I also don’t have a strong sense of how pervasive underconfidence is, and my predictions would be relatively weak. But there are of course dynamics like Imposter Syndrome that are relatively common. One of my closest friends will rarely take a firm stand on any claim. He seems to do this in the name of fairness and epistemic humility, but it seems like a drastic overcorrection.
On the second point, sure. A lot of the people who need to correct for overconfidence are precisely the one that wield disproportionate influence and power (which their overconfidence almost certainly helped them attain). They’re also probably the ones least likely to calibrate, because incentives.
And there’s an interesting dynamic, especially in public discussions, where the tone is probably more properly adjusted for the viewers/readers than it is for the person you’re actually engaged with. I agree that changing an individual’s mind is very, very difficult. What I’m talking about is the danger of conflating being nice to the person and being nice to the ideas in a way that projects fairness and respect of the ideas that are completely unwarranted.
A perfectly civil and respectful public debate with a person who believes that non-white races are subhuman, or a climate change denialist, or full-on anti-vaxxer likely does more harm than good, if the ideas are given full respect and consideration. For a private discussion, I’d agree that the strategy should shift significantly, if the goal is to convince that person. In the first case, those beliefs need to be confronted with aggression, not politeness. They aren’t just epistemically terrible, they’re actively dangerous. Treating them with the veneer of legitimacy is likely to confuse bystanders who will come away with the wrong impression.
Yes, I fully agree that being nice to the person shouldn’t be conflated with being nice to very incorrect arguments. It’s tricky, but it’s possible to be respectful of the person while not taking their claims seriously if they’re basically either trolling or badly mistaken. One approach I’ve seen work is to ask for clarification along the lines of “help me understand” and take that seriously. Then you’re repeating back their claims and arguments without strawmanning them, but revealing them to be as weak as they are. Just gently voicing your suspicions like “I wonder if you genuinely believe this or if you’re voicing this to create an exciting discussion” etc without getting engaged in an argument on their intent or anything else.
This isin’t foolproof; dealing in good faith and good intent with someone who is not dealing with you in that way is a tricky art. But engaging in the style of ebate your opponent wants you to have is often visibly a very bad move.
If your position is much better supported by logic and evidence, you do not want to engage in an emotional battle; the outcome of that is much more random and driven by a set of skills you might not have developed.
Being nice to the individual makes it hard to convince people you’re the bad guy on an emotional level, and thus bias them against your positions and arguments.
I also don’t have a strong sense of how pervasive underconfidence is, and my predictions would be relatively weak. But there are of course dynamics like Imposter Syndrome that are relatively common. One of my closest friends will rarely take a firm stand on any claim. He seems to do this in the name of fairness and epistemic humility, but it seems like a drastic overcorrection.
On the second point, sure. A lot of the people who need to correct for overconfidence are precisely the one that wield disproportionate influence and power (which their overconfidence almost certainly helped them attain). They’re also probably the ones least likely to calibrate, because incentives.
And there’s an interesting dynamic, especially in public discussions, where the tone is probably more properly adjusted for the viewers/readers than it is for the person you’re actually engaged with. I agree that changing an individual’s mind is very, very difficult. What I’m talking about is the danger of conflating being nice to the person and being nice to the ideas in a way that projects fairness and respect of the ideas that are completely unwarranted.
A perfectly civil and respectful public debate with a person who believes that non-white races are subhuman, or a climate change denialist, or full-on anti-vaxxer likely does more harm than good, if the ideas are given full respect and consideration. For a private discussion, I’d agree that the strategy should shift significantly, if the goal is to convince that person. In the first case, those beliefs need to be confronted with aggression, not politeness. They aren’t just epistemically terrible, they’re actively dangerous. Treating them with the veneer of legitimacy is likely to confuse bystanders who will come away with the wrong impression.
Yes, I fully agree that being nice to the person shouldn’t be conflated with being nice to very incorrect arguments. It’s tricky, but it’s possible to be respectful of the person while not taking their claims seriously if they’re basically either trolling or badly mistaken. One approach I’ve seen work is to ask for clarification along the lines of “help me understand” and take that seriously. Then you’re repeating back their claims and arguments without strawmanning them, but revealing them to be as weak as they are. Just gently voicing your suspicions like “I wonder if you genuinely believe this or if you’re voicing this to create an exciting discussion” etc without getting engaged in an argument on their intent or anything else.
This isin’t foolproof; dealing in good faith and good intent with someone who is not dealing with you in that way is a tricky art. But engaging in the style of ebate your opponent wants you to have is often visibly a very bad move.
If your position is much better supported by logic and evidence, you do not want to engage in an emotional battle; the outcome of that is much more random and driven by a set of skills you might not have developed.
Being nice to the individual makes it hard to convince people you’re the bad guy on an emotional level, and thus bias them against your positions and arguments.