[anonymous]9y5

I'll second a part of your post: some people simply don't like debate (either debate in person or argumentative writing.) Communicating with a non-debater about a debate-like topic is very strange; it's like trying to fence against an opponent wielding a bowl of Jello instead of a sword. LessWrong has a number of essays about the ways people debate irrationally (arguments as soldiers, dark side epistemology, etc.) but I think far more of the population just doesn't debate at all, and will respond blankly if you try to debate them.

People without a debate ... (read more)

I'll second a part of your post: some people simply don't like debate (either debate in person or argumentative writing.) Communicating with a non-debater about a debate-like topic is very strange; it's like trying to fence against an opponent wielding a bowl of Jello instead of a sword.

Speaking as a fencer, I'm having a very hard time imagining what this would actually be like.

2JenniferRM9yI think there is a difference between (1) people who enjoy verbally competing to be correct, (2) people who enjoy such competition and have formally trained, studied, and practiced it, and (3) people who have trained, studied, practiced and come out disillusioned with strategic communication. When I was 10 I was the first kind of debater. I think many law school students, by stereotype, are the second kind. Having spent two years in college on a policy debate team and later coached a high school debate team I find myself feeling kinship with the third group. I think formal competitive debate experience plus philosophy can help to calibrate people in very useful ways. Of a proposition Q you can ask what P(Q|H) is for various values of H if you're sticking to pure Bayesian rationality. You can also have a sense of how difficult it would be to go aff (or neg) on Q (or not-Q) in front of different audiences. Among skilled debaters where both sides have a research library and knowledge of Q in advance and skilled debaters are the audience, whoever goes aff and controls the content of Q should generally win. But a good debater should also be able to take a large number of "open questions" as Q, and win in all four scenarios (aff/neg x Q/not-Q) with an arbitrary audience against an unskilled opponent. Watching this second thing happen, and learning to do it, and teaching other people to do it has given me relatively little respect for casual debates as a truth seeking process, but a lot of respect for formal debates as an educational process. If anyone reading this is picking colleges, I recommend looking for one with a CEDA program [http://www.wcdebate.com/7others/list-of-policy-colleges.htm] and spending a year on the team :-)
4TheOtherDave9yFor what it's worth: I consider myself a "debater" in the sense you mean, but there are plenty of things where I believe them, I feel strongly about them, and I believe I could be out-argued by a sufficiently clever articulation of an opposing view, even if that view was wrong.

The Sin of Persuasion

by Desrtopa 1 min read27th Nov 201063 comments

27


 

Related to Your Rationality is My Business

Among religious believers in the developed world, there is something of a hierarchy in terms of social tolerability. Near the top are the liberal, nonjudgmental, frequently nondenominational believers, of whom it is highly unpopular to express disapproval. At the bottom you find people who picket funerals or bomb abortion clinics, the sort with whom even most vocally devout individuals are quick to deny association.

Slightly above these, but still very close to the bottom of the heap, are proselytizers and door to door evangelists. They may not be hateful about their beliefs, indeed many find that their local Jehovah’s Witnesses are exceptionally nice people, but they’re simply so annoying. How can they go around pressing their beliefs on others and judging people that way?

I have never known another person to criticize evangelists for not trying hard enough to change others’ beliefs.

And yet, when you think about it, these people are dealing with beliefs of tremendous scale. If the importance of saving a single human life is worth so much more than our petty discomforts with defying social convention or our own cognitive biases, how much greater must be the weight of saving an immortal soul from an eternity of hell? Shouldn’t they be doing everything in their power to change the minds of others, if that’s what it takes to save them? Surely if there is a fault in their actions, it’s that they’re doing too little given the weight their beliefs should impose on them.

But even if you believe you believe this is a matter of eternity, of unimaginable degrees of utility, if you haven’t internalized that belief, then it sure is annoying to be pestered about the state of your immortal soul.

This is by no means exclusive to religion. Proselytizing vegans, for instance, occupy a similar position on the scale of socially acceptable dietary positions. You might believe that nonhuman animals possess significant moral worth, and by raising them in oppressive conditions only to slaughter them en masse, humans are committing an enormous moral atrocity, but may heaven forgive you if you try to convince other people of this so that they can do their part in reversing the situation. Far more common are vegans who are adamantly non-condemnatory. They may abstain from using any sort of animal products on strictly moral grounds, but, they will defensively assert, they’re not going to criticize anyone else for doing otherwise. Individuals like this are an object example that the disapproval of evangelism does not simply come down to distaste for the principles being preached.   

So why the taboo on trying to change others’ beliefs? Well, as a human universal, it’s hard to change our minds. Having our beliefs confronted tends to make us anxious. It might feel nice to see someone strike a blow against the hated enemy, but it’s safer and more comfortable to not have a war waged on your doorstep. And so, probably out of a shared desire not to have our own beliefs confronted, we’ve developed a set of social norms where individuals have an expectation of being entitled to their own distinct factual beliefs about the universe.  

Of course, the very name of this blog derives from the conviction that that sort of thinking is not correct. But it’s worth wondering, when we consider a society which upholds a free market of ideas which compete on their relative strength, whether we’ve taken adequate precautions against the sheer annoyingness of a society where the taboo on actually trying to convince others of one’s beliefs has been lifted.

27