That's Right, I Am Dangerous

ased on my window into the world, (aka my Facebook news feed and buzzfeed), I've noticed over the past couple of years that it has become quite in vogue to berate one group or another for things like . . . well, basically anything that has someone upset. Vaccine arguments are one of my favorite perpetrators. As a man, I notice that my particular group gets picked on quite a lot too. Some of it may be deserved, and much of it seeks to make the world a better place. Some of it is quite well done. But here’s the thing: the arguments are too often not arguments. They’re often just point-proving rants. The problem is that it misses the idea of what argument about: people sharing ideas and understanding them together.

Argument is not a fight. Argument is not about me being right and you being wrong. It is supposed to be deliberative, thoughtful, self-analyzing and searching.

But too often what we get is “A thing has happened and it is evidence that my whole group is downtrodden and beaten up because of it. Pillage the other group that caused this! Get the Pitchforks! To the pillory!” The result is that the world becomes a little bit worse with each article like this. Hurt and anger are flamed and half-cooked ideas are spread about like a toddler making brownie batter.

So before you hit your next bit of click-bait that starts with a title like “Stop shaming for this thing,” or “They’re taking away our rights,” take a gander at these ground rules for deliberative argument. Test the article against these principles. I find that when I apply them in conversation and in thinking I tend to come out ahead. I also tend to find when someone is violating these ground rules willy-nilly, that there is probably reason for questioning their argument and their conclusions.

Perhaps later on I’ll do up an example using some hot topic that’s in my feed.

The Rules of the Game

Ground Rule 1: You're Wrong.

Be ready to accept you’re wrong. I’ll do the same -- I often am. You bring something to the table (in article form, I will do my best to bring other’s arguments in) and I’ll bring something to the table too. We’ve probably both got a point. We’re probably both mistaken here and there. We both probably have a terribly inaccurate picture of the other side. Prepare for that to change. Hope for that to change.

The Rule: Add to the “shared pool of meaning” first. Explain your point, back up your point, don’t try to prove your point. Be willing to add another’s point to your understanding.

Ground Rule 2: Argue about the same thing
You see, when I say “modesty” or “sexuality” or even “chocolate shake” I mean something, almost certainly, very different from what you think when you say those words. I take all my experiences with those words and it’s associated ideas and wrap them up in a package. Religion, lectures, dress codes, tasty treats, anger, unfairness, the thrill of extra oreos, etc and blend them all together. That’s the meaning that I have. I naturally tend to assume you have the same blender full of tasty meaning. But you couldn't possibly have all that same meaning. The opposite tends to be true as well -- you probably think I know or share your meaning mash-up. You’re probably just as wrong as me on that one.

You see, to me a chocolate shake is a drink. To my girlfriend, it is a thick cup of soft serve with mix-ins. When she and I discuss milk shakes, we have to be pretty explicit or you end up talking about two separate things. So it goes with more serious topics.

Be wary of arguments that use terms to mean one thing and then switch it to another meaning. Also be wary of arguments that don't give clues to what their terms mean.

By the way, if the word ends in “-ism” you can practically guarantee everyone thinks it means something different.

The Rule: I will try to explain what I mean when I use important terms. You will do your best to understand what meaning I am trying to convey. In turn, I will do my best to understand other potential understandings of the term. Don't switch the meaning part way through.

Ground Rule 3: Language is imperfect

“All” and “Every” is rarely accurately used and is often just something you say to emphasize your point. I’m probably going to say things like, “everyone likes treats” or “we’re all interesting people” neither of which are guaranteed true statements. But unless you’re being pedantic beyond all reason or you just like to be a pain, you know that I’m trying to explain a reasonably generic, reasonably true starting point and also define the group I’m talking about. I could make a loophole, “We’re all interesting people, except for Garrett who is as dull as dishwater, except for those who like dishwater…” Don’t try and take advantage of the difference between what they clearly were trying to express and the foibles in their words. Don't let others make arguments that do it.

The Rule: Don’t be pedantic. It makes things long and unreadable.

Ground Rule 4: You can’t change the fact pattern

If we establish that vanilla ice cream is our base for chocolate shakes, then it remains that way throughout the argument. You can’t later say that shakes are bad because they have chocolate ice cream. Here’s a more real-world example: you can’t establish out that you can use sexy attire to seduce someone then claim that the other person shouldn't be affected by sexy clothing. (Yes, that's a very incomplete argument, but in a vacuum I think you understand the example. - see rule 3.) That’s a change in fact pattern and it’s not allowed. When you see this you can be confident that the argument is flawed and possibly invalid.

The Rule: Fact patterns need to be consistent. If they change, you have to start the whole argument over again using the new fact pattern. Your previous arguments must now be re-proven. (The same goes for changing definition of terms in rule 2.)

Ground Rule 5: Objectivity and disinterest
Three people are looking at a glass. The optimist says it’s half full. The pessimist says it’s half empty. The engineer says it is completely full, 50% water and 50% air. The engineer is what rhetoricians call “dispassionate” or “disinterested”. He is stating it the way it is, not colored by his personal feelings on the matter.

This is really, really hard to do, especially when you feel -- you know you’re right. But here’s the reality of making an argument: the person who “knows” they’re right is the least persuasive and the least compelling. Extreme positions are very unpersuasive. Why? Because if you’re not willing to listen to and adjust your ideas based on my experience, why would anyone else give you that courtesy? If you’re capable of moderating your own stance, you’ll be able to add other’s information to your argument and make it better. As a nice side benefit, they are far more likely to do the same.

The Rule: Try to put your desired outcome aside while advocating your point. It makes your point stronger and helps others understand your ideas.

You’re now preped to make an argument and see how other arguments stack up. To Facebook!
*The comments section is (not) reserved for people demonstrating my points by sadly ironic example.

I was looking through some photos from my trip around Asia this past summer and there are some gems in here too good not to share. This won't be a post about the trip in general - if you want to read about tiger snuggling, rafting the River Kwai, or being (kinda) in North Korea, well, that's another blog post.

Let's set the tone:

Let me be clear, I have absolutely no idea why a hummer is driving two giant, half-naked robot women things around Tokyo. But not knowing is part of the fun.