Very interesting, because my exposure to LW (and the sequences in particular) had the opposite effect. I’m now better at dealing with others and with dealing with stupidity in general.
My slightly exaggerated thought process used to be: “I’m clearly right about this, so I’ll just repeat and rephrase my arguments until they figure out they’re wrong and I’m right. If they don’t understand it they’re hopeless and I’ll just “flip the bit” on them and move on with my life.”
The problem, of course, is that the strategy is ineffective, and using an ineffective strategy again and again is not rational at all. So I would say the correct strategy is to ask yourself: “Given my understanding of the sequences and of human psychology, what line of argumentation is going to be most effective?”. In this situation you probably want to leave a line of retreat and you probably want to make an effort to close the inferential gap.
If you’re right (in a “facts are on my side” kind of way) you can usually force people to give in but at what cost? Resentment and burned bridges. You might win the battle, but you’ll lose the war.
PS: Insulting your opponent, although an understandable outlet of your frustration, is a form of defecting from the positive-sum game of a civil discussion. I remind myself of this whenever I feel the impulse to insult.
PS: Insulting your opponent, although an understandable outlet of your frustration, is a form of defecting from the positive-sum game of a civil discussion.
It’s not always positive-sum (or even often, if you pick random interlocutors). Your time spent arguing can easily be worth more than what the other person gains. Insulting probably doesn’t help though.
Your time spent arguing can easily be worth more than what the other person gains. Insulting probably doesn’t help though.
One of the nice things of being part of the academic establishment is that its other people’s duty to explain things that are already covered. Except when public relations are concerned. shudders
Very interesting, because my exposure to LW (and the sequences in particular) had the opposite effect. I’m now better at dealing with others and with dealing with stupidity in general.
My slightly exaggerated thought process used to be: “I’m clearly right about this, so I’ll just repeat and rephrase my arguments until they figure out they’re wrong and I’m right. If they don’t understand it they’re hopeless and I’ll just “flip the bit” on them and move on with my life.”
The problem, of course, is that the strategy is ineffective, and using an ineffective strategy again and again is not rational at all. So I would say the correct strategy is to ask yourself: “Given my understanding of the sequences and of human psychology, what line of argumentation is going to be most effective?”. In this situation you probably want to leave a line of retreat and you probably want to make an effort to close the inferential gap.
If you’re right (in a “facts are on my side” kind of way) you can usually force people to give in but at what cost? Resentment and burned bridges. You might win the battle, but you’ll lose the war.
PS: Insulting your opponent, although an understandable outlet of your frustration, is a form of defecting from the positive-sum game of a civil discussion. I remind myself of this whenever I feel the impulse to insult.
It’s not always positive-sum (or even often, if you pick random interlocutors). Your time spent arguing can easily be worth more than what the other person gains. Insulting probably doesn’t help though.
One of the nice things of being part of the academic establishment is that its other people’s duty to explain things that are already covered. Except when public relations are concerned. shudders