= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
calef comments on How to debate when authority is questioned, but really not needed? - 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 (41)
Honestly, the only "winning" strategy here is to not argue with people on the comments sections of political articles.
If you must, try and cast the argument in a way that avoids the standard red tribe / blue tribe framing. Doing this can be hard because people generally aren't in the business of having politics debate with an end goal of dissolving an issue--they just want to signal their tribe--hence why arguing on the internet is often a waste of time.
As to the question of authority: how would you expect the conversation to go if you were an economist?
Me: I think money printing by the Fed will cause inflation if they continue like this.
Random commenter: Are you an economist?
Me: Yes actually, I have a PhD in The Economy from Ivy League University.
Random commenter (possible response 1): I don't believe you, and continue to believe what I believe.
Random commenter (possible response 2): Oh well that's one of the (Conservative / Liberal) (pick one) schools, they're obviously wrong and don't know what they're talking about.
Random commenter (possible response 3): Economists obviously don't know what they're talking about.
Again, it's a mix of Dunning-Kruger and tribal signalling. There's not actually any direction an appeal-to-authority debate can go that's productive because the challenger has already made up their mind about the facts being discussed.
For a handful of relevant lesswrong posts: http://lesswrong.com/lw/axn/6_tips_for_productive_arguments/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/gz/policy_debates_should_not_appear_onesided/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/3k/how_to_not_lose_an_argument/
Exactly.
I would also include Is That Your True Rejection?
Thank you so much for your comment, it is really helpful!
I use the internet to put in practice what I am learning about critical thinking and argumentation (critical thinking course on Khan Academy). In environments like the Reddit Ethereum page it is much more reason centered and there are less dishonest participants so when my arguments are refuted it is very productive and I learn a lot. But on newspaper sites and blogs its more like a jungle.
I think what you say "the challenger has already made up their mind" is the key.
I will read the articles of the links you posted, thx!
I understand that meatspace doesn't frequently offers opportunities to test skills like that, but when looking for those opportunities online you should be very picky on where to look. Avoid newspaper sites and (most) blog comments. You need to find environments in which disagreement is a way to find the truth and where changing your mind is encouraged. These are pretty rare. Although if you want to practice argumentation, you might want to check out /r/changemyview on reddit
If you're looking for well-policed blogs, you can try Slate Star Codex and any of the other "rationality blogs" listed in the LW wiki.
You simply need to debate in places that have a certain highbrow barrier to entry. For example, places where people self-identify as economists, such as comments in Marginal Revolution, because they want to signal not only blue or red tribe membership, but also the economist tribe membership. And that makes them want to focus on arguments of the better kind.