Subskill: Notice the process of selectively searching for support, and halt it. Chains into “Ask whether, not why”, or into trying to unbind the need to rationalize.
Level 1, notice the active process after performing a conscious check whether it’s running; Level 2, detect it perceptually and automatically; Level 3, never run this process.
Exercise material: List of suggested conclusions to rationalize. I’m not quite sure what the prerequisites here would be; one of my own childhood epiphanies was finding that I could argue reasons why there ought to be a teapot in the asteroid belt, and thinking to myself, “Well, I better not do that, then.” I suspect the primary desideratum would be more that the topic offers plenty of opportunity to come up with clever rationalizations, rather than that the topic offers motivation to come up with clever rationalizations.
Exercise A: Pick a conclusion from the list. Come up with a clever argument why it is true. Notice what it feels like to do this. Then don’t do it.
(This is distinct from noticing the feeling of being tempted to rationalize, a separate subskill.)
Exercise B: In the middle of coming up with clever arguments why something is true, stop and chain into the Litany of Tarski, or some other remedy. Variant: Say out loud “Ew!” or “Oops!” during the stop part.
Exercise C: For a conclusion on the list, argue that it is true. Then “Ask whether, not why”—try to figure out whether it is true. Notice the difference between these two processes. Requires a question whose answer is less than immediately obvious, but which someone can find info about by searching their memory and/or the Internet.
True, but the successful debaters in my experience are the ones who can construct both sides of an argument in order to pre-empt and account for possible responses.
This isn’t necessarily just a binary for/against disinction but considering better ways to acheive the same goal and possible unintended consequence.
[Speaking as an active participant of the UK universities competitive debating circuit, though I acknowledge that makes me prone to rationalise in its favour]
Subskill: Notice the process of selectively searching for support, and halt it. Chains into “Ask whether, not why”, or into trying to unbind the need to rationalize.
Level 1, notice the active process after performing a conscious check whether it’s running; Level 2, detect it perceptually and automatically; Level 3, never run this process.
Exercise material: List of suggested conclusions to rationalize. I’m not quite sure what the prerequisites here would be; one of my own childhood epiphanies was finding that I could argue reasons why there ought to be a teapot in the asteroid belt, and thinking to myself, “Well, I better not do that, then.” I suspect the primary desideratum would be more that the topic offers plenty of opportunity to come up with clever rationalizations, rather than that the topic offers motivation to come up with clever rationalizations.
Exercise A: Pick a conclusion from the list. Come up with a clever argument why it is true. Notice what it feels like to do this. Then don’t do it.
(This is distinct from noticing the feeling of being tempted to rationalize, a separate subskill.)
Exercise B: In the middle of coming up with clever arguments why something is true, stop and chain into the Litany of Tarski, or some other remedy. Variant: Say out loud “Ew!” or “Oops!” during the stop part.
Exercise C: For a conclusion on the list, argue that it is true. Then “Ask whether, not why”—try to figure out whether it is true. Notice the difference between these two processes. Requires a question whose answer is less than immediately obvious, but which someone can find info about by searching their memory and/or the Internet.
Hmmm this just made me think that debate clubs deliberately teach the opposite of this skill.
True, but the successful debaters in my experience are the ones who can construct both sides of an argument in order to pre-empt and account for possible responses.
This isn’t necessarily just a binary for/against disinction but considering better ways to acheive the same goal and possible unintended consequence.
[Speaking as an active participant of the UK universities competitive debating circuit, though I acknowledge that makes me prone to rationalise in its favour]
And at least in Britain and Ireland they provide disproportionate numbers of future lawyers and politicians.
It’s not clear to me how this is different from fabricating evidence. Is it?