= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
wedrifid comments on Conversation Halters - 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 (94)
I have just been reminded of another kind of Conversation Halter: fogging.
Essentially it involves just saying that they could be right. Not contesting any particular argument or even continuing to assert the position and yet not clearly updating either. In its most practical use it is a debate halter used when debating is not necessarily desired, but I mention it because it often also serves as a rhetorical tactic when debating. Depending on the tone and context 'you could be right' can mean "You're wrong and I do not need to justify myself, I'm authoritative enough to countersignal and you have no chance to reply!"
Can also be used as a parallel to 'Appeal to inner privacy' and 'Appeal to humility'.
(I advocate the careful use of this Halter in non-epistemic circumstances.)
These seem like circumstances to avoid.
In many human interactions matters of fact are asserted (including 'you should') which are not necessarily the most useful to focus on. Fogging can help 'halt' the undesirable turn of conversation. I can't avoid everyone who doesn't have perfect, philosophically honed boundaries.