Want to Win a Political Debate? Try Making a Weaker Argument • Hacker News Board

Re: Want to Win a Political Debate? Try Making a Weaker Argument

#11

Post by einhverfr » Mon, Aug 26, 2013, 2:00 PM UTC

I have also said we should talk more about first principles and less about the policy arguments at first.

Regarding gun control, the first principles at issue are these:

1. Is life more important than liberty or vice versa? (ooh this reverses vs. the abortion issue regarding political lines)

2. Do we trust the government to fully monopolize force? Do we trust the police? the army? Should the government be there primarily to protect us?

3. What are the implications of one interpretatin of the 2nd Amendment on federal power or another?

(I won't go over my view here, except to say it is not a partisan view.)

The reason is that very often we can find common ground over first principles, and this helps with discussing others without putting the other side on the defensive or shaming.

Re: Want to Win a Political Debate? Try Making a Weaker Argument

#12

Post by tomjen3 » Mon, Aug 26, 2013, 2:04 PM UTC

einhverfr wrote: post #11

I have also said we should talk more about first principles and less about the policy arguments at first. Regarding gun control, the first principles at issue are these: 1. Is life more important than liberty or vice versa? (ooh this reverses vs. the abortion issue regarding political lines) 2. Do we trust the government to fully monopolize force? Do we trust the police? the army? Should the government be there prima…

I am not sure about your point two. Abortion isn't nearly as split along party lines as you may think, except among the leaders of the parties and a few extremists.

Re: Want to Win a Political Debate? Try Making a Weaker Argument

#13

Post by tomjen3 » Mon, Aug 26, 2013, 2:08 PM UTC

ChikkaChiChi wrote: post #5

'Winning an argument' is a magic bullet that doesn't exist. Otherwise it would be called 'teaching' I'm not trying to change the person's mind when I enter into a debate, I'm trying to plant a seed of empathy for them to see things from another perspective so that their own brain begins to work against their existing bias. I also tend to be one of those crazy people that believe their are a lot of grey areas when sci…

There are two issues that I can see with that style of debate: you assume that the other doesn't have empathy for your point of view and that he would agree with you if he had.

You leave out the possibility that you were wrong.

Re: Want to Win a Political Debate? Try Making a Weaker Argument

#14

Post by jonnathanson » Mon, Aug 26, 2013, 2:12 PM UTC

rjprins wrote: post #7

The best insight here is that self-worth and fear of shaming are the main motivators for not agreeing. A weaker argument, that is less threatening to self-worth is one way of preventing that your discussion partner goes on the defense. Another way is to make him feel safer in the sense that he can trust that you will not hurt his feelings. This can be done by affirming that you are on the same page with him, that you…

Absolutely.

I would even go so far as to say that it's not about making a "weaker" argument; it's about making a more socially nuanced argument. Context counts. Subtext counts. They count especially when there's an audience to the argument (real or perceived). When someone feels his face, or dignity, or credibility is on the line, he feels intense pressure to stick to his guns -- and to keep his guns blazing.

Conversational softeners ("You make some great points, but...," or "I agree about X, but have you considered...") are not necessarily about weakening your own argument. They're about lowering psychological defensiveness to your argument. They increase the chances you might actually wind up with a productive dialogue, and after all, results matter more than absolute correctness. IMO, an effective argument is one that makes some headway -- ergo, this isn't really "weakening."

Re: Want to Win a Political Debate? Try Making a Weaker Argument

#15

Post by wpietri » Mon, Aug 26, 2013, 2:18 PM UTC

Kequc wrote: post #9

My take away here is that we need to educate people in such a way they view ones' ability to change their position given new evidence as a positive. Like scientists do. I guess I always felt people didn't value this trait but I needed to have it spelled out for me in this article. Why in the world would any person value themselves more having been right all along. Why wouldn't they care about educating themselves eve…

Because arguments often end up being proxy battles for social status, and we're hardwired for those.

The book that really opened my eyes on this was de Waal's Chimpanzee Politics. And, perhaps just as importantly, a book about acting: Johnstone's Impro.

Re: Want to Win a Political Debate? Try Making a Weaker Argument

#16

Post by DanHulton » Mon, Aug 26, 2013, 2:30 PM UTC

jonnathanson wrote: post #14

rjprins wrote: post #7

The best insight here is that self-worth and fear of shaming are the main motivators for not agreeing. A weaker argument, that is less threatening to self-worth is one way of preventing that your discussion partner goes on the defense. Another way is to make him feel safer in the sense that he can trust that you will not hurt his feelings. This can be done by affirming that you are on the same page with him, that you…

Absolutely. I would even go so far as to say that it's not about making a "weaker" argument; it's about making a more socially nuanced argument. Context counts. Subtext counts. They count especially when there's an audience to the argument (real or perceived). When someone feels his face, or dignity, or credibility is on the line, he feels intense pressure to stick to his guns -- and to keep his guns blazing. Convers…

This feels a lot like John Cleese's advice on creativity within teams: You need to be surrounded by people who will build on ideas with you, not people who will lead with "no". The moment you have a person in the room with you who will shoot you down on an idea, trust falters and creativity dies.

Honestly, I've thought a lot lately about how I argue, and I find I get a lot more accomplished when I lead with "Yes, and". I feel like I should have taken drama instead of band when I was younger and I'd have reached this point sooner.

Re: Want to Win a Political Debate? Try Making a Weaker Argument

#17

Post by einhverfr » Mon, Aug 26, 2013, 2:35 PM UTC

tomjen3 wrote: post #12

einhverfr wrote: post #11

I have also said we should talk more about first principles and less about the policy arguments at first. Regarding gun control, the first principles at issue are these: 1. Is life more important than liberty or vice versa? (ooh this reverses vs. the abortion issue regarding political lines) 2. Do we trust the government to fully monopolize force? Do we trust the police? the army? Should the government be there prima…

I am not sure about your point two. Abortion isn't nearly as split along party lines as you may think, except among the leaders of the parties and a few extremists.

I said political lines, not party lines.

My point is that people IME who are more likely to see liberty as the winning interest in abortion are more likely to see life as the winning interest in gun control and vice versa.

Re: Want to Win a Political Debate? Try Making a Weaker Argument

#18

Post by jpwagner » Mon, Aug 26, 2013, 2:39 PM UTC

einhverfr wrote: post #11

I have also said we should talk more about first principles and less about the policy arguments at first. Regarding gun control, the first principles at issue are these: 1. Is life more important than liberty or vice versa? (ooh this reverses vs. the abortion issue regarding political lines) 2. Do we trust the government to fully monopolize force? Do we trust the police? the army? Should the government be there prima…

I couldn't agree more with your "first principle" approach.

However with regards to "...this reverses vs. the abortion issue regarding political lines", I'll just gently suggest that you reconsider what your first principle question is (without trying to make this a political debate). Is it possible that your assumption that the political lines are illogical is invalid?

A thought: coming up with the right questions is really hard and maybe arguing about the questions will fall along "political lines."

Re: Want to Win a Political Debate? Try Making a Weaker Argument

#19

Post by mathattack » Mon, Aug 26, 2013, 2:55 PM UTC

A mentor explained this to me as, "If you want someone to do something, you have to let them save face. If someone screws something up and you want them to fix it, you can't humiliate them in the process."

I used to get very frustrated with shoddy work from subcontractors. I found that the more I directly documented the quality of the work, the worse they'd harden their position. I learned there are better ways to operate. (And if they still don't fix things when presented softly, it's better to fire than to try and convince someone who can't learn.)

Re: Want to Win a Political Debate? Try Making a Weaker Argument

#20

Post by ds9 » Mon, Aug 26, 2013, 3:04 PM UTC

rjprins wrote: post #7

The best insight here is that self-worth and fear of shaming are the main motivators for not agreeing. A weaker argument, that is less threatening to self-worth is one way of preventing that your discussion partner goes on the defense. Another way is to make him feel safer in the sense that he can trust that you will not hurt his feelings. This can be done by affirming that you are on the same page with him, that you…

"The best insight here is that self-worth and fear of shaming are the main motivators for not agreeing."

This is often true, but it is not always true. One person forms opinions on topic X based on reason and evidence, another based on ideology. It is only the latter who feels threatened by new facts or arguments, precisely because his rational foundation is shaky.

Thus there seems to be a fallacy - I'm not clear whether it is from the linked writer or the researchers he refers to - of assuming in the first place that the opinions being talked about are necessarily based on emotion more than on reason and facts.

Put another way, it's rather presumptuous to say, in essence, this new argument of mine is so strong that if others reject it, it must be due to their irrational ideology rather than the merits.

Edit: I don't mean to disparage the idea of making one's statements more diplomatically rather than contentiously - that is certainly a good thing, but that is a separate issue from presuming the reasons for people's views prior to finding out the actual reasons.