= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Punoxysm comments on Open thread, Sept. 29 - Oct.5, 2014 - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (339)
Has anyone written a post on arguing by what I'd call Socratic Judo?
In the Socratic method, you question every assertion somebody makes. It's a very obnoxious form of argument, but if somebody doesn't disengage it can ruthlessly uncover their inconsistencies and unstated assumptions.
Socratic Judo, by question, lays out a set of premises that you know the interlocutor DOES agree with, in a way and tone they agree with, then attempts to show that these premises lead to something you want them to believe. Now, instead of the argument being centered on the issue in question, it can be centered on the premises they already agree with, so that the opponent is left to qualify to alter those premises themselves, or else accept the conclusion you want on the judo-issue.
An example would be taking standard progressive sympathies for drug legalization, then bringing in libertarianism as the judo-issue.
This sounds like presenting an argument for a thing from shared premises - the most ordinary form of trying to convince someone.
Yeah, it seems pretty similar to the regular old Socratic Method to me. Except classically I think the Socratic Method was used more to reject a "stop sign" claim and provoke more thought than to make a positive claim. You know, Socrates and his whole "I don't know anything."
Also, the libertarianism example strikes me as a non sequitor: it simply does not follow that if you support drug legalization you support libertarianism.
I skipped a few steps on the example. Think of it like this.
A: "States can do a lot of good'
B: "Well, maybe, but what do you think of drug laws"
A: "They're bad"
B: "What about the military-industrial complex"
A: "Bad"
B: "And you'd agree these are two examples of state power run amok in a structural way that's pretty pervasive across space and time"
A: "I guess so."
B: "So you agree that the state is fundamentally evil, tax is theft, and libertarianism is the answer, right?"
At this point, A will be thrown for a loop if they've never been subjected to these specific arguments before. A has been lead to the point where B is rhetorically strongest, and accepted premises in an unqualified form, which A might now wish to go back and qualify (but then A is arguing against him or her self).
(Whoever downvoted the parent: Consider whether your goals would have been better served by downvoting Punoxysm's original question about "Socratic Judo", rather than this which looks to me like a pretty clear explanation of what s/he means by that term.)
To me, the immediately obvious answer to B's last point is "Huh? Whatever makes you think I agree with that?" and I wouldn't have thought that's a very unusual response. But I'm sure it can be done more subtly.
I'm glad you gave an example, but I suspect A would reply "of course not!".
Ah, well if I was A I'd recognize B's argument as dishonestly fallacious and would most likely be turned away from his cause. It seems like it could definitely make for effective rhetoric though in different scenarios, with more subtle cases, and with different people. However, I don't think Socrates would approve :)
I don't think arguing from shared premises has ever been as "ordinary" as calling one's opponent a witch, a hater of truth, and a corrupter of the youth.
For one thing, arguing from shared premises exposes the arguer to the possibility that those shared premises might, when justly examined, lead to the opponent's conclusion.
That would probably be true in the case of trying to convince an audience. I think Luke referred to convincing your interlocutor.
Maybe in highly political arguments with an audience. I'm talking about even more ordinary kinds of convincing people than that.
In which case you MUST concede the argument.
I think that's not unreasonable to say, but this is more of a long-form thing, focusing on the rhetorical side and the rhythm of the conversation, and on finding the weakest part of a person's argument (don't steelman anything for them if they can't themselves).
Reminds me of tricks used by a great many advertisements, if you replace premises/beliefs with desires.
(E.g. "You desire status/security/sex/pleasure etc., don't you? Then you should desire our product.")
Interestingly enough, a similar distinction has been made in Nichiren Buddhism: they talk about shakubuku and shoju, which share similiarities with the Socratic method (the aggressive way) and what you call Socratic Judo (the persuasive way).
Reminds me of Geek Fu. I wonder whether Socratic Judo is a special school of Geek Fu.
See also Roles are Martial Arts for Agency.
That might be interesting, but it is unlikely to get much support here because it smacks of Dark Arts.
Uh oh, I'm already a practitioner of Socratic Judo, should I stop?
Although, doesn't most productive discourse happen like this? People start off with agreed upon ideas and then work though more controversial ones.
But one interlocutor can frame the ideas in a way and order that the other will only later realize they ought to object to.