This whole post treats arguments as soldiers. It’s as though you’re saying, “Don’t focus all of your attention on just one enemy soldier. Otherwise, the other soldiers might get through! You must attack all enemy soldiers simultaneously.”
If you want to influence non-rationalists, treating arguments as soldiers is what you sometimes need to do.
That is an empirical claim. How strong is the evidence for the claim that forensics-style argumentation, matching each point with a counterpoint, significantly influences people to favor your position? Wearing my Robin Hanson goggles, I can see that it’s one way to look like a formidable thinker, which might make some audience members want to affiliate with you for status reasons. But it’s not clear to me that this style of debate is the best way to do that.
I wouldn’t claim that this style of debate is necessarily the best way. But if we presume that one does try to use this style of debate for that purpose, then the post’s advice can be useful.
I wouldn’t claim that this style of debate is necessarily the best way. But if we presume that one does try to use this style of debate for that purpose, then the post’s advice can be useful.
I see a lot of disadvantages in having the thought burning bright in my mind that women are not as mathematically able as men (slightly on average and solidly on the right end of the curve), but I don’t see advantages. However, I am fairly convinced that that thing is true.
I see a lot of disadvantages in having the thought burning bright in my mind that women are not as mathematically able as men (slightly on average and solidly on the right end of the curve), but I don’t see advantages. However, I am fairly convinced that that thing is true.
I agree that we don’t need to have the thought “burning bright” in our minds. A thought needs to burn bright only if it is very important to keep it in mind while making decisions. But a sober and unflinching look at the evidence seems to indicate that the difference in innate ability (if there is any) is too small to take into account in practically all decisions.
This whole post treats arguments as soldiers. It’s as though you’re saying, “Don’t focus all of your attention on just one enemy soldier. Otherwise, the other soldiers might get through! You must attack all enemy soldiers simultaneously.”
And (seconding Vladimir Nesov’s cringe):
At this point, the “rational arguer” ought immediately to think of the Litany of Tarski: If A and B are true, then I want to believe that A and B are true.
If you want to influence non-rationalists, treating arguments as soldiers is what you sometimes need to do.
That is an empirical claim. How strong is the evidence for the claim that forensics-style argumentation, matching each point with a counterpoint, significantly influences people to favor your position? Wearing my Robin Hanson goggles, I can see that it’s one way to look like a formidable thinker, which might make some audience members want to affiliate with you for status reasons. But it’s not clear to me that this style of debate is the best way to do that.
I wouldn’t claim that this style of debate is necessarily the best way. But if we presume that one does try to use this style of debate for that purpose, then the post’s advice can be useful.
I wouldn’t claim that this style of debate is necessarily the best way. But if we presume that one does try to use this style of debate for that purpose, then the post’s advice can be useful.
I see a lot of disadvantages in having the thought burning bright in my mind that women are not as mathematically able as men (slightly on average and solidly on the right end of the curve), but I don’t see advantages. However, I am fairly convinced that that thing is true.
I agree that we don’t need to have the thought “burning bright” in our minds. A thought needs to burn bright only if it is very important to keep it in mind while making decisions. But a sober and unflinching look at the evidence seems to indicate that the difference in innate ability (if there is any) is too small to take into account in practically all decisions.