I think the way we conduct debating has become stuck in a bad place.
In a debate we want to win quickly, all else equal. But all else is not equal. If you try specifically to be nice, and complement the person on the things they do get right, they have an easier time accepting criticism. In any other social situation than a purely factual debate, would you even think of only being adversarial?
This general climate is the aggregate consequence of every debate we have.
If the approach is: “Everything about you sucks, now CHANGE!”
The reception will not be:
“Okay, I will change X and Y, but not Z”
but: “My opinions shall be immune to criticism”
The internet has enabled this polarization, by making the rationalist crowd (rightfully) more fundamentalist about their epistemic skill.
When you see that logic and evidence works to clear up so much confusion and falsity in your beliefs, you think that you can cure the “sick” person of all his diseases in one fell swoop.
Thinking of the dilemma as one of opposing “rights” also doesn’t help:
[My right to criticize your beliefs] vs [Your right to have them not be criticized]
When they refuse to listen to your criticism you feel angry about your rights not being respected, rather than sad that you cannot help them towards better beliefs.
Disclaimer: The “You” in this comment is the “We as rationalists”
I think the way we conduct debating has become stuck in a bad place.
In a debate we want to win quickly, all else equal. But all else is not equal. If you try specifically to be nice, and complement the person on the things they do get right, they have an easier time accepting criticism. In any other social situation than a purely factual debate, would you even think of only being adversarial?
This general climate is the aggregate consequence of every debate we have.
If the approach is: “Everything about you sucks, now CHANGE!” The reception will not be: “Okay, I will change X and Y, but not Z” but: “My opinions shall be immune to criticism”
The internet has enabled this polarization, by making the rationalist crowd (rightfully) more fundamentalist about their epistemic skill.
When you see that logic and evidence works to clear up so much confusion and falsity in your beliefs, you think that you can cure the “sick” person of all his diseases in one fell swoop.
Thinking of the dilemma as one of opposing “rights” also doesn’t help: [My right to criticize your beliefs] vs [Your right to have them not be criticized]
When they refuse to listen to your criticism you feel angry about your rights not being respected, rather than sad that you cannot help them towards better beliefs.
Disclaimer: The “You” in this comment is the “We as rationalists”