‘if people’s souls go to other dimensions when they die, Grandma could be communicating with you right now from another dimension by tapping spoons.’
I would reply along the lines of “Wow, what a tantalizing possibility, I wonder how a scientist would go about testing it”, and try to move the conversation toward the scientific method. I doubt that would have counted as a criticism.
I have a friend who frequently cuts into a conversation with the phrase: “you’re right, but...” and then tells you why you’re oh so very wrong. His body language admits no sarcasm (how he does this, I don’t know) while he says it. In fact, I think I’m the only one of our mutual friends who has noticed his frequent use of this trick.
I’ve seen that subtle rhetorical technique used in person, as well; once I caught what the guy was doing—which is harder than it sounds, since it was done eerily well—I could only stand grinning & nodding in stunned amazement. The gentlemen he HAD been arguing with—who WAS wrong, let me be totally clear—was also grinning and nodding, so at least I wasn’t out of place.
Then I watched the two of them pick apart the original assertion for about ten straight minutes, like they were the best of friends.
It was the verbal equivalent of something beyond mere psychological judo—it was logical wire-fu. It was like watching Jet Li fight eight guys at once, starting with flinging the first guy THROUGH two other dudes.
No, more than that: it was watching Jet Li take an opponent’s weapon, kick it in half and hand it back to him, and then observing the guy join Jet Li’s fan-club.
Goodness—I’m sorry, I completely missed this reply to my post! My sincerest apologies for not responding more quickly; I am a goober.
As to the specific incident: it was during a very interesting discussion, which was moving rapidly toward becoming a very uninteresting argument, and then possibly into a REALLY interesting fist-fight. You know the drill—young men, all in the process of earning their various Master’s Degrees in unrelated fields, encamped around alcohol, talking politics, getting heated, voices rising.
It had to do with racism. And the original intent of the framers of the Constitution, and how laws are changed. So this may not be the very best possible place for me to post all of this; please ignore or skip this note if it please you.
To set the stage: the question was put forth as to who, present at the time, had voted for Obama in 2008 - which was, in the majority opinion, a useless tangent away from the much more stimulating, ongoing discussion as to what Obama had and had not accomplished during his first term, what he might have accomplished given different political circumstances, whether those specific political circumstances (read as: rise of the Tea Party) were a foregone result of his election, what the President might or might not hope to accomplish if re-elected, the likelihood of such a reelection, and if we could reasonably expect the aforementioned political circumstances to change significantly during a theoretical Obama second-term.
We were moving toward analysis of voter apathy, I think, and the idea of an “energized block,” and some talk about the odds of various scenarios. Things were getting heated. Body language was getting authoritative—fingers pointed, heads cocked, stare-downs, chests puffed out. Alpha-male posturing among intellectuals with political-science, law and philosophy backgrounds.
So the general consensus at the raising of this question (that is, who present had voted for him the last time) was a groan—this was in Illinois, in a college town, among young academics, educators & professional writers. OF COURSE, we all assumed, everyone present had voted for Obama. Whether we might choose to vote for him again, and why, and how excited we were to cast our particular vote in 2012, and what we might hope to gain from it, was a much more valuable topic of conversation. And clearly, the gentleman who raised the question meant to use this as a sort of unifier: “Okay, we obviously all voted for him last time,” he meant to suggest, “so what’s changed?”
But then one dude, a guy named … uh, we’ll call him “Mike” … well, he went and said that he had voted for McCain.
After a moment to recalibrate ourselves, everyone present stopped to reassure everyone else of their total respect for Senator John McCain—no one there personally disliked or distrusted the man. No one here condemned McCain, no one hated him, no one thought he was a monster or a fraud or The Devil or anything like that. War hero, public servant, frequent guest on ‘The Daily Show’ - we hadn’t voted for him, certainly, but that didn’t mean we didn’t LIKE him.
We just liked Obama better. Wanted him in office more than McCain. Wanted to vote for the first black president. Really got into the whole “Hope” thing. Didn’t really dig on his choice of running mate, Governor Palin … not that ANYONE there didn’t respect her as a strong, capable, independent, 21st-century woman. We just didn’t care for her specific policies.
But hell … look, half the people in the room had met Obama—gone to a speech, shaken his hand, even worked for his campaign, going all the way back in 2004 when he was running for Senate. We wore the t-shirts, got out the vote, and threw a party during the inauguration. Some of us literally danced in the streets.
So it was a little unfathomable that someone in our peer-group had voted for McCain, of all people.
Finally, someone finally asked Mike the million-dollar question: “Why?”
There were a million answers that everyone present would have accepted, if not agreed with. A good example would be: “I’m from Arizona, I’ve met McCain; he’s a good man. And, well, since Illinois was going to swing for Obama anyway, no matter what I did, I voted my heart.”
His answer was … different than that.
Mike said, and I quote as best I’m able: “The founding fathers never intended a black man to be president. It’s in the constitution that it’s illegal.”
That seemed strange, coming from a man with a master’s degree. Which I would like to note, Mike HAS.
When it was noted that the Constitution does not specifically prevent a black man from being president, Mike rebutted that it didn’t really NEED to be spelled out—the founding fathers pretty obviously never intended a black man to be president. When asked to clarify, Mike explained that he could not vote for a black because it was morally wrong.
There was very nearly a scuffle.
But rather than see if anyone was able to knock Mike out, which at least one person there was willing to try, a friend attempted a different tactic.
He said, very simply, “You’re right, but …”—and the rest was history.
Rather than lecture Mike on why he was wrong—and I tend to believe that he was—my buddy was able to get Mike to explain his own cognitive error to HIM. By the end, not only was Mike able to explain to others why the original intent of a group of slave-owners was not infallible, but he was able to see how his view might have been construed as racist. He was even able to make a point about how interpreting both language AND intent are important, and that cultural mores change—often for the better.
And we also cleared up Mike’s misconception that Lincoln had several illegitimate black children.
Crazy idea. Maybe Mike was likley to agree with any line of reasoning, true or false, simply because he found himself in a situation where his opinion was utterly out of sync with that of his peer group.
I don’t know why but I can imagine the exact same situation 200 years earlier where Mikey was the only one in the group who voted for that snake Lincoln and after some rational thought realized his reasons where wrong and we had a happy evening discussing whether the union will hold rather than calling him a traitor.
“Meet people where they are” is a principle I’ve heard mentioned a few times. I wonder if this specific case is “Find something true that the other person believes, and build from there”.
I think the difference between a McCain term and an Obama term have as much impact on my life as which team wins the super-bowl. For the exact same reason.
“Meet people where they are” is a principle I’ve heard mentioned a few times. I wonder if this specific case is “Find something true that the other person believes, and build from there”.
Well, instead of saying “You’re wrong” or “I disagree,” I’ve been saying “You’re right, but,” introduce my objection as an edge case, and then try to generalize it. It really is as simple as that.
This seems to work way better in terms of convincing people of things because the other person remains in “cooperation mode” throughout, and instead of thinking of objections to my points they start thinking of ways to build on what I just said.
My intuitions indicate that as soon as someone hears another person say “you’re wrong” or “I disagree” to them, the verbal combat heuristics load up and they enter full-on motivated cognition mode. This trick dodges that response.
I don’t endorse telling people they are right when I don’t believe they are right. But there are lots of possibilities in between “You’re wrong” and “You’re right.”
For example, wedrifid recently disagreed with something I said. He neither told me I was wrong nor told me I was right; he told me that he couldn’t think of any examples of something I’d described as common. This puts the ball back in my court: if I want to dig up examples, I can (and perhaps discover that I’m wrong); if not, we can leave it there.
I don’t endorse telling people they are right when I don’t believe they are right. But there are lots of possibilities in between “You’re wrong” and “You’re right.”
You’re certainly correct there, but I would consider saying “You’re right, but” (rather than just “you’re right”) to be one of those possibilities.
You’re certainly correct there, but I would consider saying “You’re right, but” (rather than just “you’re right”) to be one of those possibilities.
Unfortunately the word ‘but’ can prompt almost as much defensiveness as ‘you’re wrong’. Replacing “but” with “and” even when it makes no sense to do so is decent social (and persusive) advice all on its own.
I suspect that the practice of using “X, but Y” when the underlying thought is (not X and Y) has contributed to this unfortunate state of affairs by training people to understand “but” as negating whatever preceded it.
I expect “X, and Y” to suffer the same fate if it becomes popular… if people use it when they mean (not X and Y), then their audiences will eventually respond as though it means (not X and Y).
Of course, at that point they can switch to using “that said” or “and also” or “further” or “plus” or other phrases they haven’t yet altered the meaning of.
A lot of this is conveyed via tone and nonverbals. There’s a difference between the conventional rushed/confrontational “You’re right, but” and what I’ve been doing, which is more like (Dark Arts ahead!):
“Good point, I think you’re likely right.” (thoughtful tone)
(look up and to the left, furrow brow)
“Hmm.” (vaguely surprised/”that’s curious” tone, tilt head to the side, signal surprise via facial microexpression cues)
“I think that might also apply in some cases here. I can see situations where would occur—for instance, imagine if happened. In that case I think that model might explain what’s happening here.” (speaking slowly at first, with indecisive body language, then nodding and speaking quicker and more clearly)
“Yeah, that’s right. Now that I think about it that definitely seems like that’s what’s going on here.” (confident/assertive)
When this works correctly, the person essentially tricks themselves into thinking that they came up with/helped develop the idea that I was trying to convince them of, which also has the useful secondary effect of making them a stauncher defender of this belief once they convert.
Note that this is dependent on situational factors and also (obviously) a Dark Arts type technique. Use sparingly.
Cool stuff. Got any tips for improving it? I sort of lucked into this schema and have only been using it for two days or so, so I’m sure there are ways I could refine my techniques. :)
What you have is excellent. I was going to post a brief reply with a few pointers, but I am very bad at limiting myself to something that simple. What ended up happening was that I wrote a ~1000 word guide to the Dark Arts, which is a bit long for a comment.
It’s not one I endorse using when what someone has said isn’t right. To the extent that “X, but Y” is understood to mean (not-X and Y) it’s a broken form of communication; to the extent that “X, but Y” is understood to mean (X and Y) it’s false when X is false; to the extent that “X, but Y” is understood to mean (Y and (X or not X)) it is strictly worse than “Y”.
Then again, I once got the feedback at a meeting that I was the only person the speaker knew who could say “Everything you just said is absolutely correct” in a way that left completely unambiguous the implicit ”...and you’re a moron,” so there may well be a huge gap here between what I endorse and my practice. In my defense, though, everything the speaker had just said was absolutely correct. (It was also entirely irrelevant to the thing I’d been talking about.)
Other strategies that work well: “That’s a good point, I think that [x, y] are true...but I think that [w, z] might also be true...” Basically, focus on the part of their argument that was valid, praise them for it, and then make a point of your own, without necessarily saying directly that your argument invalidates part of their argument.
This may be unpopular, but this sets of my “Dark Arts” detector something fierce. It’s always seemed to me that the respect I owe to my opponent in a debate obligates me to at least say, when I think it’s the case, “You’re wrong. You’re an idiot. Think again.”
This may be unpopular, but this sets of my “Dark Arts” detector something fierce.
It is pure Dark Arts… but that doesn’t necessary mean it is a bad thing. Just that is normal social behavior.
For my part I do tend to notice this move and cooperation mode gets shut down far more completely than if they simply disagree. But that doesn’t mean I’ll come out and tell them that I’ve stopped cooperation or even act less cooperative. The mode being shut down is ‘cooperation with an intellectual peer’. They have taken the role of persuader with some sort of social agenda. There are all sorts of ways to handle that sort of situation and relatively few involve giving them free access to any more honest expressions of your own beliefs. Pretending to go along with them and so giving them no target to ‘persuade’ against is probably a better default.
It’s always seemed to me that the respect I owe to my opponent in a debate obligates me to at least say, when I think it’s the case, “You’re wrong. You’re an idiot. Think again.”
I like the way you have framed that. You describe direct blunt disagreement as something you are giving the opponent out of (a certain kind of) respect. This allows for far more freedom when dealing with people who (at that particular instant) do not warrant that kind of respect.
I like the way you have framed that. You describe direct blunt disagreement as something you are giving the opponent out of (a certain kind of) respect.
Well. yeah. It is strange. A great many people think you show respect by patting someone else on the head and saying “great idea, but...” I think that’s the height of condescension and disrespect.
This kind of attitude is common among my friends who are more technical, but it can really damage communications with most people. “You’re an idiot” doesn’t just communicate “you’re wrong” it says that you lack the ability to think at all, so all of your conclusions, whether related to this subject at all, are worthless. A good friend might take that in the way you intend, but there’s no reason anyone else should.
What is being called a Dark Art is something that Hermione would use; something that shows that you care about the other person’s feelings, that you want to avoid causing pain where you can. It’s a kindness. Sure, most of us can handle rough sports like intellectual boxing when we know what we’re getting into, but most people aren’t expecting to be sparring in a conversation.
This kind of attitude is common among my friends who are more technical, but it can really damage communications with most people.
You seem to have misread what I said. In fact you have it approximately backwards. The opening of”but that doesn’t necessary mean it is a bad thing. Just that is normal social behavior.” makes it rather clear that the disagreement you present here is not with me.
I think you may be right. I’m used to arguments as just-short-of-bar-fights, so my perception here might be a bit warped. I’ve said most of what I want to say in my reply to katydee, and it may just be the case that I value telling morons what I think of them (and I rely on morons to tell me what they think of me) more than you do.
I agree with you, and I would certainly never use this technique with someone who is operating under Crocker’s Rules. By the same token, though, I expect people using those rules to have the discipline required to not shift into motivated cognition mode if I tell them they’re wrong, operating under a bad paradigm, etc.
I basically consider this technique to be “advanced politeness—” while it obscures my true meaning at first, it seems to ultimately help that meaning take hold in conversations with people who are inclined to become combative or argumentative at perceived insults (which is really most people).
That being said, I haven’t exactly tested this for a long period of time, so it’s possible that I’ve just lucked out thus far or that there are hidden downsides to this that aren’t immediately apparent. I’ll keep y’all posted and maybe turn this into a top-level post in a bit.
I basically consider this technique to be “advanced politeness—” while it obscures my true meaning at first, it seems to ultimately help that meaning take hold in conversations with people who are inclined to become combative or argumentative at perceived insults (which is really most people).
I absolutely agree with this—being one of those people who “are inclined to become combative or argumentative at perceived insults” myself (by chance, I suppose, I have spent most of my time when debating, debating in the bar-fighter way, rather than as part of a true dialectic). Part of what governs my conduct is having nurtured my image as “that guy who will damn-well tell you what he thinks of you, whether or not it makes you cry” IRL, for several years. I think it probably really is the case that, by being polite and kind, you’re more likely to change other peoples’ minds. However, I’m wary that a certain kind of honesty may be undervalued here—if I thought that someone thought I’m an idiot, and they weren’t telling me, but instead being nice in order to change my mind, I would be livid. I would hunt you down, and I would make you weep, and then I would make your parents weep for what became of their child. I would not be happy at all. Advancing that same respect to the idiots I disagree with is really important to me—whether or not it is the most effective method of changing their minds.
You’re right, but occasionally you’ll find yourself debating with someone who sees all opposing arguments as soldiers to be killed. If making her see the truth is more important for you than abiding by the laws and customs of war, dressing as the enemy is definitely a useful trick.
If making her see the truth is more important for you than abiding by the laws and customs of war, dressing as the enemy is definitely a useful trick.
I think you’re basically right—I’m just not sure that I do consider that more important for certain values of “the laws and customs of war”. I’ve certainly been in arguments like this, and not least because I’m perhaps a prime example of someone “who sees all opposing arguments as soldiers to be killed”—something I’m trying to fix.
Immediate approximation of how I’d do it (warning: Dark Arts ahead):
“You may be right—I myself have certainly felt like I’ve been being watched over by dead relatives before. But one thing that I realized is that this effect might not actually be supernatural.
The human mind and memory are powerful things. It could simply be that I was so close to my dead grandmother (may she rest in peace) that, in times of peril, my brain subconsciously looks to her memory for advice, since I remember so many times that she had good advice for me in the past.
In this way, I think it’s possible that in some way our dead relatives really do live on with us, even though it’s not really them speaking with us, but merely our memories of them.”
I haven’t tested this yet but I’m moderately confident that it would work, though part of that is of course in the presentation. There may also be a better way—I haven’t thought about this for five minutes yet—but if I had to have that conversation right now that’s the line I would take.
Comes off as transparent and condescending to me. I’m sure I can tell the difference between my dead grandmother signalling me with spoons and my own memories, thank you very much.
Trying it in the world definitely deserves some karma. I’ll take this as a reminder to stay alert for situations when it’s useful and practice it diligently.
I’ve gotten into the habit of saying “I agree, [insert restatement or consequence of person’s position that makes it clear how absurd it is].” Tends to make people laugh, as I’m clearly being sarcastic but in a pretty friendly way. Could be a way to get the benefits of this technique without being so dark artsy.
I’ve gotten into the habit of saying “I agree, [insert restatement or consequence of person’s position that makes it clear how absurd it is].” Tends to make people laugh, as I’m clearly being sarcastic but in a pretty friendly way. Could be a way to get the benefits of this technique without being so dark artsy.
That’s not the technique. Sarcasm is on the complete opposite end of the spectrum than this technique.
It works for me with the right voice and body language. I don’t say it like I’m an opponent who disagrees, I say it like an analyst who is fairly uncertain, thinks the issue is complex and is still weighing possibilities. It probably wouldn’t work especially well with someone who is a real ideologue.
I’ve done this once or twice. It is always taken as criticism by the original speaker, but with good enough presentation you could probably manage to sound to the larger audience like you weren’t being sarcastic.
Yeah, that’s unsurprising. People (or most people, including me a lot of the time) are quite sensitive about how their arguments and opinions are perceived by others. “Let’s go about testing this” doesn’t sound, to most people, like “wow, I’m being validated.”
Having never met the man, my mental image is basically HJPEV. I imagine him swapping Hufflepuff into the driver’s seat, and directing most of his actual concentration to telling Ravenclaw to cram it.
I watched the video up until the toy problem with blue circles and red diamonds, then paused it, got out a piece of paper, and worked through the problem using Bayes’ theorem. So proud of myself right now...
When given a Pascal’s Wager, you frequently get more information when you answer with a Pascal’s Wager in the opposite direction.
“Wow, that’s amazing. But how could you know the difference between Grandma sending you hugs and kisses, and Azathoth attempting to turn you into a blood-monger to force you to go on a killing spree? I mean, his soul is a googleplex to the googleplex more powerful, so shouldn’t it be more likely he’d get to you first across the dimensions?”
You at least get them to admit their priors as to why a particular wager was raised to their attention. Then they give you reasons that they find acceptable to dismiss a Pascal’s Wager. Those same reasons tend to work on their wager as well, since you built your wager to be logically symmetric to theirs.
“Wow, I’m not sure I could tell from listening to tapping spoons whether they were the ghost of my grandmother or just some random haunting, maybe an ancient murder victim’s ghost. How could I tell the difference?”
I would reply along the lines of “Wow, what a tantalizing possibility, I wonder how a scientist would go about testing it”, and try to move the conversation toward the scientific method. I doubt that would have counted as a criticism.
I have a friend who frequently cuts into a conversation with the phrase: “you’re right, but...” and then tells you why you’re oh so very wrong. His body language admits no sarcasm (how he does this, I don’t know) while he says it. In fact, I think I’m the only one of our mutual friends who has noticed his frequent use of this trick.
But it works a lot!
I’ve seen that subtle rhetorical technique used in person, as well; once I caught what the guy was doing—which is harder than it sounds, since it was done eerily well—I could only stand grinning & nodding in stunned amazement. The gentlemen he HAD been arguing with—who WAS wrong, let me be totally clear—was also grinning and nodding, so at least I wasn’t out of place.
Then I watched the two of them pick apart the original assertion for about ten straight minutes, like they were the best of friends.
It was the verbal equivalent of something beyond mere psychological judo—it was logical wire-fu. It was like watching Jet Li fight eight guys at once, starting with flinging the first guy THROUGH two other dudes.
No, more than that: it was watching Jet Li take an opponent’s weapon, kick it in half and hand it back to him, and then observing the guy join Jet Li’s fan-club.
Truly the Voldemort of the Dark Arts.
What was the subject of their argument?
Goodness—I’m sorry, I completely missed this reply to my post! My sincerest apologies for not responding more quickly; I am a goober.
As to the specific incident: it was during a very interesting discussion, which was moving rapidly toward becoming a very uninteresting argument, and then possibly into a REALLY interesting fist-fight. You know the drill—young men, all in the process of earning their various Master’s Degrees in unrelated fields, encamped around alcohol, talking politics, getting heated, voices rising.
It had to do with racism. And the original intent of the framers of the Constitution, and how laws are changed. So this may not be the very best possible place for me to post all of this; please ignore or skip this note if it please you.
To set the stage: the question was put forth as to who, present at the time, had voted for Obama in 2008 - which was, in the majority opinion, a useless tangent away from the much more stimulating, ongoing discussion as to what Obama had and had not accomplished during his first term, what he might have accomplished given different political circumstances, whether those specific political circumstances (read as: rise of the Tea Party) were a foregone result of his election, what the President might or might not hope to accomplish if re-elected, the likelihood of such a reelection, and if we could reasonably expect the aforementioned political circumstances to change significantly during a theoretical Obama second-term.
We were moving toward analysis of voter apathy, I think, and the idea of an “energized block,” and some talk about the odds of various scenarios. Things were getting heated. Body language was getting authoritative—fingers pointed, heads cocked, stare-downs, chests puffed out. Alpha-male posturing among intellectuals with political-science, law and philosophy backgrounds.
So the general consensus at the raising of this question (that is, who present had voted for him the last time) was a groan—this was in Illinois, in a college town, among young academics, educators & professional writers. OF COURSE, we all assumed, everyone present had voted for Obama. Whether we might choose to vote for him again, and why, and how excited we were to cast our particular vote in 2012, and what we might hope to gain from it, was a much more valuable topic of conversation. And clearly, the gentleman who raised the question meant to use this as a sort of unifier: “Okay, we obviously all voted for him last time,” he meant to suggest, “so what’s changed?”
But then one dude, a guy named … uh, we’ll call him “Mike” … well, he went and said that he had voted for McCain.
After a moment to recalibrate ourselves, everyone present stopped to reassure everyone else of their total respect for Senator John McCain—no one there personally disliked or distrusted the man. No one here condemned McCain, no one hated him, no one thought he was a monster or a fraud or The Devil or anything like that. War hero, public servant, frequent guest on ‘The Daily Show’ - we hadn’t voted for him, certainly, but that didn’t mean we didn’t LIKE him.
We just liked Obama better. Wanted him in office more than McCain. Wanted to vote for the first black president. Really got into the whole “Hope” thing. Didn’t really dig on his choice of running mate, Governor Palin … not that ANYONE there didn’t respect her as a strong, capable, independent, 21st-century woman. We just didn’t care for her specific policies.
But hell … look, half the people in the room had met Obama—gone to a speech, shaken his hand, even worked for his campaign, going all the way back in 2004 when he was running for Senate. We wore the t-shirts, got out the vote, and threw a party during the inauguration. Some of us literally danced in the streets.
So it was a little unfathomable that someone in our peer-group had voted for McCain, of all people.
Finally, someone finally asked Mike the million-dollar question: “Why?”
There were a million answers that everyone present would have accepted, if not agreed with. A good example would be: “I’m from Arizona, I’ve met McCain; he’s a good man. And, well, since Illinois was going to swing for Obama anyway, no matter what I did, I voted my heart.”
His answer was … different than that.
Mike said, and I quote as best I’m able: “The founding fathers never intended a black man to be president. It’s in the constitution that it’s illegal.”
That seemed strange, coming from a man with a master’s degree. Which I would like to note, Mike HAS.
When it was noted that the Constitution does not specifically prevent a black man from being president, Mike rebutted that it didn’t really NEED to be spelled out—the founding fathers pretty obviously never intended a black man to be president. When asked to clarify, Mike explained that he could not vote for a black because it was morally wrong.
There was very nearly a scuffle.
But rather than see if anyone was able to knock Mike out, which at least one person there was willing to try, a friend attempted a different tactic.
He said, very simply, “You’re right, but …”—and the rest was history.
Rather than lecture Mike on why he was wrong—and I tend to believe that he was—my buddy was able to get Mike to explain his own cognitive error to HIM. By the end, not only was Mike able to explain to others why the original intent of a group of slave-owners was not infallible, but he was able to see how his view might have been construed as racist. He was even able to make a point about how interpreting both language AND intent are important, and that cultural mores change—often for the better.
And we also cleared up Mike’s misconception that Lincoln had several illegitimate black children.
It was miraculous.
NOTE: yes, Mike has a Master’s Degree.
Crazy idea. Maybe Mike was likley to agree with any line of reasoning, true or false, simply because he found himself in a situation where his opinion was utterly out of sync with that of his peer group.
I don’t know why but I can imagine the exact same situation 200 years earlier where Mikey was the only one in the group who voted for that snake Lincoln and after some rational thought realized his reasons where wrong and we had a happy evening discussing whether the union will hold rather than calling him a traitor.
“Meet people where they are” is a principle I’ve heard mentioned a few times. I wonder if this specific case is “Find something true that the other person believes, and build from there”.
I think the difference between a McCain term and an Obama term have as much impact on my life as which team wins the super-bowl. For the exact same reason.
“Meet people where they are” is a principle I’ve heard mentioned a few times. I wonder if this specific case is “Find something true that the other person believes, and build from there”.
Wow. I’ve been testing this technique out today, and it’s been working like magic. Instant level up.
details? I can’t even see how you got enough from that post to test.
Well, instead of saying “You’re wrong” or “I disagree,” I’ve been saying “You’re right, but,” introduce my objection as an edge case, and then try to generalize it. It really is as simple as that.
This seems to work way better in terms of convincing people of things because the other person remains in “cooperation mode” throughout, and instead of thinking of objections to my points they start thinking of ways to build on what I just said.
My intuitions indicate that as soon as someone hears another person say “you’re wrong” or “I disagree” to them, the verbal combat heuristics load up and they enter full-on motivated cognition mode. This trick dodges that response.
I don’t endorse telling people they are right when I don’t believe they are right. But there are lots of possibilities in between “You’re wrong” and “You’re right.”
For example, wedrifid recently disagreed with something I said. He neither told me I was wrong nor told me I was right; he told me that he couldn’t think of any examples of something I’d described as common. This puts the ball back in my court: if I want to dig up examples, I can (and perhaps discover that I’m wrong); if not, we can leave it there.
You’re certainly correct there, but I would consider saying “You’re right, but” (rather than just “you’re right”) to be one of those possibilities.
Unfortunately the word ‘but’ can prompt almost as much defensiveness as ‘you’re wrong’. Replacing “but” with “and” even when it makes no sense to do so is decent social (and persusive) advice all on its own.
Absolutely true, on both counts.
I suspect that the practice of using “X, but Y” when the underlying thought is (not X and Y) has contributed to this unfortunate state of affairs by training people to understand “but” as negating whatever preceded it.
I expect “X, and Y” to suffer the same fate if it becomes popular… if people use it when they mean (not X and Y), then their audiences will eventually respond as though it means (not X and Y).
Of course, at that point they can switch to using “that said” or “and also” or “further” or “plus” or other phrases they haven’t yet altered the meaning of.
A lot of this is conveyed via tone and nonverbals. There’s a difference between the conventional rushed/confrontational “You’re right, but” and what I’ve been doing, which is more like (Dark Arts ahead!):
“Good point, I think you’re likely right.” (thoughtful tone)
(look up and to the left, furrow brow)
“Hmm.” (vaguely surprised/”that’s curious” tone, tilt head to the side, signal surprise via facial microexpression cues)
“I think that might also apply in some cases here. I can see situations where would occur—for instance, imagine if happened. In that case I think that model might explain what’s happening here.” (speaking slowly at first, with indecisive body language, then nodding and speaking quicker and more clearly)
“Yeah, that’s right. Now that I think about it that definitely seems like that’s what’s going on here.” (confident/assertive)
When this works correctly, the person essentially tricks themselves into thinking that they came up with/helped develop the idea that I was trying to convince them of, which also has the useful secondary effect of making them a stauncher defender of this belief once they convert.
Note that this is dependent on situational factors and also (obviously) a Dark Arts type technique. Use sparingly.
I use pretty much this technique, though I was not really conscious of it until you mentioned it.
Cool stuff. Got any tips for improving it? I sort of lucked into this schema and have only been using it for two days or so, so I’m sure there are ways I could refine my techniques. :)
What you have is excellent. I was going to post a brief reply with a few pointers, but I am very bad at limiting myself to something that simple. What ended up happening was that I wrote a ~1000 word guide to the Dark Arts, which is a bit long for a comment.
“As you know,”/”You already know this, of course, but” <thing they’ve shown little sign of knowing but seem to have the prerequisites for>
(nods) Sure, separating the hook from the payload is another way of preventing people from noticing the connection.
It’s not one I endorse using when what someone has said isn’t right.
To the extent that “X, but Y” is understood to mean (not-X and Y) it’s a broken form of communication; to the extent that “X, but Y” is understood to mean (X and Y) it’s false when X is false; to the extent that “X, but Y” is understood to mean (Y and (X or not X)) it is strictly worse than “Y”.
Then again, I once got the feedback at a meeting that I was the only person the speaker knew who could say “Everything you just said is absolutely correct” in a way that left completely unambiguous the implicit ”...and you’re a moron,” so there may well be a huge gap here between what I endorse and my practice. In my defense, though, everything the speaker had just said was absolutely correct. (It was also entirely irrelevant to the thing I’d been talking about.)
Other strategies that work well: “That’s a good point, I think that [x, y] are true...but I think that [w, z] might also be true...” Basically, focus on the part of their argument that was valid, praise them for it, and then make a point of your own, without necessarily saying directly that your argument invalidates part of their argument.
This may be unpopular, but this sets of my “Dark Arts” detector something fierce. It’s always seemed to me that the respect I owe to my opponent in a debate obligates me to at least say, when I think it’s the case, “You’re wrong. You’re an idiot. Think again.”
It is pure Dark Arts… but that doesn’t necessary mean it is a bad thing. Just that is normal social behavior.
For my part I do tend to notice this move and cooperation mode gets shut down far more completely than if they simply disagree. But that doesn’t mean I’ll come out and tell them that I’ve stopped cooperation or even act less cooperative. The mode being shut down is ‘cooperation with an intellectual peer’. They have taken the role of persuader with some sort of social agenda. There are all sorts of ways to handle that sort of situation and relatively few involve giving them free access to any more honest expressions of your own beliefs. Pretending to go along with them and so giving them no target to ‘persuade’ against is probably a better default.
I like the way you have framed that. You describe direct blunt disagreement as something you are giving the opponent out of (a certain kind of) respect. This allows for far more freedom when dealing with people who (at that particular instant) do not warrant that kind of respect.
Well. yeah. It is strange. A great many people think you show respect by patting someone else on the head and saying “great idea, but...” I think that’s the height of condescension and disrespect.
This kind of attitude is common among my friends who are more technical, but it can really damage communications with most people. “You’re an idiot” doesn’t just communicate “you’re wrong” it says that you lack the ability to think at all, so all of your conclusions, whether related to this subject at all, are worthless. A good friend might take that in the way you intend, but there’s no reason anyone else should. What is being called a Dark Art is something that Hermione would use; something that shows that you care about the other person’s feelings, that you want to avoid causing pain where you can. It’s a kindness. Sure, most of us can handle rough sports like intellectual boxing when we know what we’re getting into, but most people aren’t expecting to be sparring in a conversation.
You seem to have misread what I said. In fact you have it approximately backwards. The opening of”but that doesn’t necessary mean it is a bad thing. Just that is normal social behavior.” makes it rather clear that the disagreement you present here is not with me.
I think you may be right. I’m used to arguments as just-short-of-bar-fights, so my perception here might be a bit warped. I’ve said most of what I want to say in my reply to katydee, and it may just be the case that I value telling morons what I think of them (and I rely on morons to tell me what they think of me) more than you do.
I am sure there are morons out there who would disagree!
Upvoted for, y’know, yes.
I agree with you, and I would certainly never use this technique with someone who is operating under Crocker’s Rules. By the same token, though, I expect people using those rules to have the discipline required to not shift into motivated cognition mode if I tell them they’re wrong, operating under a bad paradigm, etc.
I basically consider this technique to be “advanced politeness—” while it obscures my true meaning at first, it seems to ultimately help that meaning take hold in conversations with people who are inclined to become combative or argumentative at perceived insults (which is really most people).
That being said, I haven’t exactly tested this for a long period of time, so it’s possible that I’ve just lucked out thus far or that there are hidden downsides to this that aren’t immediately apparent. I’ll keep y’all posted and maybe turn this into a top-level post in a bit.
I absolutely agree with this—being one of those people who “are inclined to become combative or argumentative at perceived insults” myself (by chance, I suppose, I have spent most of my time when debating, debating in the bar-fighter way, rather than as part of a true dialectic). Part of what governs my conduct is having nurtured my image as “that guy who will damn-well tell you what he thinks of you, whether or not it makes you cry” IRL, for several years. I think it probably really is the case that, by being polite and kind, you’re more likely to change other peoples’ minds. However, I’m wary that a certain kind of honesty may be undervalued here—if I thought that someone thought I’m an idiot, and they weren’t telling me, but instead being nice in order to change my mind, I would be livid. I would hunt you down, and I would make you weep, and then I would make your parents weep for what became of their child. I would not be happy at all. Advancing that same respect to the idiots I disagree with is really important to me—whether or not it is the most effective method of changing their minds.
I see what you just did there!
You’re right, but occasionally you’ll find yourself debating with someone who sees all opposing arguments as soldiers to be killed. If making her see the truth is more important for you than abiding by the laws and customs of war, dressing as the enemy is definitely a useful trick.
I think you’re basically right—I’m just not sure that I do consider that more important for certain values of “the laws and customs of war”. I’ve certainly been in arguments like this, and not least because I’m perhaps a prime example of someone “who sees all opposing arguments as soldiers to be killed”—something I’m trying to fix.
That’s a neat little bit of psyops. I’ll have to think about it and maybe test it.
I’m not quite sure how you would go about executing it for something like “n-dimensional grandma is influencing my life from beyond the grave”.
Immediate approximation of how I’d do it (warning: Dark Arts ahead):
“You may be right—I myself have certainly felt like I’ve been being watched over by dead relatives before. But one thing that I realized is that this effect might not actually be supernatural.
The human mind and memory are powerful things. It could simply be that I was so close to my dead grandmother (may she rest in peace) that, in times of peril, my brain subconsciously looks to her memory for advice, since I remember so many times that she had good advice for me in the past.
In this way, I think it’s possible that in some way our dead relatives really do live on with us, even though it’s not really them speaking with us, but merely our memories of them.”
I haven’t tested this yet but I’m moderately confident that it would work, though part of that is of course in the presentation. There may also be a better way—I haven’t thought about this for five minutes yet—but if I had to have that conversation right now that’s the line I would take.
Comes off as transparent and condescending to me. I’m sure I can tell the difference between my dead grandmother signalling me with spoons and my own memories, thank you very much.
I (sadly) have enough experience with New Agers and the like that I’m pretty sure I can successfully make this work. What would you do differently?
Trying it in the world definitely deserves some karma. I’ll take this as a reminder to stay alert for situations when it’s useful and practice it diligently.
I’ve gotten into the habit of saying “I agree, [insert restatement or consequence of person’s position that makes it clear how absurd it is].” Tends to make people laugh, as I’m clearly being sarcastic but in a pretty friendly way. Could be a way to get the benefits of this technique without being so dark artsy.
That’s not the technique. Sarcasm is on the complete opposite end of the spectrum than this technique.
It works for me with the right voice and body language. I don’t say it like I’m an opponent who disagrees, I say it like an analyst who is fairly uncertain, thinks the issue is complex and is still weighing possibilities. It probably wouldn’t work especially well with someone who is a real ideologue.
Damnit, I could have tried that out earlier today. Noted for future reference.
I’ve done this once or twice. It is always taken as criticism by the original speaker, but with good enough presentation you could probably manage to sound to the larger audience like you weren’t being sarcastic.
Yeah, that’s unsurprising. People (or most people, including me a lot of the time) are quite sensitive about how their arguments and opinions are perceived by others. “Let’s go about testing this” doesn’t sound, to most people, like “wow, I’m being validated.”
I also have trouble imagining EY saying it with a straight face and in a non-threatening way.
Having never met the man, my mental image is basically HJPEV. I imagine him swapping Hufflepuff into the driver’s seat, and directing most of his actual concentration to telling Ravenclaw to cram it.
Here, have a better mental image.
But for Sanity’s sake don’t look at the comments. (Apparently Eliezer joined the ‘illluminaty’ when we weren’t looking.)
I watched the video up until the toy problem with blue circles and red diamonds, then paused it, got out a piece of paper, and worked through the problem using Bayes’ theorem. So proud of myself right now...
When given a Pascal’s Wager, you frequently get more information when you answer with a Pascal’s Wager in the opposite direction.
“Wow, that’s amazing. But how could you know the difference between Grandma sending you hugs and kisses, and Azathoth attempting to turn you into a blood-monger to force you to go on a killing spree? I mean, his soul is a googleplex to the googleplex more powerful, so shouldn’t it be more likely he’d get to you first across the dimensions?”
You at least get them to admit their priors as to why a particular wager was raised to their attention. Then they give you reasons that they find acceptable to dismiss a Pascal’s Wager. Those same reasons tend to work on their wager as well, since you built your wager to be logically symmetric to theirs.
While a good idea in general, I find it even harder to frame in a non-criticizing way. “You compared my dear granny to what???”
“Wow, I’m not sure I could tell from listening to tapping spoons whether they were the ghost of my grandmother or just some random haunting, maybe an ancient murder victim’s ghost. How could I tell the difference?”