21–30 of 61 posts
I haven't seen this essay for a while. I thought I'd lost it, and I could not find the bookmark which linked to it. Very useful. Thank you, rms.
The truly intellectually honest way to disagree: Take the idea in question, and give it some genuine love. Make an earnest attempt to make some form of the idea work in the context of everything you know. This is my litmus test for first-class minds. I've been using this for the past 25 years and I've found that those who truly take this approach are 1) uncommon, 2) impressively smart, 3) genuinely curious, and 4) se…
> Take the idea in question, and give it some genuine love. Something like this is often known as the principle of charity[1] or the principle of humanity[2]. There's a ton of interesting philosophical work on such principles (why they might be a good idea, whether they underpin all language use, whether they are part of our default belief-desire model for interacting with other people, etc.). But the best succinct v…
Another aspect: If you think you're so smart, that you can already know everyone else's ideas are stupid and don't matter, you're probably just being an asshole.
The most convincing form of disagreement is refutation. The only "problem" is that it may be "objectively" convincing, but it rarely convinces the person who's opinion/belief you refute, especially if there are deep emotional or irrational underpinnings, e.g. religion/fear/indoctrination, etc.
The terminology of philosophical art is coercive: arguments are powerful and best when they are knockdown, arguments force you to a conclusion, if you believe the premises you have to or must believe the conclusion, some arguments do not carry much punch, and so forth. A philosophical argument is an attempt to get someone to believe something, whether he wants to believe it or not. A successful philosophical argument, a strong argument, forces someone to a belief.
Though philosophy is carried on as a coercive activity, the penalty philosophers wield is, after all, rather weak. If the other person is willing to bear the label of "irrational" or "having the worse arguments," he can skip away happily maintaining his previous belief. He will be trailed, of course, by the philosopher furiously hurling philosophical imprecations: "What do you mean, you're willing to be irrational? You shouldn't be irrational because..." And although the philosopher is embarrassed by his inability to complete this sentence in a noncircular fasion - he can only produce reasons for accepting reasons - still, he is unwilling to let his adversary go.
Wouldn't it be better if philosophical arguments lef the person no possible answer at all, reducing him to impotent silence? Even then, he might sit there silently, smiling, Buddhalike. Perhaps philosophers need arguments so powerful they set up reverbarations in the brain: if the person refuses to accept the conclusion, he dies. How's that for a powerful argument. Yet, as with other physical threats ("your money or your life"), he can choose defiance. A "perfect" philosophical argument would leave no choice. (All emphases Nozick's.)
[1] http://books.google.com/books?id=N4zH86WogYwC&lpg=PP1...
The truly intellectually honest way to disagree: Take the idea in question, and give it some genuine love. Make an earnest attempt to make some form of the idea work in the context of everything you know. This is my litmus test for first-class minds. I've been using this for the past 25 years and I've found that those who truly take this approach are 1) uncommon, 2) impressively smart, 3) genuinely curious, and 4) se…
How can I stop being a "faker", as you call it? I, and probably some other HNers, are often pretty critical or take things people say more literally than they meant often, rather than giving them the benefit of the doubt with a more liberal interpretation.
I realize this is usually not conducive to "profound and productive interactions", but it is almost second nature for me, something of a gut reaction and I'm not entirely sure how to go about fixing this problem. Behavior change is difficult, just seeking advice.
The truly intellectually honest way to disagree: Take the idea in question, and give it some genuine love. Make an earnest attempt to make some form of the idea work in the context of everything you know. This is my litmus test for first-class minds. I've been using this for the past 25 years and I've found that those who truly take this approach are 1) uncommon, 2) impressively smart, 3) genuinely curious, and 4) se…
That's an enlightening comment. How can I stop being a "faker", as you call it? I, and probably some other HNers, are often pretty critical or take things people say more literally than they meant often, rather than giving them the benefit of the doubt with a more liberal interpretation. I realize this is usually not conducive to "profound and productive interactions", but it is almost second nature for me, something…
+ What does this person believe?
+ Why does this person believe those things?
+ What would I need to believe (first) in order to convince me of those things?
Try to short-circuit evaluation: don't judge the thoughts at all. Don't ask if you agree. Just figure out what they believe and why they might hold those beliefs. What other beliefs seem to be required? What other beliefs would make someone think that way? This already gets you fairly far into their mindset.
Language in Thought and Action http://www.amazon.com/Language-Thought-Action-S-I-Hayakawa/d... by S I Hayakawa http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SI_Hayakawa)
The Art of Conversation http://www.basicincome.com/bp/artofconv.htm
And Ben Franklin's Autobiography http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/148
The truly intellectually honest way to disagree: Take the idea in question, and give it some genuine love. Make an earnest attempt to make some form of the idea work in the context of everything you know. This is my litmus test for first-class minds. I've been using this for the past 25 years and I've found that those who truly take this approach are 1) uncommon, 2) impressively smart, 3) genuinely curious, and 4) se…
At my last job I came to realize that I'm "the positive guy." Often my coworkers would be complaining about how an external party was interacting with us - usually a particular response to a query or support request, but often just in general terms of how they operate in conjunction with us. I quickly became identified as the guy who can understand their position and describe it in a way that makes sense for everyone else. This usually wound up diffusing everyone's anger and frustration. I hope it also means my coworkers will be more understanding and effective in their communication with external teams, but I have my doubts. :)
Maybe what I described above isn't exactly what you're talking about, but I see a relation that I hope is actually there.
I know a brilliant computer scientist who has all four traits you describe, and follows your intellectually honest way to disagree by nature. When you meet these people, it's obvious, and often life-impacting.
I'm certainly not all the way there yet, but I hope my story above illustrates my growth towards the first class mind you describe.
I.e. For DH0, name calling, a thorough argument would be made that it should in fact be the highest tier of argument DH6. It would be elaborate, with supporting examples and scenarios that would refute the central point of DH0 arguments being ineffective.
Then by the end, DH6's counter argument would be of quality DH0. The argument would simply be "This is just dumb, Paul Graham is a fag." [disclaimer: inline with the example given in the DH0 tier. Not actually my opinion :)]
On topic: Arguments that include DH0's tend to invoke a jerk-neck reaction from me, causing me to immediately discredit an entire (possibly well formed) argument. So much so, that even when only affiliated with such behavior good arguments lose all credibility. For example, in the 2008 election, when emails were constantly flying back and forth through the mailing list, I'd see forwarding of articles written in legitimate and well formed manner making valid statements. However, the forwarder would have prefix some DH0 level quip above the quote or article link which immediately made me write off the entire content. I.e "Barack Obama-bin-laden setting up death panels! ". Even if the article was bringing up valid concerns, and itself was well written--it was already sabotaged by being associated with infantile-ness.