Pontor

Content Note: I've kept things abstract, but this post may still put frustrating politics on your mind. I have strong political disagreements with a close friend of mine. We both care a lot about certain policies and really want to change the other’s mind, but whenever we try, it just ends in frustration. I've spent a lot of time wondering why our arguments are so unproductive, and after much rumination and journaling about it, I have come up with the following list of helpful reminders. Now when he sends me something politically charged, or when I get the urge to do the same, I stop and read some of the items in the list. In no special order, they are: * People's beliefs fall along tribal lines, even when a large part of them really wants to do impartial truth-tracking. * Do they have any incentive to self-correct about this? Or do they have every incentive to avoid changing their mind? * When it comes to certain topics, humans will change their minds only slowly and gradually. For those topics it is silly to expect them to perform anything close to an ideal Bayesian update. * If I had a great need to impart some complex, easily-misunderstood technical problem to my friend, I would want to do so with focused attention and graph paper. I would not want to do it while we were out getting lunch nor while we were just idly texting. This is true for our political arguments as well, to the extent that technical problems are relevant. * Incorporating confirming evidence is effortless and often emotionally gratifying. In contrast, reading something that challenges my priors leaves me with a choice: summarily dismiss it...or [tired sigh]...fire up the cogitators and begin the arduous process of crux checking, fact checking, and so on. * It can be borderline impossible to say "you are right and I was wrong" to someone who is being smug, condescending, or mean to you; or who has a habit of making your tribe look bad. * I can tolerate anything except the outgroup. *