Don’t Straw Man Fellow Arguers, Steel Man Them Instead
Can you provide some specific tips on this one? I’ve tried to do this in discussions with non-LW people, and it comes off looking bizarre at best and rude at worst. (See also: this comment, which is basically what ends up happening.) Have you been able to implement this technique in discussions, and if so, how did you do it while adhering to social norms/not aggravating your discussion partners?
Oh, absolutely. This is why I don’t like being in discussions with people who hold the same position as I do but for different reasons—saying that a particular argument in favor of our position is wrong sounds like arrogance and/or betrayal.
Oh, I see. I don’t think that’s ever happened me, although I have had people try to end conversations with “everyone’s entitled to their own beliefs” or “there’s no right answer to this question, it’s just your opinion” and my subsequent haggling turned the discussion sour.
It was weird the first few times when I had a cluster of people agreeing with me, spent time there, and then started to collect counter arguments. People are better tested with disagreements, than just holding similar end-views. A belief held for the wrong reasons can easily be changed. It gets a bit weird when you start fixing your opponents arguments against your own position.
I tend to do this often as part of serving as a ‘moderator’ of discussions/arguments, even when it’s just me and another. It’s useful to perceive the other party’s (parties’) argument as merely a podium upon which their belief rests, and then endeavor to identify, with specificity, their belief or position. Colloquially, the result would be something like:
Not you: “I think that, it just doesn’t seem right, that, even without being given even a chance, the baby just dies. It’s not right how they have no say at all, you know?”
You: “So, your position is...” In verbal communications you can at this point briefly pause as if you’re carefully considering your words in order to allow an opportunity for their interjection of a more lucidly expressed position. ”...that the fetus (and I’m just using the scientific terminology, here), has value equal to that of a grown person in moral considerations? [If confused:] I mean, that when thinking about an abortion, the fetus’ rights are equal to that of the mother’s?”
[As shown above, clarify one point at a time. Your tone must be that of one asking for clarification on a fact. More, “The tsunami warning was cancelled before or after the 3⁄14 earthquake hit?” than, “You’ve been wrong before; you sure?”]
Not you: “Yea, such is mine position.”
You: “And, due to the fetus’ having equal moral standing to the mother, abortions thus are an unjust practice?”
Not you: “Aye.”
Be careful with these clarification proceedings, though. If by framing their arguments you happen to occlude the actual reasoning of their argument, due to them not knowing it themselves or otherwise, the entire rest of the argument could be a waste of time predicated upon a falsely framed position. Suggestions of possible solutions include:
Asking whether they are sure the framed argument accurately expresses the reason for their position on the matter; not framing at all, but jumping right into the hypothetical probing and allowing for them to explore the issue enough to provide a confident statement of their position; going straight to the hypothetical probing, using their responses to form a mental estimation of their actual position, steel man-ing that mental estimation, and proceeding to argue upon the presumption your steel-man is accurate, updating as necessary.
From then on, you now have at your disposal vetted statements of their position that are intricate with their arguments. Subsequent arguments can then be phrased as hypotheticals: “What if EEG scans, which monitor brain waves, only showed the fetus as having developed brain activity akin to that of a grown person (the mother, say) at four months? Would that mean that at four months the fetus becomes developed enough to be considered equal to the mother?”
This way you can inquire after their exact position, why they hold that position, and without taking a side gather whether they’re open to accepting another position whilst presenting viable alternatives in a reasoned and unobtrusive fashion. If you wish to defuse an argument, simply pointing out that party X holds to alternative II, and asking whether they can understand why party X holds to alternative II, should be enough to at least start smothering the fuse.
Note: The use of ‘should’ when expressing ideals implies a position of righteous power, and should (please decry me if I am unjustified in taking on this position of righteous power) never be used in an argument, regardless of whether it’s self contained within a hypothetical. In my experience its use tends to only reinforce beliefs.
″...that the fetus (and I’m just using the scientific terminology, here), has value equal to that of a grown person in moral considerations?
Well now, this technique is straight-out dishonesty. You’re not “just using the scientific terminology”. You have a reason for rejecting the other person’s use of “baby”, and that reason is that you want to use words to draw a moral line in reality at the point of birth. Notice that you also increased the distance by comparing the “fetus” not to a newborn baby but to an adult. But you cannot make distinctions appear in the real world by drawing them on the map.
Your tone must be that of one asking for clarification on a fact.
That is, your tone must be a lie. You are not asking for clarification of a fact.
You have a reason for rejecting the other person’s use of “baby”, and that reason is that you want to use words to draw a moral line in reality at the point of birth.
Don’t know how you came to this, but nowhere do I take a stance on the issue. There’s the ‘Not you’ and the ‘You’, with the former thinking it’s wrong, and the latter wanting to know the former’s reasoning and position.
You can just as well use the word ‘baby’; only using a neutral word as decided by a third party (namely science and scientists), besides ‘the baby’ or ‘it’, help in distancing them as well as their perception of you from the issue. It’s difficult for someone to perceive an issue clearly when, every time it comes to mind, they’re reminded, “Oh yes, this I believe.” Subtly separating that associative belief of the other party (parties) allows them to evince their true reasons with greater accuracy. Harry did the same (unintentionally) by setting Draco into an honestly inquisitive state of mind in HPMOR when investigating blood (not ad verecundiam, just an example).
I fully agree you cannot manifest terrain by drawing on the map; this is why I suggest comparing the fetus to a grown person. A new human has the potential to become a grown human, and I, in assuming the position of the ‘Not you’, guessed this was a reason they may value the fetus. In another example they may say, “No, they’re just a baby! They’re so cute! You can’t kill anything cute!”
From a consequentialist point of view (which appears to be the same as the utilitarian—correct me if I’m wrong, please), it doesn’t matter whether they are cute unless this is a significant factor to those considering the fetus’ mortality. A fetus’ potential ‘cuteness’ is a transient property, and a rather specious foundation upon which to decide whether the fetus’ shall have a life. What if they’re ugly, grow out of the cute, are too annoying to the mother? Then their reason for valuing the baby operates on a relative curve directly proportional to the baby’s cuteness at any point in time; I’m not sure what it’s called when a baby is wanted for the same reasons one might want a pet, or a stuffed animal, but don’t think it’s rational. Babies are living humans.
From a religious perspective, I am unaware of any religion that affords separate moral rights to children than from men, besides the possible distinction from an innocent, helpless man and a morally responsible one. Thus, if this be their rationale, then consideration of the fetus’ as having full moral rights equal to that of a grown person would be a given prerequisite. Without consideration as a person, a fetus’ is rendered excluded from the moral protection of many a religion. From a Bayesian perspective, the probability of their belonging to a value system wherein human lives are exclusively valued above all others’, outweighs the other possibilities—or so I reasoned (if the logic’s unsound, please inform).
Thus, the likening of the fetus unto a grown person.
And, on your last point, you assume the ‘You’ would have an agenda; you cannot, as you well reason, honestly and neutrally steel-man their argument with an agenda. Sure, the ‘You’ may subtly be presenting other paradigms, however ‘tis in the best interests of all parties that none remain as ignorant after the argument as they were before; this is a thread on improving productivity of arguments, after all. Making their argument into a steel-man necessitates the full or mostly full understanding the other party’s (parties’) position; how can you steel-man what you do not understand? And so you honestly ask for clarification, using distancing hypotheticals to probe the truth of their position out of them, or framing their argument with your own words, using an interrogative tone requesting clarification on the fact of their belief (note the possible dangers of the latter as explicated elsewhere in this comment train).
There’s the ‘Not you’ and the ‘You’, with the former thinking it’s wrong, and the latter wanting to know the former’s reasoning and position.
Ok, the “You” person isn’t you. Sorry for conflating the two. (Probably because “You” is portrayed as the voice of reason, while “Not you” is the one given the idiot ball.) But if I look just at what the “You” person is saying, ignoring the interior monologue, they come across to me as I described. And if they speak that interior monologue, I won’t believe them. This is a topic on which there is no neutral frame, no neutral vocabulary. Every discussion of it consists primarily of attempts to frame the matter in a preferred way. Here’s a table comparing the two frames:
fetus unborn child
right to choose right to life
pro-choice pro-abortion
anti-choice anti-abortion
You can tell what side someone is on by the words they use.
No problem. If someone with your objection were to raise their concerns with the ‘You’ at the time of intercourse, I would recommend calmly requesting agreement on a word both agree as neutral; actually, this would be an excellent first step in ensuring the cooperation of both parties in seeking the truth, or least wrong or disagreeable position on the matter. What that word would be in this instance, besides fetus, I haven’t a clue—there may be no objectively neutral frame, from your perspective, however in each discourse all involved parties can create mutually agreed upon subjectively neutral vocabulary, if connotations truly do prove such an obstacle to productive communication. I am still for fetus as a neutral word, as it’s the scientific terminology. Pro-life scientists aren’t paradoxical.
This way you can inquire after their exact position, why they hold that position, and without taking a side gather whether they’re open to accepting another position whilst presenting viable alternatives in a reasoned and unobtrusive fashion.
What you actually appear to be doing in this exchange is framing the debate (this is not a neutral action) under the guise of being a neutral observer. If your arguer is experienced enough to see what you’re doing, he will challenge you on it probably in a way that will result in a flame war. If he isn’t experienced enough he may see what appears to be a logical argument that somehow doesn’t seem persuasive and this may put him off the whole concept of logical arguing.
If I’m interpreting his objection correctly, I think the framing enables potential and possibly unknown biases to corrupt the entire process. The other party (parties) may consciously think they agree on a particular frame, but some buried bias or unknown belief may be incompatible with the frame, and will end up rejecting it.
Well, then they can tell you they made a mistake and actually reject the frame explaining why and you will have learned about their position allowing you to construct a new frame.
Indeed, though I wonder whether they will not themselves be able to express why often enough to warrant a complete omission of the framing step in favor of immediate hypothetical probing, and even that assumes they’ll realize the frame is inaccurate before the argument ends and each go their separate way.
So by framing their position with my own words, I could be tricking them into agreeing to something that sounds to technically be their position, while their actual position could be suppressed, unknown, and biasing their reception to all that then follows? That sounds true, however if they interject and state their position themselves, then would the technique of probing with hypotheticals also not be neutral?
I have edited the original comment so as to include and account for the former possibility, though I think the latter, probing with hypotheticals, is a valid neutral technique. If I’m wrong, please correct me.
If you wish to defuse an argument, simply pointing out that party X holds to alternative II, and asking whether they can understand why party X holds to alternative II, should be enough to at least start smothering the fuse.
Sometimes, the only answer you can come up with for this is “Because they’re mistaken, evil, or both.” (We can probably agree today that anyone making serious pro-slavery arguments prior to the American Civil War was mistaken, evil, or both.)
This is the Socratic method of arguing. It can also be as a Dark Side technique by choosing your questions so as to lead your counterpart into a trap—that their position is logically inconsistent, or implies that they have to bite a bullet that they don’t want to admit to biting.
I’ve seen this “countered” by people simply refusing to talk any more, by repeating their original statement, or saying “No, that’s not it” followed by something that seems incomprehensible.
Why would that be a problem in their position actually is inconsistent? People don’t like having their inconsistencies exposed, but it’s still a legitimate concern for a truth-seeking debate.
Also leads to undesirable outcome of provoking even more screwed up beliefs by propagating them from one screwed up belief. If you want to convince someone (as opposed to convincing yourself and.or audience that you are right), you ought to try to start from the correct beliefs, and try to edge your way towards the screwed up ones. But that doesn’t work either because people usually have surprisingly good instrumental model of the absence of the dragon in the garage, and see instantly what you are trying to do to their imaginary dragon. Speaking of which, it is easy to convince people to refine their instrumental model of non-existence of dragon, than to make them stop saying there is a dragon.
People not formally trained usually don’t understand the idea of proof by contradiction.
Reason works in any direction; you can start from nonsense and then come up with more unrelated nonsense, or you can start from sense and steam-roll over the nonsense.
I’ve seen this “countered” by people simply refusing to talk any more, by repeating their original statement, or saying “No, that’s not it” followed by something that seems incomprehensible.
Or, if you try to pull this kind of stunt at them too much, some good old ad baculum.
I have sometimes used this one with my ex-boyfriend, who was an extraordinarily bad arguer. I did it for two reasons : have a productive argument and not have a boyfriend complaining that I always won arguments, so not exactly what the post had in mind. He had also admitted that I argued better than he did, so it did not come off too rude (I still had to use many qualifiers). That being said, I never used it efficiently when there were more than two people involved ans it sometimes backfired.
I would not recommend using it in any conversation, and especially not on an online discussion.
Can you provide some specific tips on this one? I’ve tried to do this in discussions with non-LW people, and it comes off looking bizarre at best and rude at worst. (See also: this comment, which is basically what ends up happening.) Have you been able to implement this technique in discussions, and if so, how did you do it while adhering to social norms/not aggravating your discussion partners?
It gets better when you disagree with your opponent that they were justified in agreeing with you...
Oh, absolutely. This is why I don’t like being in discussions with people who hold the same position as I do but for different reasons—saying that a particular argument in favor of our position is wrong sounds like arrogance and/or betrayal.
I was thinking more of a case where people agree out of politeness, and you have reason to believe they didn’t properly understand your position.
Oh, I see. I don’t think that’s ever happened me, although I have had people try to end conversations with “everyone’s entitled to their own beliefs” or “there’s no right answer to this question, it’s just your opinion” and my subsequent haggling turned the discussion sour.
It was weird the first few times when I had a cluster of people agreeing with me, spent time there, and then started to collect counter arguments. People are better tested with disagreements, than just holding similar end-views. A belief held for the wrong reasons can easily be changed. It gets a bit weird when you start fixing your opponents arguments against your own position.
I tend to do this often as part of serving as a ‘moderator’ of discussions/arguments, even when it’s just me and another. It’s useful to perceive the other party’s (parties’) argument as merely a podium upon which their belief rests, and then endeavor to identify, with specificity, their belief or position. Colloquially, the result would be something like:
Not you: “I think that, it just doesn’t seem right, that, even without being given even a chance, the baby just dies. It’s not right how they have no say at all, you know?”
You: “So, your position is...” In verbal communications you can at this point briefly pause as if you’re carefully considering your words in order to allow an opportunity for their interjection of a more lucidly expressed position. ”...that the fetus (and I’m just using the scientific terminology, here), has value equal to that of a grown person in moral considerations? [If confused:] I mean, that when thinking about an abortion, the fetus’ rights are equal to that of the mother’s?”
[As shown above, clarify one point at a time. Your tone must be that of one asking for clarification on a fact. More, “The tsunami warning was cancelled before or after the 3⁄14 earthquake hit?” than, “You’ve been wrong before; you sure?”]
Not you: “Yea, such is mine position.”
You: “And, due to the fetus’ having equal moral standing to the mother, abortions thus are an unjust practice?”
Not you: “Aye.”
Be careful with these clarification proceedings, though. If by framing their arguments you happen to occlude the actual reasoning of their argument, due to them not knowing it themselves or otherwise, the entire rest of the argument could be a waste of time predicated upon a falsely framed position. Suggestions of possible solutions include:
Asking whether they are sure the framed argument accurately expresses the reason for their position on the matter; not framing at all, but jumping right into the hypothetical probing and allowing for them to explore the issue enough to provide a confident statement of their position; going straight to the hypothetical probing, using their responses to form a mental estimation of their actual position, steel man-ing that mental estimation, and proceeding to argue upon the presumption your steel-man is accurate, updating as necessary.
From then on, you now have at your disposal vetted statements of their position that are intricate with their arguments. Subsequent arguments can then be phrased as hypotheticals: “What if EEG scans, which monitor brain waves, only showed the fetus as having developed brain activity akin to that of a grown person (the mother, say) at four months? Would that mean that at four months the fetus becomes developed enough to be considered equal to the mother?”
This way you can inquire after their exact position, why they hold that position, and without taking a side gather whether they’re open to accepting another position whilst presenting viable alternatives in a reasoned and unobtrusive fashion. If you wish to defuse an argument, simply pointing out that party X holds to alternative II, and asking whether they can understand why party X holds to alternative II, should be enough to at least start smothering the fuse.
Note: The use of ‘should’ when expressing ideals implies a position of righteous power, and should (please decry me if I am unjustified in taking on this position of righteous power) never be used in an argument, regardless of whether it’s self contained within a hypothetical. In my experience its use tends to only reinforce beliefs.
Well now, this technique is straight-out dishonesty. You’re not “just using the scientific terminology”. You have a reason for rejecting the other person’s use of “baby”, and that reason is that you want to use words to draw a moral line in reality at the point of birth. Notice that you also increased the distance by comparing the “fetus” not to a newborn baby but to an adult. But you cannot make distinctions appear in the real world by drawing them on the map.
That is, your tone must be a lie. You are not asking for clarification of a fact.
Don’t know how you came to this, but nowhere do I take a stance on the issue. There’s the ‘Not you’ and the ‘You’, with the former thinking it’s wrong, and the latter wanting to know the former’s reasoning and position.
You can just as well use the word ‘baby’; only using a neutral word as decided by a third party (namely science and scientists), besides ‘the baby’ or ‘it’, help in distancing them as well as their perception of you from the issue. It’s difficult for someone to perceive an issue clearly when, every time it comes to mind, they’re reminded, “Oh yes, this I believe.” Subtly separating that associative belief of the other party (parties) allows them to evince their true reasons with greater accuracy. Harry did the same (unintentionally) by setting Draco into an honestly inquisitive state of mind in HPMOR when investigating blood (not ad verecundiam, just an example).
I fully agree you cannot manifest terrain by drawing on the map; this is why I suggest comparing the fetus to a grown person. A new human has the potential to become a grown human, and I, in assuming the position of the ‘Not you’, guessed this was a reason they may value the fetus. In another example they may say, “No, they’re just a baby! They’re so cute! You can’t kill anything cute!”
From a consequentialist point of view (which appears to be the same as the utilitarian—correct me if I’m wrong, please), it doesn’t matter whether they are cute unless this is a significant factor to those considering the fetus’ mortality. A fetus’ potential ‘cuteness’ is a transient property, and a rather specious foundation upon which to decide whether the fetus’ shall have a life. What if they’re ugly, grow out of the cute, are too annoying to the mother? Then their reason for valuing the baby operates on a relative curve directly proportional to the baby’s cuteness at any point in time; I’m not sure what it’s called when a baby is wanted for the same reasons one might want a pet, or a stuffed animal, but don’t think it’s rational. Babies are living humans.
From a religious perspective, I am unaware of any religion that affords separate moral rights to children than from men, besides the possible distinction from an innocent, helpless man and a morally responsible one. Thus, if this be their rationale, then consideration of the fetus’ as having full moral rights equal to that of a grown person would be a given prerequisite. Without consideration as a person, a fetus’ is rendered excluded from the moral protection of many a religion. From a Bayesian perspective, the probability of their belonging to a value system wherein human lives are exclusively valued above all others’, outweighs the other possibilities—or so I reasoned (if the logic’s unsound, please inform).
Thus, the likening of the fetus unto a grown person.
And, on your last point, you assume the ‘You’ would have an agenda; you cannot, as you well reason, honestly and neutrally steel-man their argument with an agenda. Sure, the ‘You’ may subtly be presenting other paradigms, however ‘tis in the best interests of all parties that none remain as ignorant after the argument as they were before; this is a thread on improving productivity of arguments, after all. Making their argument into a steel-man necessitates the full or mostly full understanding the other party’s (parties’) position; how can you steel-man what you do not understand? And so you honestly ask for clarification, using distancing hypotheticals to probe the truth of their position out of them, or framing their argument with your own words, using an interrogative tone requesting clarification on the fact of their belief (note the possible dangers of the latter as explicated elsewhere in this comment train).
Ok, the “You” person isn’t you. Sorry for conflating the two. (Probably because “You” is portrayed as the voice of reason, while “Not you” is the one given the idiot ball.) But if I look just at what the “You” person is saying, ignoring the interior monologue, they come across to me as I described. And if they speak that interior monologue, I won’t believe them. This is a topic on which there is no neutral frame, no neutral vocabulary. Every discussion of it consists primarily of attempts to frame the matter in a preferred way. Here’s a table comparing the two frames:
You can tell what side someone is on by the words they use.
No problem. If someone with your objection were to raise their concerns with the ‘You’ at the time of intercourse, I would recommend calmly requesting agreement on a word both agree as neutral; actually, this would be an excellent first step in ensuring the cooperation of both parties in seeking the truth, or least wrong or disagreeable position on the matter. What that word would be in this instance, besides fetus, I haven’t a clue—there may be no objectively neutral frame, from your perspective, however in each discourse all involved parties can create mutually agreed upon subjectively neutral vocabulary, if connotations truly do prove such an obstacle to productive communication. I am still for fetus as a neutral word, as it’s the scientific terminology. Pro-life scientists aren’t paradoxical.
What you actually appear to be doing in this exchange is framing the debate (this is not a neutral action) under the guise of being a neutral observer. If your arguer is experienced enough to see what you’re doing, he will challenge you on it probably in a way that will result in a flame war. If he isn’t experienced enough he may see what appears to be a logical argument that somehow doesn’t seem persuasive and this may put him off the whole concept of logical arguing.
I don’t see how it breaks neutrality if you frame the debate in a non-fallacious perspective.
Can’t it end in a peaceful back-and-forth until we have agreed on a common frame?
If I’m interpreting his objection correctly, I think the framing enables potential and possibly unknown biases to corrupt the entire process. The other party (parties) may consciously think they agree on a particular frame, but some buried bias or unknown belief may be incompatible with the frame, and will end up rejecting it.
Well, then they can tell you they made a mistake and actually reject the frame explaining why and you will have learned about their position allowing you to construct a new frame.
Indeed, though I wonder whether they will not themselves be able to express why often enough to warrant a complete omission of the framing step in favor of immediate hypothetical probing, and even that assumes they’ll realize the frame is inaccurate before the argument ends and each go their separate way.
So by framing their position with my own words, I could be tricking them into agreeing to something that sounds to technically be their position, while their actual position could be suppressed, unknown, and biasing their reception to all that then follows? That sounds true, however if they interject and state their position themselves, then would the technique of probing with hypotheticals also not be neutral?
I have edited the original comment so as to include and account for the former possibility, though I think the latter, probing with hypotheticals, is a valid neutral technique. If I’m wrong, please correct me.
Sometimes, the only answer you can come up with for this is “Because they’re mistaken, evil, or both.” (We can probably agree today that anyone making serious pro-slavery arguments prior to the American Civil War was mistaken, evil, or both.)
This is the Socratic method of arguing. It can also be as a Dark Side technique by choosing your questions so as to lead your counterpart into a trap—that their position is logically inconsistent, or implies that they have to bite a bullet that they don’t want to admit to biting.
I’ve seen this “countered” by people simply refusing to talk any more, by repeating their original statement, or saying “No, that’s not it” followed by something that seems incomprehensible.
Why would that be a problem in their position actually is inconsistent? People don’t like having their inconsistencies exposed, but it’s still a legitimate concern for a truth-seeking debate.
Also leads to undesirable outcome of provoking even more screwed up beliefs by propagating them from one screwed up belief. If you want to convince someone (as opposed to convincing yourself and.or audience that you are right), you ought to try to start from the correct beliefs, and try to edge your way towards the screwed up ones. But that doesn’t work either because people usually have surprisingly good instrumental model of the absence of the dragon in the garage, and see instantly what you are trying to do to their imaginary dragon. Speaking of which, it is easy to convince people to refine their instrumental model of non-existence of dragon, than to make them stop saying there is a dragon.
People not formally trained usually don’t understand the idea of proof by contradiction.
Reason as memetic immune disorder?
Reason works in any direction; you can start from nonsense and then come up with more unrelated nonsense, or you can start from sense and steam-roll over the nonsense.
edit: but yea, along those lines.
Or, if you try to pull this kind of stunt at them too much, some good old ad baculum.
I have sometimes used this one with my ex-boyfriend, who was an extraordinarily bad arguer. I did it for two reasons : have a productive argument and not have a boyfriend complaining that I always won arguments, so not exactly what the post had in mind. He had also admitted that I argued better than he did, so it did not come off too rude (I still had to use many qualifiers). That being said, I never used it efficiently when there were more than two people involved ans it sometimes backfired.
I would not recommend using it in any conversation, and especially not on an online discussion.