If you haven't seen it before, I recommend checking out Basics of Rationalist Discourse and Twelve Virtues of Rationality. That isn't me trying to say you didn't need to write this since it already exists- I actually enjoy reading different people's takes on what's important in a rationalist discussion or practice. Thank you for the extra vantage point! Since it is a topic people have written on before and likely will again, it might be worth retitling this something like "SD's Tenets of a Rational Debate" to make it easier to talk about.
Focus is an interesting addition I don't think I've seen before in things like this. It has some appeal to me (I like efficiency) but I also enjoy meandering conversations sometimes. Do you have thoughts on when to be focused and when to let the conversation take its time?
Thanks for the feedback :)
The twelve virtues are already linked in the article, but I hadn't come across the Basics of Rationalist Discourse yet. It is indeed very interesting and aligned with the objective of this essay. I very much intend to incorporate its content where applicable and give it credit (I will link it at the beginning of the post).
I wonder if the Basics of Rationalist Discourse doesn't represent a more detailed and tactical view of the topic, as opposed to the more generic top-of-mind principles that this essay tried to cover. The former is a manual for controlling specific behaviours, the latter a memento of the general mindset to hold during a debate. Does this seem reasonable to you?
As per your question, I think my starting point of view was of a debate with a clear objective, a "primary question" that the group is trying to answer. If the purpose of the debate is entertainment, then there might be little cost in deviating from the main question (except probably frustrating some of the other participants). But if indeed there is value in the timeliness and accuracy of the question (e.g., in a business setting), then focus is probably applicable.
(As to whether exploring unrelated ideas can in fact improve the outcome of the debate - which is very plausible - that feels like an activity outside the confines of the debate and possibly better left for before the actual debate).
If you find yourself admitting that nothing will move you to change your mind, then it means you are not ready to take part in this debate.
Guess I'm not responding to those Holocaust deniers then. Or even to homeopaths or young earth creationists.
Yes indeed.
There is still - almost always - an (arbitrarily) small chance that even "ridiculous" statements turn out to be true.
E.g., maybe the Earth IS flat, and we have just been brainwashed by an advanced alien race to perceive physics such that it appears spherical. Very very very very unlikely, but not impossible.
Note that from Bayes' Theorem, if your prior is either 0 or 1, then no amount of evidence can change it. Which for a rationalist is a horrible position to be in, since it basically means that you have stopped learning and your beliefs are now disentangled from reality.
Note: This is a living document. It will be refined over time as new persuasive arguments come to my attention. I invite you to share your thoughts in the comments; they will most certainly be taken into consideration.
The following are a few principles that I believe people should keep in mind as they try to take part in a debate in a rational way. Specifically, I will assume the objective of the debate is epistemic (i.e., acquiring new knowledge) and not instrumental (i.e., persuading others for ulterior motives).
You will find that many are virtues which any rationalist should hold dear, or otherwise, lessons which you are probably already familiar with. I claim no originality in what follows, just hopefully a useful compression and something to glance at next time you find yourself taking part in a debate.
For a more detailed and tactical view of rational discourse, please see: Basics of Rationalist Discourse.
No debate can be productive if people are not willing to change their minds. A debate is a process of discovery, not a process of confirmation. It's a sharing of knowledge, not a battle for who is right. If the participants come in with the intention of defending their beliefs against all opposition, nothing will move them to see otherwise. And the debate will have failed from the start.
Unfortunately, humans have evolved to defend their beliefs fiercely, especially political ones, as this could mean life or death in the ancestral environment. Power, reputation, and influence have selected for persuasiveness over open-mindedness. This is so ingrained that it persists even in arguments where there is nothing to gain, where one would clearly benefit more from learning than from being right. Even in the age of science, very few people genuinely feel comfortable changing their minds openly and swiftly in the face of convincing evidence.
I'm afraid I have no solution to offer for this. But at the very least, I invite you to be honest with yourself and to stare your resistance in the eyes. Ask yourself: "Do I already have an opinion on this matter? Do I want it to be true? Am I willing to change my mind if I am shown sufficient evidence? What would that evidence look like?".
If you find yourself admitting that nothing will move you to change your mind, then it means you are not ready to take part in this debate. That's fine: we all have beliefs we hold dear, and doors we would rather not open. You can rest easy in your increased knowledge of yourself.
But if you find yourself ready to be proven wrong, then strap on your seatbelt and join the ride. If you are lucky, you might be proven wrong. For remember: the one who was correct all along, learned nothing and gained nothing. The one who was wrong and changed their mind, gained everything. They are the true winners.
The further away you move from experience, the more you are debating about shadows and whispers.
No rational debate can exist about topics that cannot be unequivocally defined, amongst its participants, in terms of either sensory experience or mathematics. Only these two can hold still as the ground of the debate shifts.
Everything else, every other language or symbolism, will collapse into a recursive cycle of definitions and interpretations. Thus, people debate the definition of words and the definitions of the words used in the definitions. And so forth, until the debate turns into a stream of consciousness of meaningless ramblings.
Ask: "Is there a mathematical representation of the question we are posing? Or can we unequivocally agree on what sensory experience corresponds to this or that answer being correct?"
If neither can be satisfied, there is no way to conclude the debate. You might still find it entertaining and educational, but if no agreement can be found, the debate can never truly end.
As the debate flows on, our minds are inevitably attracted by what we find interesting or what sparks a reaction in us.
But time is limited, and a debate is a ship with a clear destination. You must make sure to regularly wipe your mind of side concerns, ideas, and disagreements that don't relate to the topic at hand. Keep the primary question at the centre of your focus and never lose sight of it.
If you disagree with a statement that is not relevant to the debate, you must let it go.
If you find a statement intriguing and your curiosity encourages you to follow it, but it is not relevant to the argument, you must let it go.
The kind of directionless exploration that is wonderful for creativity or learning, works very poorly in a debate.
A debate is a ship with a clear destination, and the journey is rarely an easy one. There is no time for diversions.
As you enter the sea of arguments and hypotheses, make sure to catch yourself following a pleasant wind. We are wired to believe that which feels nice, in some way or another.
Perhaps this conclusion fits better with your existing beliefs. Perhaps this other one requires you to admit some uncomfortable truth about yourself.
But you can't play favourites. You are the judge of all arguments, but the advocate of none. As a judge, you must be fair and impartial. Arguments must be judged for their merits, their validity, and their soundness. You can't be wooed by their seductiveness or repulsed by their starkness.
And if you catch your heart fluttering at one fact more than another, steady yourself. It is never too late to rebalance yourself. But if you don't, beware: you can't fool the universe, for what is true is already so; you can only fool yourself.
In your arguments, be concise, be simple. If you can lighten your burden, you must do so.
Complexity is often used as a smokescreen for vagueness and uncertainty. Additional details are weaponised to give a sense of realism to an otherwise unconvincing thesis. But once again, this is your brain working against itself, trying to persuade others by fooling yourself.
Instead, dig deeper. Ask yourself the questions that others would ask of you. Attack your beliefs at their weakest points. Strip away the outer layers and try to reach the core of your argument. Be as precise as possible. Be as concise as possible. This is both a service to others and to yourself and your own comprehension of the topic.
Refine and hone your argument like a blacksmith hones a blade. When the moment comes to deliver it, you won't pierce the armour with a hundred pebbles, but with a single arrow.
If it is humans you are debating, be kind.
Our marvellous ability to empathise is unfortunately quite limited. We can only judge what we see, but what we see is not all there is.
People come from all walks of life, all kinds of experiences, backgrounds, genomes, models of the world, days at work, family circumstances, and random electrical propagations in their nervous systems.
Some will, inevitably, enrage you. But, safe of defending yourself from physical harm, rage can do nothing for you. It will cloud your judgment and ruin your mood.
Instead, try to understand before trying to be understood. If a bridge can be built, take responsibility for building it. If you think others are not behaving rationally, help them do so (or try to understand why they don't want to).
Being rational is a superpower. Making those around you rational is some god-tier shit.