In the spirit of the times…
Thursday, Feb 11, 2016 - Posted by Rich Miller
* From a longtime reader…
Hey Rich,
Since it’s Lent and I’m trying very hard to change the tone of discourse in my own life, I thought I would pass along a nifty little article that one of my UIS Philosophy profs gave us on how to ‘disagree agreeably’. Just thought it was timely.
https://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2014/03/28/daniel-dennett-rapoport-rules-criticism/
Hoping better times are coming,
V
* It’s very interesting…
Daniel Dennett (b. March 28, 1942), whom artificial intelligence pioneer Marvin Minsky has called “our best current philosopher” and “the next Bertrand Russell,” poses an apt question that probes some of the basic tendencies and dynamics of today’s everyone-is-a-critic culture: “Just how charitable are you supposed to be when criticizing the views of an opponent?”
In Intuition Pumps and Other Tools for Thinking (public library) — the same fantastic volume that gave us Dennett on the dignity and art-science of making mistakes — he offers what he calls “the best antidote [for the] tendency to caricature one’s opponent”: a list of rules formulated decades ago by the legendary social psychologist and game theorist Anatol Rapoport, best-known for originating the famous tit-for-tat strategy of game theory. Dennett synthesizes the steps:
How to compose a successful critical commentary:
* You should attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way.
* You should list any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).
* You should mention anything you have learned from your target.
* Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.
If only the same code of conduct could be applied to critical commentary online, particularly to the indelible inferno of comments.
But rather than a naively utopian, Pollyannaish approach to debate, Dennett points out this is actually a sound psychological strategy that accomplishes one key thing: It transforms your opponent into a more receptive audience for your criticism or dissent, which in turn helps advance the discussion.
Thoughts?
- Mason born - Thursday, Feb 11, 16 @ 8:54 am:
Bunk! Bunk I say!!
How can I tell them how unpatriotic they are!! How they are the reincarnation of Lenin or (that guy from germany who will remain unnamed)!!! Good grief man this is the internet civility is forbidden /hopefully obvious snark
- Anonymous - Thursday, Feb 11, 16 @ 8:58 am:
It sounds like what every marriage counselor has ever said. Which makes it a good idea.
- Cubs in '16 - Thursday, Feb 11, 16 @ 8:59 am:
Hits the nail right on the head. Nothing shuts down a discussion quicker than dismissing another’s point of view and responding with a personal attack and/or insult. Online discussion is more difficult than face-to-face because it’s easier to misinterpret the point the other person is trying to make. We can’t see or hear the non-verbal cues we rely on in person. I would add that it’s important to not make assumptions about another person based solely on their comments/opinions. An example of this is how many commenters here assume OW is a Dem. simply because he criticizes Rauner. Personal political beliefs can get our juices flowing but genuinely trying to understand the other person’s perspective before replying is a win-win.
- PublicServant - Thursday, Feb 11, 16 @ 9:00 am:
* You should attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way.
Um, I’d love to, but I’ve not heard the target express his own position clearly, vividly, or, most of all, fairly.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Feb 11, 16 @ 9:05 am:
Some of the more prominent posters here have become more interested in arguing or belittling others every day than actual discussions. This is a timely topic.
- Mama - Thursday, Feb 11, 16 @ 9:11 am:
Rich, perhaps we should send the list for “the best antidote [for the] tendency to caricature one’s opponent” to the top five. I think at least 2 leaders will read it.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Feb 11, 16 @ 9:17 am:
9:05 a.m.: “Some of the more prominent posters here … /belittling others every day/.”
And God said, “Let there be an information-rich, poison-free Politico Illinois.”
- Team Sleep - Thursday, Feb 11, 16 @ 9:17 am:
This was how most of my classes at UIS were run. I love it. I could have debates with my classmates and profs and then go to Bootleggers for a drink. Civility ruled the day.
- Relocated - Thursday, Feb 11, 16 @ 9:22 am:
Inn an ideal world perhaps, but it would lead to long boring posts that take forever to get to the point.
- Earnest - Thursday, Feb 11, 16 @ 9:23 am:
Reflective listening is a good strategy in any conflict. Sometimes people are arguing but they are actually misunderstanding the opponent’s position.
I don’t think that helps with Springfield. I agree more than I can say with the Sun Times editorial today. http://chicago.suntimes.com/opinion/7/71/1317696/editorial-60
- yinn - Thursday, Feb 11, 16 @ 9:27 am:
I operate this way with friends and others who argue in good faith, but find it’s often a waste of time when the opponent is someone who has already proven to be intellectually dishonest.
- @MisterJayEm - Thursday, Feb 11, 16 @ 9:33 am:
Please take a moment to appreciate the unintentional yet glaring irony inherent in this anonymous criticism of “some of the more prominent posters here”.
– MrJM
- Mason born - Thursday, Feb 11, 16 @ 9:34 am:
Seriously though Rich should be commended. His hard work makes the level of discourse much better here than at other political blogs. It may grow heated but it is usually reasonably civil. Well done Sir.
- B. Franklin - Thursday, Feb 11, 16 @ 9:35 am:
Reminds me of the Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin. He was full of good advice that no one ever seems to follow:
“If you wish information and improvement from the knowledge of others, and yet at the same time express yourself as firmly fix’d in your present opinions, modest, sensible men, who do not love disputation, will probably leave you undisturbed in the possession of your error.”
And my all-time favorite passage (apologies for length) that would seem well to remember these days:
“I found this method safest for myself and very embarrassing to those against whom I used it; therefore I took a delight in it, practis’d it continually, and grew very artful and expert in drawing people, even of superior knowledge, into concessions, the consequences of which they did not foresee, entangling them in difficulties out of which they could not extricate themselves, and so obtaining victories that neither myself nor my cause always deserved. I continu’d this method some few years, but gradually left it, retaining only the habit of expressing myself in terms of modest diffidence; never using, when I advanced any thing that may possibly be disputed, the words certainly, undoubtedly, or any others that give the air of positiveness to an opinion; but rather say, I conceive or apprehend a thing to be so and so; it appears to me, or I should think it so or so, for such and such reasons; or I imagine it to be so; or it is so, if I am not mistaken. This habit, I believe, has been of great advantage to me when I have had occasion to inculcate my opinions, and persuade men into measures that I have been from time to time engag’d in promoting; and, as the chief ends of conversation are to inform or to be informed, to please or to persuade, I wish well-meaning, sensible men would not lessen their power of doing good by a positive, assuming manner, that seldom fails to disgust, tends to create opposition, and to defeat every one of those purposes for which speech was given to us, to wit, giving or receiving information or pleasure. For, if you would inform, a positive and dogmatical manner in advancing your sentiments may provoke contradiction and prevent a candid attention. If you wish information and improvement from the knowledge of others, and yet at the same time express yourself as firmly fix’d in your present opinions, modest, sensible men, who do not love disputation, will probably leave you undisturbed in the possession of your error. And by such a manner, you can seldom hope to recommend yourself in pleasing your hearers, or to persuade those whose concurrence you desire.”
- Curious Georgina - Thursday, Feb 11, 16 @ 9:35 am:
Anonymous @ 9:05, I completely agree. While I love Capitol Fax, the civility in the discussions seem to have spiraled downward for some folks. I wish there was a “hide” button so we could hide certain commenters’ posts. I love seeing thoughtful, respectful posts but have little use for the ones full of condescending, petty insults towards other commenters.
- Juvenal - Thursday, Feb 11, 16 @ 9:36 am:
If you are thinking of them as a “target” or “opponent”, you have already lost. Engage them as you would engage an ally in search of an agreeable solution to a shared problem. When they attack, think of them as you would think of a sick loved one or friend.
There is no point in rebutting or refuting. Instead, search for objective evidence and ask them how they would refute yours. If you are right, they will refute themselves, if you are wrong, be prepared to accept it.
From Getting to Yes
The authors argue that the major problem in many negotiations is that people assume positions that are either Hard or Soft. They suggest that, rather than being either hard on the people and the problem, or soft on people and problem, it is possible to be soft on the people and hard on the problem. They call this approach Principled negotiation or Negotiation on its merits.
Someone should buy everybody in the General Assembly a copy.
- B. Franklin - Thursday, Feb 11, 16 @ 9:40 am:
Sorry, I believe that the first quote is also in the second, if I’m not mistaken.
- olddog - Thursday, Feb 11, 16 @ 9:40 am:
Thanks for posting! I believe Aristotle said something very much like it 2,400 years ago.
- JB13 - Thursday, Feb 11, 16 @ 9:52 am:
Yeah, but Rauner… and Madigan…
- Pot calling kettle - Thursday, Feb 11, 16 @ 10:23 am:
==* You should attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way.
Um, I’d love to, but I’ve not heard the target express his own position clearly, vividly, or, most of all, fairly. ==
Actually, the point of this exercise is to clarify the opponent’s points in order to better address them. There is no reason to wait for the opponent to clarify if you can do it for them and they agree with your characterization.
(Juvenal: As I read this post, I also thought of “Getting to Yes”)
- Skeptic - Thursday, Feb 11, 16 @ 10:46 am:
Anonymous @ 8:58 was me.
- peanut - Thursday, Feb 11, 16 @ 10:47 am:
It would certainly work if the voters only voted for politicians that adhered to these principles of discourse.
- 47th Ward - Thursday, Feb 11, 16 @ 10:53 am:
===(R)eason matters, facts matter; issues are complicated. When folks just make stuff up, they can’t go unchallenged.===
It’s hard to follow the rules of polite discourse when your counterpart is making up facts out of whole cloth.
- crazybleedingheart - Thursday, Feb 11, 16 @ 11:28 am:
The tactic is fine, but its use depends on whether your goal is to build or obliterate.
If your goal is to build with someone whose goal is to obliterate, your choices are:
1) change their goal
2) lose badly
3) change yours
I think the people of IL have spent too much time doing the first two with this governor.
His goal isn’t building and he isn’t budging.
- Harry - Thursday, Feb 11, 16 @ 12:39 pm:
Good stuff, but in the spirit of “tit-for-tat” in game theory, it only works if everyone does it, and as soon as someone “goes negative” it invites the other to do likewise.
And if there is not just a disagreement on means, but on ends, it will soon fall apart.
Sometimes “better understanding” just means clarity as to who are your enemies.
- IL17 - Thursday, Feb 11, 16 @ 4:33 pm:
Bruce’s goal is NOT to have intelligent discussion. Rich’s reporting of his response to the 1.4% calculation shows his (1) inability to accept feedback in any manner, he doesn’t give one iota (2) he views himself as a salesman who regardless of your response is going to continue the sales pitches regardless of how dishonest.
The concepts of intelligent discussion do not work with a narcissist like Gov. Bruce