ChristianKl comments on Open Thread, Jun. 22 - Jun. 28, 2015 - Less Wrong

6 Post author: Gondolinian 22 June 2015 12:01AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (203)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: selylindi 25 June 2015 10:59:36PM *  5 points [-]

Inspired by terrible, terrible Facebook political arguments I've observed, I started making a list of heuristic "best practices" for constructing a good argument. My key assumptions are that (1) it's unreasonable to expect most people to acquire a good understanding of skepticism, logic, statistics, or the ways the LW-crowd thinks of as how to use words rightly, and (2) lists of fallacies to watch out for aren't actually much help in constructing a good argument.

One heuristic captured my imagination as it seems to encapsulate most of the other heuristics I had come up with, and yet is conceptually simple enough for everyone to use: Sketch it, and only draw real things. (If it became agreed-upon and well-known, I'd shorten the phrase to "Sketch it real".)

Example: A: "I have a strong opinion that increasing the minimum wage to $15/hr over ten years (WILL / WON'T) increase unemployment." B: "Oh, can you sketch it for me? I mean literally draw the steps involved with the real-world chain of events you think will really happen."

If you can draw how a thing works, then that's usually a very good argument that you understand the thing. If you can draw the steps of how one event leads to another, then that's usually a good argument that the two events can really be connected that way. This heuristic requires empiricism and disallows use of imaginary scenarios and fictional evidence. It privileges reductionist and causal arguments. It prevents many of the ways of misusing words. If I try to use a concept I don't understand, drawing its steps out will help me notice that.

Downsides: Being able to draw well isn't required, but it would help a lot. The method probably privileges anecdotes since they're easier to draw than randomized double-blind controlled trials. Also it's harder than spouting off and so won't actually be used in Facebook political arguments.

I'm not claiming that a better argument-sketch implies a better argument. There are probably extremely effective ways to hack our visual biases in argument-sketches. But it does seem that under currently prevailing ordinary circumstances, making an argument-sketch and then translating it into a verbal argument is a useful heuristic for making a good argument.

Comment author: ChristianKl 26 June 2015 12:35:27AM 3 points [-]

As far as I understand CFAR teaches this heuristic under the name "Gears-Thinking".

Comment author: selylindi 28 June 2015 01:22:28AM 1 point [-]

Does that name come from the old game of asking people to draw a bike, and then checking who drew bike gears that could actually work?