Today in the New York Times, Pamela Paul introduces us to Bo Seo, a two-time world debate champion. He thinks we have a problem:
“We disagree badly: Our arguments are painful and useless.” We spend more time vilifying, undermining and nullifying those we disagree with than opening or changing their minds. If more people took their cues from the world of competitive debate, he argues in a recent book, it would be easier to get people to reconsider their views or at least consider those of others.
You may think I have no standing to disagree with this. Au contraire! It so happens that both my parents were university debate champions back in the day, and I'm quite sure that both of them would disagree with Bo Seo in the strongest possible terms.
(What do you say about that, mom? Give me a call.)
Formal debate is all about introducing facts—as many as possible—and then refuting them. In real life, this is not called debate, it's called the most boring thing in the entire world. It persuades no one. I've been doing it for 20 years and, as far as I can tell, have persuaded virtually no one of anything.
Donald Trump, on the other hand, almost literally doesn't know any facts. Nor can he refute them in any rational way. But he is practically a cult leader.
Sadly, people are not persuaded by facts. They are persuaded by emotions. They are persuaded only when they're listening to someone who shares their worldview. They are persuaded by "arguments" that are beneficial to them—perhaps monetarily, perhaps in conferring status, perhaps in vilifying people they already didn't like. This is how you win in real life.
And don't make the mistake of thinking that you're the exception. Oh, you might be. The odds are a thousand to one against, but there are a few of you. The other 999, however, from PhDs down to ninth-grade dropouts, have no interest in dull facts and have no way of evaluating them anyway. They just want their biases confirmed and their status in the world elevated. Do that, and you too can win the presidency.
We have preconceived notions about everything and everybody
We have a tendency to REQUIRE a huge amount of FACTS to change those preconceived notions. In some arguments those facts against our preconceived notions are limited and just don't persuade us that we may be wrong about something.
This is made worse by the internet and the huge volume of information available to us. But with that huge volume of info comes our old preconceived notions. We tend to read THOSE websites that generally agree with our own opinions - so we become even more "ardent" in our defense of our own preconceived notions.
It's uncomfortable but the 3 LEAST used words in the English language today seem to be "I was wrong"
"Sadly, people are not persuaded by facts." But, butt, billygoat, some people must be "persuaded by facts" sometimes or how does science proceed ?
Are you telling me that we only have 'gravity' because some people believed in it right from the start (does that go back the 190,000 years of human existence ?) and then managed to breed a whole human race that somehow "shares their worldview"?
Our ancestors' concept of gravity was transformed by Isaac Newton. Newton's concept of gravity was transformed by Albert Einstein. And Einstein was the guy that didn't want to believe in quantum mechanics.
I hit the "post comment" button too fast.
The answer to the "How does science proceed?" question is in the first paragraph of Wikipedia's "Scientific Method" article: "Science … involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation." I didn’t see anything in the article that said it was okay for the observer to be naïve about their own cognitive assumptions.
Well thank you for that, JC; was "our ancestor's" concept of gravity that which was formulated by Galileo or was it formulated back about 190,000 years ago along with the origin of homo sapiens sapiens ? Or somewhere in between by somebody else whose worldview we shared.
You see I'm just trying to take on board KD's bit about how we are not persuaded by facts but only by agreeing with those whose worldview we share. So, I'm just trying to work out who in human history first developed a concept of gravity and how the human race came to share his/her worldview so that the human race all had a "concept of gravity" that Newton could transform.
And how we all came to agree with Newton's worldview so that we believed him.
Without thinking about it too much, my assumption is that we are born with an inherited understanding of gravity that develops naturally as a result of life's experiences. I'd also assume that we inherited that understanding from an ancestor that lived much earlier than the origin of our species.
As for why someone would adopt Newton's concept, it would depend on what that someone, Newton included, was trying to accomplish. My guess is that Newton thought that sharing his concept would make the world a better place. He was right to the extent that people use his concept for that purpose. He was wrong to the extent that people use it for selfish ends at the expense of the greater good. Overall, I'd say he made the right decision.
I don't think we all came to agree with Newton's worldview. Most people only need our shared intuitive understanding of gravity, don't need to understand how to use his formula, and don't.
Not sure if I've answered the question. Bottom line: a worldview is not reality. It is an approximation of reality. The question is: how accurate is it and what interest is being served? The answer is that it is more likely to be more accurate if the interest being served is the greater good.
"Ideas...yield not to the attack of other ideas but to the massive onslaught of circumstance with which they cannot contend." (John Kenneth Galbraith, "The Affluent Society").
The human race is not now, and never has been, homogenous. Strange as it may seem, some humans can actually think afresh and anew without having the sky fall in on them.
So anyway, you reckon maybe that we came to accept as reality the Theory of Relativity because of the "massive onslaught of circumstances" that just compelled humanity to believe it.
So, what was the "massive onslaught of circumstances" that compelled us to believe in the differential and integral calculus (and all those infinite sums of infinitesimals) and also in multi-dimensional geometry ?
I agree that we are incredibly diverse. But I would argue that we are now, and have always been a homogeneous species in that, when we intentionally adhere to the "do unto others as you would have others do unto you" principle, things turn out well, whereas, when we don't, things don't turn out well, which is when we are (if not intentionally then) unintentionally adhering to the "do as I say and not as I do" principle.
I don't know about changing minds, but you've certainly influenced a lot of thinking, for instance mine, regarding how so much of the "crime wave" of the 80s and 90s was caused by lead poisoning, and how the waning of that terrible factor is slowly but inexorably changing our politics for the better.
However, one thing I'll say for sure you haven't changed is the sensitivity of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences (do I have that right?) regarding racial issues. A trip to the new Academy Museum at Wilshire and Fairfax will show you just how sensitive they still are to "Oscars So White". Coming out of that museum you would think the movie biz has been spending most of its time and energy fighting for civil rights over the past 100 years. It's weird.
I disagree, Kevin. It is neither facts NOR emotion that frame people's worldviews. It's REPETITION. So when liars tell their lies, truth-tellers must refute them over and over and over. They also need to chuck the old 'principle' of never stating the lie in the course of refuting it because it 'elevates' it or something. Refuting a lie MUST be tackled head-on. The key is that it must be refuted CLEARLY and SIMPLY, not with 200-word sentences.
I agree that repetition is important but it's not the only variable. We also learn by thinking deeply about and challenging our own perceptions of a situation.
I don't see a point in asking whether a person is lying or telling the truth until I know what interest is being served. To me, it's like arguing about what route to take without first agreeing on the destination.
I make $200h while I'm traveling the world. Last week I worked by my laptop in Rome, Monti Carlo and finally Paris…This week I'm back in the USA. All I do are easy tasks from this one cool site. check it out, Copy Here→→→→→ https://www.salaryto.com/
Facts should be the starting point for any discussion of public policy and, Kevin, you have persuaded me, conservative, oftentimes to take a different view of a particular issue or current event, although you've never succeeded in weaning me from my core beliefs. But from facts, for example, "Covid is highly contagious and potentially very lethal to the very elderly and those with serious co-morbidities," reasonable people could differ over how to respond and what tradeoffs should be made to balance risks properly.
Your inflation data are useful facts and yes they're boring. But most people don't care about them -- they care about whether they can make ends meet on a day-to-day basis. And it's always going to be the case that the President gets too much credit when the economy runs well and too much blame when it doesn't.
Here's a fact: if you circulate too much money, prices will go up. Here's another: if you subsidize something (e.g., college or healthcare) providers will increase their rates.
Pingback: Ehrgeizige grüne linke Datenschützer*innen versuchen versuchen heimlich Sanktionen im texanischen Debattenclub durchzubringen - Vermischtes 19.09.2022 - Deliberation Daily