Thank you for your reply and further explanation. Your examples are helpful, and on thinking about them, I'm led to wonder how these & other "techniques" serve the distinct goals of "Trying to arrive at The True Answer", "Trying to show this person that they have incoherent beliefs, because they have failed to properly examine them", and "Trying to converse in a manner that will engage this person, so that it has some real, hopefully positive, effect for them" -- and possibly others.
I think I am unclear on whether this approach differs from a more traditional "Socratic" style dialogue, and if so, in what ways. Could you clarify?
Another thought that this post brings out, is that while I think techniques of this sort are useful in a number of ways, even beyond the direct dialogue itself (for example, in practicing the kind of lateral and analogy-based thinking required to fluidly keep up with the conversation while maintaining this style), there is clearly a limited set of opportunities for which they are suitable. Do you know of any existing "taxonomy" of conversational methods, classified with respect to the circumstances in which they are most effective?
As a parent of young children, I often consider this very dilemma. In addition, as the other comments describe, there are several other dimensions along which a parent must optimize:
This is a place where I find traditional wisdom to be useful, since the constraints and values faced by parents have been largely the same since the invention of writing. (At least, for those who could write.) Consulting a variety of such works, both those which address the topic of parenting directly, as well as those which do so obliquely (typically narrative fiction of particular importance or cautionary tales), one can form generally-useful views, even if none seem universally-and-definitely useful.
Though I admit to thinking about this in this level of detail only as a result of your post, the main such points, 18 of them, in my view, are perhaps the following:
One note, based on my experience in across a variety of organizations, including holding a leadership role in a small political party, is that when a debate is "Free Flowing", if it is taking place verbally (usually in-person or over video-call) the lack of definite structure and time-boxing can often lead to domination by whoever of the two or more interlocutors has either greater prowess in rhetorical skill, or is more willing to simply steamroll over the opportunity for the other to speak, or both. I think a balance may be struck by having structured rounds, with a pre-established limit for the number of claims each side may argue for or against, and then also allowing the debate to last some arbitrarily large number of rounds.
Much of the rest sounds desirable, though (as is also true of "Fact Checkers") difficult to accomplish in a way which will satisfy all parties involved. Choosing someone or some group with a genuine openness to whatever the truth may be (or as close to that ideal as any person can have) is the most impactful action.
Does anyone here know of good examples of such forums for debate, either (recent) past or present?
Rot13: V gubhtug vg jbhyq or Znaan ol Znefunyy Oenva
As someone diagnosed with ADHD only recently, as an adult, I can relate to having mental energy that is highly variable, and to having intellectual pursuits which are largely dependent on this energy. It would seem the vast majority of active participants on this website have no kids, so I thought it would be worthwhile to add my perspective, having 3 of my own, in my early 30s. Prior to having kids, I would often stay up until ~2am, deep in some sort of research, and occasionally stay up all night, tracking down and reading articles pertinent to my topic. Often, I would have a "crash" day, sleeping ~14 hours one day of the weekend.
After having kids, inertia kept my habits up for a while, but the all-nighters went away, and the 2am bedtime shifted closer to 11pm. (Total hours spent sleeping, of course, were lower, in spite of this, due to nighttime feedings.) With making up for sleep on the weekend becoming (understandably) less tolerable for my spouse, and having children who wake up ~6am or earlier and require an adult to be awake with them, regularity of time was imposed. But my mental energy still followed its own pattern. Melatonin has been helpful in forcing a "shut down sequence" on my mind before bed.
After being diagnosed and beginning medication, I have (aside from temporary side-effects from medications that were not ideally suited for me) found myself much more able to both apply a consistent level of energy to both professional and personal projects, as well as to keep a consistent bedtime, typically without the need for melatonin to "force" it. It also helps that our youngest is finally sleeping through the night consistently. Recently, I have even been considering waking up ~5am, to get some of the time back, after a night of good sleep. I plan to experiment with this, and see how it goes.
Behind these changes, it is difficult to disentangle from each other the effects of the child-imposed schedule, the medication, and simply the advance of time/age. How much people should try to change themselves to fit their circumstances, and how much people should try to change their circumstances to fit themselves, remains an open question for me. But those who choose to submit themselves to the needs of others in the ways that family life requires can still find time & energy for their pursuits... At least once the baby is sleeping through the night.