I’m not entirely sure that this is worthy of a top-level post, but it certainly is an interesting pattern. “Logically-rude” is probably the largest objection to this kind of behavior, though—some facts are genuinely hard to defend in analytical terms, despite being empirically true, and some fraction of those will be among those which people come around to as they grow more experienced.
That said, in many cases you are probably exactly correct—the argument is not a factual description of the case, but a soldier to field on their side.
I’m not entirely sure that this is worthy of a top-level post
It seems marginal to me. In its favor, it is an idea that should be said out loud. But it should be better supported.
I think this article would benifet from some real world examples of people playing the “life experience” card in support of a wrong position, or that “life experience” conveniently tends to support policies that favor those with lots of “life experience” at the expense of those with less. Or if, by some improbability, the “life experience” argument is only ever made in support of correct positions, then it would still be good to illustrate how a more detailed argument, entangled with the actual issue being discussed, is more likely to convince the other than an appeal to general “life experience”.
I have a recent example—discussing cryonics with my father-in-law. He supported my choice to do it, but is convinced that when I reach his age I will feel differently about it.
Personally, I would have thought that adding on another 25 years of precious experience and accumulated physical damage would make me more likely to want to preserve/fix myself.
I’m not entirely sure that this is worthy of a top-level post, but it certainly is an interesting pattern. “Logically-rude” is probably the largest objection to this kind of behavior, though—some facts are genuinely hard to defend in analytical terms, despite being empirically true, and some fraction of those will be among those which people come around to as they grow more experienced.
That said, in many cases you are probably exactly correct—the argument is not a factual description of the case, but a soldier to field on their side.
It seems marginal to me. In its favor, it is an idea that should be said out loud. But it should be better supported.
I think this article would benifet from some real world examples of people playing the “life experience” card in support of a wrong position, or that “life experience” conveniently tends to support policies that favor those with lots of “life experience” at the expense of those with less. Or if, by some improbability, the “life experience” argument is only ever made in support of correct positions, then it would still be good to illustrate how a more detailed argument, entangled with the actual issue being discussed, is more likely to convince the other than an appeal to general “life experience”.
I have a recent example—discussing cryonics with my father-in-law. He supported my choice to do it, but is convinced that when I reach his age I will feel differently about it.
Personally, I would have thought that adding on another 25 years of precious experience and accumulated physical damage would make me more likely to want to preserve/fix myself.
Yes—I believe yours is the correct analysis.
I see this drifted down to −2 at some point—I would be curious to hear why it was downvoted.