(I think part of why this goes squirrelly, in practice, is that it’s easy for a certain type of person to feel like they’re engaging in a purely one-on-one interaction, in places like Facebook or Twitter or LessWrong or wherever. Like, if one is already a pays-less-attention-to-the-audience type Pokémon to begin with, then it’s easy for the audience to fall completely out of your thoughts as you tunnel-vision on the person you’re directly responding to. But I sort of can’t ever not-notice the other monkeys watching.)
This post in general, and this comment especially, was helpful in clarifying for me why I hate social media so much. (This forum being an exception). It seems to me that people are much less rational when arguing on social media than they are in a private one-on-one conversations, because they can’t help noticing the other monkeys watching—even if they claim the contrary. This pertains to the obligation-to-respond case and a much wider set of dynamics.
The more aggressive-seeming sorts may honestly believe they are just purists for truth and socially oblivious. For some, this may be true. But more often I notice an interesting pattern: in public online discussions, their arguments are littered with subtle rhetorical devices (argumentum ad hominem, ad populum, ad ridiculum, ad verecundium, etc.) (in english: glib, snarky, pontificating, witty banter, etc.) -- none of which are aimed at helpfully updating their own or the other person’s worldview, and rather seem to be aimed at playing to the audience. Tellingly, this dimension often disappears when same person is in a one-on-one conversation, even on the identical disagreement with the same ‘opponent’. The same person can be much more constructive, rational, curious, open-minded, willing to concede uncertainty, etc. when the other monkeys aren’t watching. It is also vastly more epistemically efficient to communicate, figure out common ground, and distill differences in one-on-one conversations, without the distraction of tracking what the audience might know/think as well.
So I’m a big advocate of this: as soon as people realize they substantively disagree, assuming everyone’s real motivation is to figure out what is actually true (or at least that’s the motivation we all wish to honor), work it out in a one-on-one conversation. You might reach agreement, or reach clarity about the root disagreement. One or the other party might decide the whole question is not that important, or other person isn’t arguing in good faith, or whatever, and can choose to abandon the conversation at any time—without worrying about how that will be perceived. In the end, if either of you think the conversation was constructive, you can always write up a distillation of the useful bits for a wider audience. (Co-authoring a disagreement distillation seems like a genre we should especially encourage).
But while you are doing hard intellectual and perhaps emotional work of wrangling with a disagreement, having an audience is generally not helpful, and often gets in the way.
This post in general, and this comment especially, was helpful in clarifying for me why I hate social media so much. (This forum being an exception). It seems to me that people are much less rational when arguing on social media than they are in a private one-on-one conversations, because they can’t help noticing the other monkeys watching—even if they claim the contrary. This pertains to the obligation-to-respond case and a much wider set of dynamics.
The more aggressive-seeming sorts may honestly believe they are just purists for truth and socially oblivious. For some, this may be true. But more often I notice an interesting pattern: in public online discussions, their arguments are littered with subtle rhetorical devices (argumentum ad hominem, ad populum, ad ridiculum, ad verecundium, etc.) (in english: glib, snarky, pontificating, witty banter, etc.) -- none of which are aimed at helpfully updating their own or the other person’s worldview, and rather seem to be aimed at playing to the audience. Tellingly, this dimension often disappears when same person is in a one-on-one conversation, even on the identical disagreement with the same ‘opponent’. The same person can be much more constructive, rational, curious, open-minded, willing to concede uncertainty, etc. when the other monkeys aren’t watching. It is also vastly more epistemically efficient to communicate, figure out common ground, and distill differences in one-on-one conversations, without the distraction of tracking what the audience might know/think as well.
So I’m a big advocate of this: as soon as people realize they substantively disagree, assuming everyone’s real motivation is to figure out what is actually true (or at least that’s the motivation we all wish to honor), work it out in a one-on-one conversation. You might reach agreement, or reach clarity about the root disagreement. One or the other party might decide the whole question is not that important, or other person isn’t arguing in good faith, or whatever, and can choose to abandon the conversation at any time—without worrying about how that will be perceived. In the end, if either of you think the conversation was constructive, you can always write up a distillation of the useful bits for a wider audience. (Co-authoring a disagreement distillation seems like a genre we should especially encourage).
But while you are doing hard intellectual and perhaps emotional work of wrangling with a disagreement, having an audience is generally not helpful, and often gets in the way.