems like it’ll always be the norm, but that’s because even getting people to agree to do something like the above is fairly hard.”
No doubt it would be hard to get people to do what’s depicted in the
post. The conjecture is that in many important instances it would be
considerably less hard than collaborative truth seeking. But it’s
just that: a conjecture. Still, I would think it prudent to explore
many different avenues here given how unfruitful debates so often are
and how much so often is at stake.
Yes. There’s an element of need and intent in bringing collaborative purpose ones self at all times. And hoping that others do the same. I don’t see what more can be done.
I would name two communication styles. One being adversarial truth seeking. The other being collaborative truth seeking.
Adversarial: only one of us is right and we have to fight it out. May the best gentleman win.
Collaborative: hmm. We seem to disagree, let’s work together to find out why and how and form a better understanding for us both. We agree on truth seeking so let’s work together.
They don’t like each other very much.
I would certainly like there to be more collaborative truth seeking. But, as said above, I don’t see it becoming the norm, certainly not in the short term. Tetlock and Mitchell, for instance, deem it “least feasible when most needed”. (1)
I think my concern is “By the time you’ve gotten people to agree to something like what you’ve depicted above, you could probably also get them to do actual collaborative truthseeking. Adversarial Truthseeking seems like it’ll always be the norm, but that’s because even getting people to agree to do something like the above is fairly hard.”
No doubt it would be hard to get people to do what’s depicted in the post. The conjecture is that in many important instances it would be considerably less hard than collaborative truth seeking. But it’s just that: a conjecture. Still, I would think it prudent to explore many different avenues here given how unfruitful debates so often are and how much so often is at stake.
Yes. There’s an element of need and intent in bringing collaborative purpose ones self at all times. And hoping that others do the same. I don’t see what more can be done.