Putting myself in the shoes of a less reasonable person, I imagine that the urge to follow one’s own desires constantly overtakes any reasoning which others give. This doesn’t feel unreasonable from the inside, because the apologist constantly provides good justifications for actions, and it’s hard to second-guess those justifications because it feels like giving up or losing.
I would suggest practicing noticing when you are ignoring what other people say, and using this as a trigger to consider how you can satisfy them. I would also suggest noticing when your brain is spitting out motivated justifications, and in that case, considering from scratch whether the action is getting you what you want (including satisfying others who you want to satisfy).
From my outside view, unreasonable people appear not to be exercising goal-oriented, strategic thinking. I see them as making the same mistake over and over: being inconsiderate of others when it would serve them well to be more considerate. Social interactions are very important, so I tend to try hard to show interest in other people, show concern for their concerns, and so on. (I’m not saying I’m great at it, but it’s constantly on my mind.) I perceive less reasonable people as ignoring this.
It’s unusual to feel less reasonable than needed, though; mostly everyone sees themselves as one of the most reasonable people they know (irrelevant of whether they should be working on being more reasonable, or less reasonable). This may make our reflection inaccurate, if we are trying to explicitly decide whether we should be more reasonable rather than leaving it up to our system 1 to choose. Also, it seems almost impossible to convince another person to be more reasonable. They (quite rightly, perhaps) will perceive this as a status attack, or simply mistaken.
Okay, thanks! For me, a lot of this advice makes me think I’m too impatient when others disagree with me. I’ll work on it. Slow is smooth, smooth is fast.
Another stopgap measure which has helped me is to, when I finish a statement (maybe finish writing an email, or finish making a point in conversation) consider whether I’ve been unreasonable. An immediate correction can follow in person, or for an email, a new revision.
Will the person receive what I’ve said well?
Did I think about how they might react and shape my statement to make them react well, or did I just say things I wanted to say without consideration?
Has my point been made in good faith, or am I searching for justifications?
What do I really believe about what I just said?
(Some of that has more to do with being rational than reasonable, but the two aren’t completely different, after all.)
This kind of afterthought-based correction eventually trickles into the first-thought reasoning to some extent, because it alters the incentive structure (you learn not to say things that you’ll just end up correcting). So, it may be more useful than it sounds.
Setting out to do so is the first and hardest step to take, so congrats! But, of course, the work doesn’t end here. As I understand it, someone who’s reasonable means one who can be reasoned with, i.e. someone who accepts and occasionally yields to persuasion attempts, and doesn’t shut others off through obstinacy or abrasive, uncooperative treatment. In some ways it’s the antonym of intransigence. It can also mean someone who possesses enough common sense to facilitate interactions based on a shared view of how the world works.
You may reduce your likelihood of showing such tendencies if you reframe social interactions that involve arguing in a way such that being (acknowledged as) right is less important than maintaining harmony. What some people, the kind who drag out arguments in the name of truth or rightness, don’t understand about arguing is that the interaction of arguing takes place in a social context, is awarded limited time and patience (!) before it starts getting on people’s nerves (so no, it cannot be prolonged indefinitely until truth finally prevails, however long that may take), and may not be worth the hostility most of the time. Developing some more empathy and thinking about what the other person seeks in the interaction, and whether you’re giving it to them, may be of help.
There’s a kind of trick that may be of help, but it has to be culturally shared for it to work. You know how LessWrong has some local proverbs such as the Litany of Tarski or Tsuyoku Naritai that people can invoke, but only to other LessWrongers, to remind them of shared values that should prompt an improvement in their behaviour? It would be nice if there were some appeal to being understanding or reasonable that carried the same tone of solemnity. Something that essentially means “I know I can get biased and unreasonable occasionally, but I am committed to the values underpinning collective truth-seeking, and I pledge to allow others to remind me of my commitment, and to attempt to yield when they do so”. But in a pithier form.
I’d like to become a more reasonable person. How do I change my mindset to make such behaviors more common?
Putting myself in the shoes of a less reasonable person, I imagine that the urge to follow one’s own desires constantly overtakes any reasoning which others give. This doesn’t feel unreasonable from the inside, because the apologist constantly provides good justifications for actions, and it’s hard to second-guess those justifications because it feels like giving up or losing.
I would suggest practicing noticing when you are ignoring what other people say, and using this as a trigger to consider how you can satisfy them. I would also suggest noticing when your brain is spitting out motivated justifications, and in that case, considering from scratch whether the action is getting you what you want (including satisfying others who you want to satisfy).
From my outside view, unreasonable people appear not to be exercising goal-oriented, strategic thinking. I see them as making the same mistake over and over: being inconsiderate of others when it would serve them well to be more considerate. Social interactions are very important, so I tend to try hard to show interest in other people, show concern for their concerns, and so on. (I’m not saying I’m great at it, but it’s constantly on my mind.) I perceive less reasonable people as ignoring this.
It’s unusual to feel less reasonable than needed, though; mostly everyone sees themselves as one of the most reasonable people they know (irrelevant of whether they should be working on being more reasonable, or less reasonable). This may make our reflection inaccurate, if we are trying to explicitly decide whether we should be more reasonable rather than leaving it up to our system 1 to choose. Also, it seems almost impossible to convince another person to be more reasonable. They (quite rightly, perhaps) will perceive this as a status attack, or simply mistaken.
Okay, thanks! For me, a lot of this advice makes me think I’m too impatient when others disagree with me. I’ll work on it. Slow is smooth, smooth is fast.
Another stopgap measure which has helped me is to, when I finish a statement (maybe finish writing an email, or finish making a point in conversation) consider whether I’ve been unreasonable. An immediate correction can follow in person, or for an email, a new revision.
Will the person receive what I’ve said well?
Did I think about how they might react and shape my statement to make them react well, or did I just say things I wanted to say without consideration?
Has my point been made in good faith, or am I searching for justifications?
What do I really believe about what I just said?
(Some of that has more to do with being rational than reasonable, but the two aren’t completely different, after all.)
A further comment:
This kind of afterthought-based correction eventually trickles into the first-thought reasoning to some extent, because it alters the incentive structure (you learn not to say things that you’ll just end up correcting). So, it may be more useful than it sounds.
Setting out to do so is the first and hardest step to take, so congrats! But, of course, the work doesn’t end here. As I understand it, someone who’s reasonable means one who can be reasoned with, i.e. someone who accepts and occasionally yields to persuasion attempts, and doesn’t shut others off through obstinacy or abrasive, uncooperative treatment. In some ways it’s the antonym of intransigence. It can also mean someone who possesses enough common sense to facilitate interactions based on a shared view of how the world works.
You may reduce your likelihood of showing such tendencies if you reframe social interactions that involve arguing in a way such that being (acknowledged as) right is less important than maintaining harmony. What some people, the kind who drag out arguments in the name of truth or rightness, don’t understand about arguing is that the interaction of arguing takes place in a social context, is awarded limited time and patience (!) before it starts getting on people’s nerves (so no, it cannot be prolonged indefinitely until truth finally prevails, however long that may take), and may not be worth the hostility most of the time. Developing some more empathy and thinking about what the other person seeks in the interaction, and whether you’re giving it to them, may be of help.
There’s a kind of trick that may be of help, but it has to be culturally shared for it to work. You know how LessWrong has some local proverbs such as the Litany of Tarski or Tsuyoku Naritai that people can invoke, but only to other LessWrongers, to remind them of shared values that should prompt an improvement in their behaviour? It would be nice if there were some appeal to being understanding or reasonable that carried the same tone of solemnity. Something that essentially means “I know I can get biased and unreasonable occasionally, but I am committed to the values underpinning collective truth-seeking, and I pledge to allow others to remind me of my commitment, and to attempt to yield when they do so”. But in a pithier form.
Perhaps “Everyone has the right to listen to their own mind.”