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

#61

Post by einhverfr » Tue, Aug 27, 2013, 2:25 AM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #27

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 rather disagree. In my opinion, principles exist as a fallback when you don't have enough information, time, or intelligence to reason something fully. This is because the world is not black-and-white, while principles are, so they will let you down if you rely on them too heavily. The right answer to all of your questions is, "it depends". For example, a society where everyone is completely free but dies at the ag…

> In my opinion, principles exist as a fallback when you don't have enough information, time, or intelligence to reason something fully.

OTOH, in Heisenberg's viewpoint, scientific theories are projections of first principles onto data.

> This is because the world is not black-and-white, while principles are, so they will let you down if you rely on them too heavily.

So what about these two principles:

1. Whoever has the responsibility should have the power that goes with it.

2. Since knowledge is local, power should devolve as far as possible towards local households, neighborhoods, and communities.

Do those fit with your critique or are they something else?

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

#62

Post by mistercow » Tue, Aug 27, 2013, 3:13 AM 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…

The problem is that people almost never apply the same reasoning to political issues as they do to non-political questions of fact. There are too many tribal issues in the way, and constructing believable arguments is often more advantageous in a tribal society than being right. See http://lesswrong.com/lw/gw/politics_is_the_mindkiller/

So you might be able to arrive at a consensus on first principles, but that doesn't mean anybody will update their beliefs. They'll just come up with new reasons to believe them.

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

#63

Post by mistercow » Tue, Aug 27, 2013, 3:14 AM 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…

The amount of education that requires is, unfortunately, tremendous. Learning to overcome instinctive thought patterns is difficult and requires dedication, and even at the end of all of that, you'll sometimes fail. Education can show people the way, but it can't force them to put in the practice.

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

#64

Post by einhverfr » Tue, Aug 27, 2013, 4:15 AM UTC

mistercow wrote: post #62

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…

The problem is that people almost never apply the same reasoning to political issues as they do to non-political questions of fact. There are too many tribal issues in the way, and constructing believable arguments is often more advantageous in a tribal society than being right. See http://lesswrong.com/lw/gw/politics_is_the_mindkiller/ So you might be able to arrive at a consensus on first principles, but that doesn…

It doesn't have to be a consensus. The point though is that with some common ground we can talk about issues and over time this can help people evolve their beliefs on both sides.

The problem with the political tribalism is that since we believe we have very little in common we ally ourselves with those who do not share our interests on the basis of manufactured agreement. I think it is only once one can attack that process that we can come together to update beliefs.

I consider myself fairly far right of center (not in a tea-party way, in a Distributist way). One of the most useful things i have found is that if I start off with a critique of the right, I can often get the left to listen to me on the rest.

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

#65

Post by einhverfr » Tue, Aug 27, 2013, 4:17 AM UTC

jpadkins wrote: post #34

nathan_long wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed about "first principles". This is how I'd frame the abortion debate: 1. Nearly everyone agrees that a normal adult has a rights over his/her own body. Eg, a tumor cell has no right to life and the host has every right to kill it. 2. Nearly everyone agrees that the parent of a toddler may not kill the toddler for any reason. Given these principles, at what point in existence does one qualify as having human rig…

My thoughts on this topic have also followed this same line of reasoning. My conclusion was to use the existing standard we already accepted for legal death. There is an established standard for when a doctor can declare someone 'legally dead' (absence of heartbeat and brainwaves). We should use the inverse for a legal definition of life. If a doctor can detect a heartbeat and certain brainwaves, then a second is inv…

But whatever line you grab is a socially constructed line. Legally dead is a social construct, right? We could have said that braindead is not legally dead if we wanted.