5 ms·

Something I'm slowly coming to realize is that unless you have a logically defensible moral position, it's hard to argue with people that disagree. Terms like r

Something I'm slowly coming to realize is that unless you have a logically defensible moral position, it's hard to argue with people that disagree. Terms like reasonable are so flimsy it's hard to use it as a model to communicate with people that don't already agree with you. The successful operation of a principle like "reasonableness" requires an intake filter to suss out whether people joining the department roughly agree on what it means. If someone doesn't agree with your definition of reasonableness, it becomes a bludgeon wielded by both sides that can't be affixed to a definitive state of the world and the winner will necessarily be side that can exert more political force. Element three is more concrete. "[3)] No one is special."This is the classic statement that all are equal before the law regardless of position in the department, which is the only way to grant popular legitimacy to rules. "[4)] Do not be offended if someone suggests you are not being reasonable." I feel this rule is a symptom of the lax definition of reasonableness. The reason people become offended when someone accuses them of being unreasonable, is because the standard is so loosely defined that someone can (reasonably, ha!) believe themselves reasonable when others do not. I read an interesting article the other day where the author took a moral position and reasoned it through [0], showing how it was legally reasoned through in high profile situations. This kind of cooperative principle is harder to state, but more easily defended on grounds that are still require agreement, but in principle can reference an objective reality (e.g. from the article, elements like "proportionality"). Obviously, the referenced article is not a scholarly work, so there is more that can be done, but I guess this is the kind of thing political science majors learn about in school that I didn't get exposed to as much except through my own reading. [0] https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept-1af7007d6376 https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept-1...

dahart 10y ago
> ... it's hard to argue with people that disagree. Terms like reasonable are so flimsy it's hard to use it as a model to communicate with people that don't already agree with you. You are absolutely right on both points, and I think it's important to recognize (as you did) how vague language can be. It can be astounding how much miscommunication and cross expectation can happen even after parties agree on really concretely elaborated terms. But - in part I wonder if this misses the spirit of the Reasonable Person Principle. My interpretation is not that "reasonable" is (or even should be) a concrete criteria under which to judge people, I think the point of the principle is to default to giving benefit of the doubt. I think it's a suggestion that when one finds a disagreement, one should assume that the opponent has legitimate reasons for their position before one tries to argue with them. In other words, try harder to not argue at all, but instead to understand.
- espeed 10y ago
  Yes, fallacies of definition are one of the primary reasons for misunderstanding, e.g. we both are using the same word, we both have an idea of what the word means and/or are using it in a specific way; however, we both think the word means something different, and we both assume the other person is using the word in the way we are. Piles of disagreements have been built on this one simple fallacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacies_of_definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacies_of_definition That's one of the reasons why I like how Rich Hickey begins all of his talks with precise deconstructions of the definitions for the words that are integral to the theme of his talk, as he does in "Simple Made Easy": https://www.infoq.com/presentations/Simple-Made-Easy https://www.infoq.com/presentations/Simple-Made-Easy Once you establish a common understanding for the meaning of the words you are using, you have not only cleared up any potential misunderstandings, but you have also implicitly established points of agreement and have established a solid foundation to build on.
- jdmichal 10y ago
  If that is what the spirit is meant to be, I think that the principle of charity [0] is a stronger (less ambiguous) approach. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity
  - dahart 10y ago
    Yes, you're totally right. This is a clearer description of what I had in my head with my above comment. Re-reading the Reasonable Person Principle, there is the specific guidance (emphasized more than once) to seek personal resolution over public resolution of differences. That's not covered by the Principle of Charity, but I would think for most reasonable people in most circumstances, personal resolution of differences would be a byproduct of adopting the Principle of Charity. In any case, reducing ambiguity is always a good thing, but it does make me smile to think about trying to be crystally unambiguous about the wording of principles whose purpose is to acknowledge the existence of vagueness and ambiguity, and suggest outcomes will be improved by using the most reasonable and most charitable interpretations available. This has me wondering if there's a meta-level principle or eponymous law around somewhere concerning the ambiguity of language itself, there must be, right? Something like, 'when someone says something you find untrue, first assume you didn't understand what they said, and seek to validate your interpretation before disagreeing'...
espeed 10y ago
Something I'm slowly coming to realize is that unless you have a logically defensible moral position, it's hard to argue with people that disagree. Backfire Effect: "The backfire effect occurs when, in the face of contradictory evidence, established beliefs do not change but actually get stronger. The effect has been demonstrated experimentally in psychological tests, where subjects are given data that either reinforces or goes against their existing biases - and in most cases people can be shown to increase their confidence in their prior position regardless of the evidence they were faced with." http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Backfire_effect http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Backfire_effect Possible solution -- first tell them how they're right, and then show them how each of your perspectives overlap/align (connect the overlapping truth), like discovering the missing piece to a puzzle: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13672763 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13672763
obstinate 10y ago
Even a logically defensible moral argument is only sound given some specific premises, which may not be universally shared.
- SapphireSun 10y ago
  I agree, but if you can state the things you disagree on concretely, in my view, that is progress.

dahart 10y ago

> ... it's hard to argue with people that disagree. Terms like reasonable are so flimsy it's hard to use it as a model to communicate with people that don't already agree with you. You are absolutely right on both points, and I think it's important to recognize (as you did) how vague language can be. It can be astounding how much miscommunication and cross expectation can happen even after parties agree on really concretely elaborated terms. But - in part I wonder if this misses the spirit of the Reasonable Person Principle. My interpretation is not that "reasonable" is (or even should be) a concrete criteria under which to judge people, I think the point of the principle is to default to giving benefit of the doubt. I think it's a suggestion that when one finds a disagreement, one should assume that the opponent has legitimate reasons for their position before one tries to argue with them. In other words, try harder to not argue at all, but instead to understand.

espeed 10y ago
Yes, fallacies of definition are one of the primary reasons for misunderstanding, e.g. we both are using the same word, we both have an idea of what the word means and/or are using it in a specific way; however, we both think the word means something different, and we both assume the other person is using the word in the way we are. Piles of disagreements have been built on this one simple fallacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacies_of_definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacies_of_definition That's one of the reasons why I like how Rich Hickey begins all of his talks with precise deconstructions of the definitions for the words that are integral to the theme of his talk, as he does in "Simple Made Easy": https://www.infoq.com/presentations/Simple-Made-Easy https://www.infoq.com/presentations/Simple-Made-Easy Once you establish a common understanding for the meaning of the words you are using, you have not only cleared up any potential misunderstandings, but you have also implicitly established points of agreement and have established a solid foundation to build on.
jdmichal 10y ago
If that is what the spirit is meant to be, I think that the principle of charity [0] is a stronger (less ambiguous) approach. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity
- dahart 10y ago
  Yes, you're totally right. This is a clearer description of what I had in my head with my above comment. Re-reading the Reasonable Person Principle, there is the specific guidance (emphasized more than once) to seek personal resolution over public resolution of differences. That's not covered by the Principle of Charity, but I would think for most reasonable people in most circumstances, personal resolution of differences would be a byproduct of adopting the Principle of Charity. In any case, reducing ambiguity is always a good thing, but it does make me smile to think about trying to be crystally unambiguous about the wording of principles whose purpose is to acknowledge the existence of vagueness and ambiguity, and suggest outcomes will be improved by using the most reasonable and most charitable interpretations available. This has me wondering if there's a meta-level principle or eponymous law around somewhere concerning the ambiguity of language itself, there must be, right? Something like, 'when someone says something you find untrue, first assume you didn't understand what they said, and seek to validate your interpretation before disagreeing'...

espeed 10y ago

Something I'm slowly coming to realize is that unless you have a logically defensible moral position, it's hard to argue with people that disagree. Backfire Effect: "The backfire effect occurs when, in the face of contradictory evidence, established beliefs do not change but actually get stronger. The effect has been demonstrated experimentally in psychological tests, where subjects are given data that either reinforces or goes against their existing biases - and in most cases people can be shown to increase their confidence in their prior position regardless of the evidence they were faced with." http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Backfire_effect http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Backfire_effect Possible solution -- first tell them how they're right, and then show them how each of your perspectives overlap/align (connect the overlapping truth), like discovering the missing piece to a puzzle: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13672763 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13672763

obstinate 10y ago

Even a logically defensible moral argument is only sound given some specific premises, which may not be universally shared.

SapphireSun 10y ago
I agree, but if you can state the things you disagree on concretely, in my view, that is progress.