If I come up with $flaw in $argument, how I endorse presenting $flaw depends on my goal.
If my goal is to learn more about $argument, I endorse asking a question which prompts others to provide me the information I want. (E.g., “How does $argument address $flaw?”) I also endorse doing this if I think others might benefit from that information, even if I won’t.
If my goal is to expose weaknesses in $argument for the benefit of others, I endorse asserting that $flaw is a flaw in $argument. I am of course aware that there exists a social pattern whereby in this case people ask a question instead, either to more effectively stage a social attack or to do so with impunity (aka “rhetorical question”). I increasingly reject this pattern, and endorse consistently using question-syntax to request information and statement-syntax to make assertions, in the spirit of clear communication. That said, I do recognize that there are scenarios where making a successful social attack is more valuable than communicating clearly.
If my goal is to manage/signal my own status (e.g., showing off how smart or well-informed or compliant-to-norms or contrarian I am) I’m less clear what I endorse. At a minimum, I endorse being clear in my own head that this is my goal, even if I don’t admit it out loud.
Yeah, sometimes that’s true. Sometimes it’s very false. I have waffled about this a fair bit over the years and concluded somewhat-more-than-tentatively that on balance knowing I’m engaging in status-management makes me more effective at status-management than not knowing. But I don’t claim that’s universal.
If nothing else, being conscious of status-management helps you allocate effort. There are lots of communities in which you or I could become high status, but we don’t because we don’t care about those communities.
Any activity that enhances one’s status in those communities is worthless (unless the activity also has other benefits that one does desire).
If I come up with $flaw in $argument, how I endorse presenting $flaw depends on my goal.
If my goal is to learn more about $argument, I endorse asking a question which prompts others to provide me the information I want. (E.g., “How does $argument address $flaw?”) I also endorse doing this if I think others might benefit from that information, even if I won’t.
If my goal is to expose weaknesses in $argument for the benefit of others, I endorse asserting that $flaw is a flaw in $argument. I am of course aware that there exists a social pattern whereby in this case people ask a question instead, either to more effectively stage a social attack or to do so with impunity (aka “rhetorical question”). I increasingly reject this pattern, and endorse consistently using question-syntax to request information and statement-syntax to make assertions, in the spirit of clear communication. That said, I do recognize that there are scenarios where making a successful social attack is more valuable than communicating clearly.
If my goal is to manage/signal my own status (e.g., showing off how smart or well-informed or compliant-to-norms or contrarian I am) I’m less clear what I endorse. At a minimum, I endorse being clear in my own head that this is my goal, even if I don’t admit it out loud.
This may make you less effective at showing off.
Yeah, sometimes that’s true. Sometimes it’s very false.
I have waffled about this a fair bit over the years and concluded somewhat-more-than-tentatively that on balance knowing I’m engaging in status-management makes me more effective at status-management than not knowing.
But I don’t claim that’s universal.
If nothing else, being conscious of status-management helps you allocate effort. There are lots of communities in which you or I could become high status, but we don’t because we don’t care about those communities.
Any activity that enhances one’s status in those communities is worthless (unless the activity also has other benefits that one does desire).