Analysis disconnected from values sounds rather pointless to me.
Analysis that is connected to values doesn’t have to mean embedding the values in the analysis. Pick a policy. Talk, in neutral terms, about what you think it will do. Then express how you feel about those impacts. Then the progressive you’re talking with can say “oh, I don’t care about that impact at all” or “I certainly care about that impact but disagree that the policy does it.” You can’t have conversations about terminal values. You can have them about policies which is why you have to take terminal values out of your conversations about policies.
If I don’t clearly communicate my values, how is a Progressive supposed to come up with an argument to satisfy them?
Right, so clearly express those values. But don’t attach the values to progressive policies. If it is the policies themselves that you loathe, how is a progressive supposed to argue for them?
Further, having to self censor information flow does not make the conversation easier for me. In fact, it doesn’t make it easier on anyone. It’s a cost, an impediment, a friction in the exchange in information.
I think this is probably wrong for (most) humans. We’re immediately distracted by status signals and emotions. Once the conversation is about that that is all it’s about.
Why should I have to pay that cost, if I’m not requiring it in others? Two people playing by Crocker’s rules can get things done.
Most people can’t play by Crocker’s rules. I’m not even sure the people who say they play by Crocker’s rules do all that well.
I’ve had this discussion before on LW. It’s admittedly a trade off, and one that varies by personality.
Fair enough.
But in the case of radically opposed political views, demanding that one side refuse to fully communicate their position strikes me as a non starter.
To be clear: if you had said “I loathe libertarian policies” I would have made the same objection. Both sides ought to lower the stakes.
IMO, one of the problems with those on my side of the argument is that they don’t question the moral premises of Progressivism. Another problem is that Progressives do their best not to hear them. One of the immunizing strategies of the majority is refusing to talk to the Devil.
This is interesting and I would be interested in hearing you expand on them. Part of why your language seems unnecessary to me is that I’m somewhere between a libertarian and a Progressive and I don’t see any differences in values so much as I see Progressives not understanding how incentives work.
You can’t have conversations about terminal values.
Sure you can. You can explain yours to the other guy, and likely discover something about them yourself in the process.
I agree about the possibility of discussing the likely outcomes of a policy divorced from the valuation of the policy. But the valuation provides both the motivation for the discussion and the punchline to it.
If it is the policies themselves that you loathe, how is a progressive supposed to argue for them?
He argues by showing me how I am mistaken or not fully aware of things entailed by the policy that I would value positively.
Once the conversation is about that that is all it’s about.
I suppose for some people. But since I think the valuations are an important part of the conversation, if those people can’t do valuations and objective analysis, they won’t be very fruitful partners in the discussion.
Both sides ought to lower the stakes.
Nope. Both sides should be as clear as they can about what the stakes are. I think that’s what’s missing. Here are my values. Here’s why I loathe your policies. Once put on the table, I think there is some hope of setting aside for moments and doing the objective analysis. But until honestly confronted, I’d expect the “objective” discussion to be polluted by both attempts to insert them, and interpretations on the look out for them.
I don’t see any differences in values
There aren’t, necessarily. But I think statistically, there are.
I see Progressives not understanding how incentives work.
I don’t think they care to understand. It’s not rocket science. They are motivated by something other than achieving outcomes. Some people want to do something. Some people want to be something. I think they tend toward the latter.
Analysis that is connected to values doesn’t have to mean embedding the values in the analysis. Pick a policy. Talk, in neutral terms, about what you think it will do. Then express how you feel about those impacts. Then the progressive you’re talking with can say “oh, I don’t care about that impact at all” or “I certainly care about that impact but disagree that the policy does it.” You can’t have conversations about terminal values. You can have them about policies which is why you have to take terminal values out of your conversations about policies.
Right, so clearly express those values. But don’t attach the values to progressive policies. If it is the policies themselves that you loathe, how is a progressive supposed to argue for them?
I think this is probably wrong for (most) humans. We’re immediately distracted by status signals and emotions. Once the conversation is about that that is all it’s about.
Most people can’t play by Crocker’s rules. I’m not even sure the people who say they play by Crocker’s rules do all that well.
Fair enough.
To be clear: if you had said “I loathe libertarian policies” I would have made the same objection. Both sides ought to lower the stakes.
This is interesting and I would be interested in hearing you expand on them. Part of why your language seems unnecessary to me is that I’m somewhere between a libertarian and a Progressive and I don’t see any differences in values so much as I see Progressives not understanding how incentives work.
Sure you can. You can explain yours to the other guy, and likely discover something about them yourself in the process.
I agree about the possibility of discussing the likely outcomes of a policy divorced from the valuation of the policy. But the valuation provides both the motivation for the discussion and the punchline to it.
He argues by showing me how I am mistaken or not fully aware of things entailed by the policy that I would value positively.
I suppose for some people. But since I think the valuations are an important part of the conversation, if those people can’t do valuations and objective analysis, they won’t be very fruitful partners in the discussion.
Nope. Both sides should be as clear as they can about what the stakes are. I think that’s what’s missing. Here are my values. Here’s why I loathe your policies. Once put on the table, I think there is some hope of setting aside for moments and doing the objective analysis. But until honestly confronted, I’d expect the “objective” discussion to be polluted by both attempts to insert them, and interpretations on the look out for them.
There aren’t, necessarily. But I think statistically, there are.
I don’t think they care to understand. It’s not rocket science. They are motivated by something other than achieving outcomes. Some people want to do something. Some people want to be something. I think they tend toward the latter.