= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
AdeleneDawner comments on Logical Rudeness - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (203)
In some cultures, like that of my mother's, it is extremely rude to press a person to capitulation. It is expected that people should parry in such a way that neither person loses face. In such contexts, talking in circles, softening the argument and changing the line of the argument -- by either party -- can be signs that one person has already conceded. It's not only polite to save the face of the person 'losing' the argument, it is polite to spare the 'winner' from the embarrassment of causing any loss of face. To the extent that if someone ever abruptly concedes an argument in a face-to-face encounter, I assume that they belong to this culture, and I will rewind the argument to see how I offended them -- usually by pressing my argument too hard or too directly.
My father, on the other hand, thought that a touch-down dance must be done on the corpse of every argument, to make sure that it is never resurrected. To not do so would weaken the argument. And I think this is a common American view -- that if you are difficult to throw down and hold down, then your opponent's argument needs to be stronger.
The member of your e-mail list had a third view, which I think is defensible in its contrast to these two extremes.
Interesting. Can you say more about how your mother's culture's way of handling conflict affects its members' rationality, in comparison to your father's?
Not really. Just going by the model, I would predict that if my dad was irrational, it would be because of a refusal to update beliefs, and if my mom was irrational, it would be because of not clearly defining her position.
However, my dad likes arguing and changing his mind, and I can't infer from my mother's equanimity that her own beliefs aren't specific.
I can predict that if I asked them, they'd agree that updating beliefs is a private matter, independent of the social details (?) of an argument.
On the way home today (driving = meditation) , I realized that if I wasn't making any headway comparing and contrasting my parent's rationality -- all I came up with were paradoxes and conundrums, enough for a small novel -- it was because they are both exceptionally rational. However, their extended families are caricatures of irrationality.
My mother's family succumb to magical thinking - oh wow, they do. My grandmother is afraid of bridges AND cars, and whenever she drives over a bridge (being driven, she can't drive) she says a prayer so that everyone's souls will stay in the car and not go under the bridge. My father's family are Republicans and never notice how conveniently all facts about the world fall straight down party lines. ("Well, of course, one side can THINK and the others are morons.")
Rationality-wise, from this single case study of my families, I'd say one family being argumentative and competitive about beliefs led to good [instrumental] rationality and closed-mindedness, and one family being confrontation-avoidant led to poor [instrumental] rationality and open-mindedness. I would never claim such a thing in general and would be curious about other data points.
Real open-mindedness or just verbal pleasantry? Can you give a concrete example of them acting on a new idea they were open to?
... thinking about it further, I've decided I don't know them well enough. I haven't spent that much time with them.
I have an increasingly uneasy feeling about the possible value of reducing 30 people to 4 hand waving generalizations. I don't understand why I can't anticipate the anxiety until after I post the comment.