If you haven’t seen it before, I recommend checking out Basics of Rationalist Discourse and Twelve Virtues of Rationality. That isn’t me trying to say you didn’t need to write this since it already exists- I actually enjoy reading different people’s takes on what’s important in a rationalist discussion or practice. Thank you for the extra vantage point! Since it is a topic people have written on before and likely will again, it might be worth retitling this something like “SD’s Tenets of a Rational Debate” to make it easier to talk about.
Focus is an interesting addition I don’t think I’ve seen before in things like this. It has some appeal to me (I like efficiency) but I also enjoy meandering conversations sometimes. Do you have thoughts on when to be focused and when to let the conversation take its time?
The twelve virtues are already linked in the article, but I hadn’t come across the Basics of Rationalist Discourse yet. It is indeed very interesting and aligned with the objective of this essay. I very much intend to incorporate its content where applicable and give it credit (I will link it at the beginning of the post).
I wonder if the Basics of Rationalist Discourse doesn’t represent a more detailed and tactical view of the topic, as opposed to the more generic top-of-mind principles that this essay tried to cover. The former is a manual for controlling specific behaviours, the latter a memento of the general mindset to hold during a debate. Does this seem reasonable to you?
As per your question, I think my starting point of view was of a debate with a clear objective, a “primary question” that the group is trying to answer. If the purpose of the debate is entertainment, then there might be little cost in deviating from the main question (except probably frustrating some of the other participants). But if indeed there is value in the timeliness and accuracy of the question (e.g., in a business setting), then focus is probably applicable.
(As to whether exploring unrelated ideas can in fact improve the outcome of the debate—which is very plausible—that feels like an activity outside the confines of the debate and possibly better left for before the actual debate).
If you haven’t seen it before, I recommend checking out Basics of Rationalist Discourse and Twelve Virtues of Rationality. That isn’t me trying to say you didn’t need to write this since it already exists- I actually enjoy reading different people’s takes on what’s important in a rationalist discussion or practice. Thank you for the extra vantage point! Since it is a topic people have written on before and likely will again, it might be worth retitling this something like “SD’s Tenets of a Rational Debate” to make it easier to talk about.
Focus is an interesting addition I don’t think I’ve seen before in things like this. It has some appeal to me (I like efficiency) but I also enjoy meandering conversations sometimes. Do you have thoughts on when to be focused and when to let the conversation take its time?
Thanks for the feedback :)
The twelve virtues are already linked in the article, but I hadn’t come across the Basics of Rationalist Discourse yet. It is indeed very interesting and aligned with the objective of this essay. I very much intend to incorporate its content where applicable and give it credit (I will link it at the beginning of the post).
I wonder if the Basics of Rationalist Discourse doesn’t represent a more detailed and tactical view of the topic, as opposed to the more generic top-of-mind principles that this essay tried to cover. The former is a manual for controlling specific behaviours, the latter a memento of the general mindset to hold during a debate. Does this seem reasonable to you?
As per your question, I think my starting point of view was of a debate with a clear objective, a “primary question” that the group is trying to answer. If the purpose of the debate is entertainment, then there might be little cost in deviating from the main question (except probably frustrating some of the other participants). But if indeed there is value in the timeliness and accuracy of the question (e.g., in a business setting), then focus is probably applicable.
(As to whether exploring unrelated ideas can in fact improve the outcome of the debate—which is very plausible—that feels like an activity outside the confines of the debate and possibly better left for before the actual debate).