Defense Against The Dark Arts: An Introduction
Epistemic status: I’m a non expert analyzing personal anecdotes and lower level political issues, take with a grain of salt.
Edit: The post is specifically about the Dark Arts as we see them in politics, not in intra or interpersonal relations. Thank you AnniePosting for recommending this specification.
Context
(for those who haven’t read, I highly recommend checking out my dialogue with lsusr linked above, it’s a relatively short read and introduces some important context to what I’m about to go over. But I will provide a shorter summary in this post just in case.)
Previously in the Dark Arts dialogue, I introduced some basic information on my encounters with the Dark Arts in public forum debate, how I used it to my advantage, and my analysis on what makes it work. However, after interacting with some commenters, I realized there was still a ton that people might be interested in. One of which being how to properly defend against the Dark Arts in real world situations.
(By the way, thank you Richard Horvath for your valuable comments, they are what inspired me to write up this post
I think this is an important addition to the site. There had been articles before about the “dark” side/arts, but I think this is the first one where the examples are not thought experiments and abstractions, but actual real world experience from an actual user.
It is helpful for understanding politics.
I think something along the lines of “Defense Against the Dark Arts” with actionable steps on recognizing and defusing them (and how to practice these) would be great. If you feel like you have the energy and time, more articles on offensive usage (practice) and on theoretical background (how to connect your practical experience to existing LW concepts/memes) would be also nice. But I think the first one (defense) would be the most useful for LW readers.
On that note, I think it may be helpful for me to expand a bit on ‘The Dark Arts’ as I see them.
For me, the Dark Arts are more than just ‘thought experiments and abstractions’, as Horvath says. They are something that I come into contact with more or less every day, not just in debate. I see it everywhere, in politics, in everyday interactions, and in patterns of thinking I see from people around me. This may seem incongruous to many people, and I think part of the reason for that is the misleading name of ‘the Dark Arts’.
What does ‘the Dark Arts’ imply? Immediately, the name conjures up images of wizards practicing secretive techniques in their hidden castles, scheming against the righteous defenders of reason. It’s practitioners are thought of as skilled and conniving, with a good understanding of human cognitive weaknesses that allow them to exploit them to their own advantage.
Having experienced them firsthand, however, I find the actual ‘Dark Arts’ to be much less glamorous.
Guys, It’s literally just bullshit
Here is one personal example that reveals what the Dark Arts looks like in practice:
Now, I understand I sound obviously crazy already, but hear me out. Russia’s Kinzhal hypersonic missiles, which have a range of roughly 1,000 miles, cannot hit the US from the Russian mainland. But they can hit us from the Arctic. I add that hypersonic missiles are very, very fast. [This essentially acts as a preemptive rebuttal to my opponent’s counterargument (but what about MAD?).] If we’re destroyed by a first strike, there is no MAD, and giving Russia the Arctic would immediately be an existential threat.
This is one of my debate arguments for why the US should send military forces into the Arctic region. As many of you can see already, it’s batshit crazy. If I ever brought up this point seriously in an actual conversation with an actual person, you would probably laugh at me and write me off as a lunatic. What’s surprising isn’t that it’s stupid, that’s the entire point, the surprising part is that it somehow works. (I won the debate, the judge was thoroughly convinced even if my opponents weren’t)
The technique I use, which can be broadly summarized as ‘supporting a stupid narrative with legitimate evidence’, isn’t unique to debates. It’s everywhere.
Anyone who has ever read the news should understand what I’m talking about. Remember the room temperature superconductor?
What about the YouTube craze where China’s entire economy was going to collapse?
Or the early narratives that Ukraine was going to roll over when the Russians invaded?
And of course, we can’t talk about dark arts without going into politics.
The End For President Joe Biden Has Arrived, for the dozenth time.
It’s easy to laugh at the obviously ridiculous claims after the fact, but we have to keep in mind that they can fool many people, myself included. Recall the original articles about the room temperature semiconductor. Could you have crafted a coherent argument for why they can’t exist, citing the laws of physics? What about China? Could you have clearly articulated why the Chinese economy wouldn’t have collapsed? Or with the Ukraine conflict? How did you know that the Ukrainians wouldn’t be steamrolled by ‘the world’s strongest military?’ The analysts, think tanks, political leaders and general public in the West certainly seemed to believe they would’ve been.
The Dark Arts practitioner hasn’t lost. Even if for some reason you disbelieved the claims being made, you can’t claim to have truly ‘rebutted’ them, in the sense that you understood why the claims could not be true. You have played a game against a Dark Arts practitioner, and the result was a draw, not a victory. Not very optimal, is it?
As rationalists, our goal is to raise the sanity waterline, promote critical thinking, and improve discourse. A draw will not do. We need to win.
Winning: The heuristic solution
As we all have limited resources in terms of time and mental energy, it’s not necessarily reasonable to expect everyone to spend countless hours familiarizing themself with every topic. There isn’t enough time in the world. With that said, I’d like to put forward some time efficient solutions which I have used in debate before. Some of these will be obvious, but I think it’s important to include them in the interest of being holistic. Keep in mind though that these are the techniques I personally favor, not the exhaustive list, and they may not necessarily work for you.
1. Go straight to the source
We live in a world where media pundits, youtubers, influencers and politicians love to speak for the facts. Often, an easy solution is to just go to the facts and let them speak for themself.
We hear ‘the studies prove’ so often now it’s almost an expected feature of reading the news. Dark Arts practitioners have gotten more clever in this regard. Rather than deliberately making up facts, they do superficial or flawed analysis of legitimate evidence and then shrug when they’re proven wrong. “Hold on”, they might say, “I never said that, I was merely drawing off the evidence!”
No they weren’t.
Let me raise my nuclear armageddon argument as an example. In the source I cite, Kinzhal does indeed have a range of 1000 miles. But Russia’s new system, Avantgarde, has upwards of 3000, which directly contradicts my claim that the Arctic is a necessary strategic springboard for a nuclear 1st strike.
The Dark Arts practitioner doesn’t need to outright lie or fabricate. They can simply quote part of the source and neglect important relevant information. Consider, for example, this source that violent video games cause violence.
Any journalist can easily look at the source and say, “aha! Case closed!”, except the study itself would contradict them. See the language of the study:
It is noteworthy, however, that the longitudinal effect of the participant’s amount of violent video game play at Time 1 on the participant’s aggression at Time 2 was not reliable. Hence, although there were significant correlations between participants’ aggression and their violent video game use at both time points, the present study does not show that repeatedly playing violent video games leads to long‐term changes in aggression.
Even though the longitudinal design allows ruling out a host of alternative explanations for the impact of violent video games on the player’s social network, causality can only inferred by using an experimental design.
Verheijen, Burk, Stoltz, van den Berg, and Cillessen (2018) tested the idea that players of violent video games have a long‐term impact on their social network. These authors found that participants’ exposure to violent video games increased their friend’s aggressive behavior 1 year later. However, given that the authors did not examine whether the violent video game player’s increased aggression accounts for the impact on their friend’s aggressive behavior, it is unknown whether violent video game play indeed instigates an aggression cycle.
Need I go on? In short, there is weak evidence conducted by non-experimental meta-analysis of flawed studies showing video games cause violence. Given that the point has already been thoroughly debunked scientifically, this should come as no surprise. But then, these same very flawed studies have managed to enter the public consciousness and dictate policy for years.
There are many other sources. Many other articles. I could get into them all, but time doesn’t permit me to. The essential message is the same, go directly to the damn source. Don’t take the journalist’s word for it, not even if they cite other journalists who seem credible. Often news can be circular, where one source cites another and the actual study gets lost in the middle. None of this is relevant, except for the actual source!
2. Understand studies don’t prove anything
Studies can be experiments, meta-analysis, surveys or any other manner that scientists and researchers use to find information. But they rarely, if ever, ‘prove’ that a claim is true. Published research can easily be wrong. P-hacking and preferential reporting of results can provide an outright wrong conclusion. Correlation does not always equal causation. Methodologies can be flawed, and even well intentioned researchers can sometimes reach the wrong conclusion.
Take, for example, Jonathan Haidt’s claim that social media use is associated with declining mental health.
Haidt is transparent, a well respected researcher and author. Yet, a statistician’s review of his sources resulted in many critiques.
For instance:
Academics face strong career pressures to publish flawed research. And publishing on topics in the news, such as social media and teen mental health, can generate jobs for researchers and their students, like designing depression-avoidance policies for social media companies, testifying in lawsuits, and selling social media therapy services. This causes worthless areas of research to grow with self-reinforcing peer reviews and meta-analyses, suck up grant funds, create jobs, help careers, and make profits for journals.
The 301 studies that make up Haidt’s informal meta-analysis are typical in this regard. He doesn’t seem to have read them with a sufficiently critical eye. Some have egregious errors. One study he cites, for example, clearly screwed up its data coding, which I’ll elaborate on below. Another study he relies on drew all of its relevant data from study subjects who checked “zero” for everything relevant in a survey. (Serious researchers know to exclude such data because these subjects almost certainly weren’t honestly reporting on their state of mind.)
Haidt’s compendium of research does point to one important finding: Because these studies have failed to produce a single strong effect, social media likely isn’t a major cause of teen depression. A strong result might explain at least 10 percent or 20 percent of the variation in depression rates by difference in social media use, but the cited studies typically claim to explain 1 percent or 2 percent or less. These levels of correlations can always be found even among totally unrelated variables in observational social science studies. Moreover the studies do not find the same or similar correlations, their conclusions are all over the map.
The findings cited by Haidt come from studies that are clearly engineered to find a correlation, which is typical in social science. Academics need publications, so they’ll generally report anything they find even if the honest takeaway would be that there’s no strong relation whatsoever.
Should we blindly trust the statistician’s claims? Probably not. But the lesson is the same. When in doubt, review the evidence yourself, and even afterwards keep an open mind. It doesn’t take malice for the wrong conclusions to be supported. When intellectual dishonesty is involved, it gets even worse.
Consider the influential Stanford prison experiment, which was revealed to be a fraud.
A new exposé published by Medium based on previously unpublished recordings of Philip Zimbardo, the Stanford psychologist who ran the study, and interviews with his participants, offers convincing evidence that the guards in the experiment were coached to be cruel. It also shows that the experiment’s most memorable moment — of a prisoner descending into a screaming fit, proclaiming, “I’m burning up inside!” — was the result of the prisoner acting. “I took it as a kind of an improv exercise,” one of the guards told reporter Ben Blum. “I believed that I was doing what the researchers wanted me to do.”
(Update: Since this article published, the journal American Psychologist has published a thorough debunking of the Stanford Prison Experiment that goes beyond what Blum found in his piece. There’s even more evidence that the “guards” knew the results that Zimbardo wanted to produce, and were trained to meet his goals. It also provides evidence that the conclusions of the experiment were predetermined.)
Did the study prove anything? Well, yes, kind of. When the ‘guards’ were placed in a position where they were deliberately told to mistreat the ‘prisoners’, and follow unscientifically engineered procedures to obtain a particular result, they got that result.
Evidence is important, but accept it uncritically at your own peril.
3.Learn to identify credible sources
At some point, we have to accept that arguing against an ill intentioned or misinformed expert is an uphill battle. If you don’t read history, you can’t properly rebut the Lost Cause narrative. If you don’t study physics yourself, it’s hard to argue against a researcher using a bad study. If the Dark Arts practitioner knows his subject better than you do, you likely won’t be able to differentiate between bad and sound logic.
The solution, or part of it at least, is finding other experts who are reliable. In general, this is much easier. Whenever you see a source of information, ask yourself, who is the author? Do they have subject specific credibility? Do they have any special interests? Are they being paid by a specific organization? Are they a member of a tribal group that biases them towards a specific conclusion?
Here is a source by an ecologist arguing that overpopulation may eventually cause an unstoppable climate crisis that will eventually cause climate catastrophe. Said ecologist implies that population control, particularly of poor 3rd world countries, may be a part of the solution.
What do you know? Said ecologist was named Hardin, and he was a neo Malthusian, part of a white nationalist organization, and called for ‘coercive constraints on unqualified reproductive rights’ (we call it forced sterilization, or genocide). Perhaps not the most reliable source.
Do a search on YouTube for ‘China will collapse in X days’, and you will probably find a variety of business youtubers from a year ago arguing that China was going to suffer complete economic collapse.
What do you know? A Ph.D. in economics says otherwise.
Good sources tend to be experts (have subject matter relevant education/experience), are honest about (or have no) special interests funding them, and most importantly, temper their analysis with facts. They allow the facts to speak for themselves. These sources are rare in the modern information environment, and I consider the discovery of each akin to stumbling into a treasure trove. But they exist, and I’m grateful for them. I encourage everyone to share their ‘reliable’ sources in the comments if they would like. It would likely provide great benefits to the sanity waterline.
4.Know your limitations
Unless you actually are a subject matter expert, you likely rely on the evidence and analysis provided by experts and institutions to inform your worldview. Or, at times, tribal groups (though certainly we may not be proud of it). This is completely natural, and an expected feature of modern society. Certainly we can’t all be experts on everything! The amount of reading and studying required to become an expert is hardly negligible, and we don’t live forever. Sometimes our source of information is just the easiest one at hand.
That’s why it’s important to be honest. If you rely on an external source for information, be honest about it. I am not an economist, but the sources I follow (which includes Ph.d economists) seem to believe China isn’t collapsing and won’t collapse anytime soon. I am not a defense analyst, but the sources I follow (which include social scientists and defense analysts) seem to believe the Ukrainian war effort is far from over. So on and so forth. We are all informed in some way by external sources. Take a page from academia, and be honest about it. Cite your sources, allow others to challenge them, and don’t be afraid to disbelieve them if they are disproven. And, as always, nothing stops you from simply stating you have no opinion. Just because the Dark Side wins once doesn’t mean they’ll stay victorious forever.
Winning: The algorithmic solution (Warning: Very taxing on attention span)
Heuristics are helpful, but at the end of the day, the surest way to counter the Dark Arts is simply to understand the subject matter. Intuitively, this is pretty obvious. A scientist will (hopefully) never fall for flat earther B.S, because they have actually studied the science. The more understanding we have of the objective world, the more we can master the facts, the less hold the Dark Arts have over us. After all, false narratives work far less well when we understand exactly why they are false.
The process isn’t easy. It involves either actual academic study, continual learning from reliable sources, or real, lived experience. But since this explanation won’t be complete without an example, I thought I’d break down one example of the dark arts I have observed, algorithmically.
Here is a video of Republican Candidate Vivek Ramaswamy’s response to a question asking why he doesn’t support Ukraine.
Now, full disclaimer, I know we frown upon too much political bashing on LessWrong. At a certain point it becomes unproductive to discourse. However, since my post is about defense against the dark arts, and one of the most prominent fields of the dark arts is politics, I feel obliged to break down a political topic.
In the interests of maximal accuracy, I have decided to choose a topic that I am familiar with, and a claim sufficiently weak that I feel comfortable providing a rebuttal to. I do not mean to insult anybody holding similar views.
I am criticizing an opinion and the logic behind it, not any specific person. (yes, that includes Ramaswamy, as much as I detest his opinions) We are more than the sum of our irrationalities.
That said, let’s break his main points down.
Ukraine aid does not serve American interests
Ukraine’s war effort is doomed, and the result of more aid is a ‘post Zelensky warlord taking over’, like in Afghanistan
Cutting off aid is the prerequisite for Putin ending the war
Using my knowledge of history and geopolitics, I’ll rebut these points, one by one. Pardon me, this will take a while. Also, before I start: I am a clear and unambiguous supporter of Ukraine aid, and I rely on external sources to make my argument. I am also not going to be charitable to what I view as an intellectually defunct claim. Feel free to contest my logic or my sources below.
With that out of the way…
1.Ukraine aid doesn’t serve American interests
To understand this point, we must first understand the competing narratives of the war, and the structure of the NATO alliance structure which was designed to combat Russian expansion. We must also get into Ukrainian history, as well as American political interests.
Let’s start with American political interests. Admittedly, this is a very complex and nuanced topic, and no one list will do justice to all of America’s competing and often contradictory aims, but broadly, I believe you can summarize them as follows.
Promotion of liberal/democratic values
Defense of the international status quo (preventing invasions/instability)
Safeguarding global trade
Containing strategic rivals
Broadly speaking, the US benefits greatly from the status quo, enjoying massive benefits from globalized trade and its exclusive economic and security ties to many of the world’s economic powers. It possess unparalleled security, as well as hegemonic military power. The US is thus interested in protecting globalized trade, partially through stabilization of the international status quo, and partly by restraining the ambitions of revisionist powers. It also aims to increase its own soft power and ideological base by supporting liberal democratic values in general, which grant it legitimacy at home and abroad. This isn’t a perfect summary, but in the interests of keeping this already bloated post at reasonable length, I’ll leave it here. This may be the Dunning-Kruger effect speaking here, but I find that historical evidence and popular discourse have made US interests relatively uncontroversial.
With that in mind, let’s turn to Ukraine.
There’s much more history I can’t cover here, but I think for the sake of this post it makes sense to start with the Revolution of Dignity (Euromaidan). The protests, sparked by then president Victor Yanukovych’s decision to suddenly pivot to pursuing Russian economic ties instead of finalizing ties with the EU, was in many ways the start of the conflict. Despite overwhelming support by the Ukrainian parliament, Yanukovych opted out at the last minute.
The Russian narrative would have you believe that this was a Western sponsored coup, or ‘color revolution’. Flat out ignoring that this was ultimately a popular action by Ukranian civil society in favor of European integration.
Unfortunately, this was in large part what first resulted in the initial Russian military occupations, in Donbas and Crimea. Both were illegal annexations, widely rejected by the international community and supported only by sham referendums.
The Western response was weak, as it has been against Russia in general, up till February 2022. The Minsk agreement, which effectively acted as an extension of German Ostpolitik, was implemented. In favor of greater economic ties and security guarantees to appease Russia, Ukrainian sovereignty was thrown under the bus. Russia would escape with light punishments in the wake of their invasion.
Russian actions aren’t unique, however. Rather, history shows Russia acted very similarly in Georgia, where military force was used in response to threats of European integration. Yet, curiously, we do not see the same force applied to NATO member states. Finland’s accession did not spark a military invasion. The Baltics still remain safe from Russian military aggression. If there has been a consistent deterrent to Russia, it has been military force, vis-a-vis NATO membership.
Russia’s overarching narrative is that NATO expansion is creating a security dilemma, threatening Russian security. But what do we actually see? Russian governments under Putin actively coercing states in favor of European using military force, in defiance of international law and respect for national sovereignty. Invasions of non-NATO states, and no invasions of NATO states. And, in the end, no NATO invasion of Russia.
In all cases, we see countries asking to join NATO, not the other way around, because those countries understand that to defend their national sovereignty they need NATO membership as a safeguard against Russian invasion. Not as a defense against NATO aggression! On every level, the Russian ‘security dilemma’ is bullshit. What we actually see is imperialistic expansion and spheres of influence, ideas of a bygone era when the iron curtain still hung over eastern Europe.
If Ostpolitik was ever credible as a strategy, it was disproved with the Russian invasion. Fostering economic ties ultimately only increased Russian leverage over Germany, and resulted in an acute energy crisis only barely averted by a warm winter, with the German growth model now in question. It also completely failed to stop the February invasion. If anything, it encouraged it. Russia learned a key lesson: that Europe and the world at large was not serious as it claimed about commitment to a rules based international order.
So appeasement doesn’t work. Who’d have guessed?
Where does that leave us? While sanctions have caused great damage, the Russian economy remains standing, and the invasion is ongoing. The Ukrainians have put up a heroic resistance, but Russia still maintains partial control of 4 annexed oblasts, as well as the Donbas region and Crimea. Western (and American interests) more generally would benefit from more aid, as continual aid attrits Russian military capability, ties down their war machine, and reinforces the only message that can hope to deter Russian invasion: that the west is serious. Fundamentally, the February invasion has shown that Russia does not have the military capability to face the united west. Russia has no prospect of further expansion if the west with its combined economic and military might contribute to a proper defense.
But what if Putin is right? What if the west can’t actually put aside their petty squabbles and stop Russia? That’s the bet of the Putin regime right now. That the west will give up on Ukraine. That nobody will defend the Baltics. That more and more of eastern Europe will fall until another Russian flag is flown over Warsaw. This is equally the bet of Beijing, still eyeing the Taiwan Strait. The world is watching closely to see if America is serious about it’s military commitments, or if we will return to another period of isolationism, the very same that allowed for Hitler’s European conquests.
If Ukraine falls, the Baltics are likely next, and the world will face the terrifying prospect of a clash between nuclear powers. And, as America is distracted, maybe a Taiwan Strait Crisis as well. Or, maybe worse, the effective dissolution of NATO’s credibility, and rampant military and nuclear proliferation in Europe. In either case we are looking at massive economic disruptions, potentially more invasions, and the omnipresent shadow of nuclear war, an X-risk we thought we were done worrying about.
So, does Ukraine aid serve American interests? Hell yes. Ukraine aid diminishes the power of a strategic rival (Russia). It promotes liberal values and supports the existing international order. It discourages future military conflicts, and the trade disruptions that happen as a result. (see oil and food prices spiking in the wake of Russia’s invasion) Aid also enhances Washington’s credibility as a security partner and the leader of the western alliance. All said, aid is practically a strategic imperative, and the fact that Vivek disregards it shows just how little he understands about foreign policy.
2. Ukraine’s war effort is doomed
I won’t waste too much time on this point. To date, Russia has suffered catastrophic losses in the Ukraine war, more than enough to replace their entire initial invading force. Over 300,000 troops, 5000 tanks, 600 aircraft, and countless more equipment categories are estimated to have been lost. These are losses that would completely erase most European armies.
Kyiv has not fallen. The Russians failed to stop the Kharkiv offensive. Manpower and equipment are being consumed at unsustainable rates, and all the while Russian troops take ground at a snail’s pace, if at all. We are witnessing the effective equivalent of a return to WWI era trench warfare, where grinding battles of attrition wear out the capabilities of both sides.
The narrative is that the long war favors Russia. This is true, but only to a limited extent, as Russia is still ultimately unable to tap it’s full economic and military potential. It’s why the initial invasion was a ‘special military operation’ rather than a war. Putin does not want to risk domestic political survival with a true general mobilization, or a full transition into a total war economy. Russia must therefore rely on it’s shrinking stockpiles from the Soviet era, while Ukraine can continue to be supplied by NATO allies, which are still nowhere close to exhausting their economic and military potential.
Ukraine still isn’t ‘winning’, but it won’t take much for a victory in theory to become one in reality. The west can simply get serious about supporting Ukraine, devise a coherent long term strategy, and supply the necessary equipment to win the battle of attrition. Between Ukraine and Russia, yes, a long war favors Russia. But between Russia and NATO there is no real contest.
All that said, Ramaswamy’s claim about Ukraine becoming like Afghanistan is simply not grounded in the reality of what actually happened. Afghan civil society did rise up against the Taliban. Afghan troops largely surrendered after a short fight. The president fled the country.
What about Ukraine? Ukrainians have died in the hundreds of thousands to defend their country. Civil society has mobilized for a total war. Zelensky retains overwhelming popular support, and by and large the populace is committed to a long war.
Is this the picture of a people about to give up? I think not.
3. Cutting off aid will ‘solve’ the problem
I hope this is obvious at this point, but no, if the west stops supporting Ukraine Putin won’t be satisfied. See my analysis of point 1 again. He’ll just resume his conquests. To stop him, the west needs to provide more aid. Again, current aid is not significant in terms of Western capabilities. The fact of the matter is that aid to Ukraine is only a tiny portion of the West’s economy. As it stands, aid from the US nets to about 75 billion from the US.
For reference, the US budget for fiscal year 2023 is approximately 6.1 trillion dollars, with 850 billion being for defense. Ukraine aid is a tiny portion of the budget that delivers outsized results by actually wearing Russian capabilities down.
Considering that much of the aid is military (ie: obsolete equipment we won’t use, or new equipment we want to test the efficacy of), the difference between cost and potential benefits are vast. Not supporting Ukraine is thus not really even a ‘selfish’ decision. It’s just a bad decision. But then, when has that ever stopped politicians?
(Note: Much of my arguments are borrowed, and from sources like Perun, Kraut, William Spaniel, and more, who I view as credible. However, the presentation of my argument is my own. I know I didn’t link all relevant evidence, or address all possible counterarguments. If you take issue to my logic, feel free to dispute it in the comments.)
Politics: The Dark Side’s Dream
In some ways, Vivek Ramaswamy’s arguments are a strawman, arguments so fallacious no informed person should take seriously. Yet, in some other ways, his arguments are a reflection of the state of modern politics. See for example, some of the CNN questions from 4 months ago.
Though wrong, his answers are straightforward, and reflect a clear, internally cohesive narrative. The uninformed judge cannot tell him from someone with a genuine understanding of geopolitics. In fact, he’s far more convincing than his opposing candidates, who defend Ukraine aid with overt emotional appeals.
Consider this accusation from his opponent which drew gasps from the crowd.
“You are helping a murderer over…”
The debate, insofar as there was ever an actual debate, ended there. His opponent did not have any legitimate arguments for why we should continue Ukraine support. Or maybe she did, but lacked the time to properly present them, like I did. (Hell, even my own presentation is flawed, but then I don’t want the post to be 10k words and citing over 100 sources). She opted for insults instead. The comments reflect how an uninformed audience member may have reacted.
I don’t agree with some of his views, but Vivek is entertaining to watch and he was the clear winner of this debate. That deserves props.
Man this guy can talk
I am common sense conservative. This man has my vote after many hours of research on all the candidates.
IMAGINE HOW STRONG OUR COUNTRY WOULD BE IF PRESIDENTS SPENT THEIR DAYS WORKING FOR THE PEOPLE WHO ELECTED THEM INSTEAD OF THE PEOPLE WHO BUY THEM.
We see that the Dark Arts have triumphed over their less sophisticated counterparts in politics, overt dodging and name calling. As always, knowing the truth makes the tactics seem comical, but then not everybody knows the truth.
A proper rebuttal to Vivek’s 30 second video would require proper understanding of American geopolitical interests. A genuine commitment to liberal democratic values that goes beyond applause lights. An understanding of what financial and military aid was given, as well as how it’s used. It also requires, essentially as a byproduct, a basic understanding of European history and political development. Is this hard to acquire? Not necessarily, but for the median voter it would not be entirely reasonable to demand these levels of knowledge for every important political issue. Presenting such a proper rebuttal on a short time frame is likewise extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible. I wish I could do it, but I cannot. I must still take 5 minutes to rebut a 30 second claim, even if it’s completely wrong.
This, in my view at least, is one of the primary reasons why politics has grown so toxic and polarized over the years. It’s a perfect situation for dark arts practitioners. When narratives matter more than facts, charisma more than credibility, and ratings over intellectual exploration, the result is the same sad circus we are used to. Vivek is not an anomaly. He is precisely the sort of speaker the system rewards.
Conclusion and summary:
The Dark Side has not won… yet. But it is gaining ground. It is infiltrating politics, and many other aspects of daily life. It is taking advantage of flaws in our minds and our societies, making discourse and coordination difficult. But not all is lost.
Defending Against the Dark Arts is actually pretty easy. Heuristically, a few small steps can get you a long way.
Go Straight to the Source
Understand studies don’t prove anything
Learn to identify credible sources
Know your limits
Algorithmically, the challenge isn’t too difficult either. Most of the Dark Arts rely on a complete lack of knowledge. Even superficial and basic understanding of events is enough to invalidate a Dark Arts practitioner’s attacks. Defeating them on a grand scale will take time, and perhaps some societal change as well. But in the meantime, as a well educated individual of the middle class observing politics, the challenge isn’t that bad. Do your research diligently, and it will probably be enough.
Note: In the spirit of this post, I’d like to present interested readers with a challenge. Look through my logic, and catch my mistakes. I have intentionally made some, catchable using the very same techniques I described. If you’re interested in practice, I think you’ll have some fun finding my errors. First person to find them all and post in comments gets… a virtual hug! (well, probably something else, I don’t know what, but I’m willing to grant any reasonable request)
Cheers,
Lyron
Breaking my usual lurking habit to explain my downvote. I travel around a lot and compete in various debating competitions, so this topic is close to my heart. I read this as an attempt to raise the epistemic water level.
It is acknowledged but I still find that this post veers wildly off-topic about half way through and extraneously bashes Ramaswarmy in a way I’m not sure is constructive.
The 2nd points harks on something valid which also irks me, but I think Scott beat you to the punch. Even that given though, I don’t think any of these things as given are particularly potent defences against the dark arts as put—either in debates or in life. I think unwillingness, apathy, or lack of capacity is a much bigger barrier to further academic reading than recognition that subject matter experts are more accurate than random Youtube punters.
I wrote a lot more here, but I’m deleting it to instead say that this post lacks focus and breadth—I think it is simultaneously too shallow in the advice that is given (read primary sources, be educated, don’t experience the Dunning Kruger effect) but also too specific and mindkilling in the examples it chooses (a long explanation of why Ramaswarmy is Super Wrong about this one thing he said) to be pedagogic.
Thanks so much for your feedback!
Hm… right. I did get feedback warning that the Ramaswamy example was quite distracting (my beta reader reccomended flat eartherism or anti-vaxxing instead). In hindsight it may have been a better choice, but I’m not too familiar with geology or medicine, so I didn’t think I could do the proper rebuttal justice. The example was meant to show how proper understanding of a subject could act as a very strong rebuttal against intuitive bullshit, but then I think I may not have succeeded in making that point. I think this was a case of sunk cost fallacy at work, I already wrote a good part and I opted not to get rid of it.
Oh? I never saw this article before, thank you for linking.
Hm… not too I understand what you mean. Would you mind illustrating with a few examples of more ‘potent defenses’, as you see them? Always open to having more tools in my toolbox. These methods I presented in my post are just some heuristics that work for me, not an exhaustive list. I would be grateful if you could provide me some.
My response to your Ramaswamy example was to skip ahead without reading it to see if you would conclude with “My counterarguments were bullshit, did you catch it?”.
After going back and skimming a bit, it’s still not clear to me that they’re not.
The thing is, this applies to you as well. Looking at this bit, for example:
This sure sounds like something a bullshit debater would say. Hundreds of thousands of people dying doesn’t really mean a country isn’t about to give up. Maybe it’s the reason they are about to give up; there’s always a line, and whos to say it isn’t in the hundreds of thousands? Zelensky having popular support does seem to support your point, and I could go check primary sources on that, but even if I did your point about “selecting the right facts and omitting others” still stands, and there’s no easy way to find out if you’re full of shit here or not.
So it’s kinda weird to see it presented as if we’re supposed to take your arguments at face value… in a piece purportedly teaching us to defend against the dark art of bullshit. It’s not clear to me how this section even helps even if we do take it at face value. Okay, so Ramaswamy said something you disagree with, and you might even be right and maybe his thoughts don’t hold up to scrutiny? But even if so, that doesn’t mean he’s “using dark arts” any more than he just doesn’t think things through well enough to get to the right answer, and I don’t see what that teaches us about how to avoid BS besides “Don’t trust Ramaswamy”.
To be clear, this isn’t at all “your post sucks, feel bad”. It’s partly genuine curiosity about where you were trying to go with that part, and mostly that you seem to genuinely appreciate feedback.
My own answer to “how to defend against bullshit” is to notice when I don’t know enough on the object level to be able to know for sure when arguments are misleading, and in those cases refrain from pretending that I know more than I do. In order to determine who to take how seriously, I track how much people are able to engage with other worldviews, and which worldviews hold up and don’t require avoidance techniques in order to preserve the worldview.
On phone, don’t know how to format block quotes but: My response to your Ramaswamy example was to skip ahead without reading it to see if you would conclude with “My counterarguments were bullshit, did you catch it?”.
This was exactly what I did, such a missed opportunity!!
I also agree with other things you said, and to contribute a useful phrase, your response to BS: ” is to notice when I don’t know enough on the object level to be able to know for sure when arguments are misleading, and in those cases refrain from pretending that I know more than I do. In order to determine who to take how seriously, I track how much people are able to engage with other worldviews, and which worldviews hold up and don’t require avoidance techniques in order to preserve the worldview.” Sounds a bit like Epistemic Learned Helplessness by Scott: https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/06/03/repost-epistemic-learned-helplessness/ Which I think is good when you are not in a live debate—saying “I dunno, maybe” and then later spending time thinking about it and researching it to see if the argument is true or not, meanwhile not updating.
The difference between what I strive for (and would advocate) and “epistemic learned helplessness” is that it’s not helpless. I do trust myself to figure out the answers to these kinds of things when I need to—or at least, to be able to come to a perspective that is worth contending with.
The solution I’m pointing at is simply humility. If you pretend that you know things you don’t know, you’re setting yourself up for failure. If you don’t wanna say “I dunno, maybe” and can’t say “Definitely not, and here’s why” (or “That’s irrelevant and here’s why” or “Probably not, and here’s why I suspect this despite not having dived into the details”), then you were committing arrogance by getting into a “debate” in the first place.
Easier said than done, of course.
Very nice! Now… here’s the catch. Some of my arguments relied on dark arts techniques. Others very much don’t. I can support a generally valid claim with an invalid or weak argument. I can do the same with an obviously invalid claim. Can you tell me what specifically I did? No status points for partially correct answers!
Now, regarding learned helplessness. Yes, it’s similar, though I’d put in an important caveat. I consider discerning reliable sources and trusting them to be a rational decision, so I wouldn’t go as far as calling the whole ordeal of finding what is true a lost cause. But then in general I’m taking a similar position as Scott.
edit: oops, my bad, this was meant to be a response to above, I saw this pop up in the message feed without context
Finding reliable sources is 99% of the battle, and I have yet to find one which would for sure pass the “too good to check” situation: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/too-good-to-check-a-play-in-three
Some people on this website get that for some topics, acoup blog does that for history, etc, but it’s really rare, and mostly you end up with “listen to Radio Liberty and Pravda and figure out the truth if you can.”
On a style side, I agree with other commenters that you have selected something where even after all the reading I am severely not convinced your criticism is correct under every possible frame. Picking something like a politician talking about the good they have done, despite actually being corrupt or something much more narrow in focus and black-and-white, leaving you much less surface to defend. Here, it took a lot of text, I am unsure what techniques I have learned since your criticisms require more effort to again check for validity. You explained that sunk cost fallacy pushed you for this example, but it’s still not too late to add a different example, put this one into Google doc and make it optional reading and note your edit. People may read this in the future, and no reason not to ease the concept for them!
Completely fair. Maybe I should share a few then?
I find Money & Macro (economics youtuber with Ph.d in the field) to be a highly reliable source capable of informed and nuanced reporting. Here is, for instance, his take on the Argentine dollarization plan, which I found much more comprehensive than most media sources.
Argentina’s Radical Plan to End Inflation, Explained—YouTube
In terms of Ukraine reporting, I rely pretty heavily on Perun, who likewise provides very informative takes with high emphasis on research and prevalent defense theories.
All Bling, no Basics—Why Ukraine has embarrassed the Russian Military (youtube.com)
See here, for instance, on his initial reaction to the invasion, and predictions of many of the war’s original dynamics (acute manpower shortages on the part of Russia, effects of graft and corruption, a close match of capabilities and tendency to devolve towards a longer war).
I consider these sources highly reliable, based off their ability to make concrete, verifiable predictions, steer clear of political biases, and provide coherent worldview models. Would you like to check them out and provide your thoughts?
Maybe a good idea. It depends on whether I can muster the energy for a separate edit, and if I can find a good relevant example. Do you have any suggestions in that regard? I know that unless I stumble across something very good I’m unlikely to make an edit.
Right, about this. So the overall point of the Ramaswamy example was to illustrate how subject specific knowledge is helpful in formulating a rebuttal and distinguishing between bullshit and non-bullshit claims.
See for example, this comment
Yes, that’s the whole point. I didn’t think it was a problem before, but now… well...
I think I’m starting to realize the dilemma I’m in. I aimed to explain something in full object level terms so I can properly explain why subject matter knowledge helps discern between a true and a false claim… but then actually discerning what’s true and what’s false requires subject matter knowledge I can’t properly distill in the span of a few thousand words. Catch-22, oops.
I could bring out the factual evidence and analyze it if you like, but I don’t think that was your intention. In any case, feedback appreciated! Yes, this was definitely an issue, I’ll take more care in future examples.
I think “subject specific knowledge is helpful in distinguishing between bullshit and non-bullshit claims.” is pretty clear on its own, and if you want to add an example it’d be sufficient to do something simple and vague like “If someone cites scientific studies you haven’t had time to read, it can sound like they’ve actually done their research. Except sometimes when you do this you’ll find that the study doesn’t actually support their claim”.
“How to formulate a rebuttal” sounds like a very different thing, depending on what your social goals are with the rebuttal.
Yeah, you’re kinda stuck between “That’s too obvious of a problem for me to fall into!” and “I don’t see a problem here! I don’t believe you!”. I’d personally err on the side of the obvious, while highlighting why the examples I’m picking are so obvious.
Yeah, I think that’d require a pretty big conversation and I already agree with the point you’re trying to use it to make.
I think most of the best posts on this website about the dark arts are deep analyses of one particular rhetorical trick and the effect it has on a discussion. For example, Setting the Zero Point or The noncentral fallacy—the worst argument in the world? are both discussions about hypothesis privilege that rely on unstated premises. I think reading these made me earnestly better at recognising and responding to Dark Arts in the real world. Frame Control and its response, Tabooing “Frame Control” are also excellent reads in my opinion.
Hm… right. I think your critiques are pretty on point in that regard. I may have diluted focus too much and sacrificed insight for a broad overview. Focus on a more specific technique is probably better.
I have a few ideas in mind, but I thought I’d get your opinion first. Do you think there’s any part of this post that warrants more detailed explanation/exploration with greater focus?
The “dark arts” construct beautiful traps: if you try to address any individual argument, counter any particular bit of evidence, you’ve already lost. The lies are mere scaffolding, and the narrative they’ve built stands without them. And to those who pride themselves on being able to spot fallacious reasoning, these traps are basically irresistible. It’s fun to point out specific mistakes. It feels like winning. It looks like winning to anyone watching. Sidestepping the trap offers no such satisfaction.
This entire post is precisely such a trap (and an exquisitely meta one): one can address all the specific flaws in the Ukraine argument, but the actual problem is the bigger picture. This defense strategy does not work. Going straight to original sources, discerning credible news, etc. are good for rebutting individual arguments, but not in figuring out the entire narrative is a lie.
I think the Dark Side has won. Here’s a personal confession: I believed the the lie of Snake Island massacre. Even after all the lies about the “deadly global pandemic,” even after years of quoting the “truth is the first casualty of war” line ad nauseum, even knowing the lies preceding the Iraq invasion (and so many before it in the 20th century), I fell for it. The idea that the entire garrison was killed after they responded to an offer to accept their surrender with the now-famous “Russian warship, go fuck yourself” line (which I heard the audio of, distributed by sources I trusted not to have fabricated it) was … plausible. Reasonable. I did not think to doubt it.
But I recovered fairly quickly, and did not fall for the many, many, subsequent lies about Russia. If I had followed the advice presented here about knowing my limits and trusting the experts, I’d have fallen for every single one of them.
Is there a Defense Against the Dark Arts? If there is, I don’t know it. But this is not it.
The temptation is hard to resist, so here’s just one hole in the argument presented: the island of Taiwan is as much a part of China as Crimea is of Ukraine. No principled stance about the “rules-based international order” would let you side with both Ukraine and Taiwan.
This is spot on, as is your subsequent point that the real defense is to simply be right and not let counterarguments change your mind. The fact that you are getting downvoted is a rather sad commentary on the state LessWrong has reached. What you are preaching is the twelfth rationalist virtue, which is really the culmination of all the others.
Hello, and thanks for the comment!
Hm… yes, the central narrative is always hard to rebut. But since no argument exists independently of the facts, I thought I would focus on verification of factual information. I found the methods I used helpful in that regard. I’m sorry it didn’t work for you, but then, I’m not claiming that it would work for everyone in all situations. These are the methods I personally found helpful. The algorithmic solution (ie: actually learning about the topic yourself) has been what I consider the only reliable defense. Even if you turn out to be wrong, you have still taken all the information into account and arrived at an actual conclusion that is your own.
I might use the example of traditional Chinese medicine. As compared to Western medicine, both have very long histories and coherent (at least internally) understandings of the human body and what treats diseases. As an outsider looking in, divorced from the real world, you would likely not be able to tell which side is ‘right’. But at the end of the day, we can observe that much of Western medicine does actually work and much of the traditional treatments are bogus (or can otherwise be explained scientifically with the placebo effect). I do believe rebutting narratives through analysis of individual facts is possible, because it has happened before. (not to say it’s perfect, 1000 years ago if you were born in China you might reach the conclusion medicine has a overall weak correlation with health outcomes)
So now I’m curious. What’s your model for defense against the dark arts? When I try to rebut a central narrative, I usually go to the specific facts pertaining to that narrative. If the debate is student loans, I’ll likely have to explore the Benett hypothesis. If the debate is Ukraine, I’ll likely have to review regular and military history. The truthful narrative, in my view, does not exist in the abstract, but rather as a combination of evidence chains, which combine into a coherent model. Do you see it differently?
Now, on this point more specifically.
Are you sure this was a lie? To the best of my understanding, the audio was legitimate, the soldiers really did tell that to the Russians. When the Ukranian military lost contact with them after the fact, they assumed the worst (as militaries typically do), and they were thought of as dead. Turns out they were captured alive. The Ukrainian government has not denied that fact. Instead, they dispute the circumstances of how the soldiers ended up in Russian custody (ie: did they surrender or were they captured after a fight?).
The fog of war is a real phenomenon. Some information is true, some is not, but not all false information is misleading with the deliberate intention of being misleading. Do either governments publish accurate casualty figures? Probably not. Are they incentivized to publish stories of heroics? Yes. Do they claim that individuals who are verifiably alive are in fact dead? Not to the best of my knowledge.
I feel your narrative is flawed, partly because I feel this piece of evidence is flawed. If someone wants to make up their mind on whether or not your narrative is accurate, looking through the evidence is likely helpful. If you want to point out the flaws in my argument feel free to do so. It will likely encourage a more accurate picture of events.
That said…
So, I think I can defend this using the principles of legitimacy. Consider the frozen conflict between North and South Korea. Both sides claim to be the sole legitimate government of Korea. So who’s legitimate? The UN seems to consider them both as independent states. I don’t find this at odds with a stance about the rules based international order. (which, by the way, I argued was in US interests, I never argued about it’s morality)
However, there is the moral dimension, which in my view is more important than the legal one. South Korea is a vibrant democracy. North Korea is a floundering dictatorship. I consider the South more morally legitimate, independent of the international stance on the matter. In much the same way, I consider Taiwan to have a much greater moral legitimacy to rule Taiwan because of it’s democratic mandate. (I would support Hong Kong autonomy on the same principle) They have never declared independence formally, but clearly the CCP does not have control over Taiwan. I thus feel justified viewing it as a state in the middle of a frozen conflict.
So, what about Crimea? There is a war going on, so there is conflict, but Russian forces are occupying and administering the region. Legally, however, few countries recognize the annexation. Then we have to consider the referendum… I think the facts speak for themselves here. The vote was held under military supervision. Basic legal procedures were ignored. Russia’s ‘little green men’ took over governmental buildings before a vote was held, not after. I don’t believe there’s any basis for calling such a ‘vote’ legitimate.
So where does that leave us? There are many points in the international order regarding the legitimacy of states that we might consider ‘awkward.’ For instance, with the Koreas and Taiwan. I contend that while both Koreas have legal legitimacy, only the south has moral legitimacy. Russian forces in Crimea have neither moral nor legal legitimacy. Thus, I can support South Korea, Taiwan, and Ukraine at the same time as morally legitimate states. Does this argument satisfy your requirements?
The glib answer to how to avoid falling victim to the Dark Arts is to just be right, and not let counterarguments change your mind. Occlumency, if you like.
One problem is the bullshit asymmetry principle, which you describe but don’t call by name: rebutting narratives through analyses of individual claims is infeasibly expensive. But far worse is answering the wrong question, letting the enemy choose the battlefield. Sticking with the war in Ukraine for an example, it’d be like answering the question of why Russia would blow up its own pipeline (Is Putin stupid? Is it like Cortés burning his ships? Is it the Wagner Group trying to undermine Putin?) instead of saying, “Wtf? No, it’s obviously the US.”
As I said, I don’t know how one can consistently recognize traps like this. It seems exceedingly difficult to me, but that’s what an actual defense would look like.
To clarify my point about the Snake Island massacre: yeah, I think the audio was legit too. No, I believe the Ukraine government knew they were alive (or at least had good reason to think so), and pretended otherwise for propaganda reasons. Can I prove this? No, I don’t in fact have access to high-level military intelligence. This is the trap I’m warning against! Getting bogged down trying to ascertain exactly what the Ukrainian military knew and when they knew it is missing the point, which is whether or not they’re incentivized to deceive you, and so whether you should trust anything they say, one way or the other.
The same goes for your ad hoc determinations of which states are “legitimate,” based on considerations of “international law,” your personal moral views regarding “democracy,” and expedients of maintaining US hegemony. You’re answering the wrong question. Happily, in this case, I’ve figured out the correct answer: there is no such thing as a morally legitimate state.
It is exceedingly difficult, but it can be learned. Unfortunately libertarianism (I get anarcho-capitalist vibes from you but I could be wrong) is itself captured by one of these traps, being basically a way of subverting leftism and turning it against itself. If you’re curious, the Austrian school was “pure” in a sense up to and including Mises, but then Ayn Rand was heavily inspired by Mises and wrote Atlas Shrugged, which is a brilliant book but also profoundly flawed, in no small part because its sociology is basically Marxian. Rothbard, heavily influenced by Ayn Rand, then made Austrolibertarianism into a revolutionary ideology rather than a reactionary one. That is a trap.
Non-aggression principle? My own principle is best formulated by Alexander Pope: For forms of government let fools contest, whichever governs best is best (slightly paraphrased), or alternatively, the old Catholic doctrine: error non habet ius. There are correct and incorrect principles of government; correct governance is always legitimate; incorrect governance never is.
Embrace the light side. The liberal establishment is not an establishment at all; it is an interregnum by edgy rebels who are against the establishment, ie. the ancien régime. Revolution, like Protestantism[1], is a disease of the soul.
I can now return to this. The way to resist these artificial narratives is to simply learn to recognise archetypes in general. Archetypes of revolution, of patriarchy, of dark side epistemology, and so on. You will be able to see all the false narratives from the outside, as part of a larger worldview that subsumes them all.
I would love to do a quick rebuttal of libertarianism from a Carlylean standpoint, but unfortunately this is one of those issues where bullshit asymmetry applies. I can give a few pointers, however: libertarian theory is basically correct in its refutations of progressive economic policies, but there is a case to be made for political economy where the goal is something other than the maximisation of current GDP — averting the problem of the zero marginal product of labour, for example, by making labour artificially scarce. Yes, that is a tax and diminishes the productivity of the economy in the GDP sense, but it will nevertheless be conducive to general flourishing because productivity and flourishing, though aligned, are not the same. Mises understood this distinction, hence his insistence on keeping his economic theory descriptive only. Rothbard did not understand, being not quite on par with Mises. If you doubt this, just look at their faces to see which one was the greater man. As your name seems Indian to me, I would also recommend Late Victorian Holocausts as a helpful refutation of libertarianism.
I realise that various aspects of this comment are likely to be irritating. It is somewhat patronising and consists of various pointers and hints but not any actual arguments. I am making it because you stand out to me as someone who is a lot smarter than a typical member of this community, and you deserve the chance to take it to the next level by discovering the world entirely outside of the revolutionary bubble, rather than merely the ideologies at its periphery. It is presumably clear to you that OP is stuck inside a bubble like in the Matrix which you have broken out of. Problem is that it’s a Matrix within a Matrix.
How to recognise traps? Break through all the layers of the bubble and all the traps will be as overtly parochial as OP’s post is.
Not intended as an endorsement of Catholicism, but Catholicism is merely incorrect. It is not a psychic illness that distorts its believers’ views of absolutely everything, including secular matters, the way that Protestantism does. Anarchism, incidentally, is a culturally Protestant ideology.
Well, yes, but I’m unsure if this is too helpful. Part of the intention behind my post was to distill what I viewed as potentially useful advice. Do you have any? If not, that’s fine, but I’m unsure if it’s too valuable for the readership.
I think I can take issue with this logic. Ukraine can benefit from German economic ties being severed from Russia. Russia can benefit with Germany hydrocarbons being depleted further (part of Russian strategy was restriction of gas exports to drive up energy prices), and of course the US benefits from there being less Russian trade flows. Analysis of the relevant actors would likely lead to convergence on a more informed judgement.
By your logic, wouldn’t I find myself drawing outlandish conclusions? Why would the Ukraine invasion ever happen? Why would Russia compromise it’s geopolitical position and encourage Finland to join the alliance, European remilitarization, and increased reliance on America for security partnerships? Is Putin stupid? Is it like Cortes burning his ships? Is it the Wagner Group trying to undermine Putin? Wtf, no!! It’s obviously the US. The white house actively encouraged the invasion of Ukraine! Just look at what their German minions did with Ostpolitik!
I could go on, but I don’t think I need to. Saying that ‘X is obviously true’ in absence of compelling evidence while refusing to analyze the requisite evidence seems like weak intellectual work at best. It tends to result in conspiracy theories. Of course I can’t have complete confidence in my story, but I can claim to have done the proper analytical work and arrived at the most reasonable conclusion.
Isn’t this just a false dichotomy? Either we can trust them or we cannot. I find this misleading. Suppose a salesman is trying to sell me a particular canned food product. He may explain that it’s nutritious, affordable, and has significant dietary effects that might make me popular with the ladies. (don’t you want lean muscles?) I know he is a motivated reasoner, but that’s not to say I can’t glean useful information or distinguish between ‘likely true’ and ‘likely false’ statements. I can reason that the salesman is being honest about the price (because he’s making the sale). Regardless of whether this price is worth it. I can reason that the nutritional values listed on the can are probably accurate (as otherwise the FDA would come down on his head). I can conclude that there are likely some dietary effects, but their extent would depend on research I would want to do myself, rather than taking his word for it. There are probably legitimately good things about the product, regardless of the salesman’s presence.
In much the same way, we can trust some things the Ukranian government says, and their reports usually provide useful information as to what’s happening in the war, even though we would be idiots to trust them completely. They are a ‘noisy’ version of reality we need to filter through. Not reality. That doesn’t mean they aren’t useful as an information source, however, or that we should automatically assume them to be liars.
So… Russia has no right to exist, Ukraine has no right to exist, the US has no right to exist, all of this is pointless? I’m not too sure what you’re implying here, but I’m unsure if I like the direction of this conversation either. I think I’ll stop here, I don’t imagine further discourse will be helpful.
I think it would be useful to specify that this is the dark arts in public forum debate, politics, etc. This would not help anyone in defending against the average dark arts user they might meet in their day to day life unless they happen to be in this niche.
Right, probably a good idea. Let me edit and add this to the top…
Mod note: I fixed the formatting of a bunch of this post. Feel free to revert.
Thanks so much!
The format wasn’t intentional by the way, I copy and pasted from google docs. No wonder it looked wierd.
After reading this and your dialogue with Isusr, it seems that Dark Arts arguments are logically consistent and that the most effective way to rebut them is not to challenge them directly in the issue.
jimmy and madasario in the comments asked for a way to detect stupid arguments. My current answer to that is “take the argument to its logical conclusion, check whether the argument’s conclusion accurately predicts reality, and if it doesn’t, it’s probably wrong”
For example, you mentioned before an argument which says that we need to send U.S. troops to the Arctic because Russia has hypersonic missiles that can do a first-strike on the US, but their range is too short to attack the US from the Russian mainland, but it is long enough to attack the US from the Arctic.
If this really were true, we would see this being treated as a national emergency, and the US taking swift action to stop Russia from placing missiles in the Arctic, but we don’t see this.
Now, for some arguments (e.g. AI risk, cryonics), the truth is more complicated than this, but it’s a good heuristic for telling whether you need to investigate an argument more thoroughly or not.
Thanks for reading!
Not quite. As I point out with my example of ‘ultra-BS’, much of the Dark Arts as we see in politics is easily rebuttable by specific evidence. It’s just simply not time efficient in most formats.
Mhm, yes. I think this is a helpful heuristic. I thought of it, but neglected to mention. Thank you for the addition! I think people will find it helpful.
(though, I must caution, many people have rather misinformed models of how the world works, so this may or may not be helpful depending on who specifically is using this heuristic)
Thanks for writing the post.
Regarding the challenge: I suppose one of the errors made by you was using bad sources in some case, e.g. using the msn.com article for supporting Russian losses.
Regarding the article: although what is presented there is generally valid, it do not feel my understanding/defense increased in a meaningful way, as
The suggested steps are more-or-less what I already do.
Following them still gets me nerd-sniped due to the “bullshit asymmetry” principle already mentioned in another comment. If in a hostile dispute space, where one (or more) opponents are pushing an agenda and I have limited time (equal to or less than what they have) for counter-argument, this cannot be really pulled off. It is possible that my expectations are just too high though.
I think what I really liked in your dialog with Isusr was it showing how such techniques looked like when someone was using them himself. I haven’t experienced that before, especially not with that level of clarity and purposefulness.
Thanks for reading!
Understood. I think this is a consensus among many comments, so probably something I should work on. I’ve broadened things to be a bit too general, and the result was that I couldn’t bring out much in the way of specific insights, as on a bigger more general level much of this is obvious.
I should probably make follow up posts addressing nerd sniping and other aspects, it would likely be more helpful. Staying within the realm of learned experiences is probably also a good call.
In any case, thanks for the feedback! I’ll do my best to act on it in subsequent posts.
This is a worthy beginning, thank you! I won’t nit pick, rather I’ll point out what seems to me a big omission. The hardest part of defending against the Dark Arts is to recognize them in use, in the wild, when you’re the target. You won’t have the benefit of knowledge there, the Dark Artisan will make sure of that. The heuristics don’t work reliably, as you say, but it’s all you have. So I’ve focused on getting good at the heuristics. In fact, it seems like Bayes’ rule is just the distilled essence of the heuristic mechanism.
Let me also ask about how defensive tools have improved over the years. My mom tells me how she’s become a bit of a wise-woman at her senior community because she doesn’t hesitate to ask ChatGPT for a sanity check about whatever wild and exciting claims are making the rounds this week. I asked GPT about your arctic nuke scenario. It’s very fast and well read, and I feel like a little prompt engineering could turn it into a powerful first line of defense.
Thanks for your comment!
Hm… right. Yes, I focused a lot on combating the Dark Arts, but not as much on identification. Probably worthy of it’s own post. But my schedule is packed. We’ll see if I get to it.
Regarding defense tools, I’m a little mixed. I think traditional defenses like (relatively) trustworthy institutions, basic fact checks, and common sense are still quite viable, but at the end of the day even something as powerful as current day GPT is hardly a substitute for genuine research. A first line of defense and heuristics are good, but imo there has to be some focus on understanding the subject matter if we do want to send the Dark Artisan packing.
Have you given even a moment’s thought to what Vivek might say in response to your objections? I get the impression that you haven’t, and that you know essentially nothing about the views of the opposing side on this issue.
The three bullet points in your summary of his argument are not an example of dark arts just on account of seeming unconvincing to you. They are actual arguments that you may disagree with, and which you consider obviously stupid simply because you have no clue what response he would give to your objections, and so you blithely assume that he would have no response and that there is no more substance behind his arguments than what he is able to provide in that particular debate forum. That assumption is flatly incorrect.
Here are a few examples:
That’s literally the exoteric party line that even the people of your side do not believe in, if they are in-the-know. It’s not about promoting liberal/democratic values, it’s about safeguarding the pax americana to preserve a progressive technocracy within USA. One that is more Rousseauvian than liberal. Read some Mahan, Brzezinski, hell even Walter Lippmann or for that matter even Noam Chomsky should be fully sufficient to dispel this illusion.
Finland was already part of the geopolitical west as evidenced by its membership in the EU. Becoming a member of NATO did not constitute a threatening expansionist move the way that Ukraine’s prospective membership does.
“Sovereignty” here being an interesting euphemism for being a protectorate of USA and the international order. What is the difference between suzerainty and sovereignty again? Let’s ask Emer de Vattel, hm… Oops.
Well at least now we know why European covid policy, monetary policy, government spending, etc. is practically a carbon copy of USA. You may want to rethink some conclusions of which nations exactly are sovereign.
Ah there we have it, the cult of Churchill. Appeasement was a highly idealistic doctrine with its own fair share of issues compared to the geopolitics of the pre-Wilsonian era, but compared to the deranged foreign policy USA is pursuing these days, it works like a charm, and would have sufficed in WW2 as well if followed in a principled manner. See eg. Human Smoke by Nicholson Baker or Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War by Pat Buchanan. Incidentally, Pat Buchanan got that phrase, “the unnecessary war”, from none other than Churchill, who was indeed referencing WW2 which he deemed unnecessary in hindsight. Even Churchill himself, the absolute maniac, was not quite maniacal enough to be a Churchillian.
It is facing that prospect as it is. Being excessively bellicose does not diminish the danger, or at least not so obviously as you seem to be implying.
Indeed not; it is the picture of sunk cost fallacy in a case with tragically high stakes.
Because his opposing candidates, with their “overt emotional appeals” are the dark side, and Vivek is constrained by the debate medium and by time limitations. Likewise, I am constrained by having to get at very deep disagreements and a profoundly distorted view of history held by the establishment, more than can possibly be overcome in a comment, or even a post. It would require several entire books, or at least many very lengthy conversations in a very different spirit than some hot button debate about a pressing topic.
So I understand if this comment seems annoying on account of just referencing a bunch of books. But the point I am trying to make is not really about the geopolitics of the Ukraine situation, but rather about the fact that these books do exist, that you have very little familiarity with them and yet consider yourself informed on the issue, that even if Vivek has not read these books, the ideas they contain are part of the discourse in his political sphere.
You have not shown a way to defend against the dark arts. You have shown a way to defend the dark arts.
Well… yes. It’s essentially covered by what I went over. In my view at least, me and Vivek have a narrative disagreement, as opposed to a dispute over a single set or series of facts. In any case, I imagine the points of contest would be
The benefit of Ukraine aid for US foreign policy
The costs imposed on the US
Moral concerns with more vague ideas like ‘supporting democracy’
There’s many rebuttals I could foresee him giving, such as poor battlefield outcomes in Ukraine, relatively more pressing domestic concerns at home, or some variation of realist foreign policy values. In any case I find those arguments unconvincing, which I’ve tried to articulate.
I could respond to your arguments, but then I doubt it’s much use to explain my position on books I haven’t read and thinkers I’m not familiar with. I’m still not entirely sure what exactly you’re arguing for, only that you believe my argument is wrong. Can you present a coherent narrative independently rather than simply citing people?
In the interests of moving forward the discussion, let me try to summarize what I feel you’ve attempted to communicate.
Continued efforts by the Ukranian military and state are likely doomed to fail
Aiding Ukraine does not meaningfully diminish the threat to eastern europe or europe in general
Finland’s Accession to NATO was not a meaningful security dilemma for Russia, but Ukraine is
Historically speaking, it would have been better for Great Britain to make peace with Hitler. Appeasement is a viable strategy.
Is this correct? I am comfortable having a longer discussion if you like, but then it’s not a focus of this post, only a subpoint. If you’d like to have a debate in private messages I’m open, but otherwise I think I’ve answered your main question. Yes, I did consider counterarguments and competing narratives. I commonly do so in regular debate. I did not find them convincing.
Sort of, but you’re missing my main point, which is simply that what Vivek did is not actually dark arts, and that what you are doing is.
His arguments, as you summarised them into bullet points, are topical and in good faith. They are at worst erroneous and not an example of bullshitting. You have convinced yourself that if he were to contend with your objections, he’d resort to surface level arguments about battlefield outcomes, pressing domestic concerns, etc., which actually would fall under your category of ultra-bullshit. Ie. you did in fact assume that he does not have substantive arguments in favour of, say, paleoconservative geopolitical principles, and you accuse him of practising dark arts simply on account of the response you assume he would come up with.
Ah, ok. Allow me a clarification then.
In typical terms, ultra-BS is lying. (as in, you know you are wrong and speak as if you’re right anyways). In my view, however, there’s also an extension to that. If you are aware that you don’t have knowledge on a topic and make wild assertions anyhow to support a narrative (say, if I declared that Kremlin whisperers are considering a coup against Putin) I would also be ‘BS-ing’. I’m not lying in the traditional sense, as it’s certainly possible I’m correct (however unlikely). But if I clearly don’t have information then I can’t act as if I do. Thus I’d consider some ‘erroneous’ arguments by Vivek to be bullshit, because it displays an information gap I have trouble believing he wasn’t aware of.
So, in the interest of clarity. Consider again the points Vivek made:
Aid doesn’t serve American interests
The war effort is doomed
Aid prolongs the war (a peace deal is better)
My assessment of 1) is still the same, although you’re right. It’s possible Vivek has different politics. So I’m comfortable believing this is merely erroneous rather than bullshit. The same cannot be said for 2) and 3), however.
To say that aid doesn’t serve American interests legitimately is a qualified assessment. You must have an understanding of American interests, and the specific geopolitical situation at hand. That by proxy means an understanding of Ukraine, it’s geopolitical significance, it’s battlefield dynamics and how an outcome of the war may effect the U.S. If you do not understand geopolitics, and simply cherrypick arguments, I’d contend that you’re still using ultra-BS, because even though yourover all point is legitimate the process you used to defend it is not.
With knowledge about the specific situation in Ukraine, you cannot reasonably believe 2) and 3). In effect, it ignores defense economics, long run battlefield outcomes, historical precedent, and a variety of other things which is a prerequisite for making a proper geopolitical argument.
Imagine for example of an anti war protestor arguing that the U.S should withdraw from Vietnam because
It doesn’t serve American interests
The U.S, in pure military terms, is losing the war
Ho Chi Minh was legitimately democratic
I would believe this argument is ‘BS’, as said protestor clearly doesn’t understand the Vietnam war, regardless of whether his geopolitics are correct. He is applying (or more likely, borrowing) analysis he didn’t critically think about to a situation he doesn’t understand. The U.S was clearly not losing the war in military terms, as we can observe with casualty figures. Ho Chi Minh’s multiple antidemocratic practices (intimidating voters, purging opposition) are likewise also ignored.
Much the same with Vivek. Either he had the necessary information to make a qualified analysis, or he did not. I find it implausible he studied the issue and still had an information gap. On the contrary, if he analyzed the situation without first studying it (which I find more likely) it would also be ‘BS’.
Is my position more clear now?
I understand how you use the terms, but my point is that Vivek does not in fact demonstrate the information gap you impute to him. I am confident he would be easily able to address your objections.
The fact that the war has persisted for so long seems sufficient proof that, in the absence of the aid, Ukraine would have quickly surrendered or at worst suffered a quick defeat. In either case, the war would have been shorter. Point 3 is unambiguously correct, and even most people on your side of the issue would agree with that (ie. they believe that a large part of the reason Ukraine has been able to fight so long has been the aid)
There are lots of people of the realist school of geopolitics who know a lot about the specific situation in Ukraine and who nevertheless at least claim to believe 2. Are they all liars? I don’t think so. I guess you could argue that they are all unreasonable and thus capable of believing it despite contrary evidence, but such a stance is again merely arguing that point 2 is erroneous, not that it is dark arts.
No. Your position was already quite clear from the original post. It’s just incorrect, not unclear.
Ok. Let me address this then.
I’ll contend this is either part of an information gap or a very strange interpretation of events.
Consider the following series of statements: As the Russian army has more mass and equipment than the Baltic states, the Russians can take the Baltics whenever they please. Therefore, it’s inevitable that Russia will emerge victorious, and defending the Baltics is pointless.
On paper, this would seem to be roughly accurate, except of course it completely ignores the NATO intervention which will likely happen, NATO troops forward positioned in the Baltics, as well as Russia’s existing commitments in Ukraine.
In much the same way, saying that ‘Ukraine would have quickly surrendered or suffered a quick defeat’ is only correct in counterfactual realities. You could of course argue that if the West did not help Ukraine structure it’s military prior to the invasion, no help of any kind was delivered (even from Eastern Europe) during the invasion, and magically granted Putin infinite domestic popularity, the war would’ve ended quickly. But at that point we are living in a different reality. A reality where Russia actually had the capability for a Desert Storm esque operation.
This is, to the best of my knowledge, not even something the realists argued after the initial invasion failed. While prior to the invasion this was the narrative, afterwards this was clearly shown to be false.
Western aid did not intensify to a meaningfully significant degree prior to the battle of Kyiv, which was Russia’s only hope of a ‘quick victory’. While stingers, NLAWs, and other anti tank equipment was useful, the West primarily aimed to supply Ukraine for the purposes of a protracted insurgency, not a conventional war. We did not see deliveries of heavy equipment, and even now we’re still waiting on F-16s.
The results of Western aid have also been mixed. While humanitarian and financial support has allowed the Ukranian state and economy to continue on life support, we see that much of NATO’s doctrine does not apply in Ukraine, as Ukraine doesn’t have the air superiority necessary for combined arms operations. Some systems, like air defense, HIGHMARS, and long range strike missiles (Storm Shadow, ATACAMS) have played a key role, but they neither provided a decisive strategic advantage nor negated one on the part of the Russians. (partly because they were delivered in insufficient quantities) You can argue that Ukraine would suffer greatly if they lacked these options, but arguing they would’ve suffered quick, decisive defeat runs completely contradictory to reality, as they lacked these capabilities prior to the push on Kyiv and survived anyhow. (if you want to argue Russia ‘wins’ a quick and decisive victory without taking Kyiv or holding most of Ukraine’s territory, be my guest, but I think we can both agree that would be ridiculous)
Overall, if Russia had shown a capability to win (the VKS secures air dominance, Russian logistics could secure a sustained push deep into the Ukranian heartland, Russian deployments significantly exceeded Ukraine’s mobilization pool) you may have a case Ukraine would’ve lost quickly. But anybody who has observed the retreat from Kyiv can understand that Russia simply doesn’t have that capability. They are not the U.S military, and the VKS is not the USAF. They do not have the air superiority necessary for blitzkrieg. This war is primarily an attritional battle, and if Ukraine’s effort did not collapse prior to delivery of NATO aid it’s rather contradictory to argue they would collapse immediately after. (indeed, they performed well on the Kharkiv counteroffensive while aid was still ramping up)
I believe this to be a part of an information gap. Not understanding Russia and Ukraine’s true military capabilities. (understanding them is, of course, a key part of any geopolitical judgement, since otherwise you cannot tell whether a side is on the brink of defeat or victory). If Vivek was not aware of this gap, then he made an unqualified analysis, and if he was then his analysis is clearly wrong.
The realists argue that regardless of Ukraine’s military potential Ukranian statehood is not a relevant concern, and should be handed over to Russia (likely along with Eastern Europe to broker an alliance against China). Even this aside, they do not believe Russia has a decisive capability advantage. Only an attritional advantage. Thus they can believe 2) and 3), but only assuming the absence of aid. I thus don’t believe Vivek is actually arguing for the realist position, but if you believe he is feel free to find sources. I have not seen any indication of this being the case.
But point 3 was already a counterfactual by your own formulation of it. The claim that giving aid is prolonging the war is implicitly a comparison to the counterfactual in which aid isn’t given. I suppose that if you are convinced that Ukraine is going to win, then a marginal increase in aid is expected to shorten the war, but there is no reason to suspect that proponents of point 3 mean are referring to marginal adjustments in the amount of help, and I think there are limits to how uncharitably you can impute their views before you are the one engaging in dark arts.
From the standpoint of someone like Vivek — or for that matter from the standpoint of someone who understands how present resources can be converted into revenue streams and vice versa — additional donations to the war effort do constitute an intensification of aid, even if the rate of resource transfers remain the same.
Supposing for the sake of argument that his analysis is conventionally unqualified, it does not imply that he has insufficient evidence to hold the position he does. A lot of evidence can be gleaned from which geopolitics experts said what, from which ones changed their mind, and the timing of when they did so, etc. In addition, this being a war of attrition as you pointed out, the key determination to make is who is better situated to win that war of attrition. How many able-bodied, working-age men does Ukraine have left, again?
But by the epistemic standards you have implied, he would need to be a domain expert to hold an opinion, which would leave him strikingly vulnerable to ultra-BS, and more importantly, would cede the whole playing field to technocracy from the get-go. Vivek is part of what could be called the “anti-expert faction”.
Well, no, it’s not. Because I am speaking about future events (ie: should we give aid or not), not past events.
I’m not. Current battlefield conditions suggest that the war will be a protracted stalemate favoring Russia absent strategically meaningful aid. And by strategically meaningful I mean either providing capabilities that allow retaking of territory or negating a long term weakness (say, shell or manpower shortages). But I digress. In any case, I’m arguing from the perspective of military capability, not as an expert, but as someone who is familiar with expert arguments (I could cite, for instance, oryx, the Insititute for the study of war, Perun, etc). Basic understanding of battlefield dynamics and conditions at a strategic level.
And here again… this doesn’t really address my point, mainly that statements 2 and 3 are essentially statements about relative strategic capability between two state actors, and this is neither domain level expert knowledge nor exceedingly complicated. You cannot argue, for instance, that the US does not have transatlantic power projection (aircraft carriers say hello). In the same way, you cannot argue Russia has a capability to win a quick and decisive war over Ukraine without western aid, because we saw them fail. Empirically speaking they lack a capability, and everyone who follows the conflict is aware of this.
I feel like we’re going in circles now. It could be that I failed to make my points clearly, or you failed to understand them. But in any case my position is that matters of historical military capability (note historical: as in past tense, already occurred) is not up for debate. 2) and 3) fly in the face of it.
In any case I think this is a good place to discontinue, I don’t think we’re getting any benefit from further discussion.