[Question] What’s the most “stuck” you’ve been with an argument, that eventually got resolved?

I was try­ing to write up a post about get­ting stuck in ar­gu­ments, where you thought some­thing was ob­vi­ous, and said some­thing like “A, there­fore, B.” And your part­ner says “but, X, there­fore Y!”

And from you per­spec­tive, A is ob­vi­ously true, and B ob­vi­ously fol­lows from A. And X and Y just don’t seem rele­vant to you. But some­how, to your con­ver­sa­tion part­ner, A and B ei­ther aren’t ob­vi­ous at all, or just seem… ir­rele­vant some­how. And X and Y seem like the im­por­tant things.

I feel like this hap­pens of­ten to me, but I didn’t care­fully keep track of them at the time. I’ll try check­ing in with peo­ple I’ve dis­agreed with in the past to see if they can help jog my mem­ory. But I’m cu­ri­ous if any­one has ran into this phe­nomenon?

A some­what ex­treme but con­crete ex­am­ple might be a con­se­quen­tial­ist and a de­on­tol­o­gist ar­gu­ing about ethics, where the Con­nie the con­se­quen­tial­ist says “We should throw the switch in the trol­ley prob­lem to save lives” and Denny the Deon­tol­o­gist says “But you’re mur­der­ing the guy on the tracks!” and both of them are com­ing at the prob­lem from such differ­ent per­spec­tives that they can’t make any head­way.

I’d ideally like ex­am­ples that each in­volve po­si­tions that are fairly com­mon on LessWrong.

(The im­por­tant bit isn’t pre­cisely the “A there­fore B”, “X there­fore Y” pat­tern, so much as the gen­eral phe­nomenon of feel­ing like the two par­ti­ci­pants were some­how man­ag­ing to com­pletely miss each other. Ideally, ex­am­ples where the peo­ple even­tu­ally ended up on the same page, hope­fully iden­ti­fy­ing the mo­ment when the ar­gu­ment be­came “un­stuck.”)

No comments.