6 ms·

Here's my take on when people do this: Unless someone prefaces their statements with a disclaimer (like "just for the sake of the argument"), I will assume in

Here's my take on when people do this: Unless someone prefaces their statements with a disclaimer (like "just for the sake of the argument"), I will assume in good faith they believe their own statements. Any later claim to the contrary leaves me with the following choice to make: were they lying then, or are they lying now.

asveikau 7y ago
This seems a little extreme. A lot of discussions are too abstract to bother prefacing with "this is not my actual view". I don't think it should be called lying if my own opinion is not very relevant, or the thing being discussed. A lot of the time this can take the shape of "have you considered...?" or "what if...?", so there is a built in hypothetical.
thomascgalvin 7y ago
It seems to me that even when a statement is prefaced with something like "just for the sake of the argument", this is just a cover, allowing the writer to state an unpopular (or hateful, or patently wrong) opinion, while hopefully shielding themselves from some of the blowback. It's the whole "I'm just asking the question" phenomena, and I see it a lot with people who claim to be centrists but are more accurately described as right wing reactionaries. It allows them to seed the discussion with bullshit, without having to defend any of it.
- Fellshard 7y ago
  Presuming that is always the case will also lead you to some very incharitable conclusions, and in turn lead /you/ to take up the lattermost position of the article: taking up positions solely in order to be in opposition.
- anigbrowl 7y ago
  There's lots of rhetorical contexts where it's a valid approach if both parties are operating in good faith - ie in pursuit of some mutually agreeable truth or within the bounds of some mutually agreed-upon process such as litigation. Many bitter political debates involve the deliberate confusion of substantive and rhetorical claims for deceptive effect.
trevyn 7y ago
>Unless someone prefaces their statements with a disclaimer (like "just for the sake of the argument"), I will assume in good faith they believe their own statements. That is perhaps an unusually... mechanical... way of conversing. Human conversation can be a playful dance when contextual grey areas of shared and individual intent and information are explored. Most people do this implicitly, without need for explicit disclaimers — indeed, explicitness extinguishes much of the pleasure of the dance. In other words, many people talk with others for the sheer pleasure of conversation, as opposed to a simple exchange of facts. This conversation-as-pleasure naturally leaks even into specific conversations that are indeed largely about the exchange of facts, because many people are accustomed to, familiar with, and enjoy the dance.
- anigbrowl 7y ago
  the pleasure of the dance That's great when it's mutually understood, but just like a real dance you should solicit someone's agreement to participate beforehand.
chmod775 7y ago
Most of the time it doesn't even matter whether that someone actually believes what they say. It should be all the same to you either way.
- bittercynic 7y ago
  It matters when one of your goals is to determine what the people around you believe.
  - Supermancho 7y ago
    Either an assertion is a conventional belief, which is a truth that has no evidence, or a logical conclusion belief, which they don't fully understand (eg lack of understanding about cause and effect in a study). These concepts are often confused, but neither of them are fundamental to a rational discussion. A lack of acknowledgement when these biases are discovered, is a compelling reason to eject from a discussion. Discussion is one tool to convert beliefs to truths. Sometimes the beliefs changed are ill-recieved, but it your own or another's.
  - nordsieck 7y ago
    >> Most of the time it doesn't even matter whether that someone actually believes what they say. > It matters when one of your goals is to determine what the people around you believe. What people say is some of the lowest fidelity information to use when trying to assess what people believe. Actions >>> Words
    - mycall 7y ago
      Body language is very important and sits between Action and Words.
- anigbrowl 7y ago
  It should not. The decision to assess a claim in context (eg a speaker's expertise or lack thereof) or in isolation is often an important one, and creating an implicit contextual fork and then attacking an opponent for choosing the 'wrong' prong is a well-worn rhetorical tactic for seizing control of an argument on procedural rather than substantive grounds.
_eht 7y ago
This is good feedback. I default to devils advocate more often than not for some reason and have had to explain myself more than once.
menacingly 7y ago
I guess that's fine but don't presume the other person is somehow accountable to you for their opinion or values your assessment that they're a liar at all. I frequently make points to taste test them without being married to them, but I'm not going to lose sleep if someone wants to get worked up over whether or not it was genuine.
reshie 7y ago
it can also be called devils advocate. it can be helpful when you do not have someone to argue that side and good for understanding a issue from many sides and can be in good faith. stating a disclaimer does make things more transparent though and may or may not be good for the sake of the argument. bad faith in this case would be misrepresenting or downplaying the other argument wrongfully to further your own opinion.
- WorldMaker 7y ago
  Also, it can be useful to remember that if you find yourself playing Devil's Advocate a lot, you should maybe check your pay stubs from the Devil. Even if you don't believe in the arguments that you are making, you still might be persuading others towards those causes. There are things to consider when advocating for opinions you do not personally hold. Relatedly too, getting called in a lot to play Devil's Advocate by other people for sides/opinions that you do hold and care about can be an indicator that those people do not value your opinion and think you may be in the Devil's employ already. While they may not mean harm by it, it can be important to realize the emotional investment you are putting into the work will not be returned in how it is perceived, you might not be well enough "compensated" for that work, and should maybe renegotiate terms (or stop agreeing to it).
hippich 7y ago
If no party to the conversation tries to win, but rather discuss it - it should not matter. It doesn't matter what my world view is at one particular moment - I am sure it is faulty in one way or another always. And world view changes all the time. Stepping out from that worldview, especially when there is no one to argue a different point of view, IMHO is beneficial (as long as it is not malicious). And adding some sort of disclaimer makes such viewpoint automatically weak since no one in the room holds this viewpoint, therefore it must be wrong.
- lkrubner 7y ago
  About this: "it should not matter" The notion that these conversations are free is an idea held by a very small group. Most people have reasonable reasons for assuming that the conversation has a cost and therefore you have a motivation for proposing a particular point of view. Some people find conversations emotionally draining, some people perceive every conversation as a risk to one's political capital, other people feel that any time invested in a conversation is a cost that should be recouped at other points, other people are keenly aware of the meta message sent by one's words and therefore the impact on the relationship of those who participate in the conversation. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that most people will assume that a person advancing a viewpoint also believes in that viewpoint, and since that perception is wide spread, if you refuse to acknowledge it with a comment such as "for the sake of argument" then ask yourself why you feel those 5 words cost you more than the 500 or 5,000 other words that you'd like to invest in the conversation.
  - asveikau 7y ago
    I suspect based on your writing you may be taking yourself a tad too seriously, and that can have huge costs in terms of anxiety. The point being made is if it's a substantive point it doesn't matter how much the speaker identifies with it, the valid point has been made to you and it is to be considered. Hence it should not matter provided you are sticking to the facts. It seems you have made this into a personal insult about whether or not your transactional view of the costs of speaking are being respected. That is to shoot the messenger. The person is doing you a favor by pointing out valid concerns even if they don't agree with them.

asveikau 7y ago

This seems a little extreme. A lot of discussions are too abstract to bother prefacing with "this is not my actual view". I don't think it should be called lying if my own opinion is not very relevant, or the thing being discussed. A lot of the time this can take the shape of "have you considered...?" or "what if...?", so there is a built in hypothetical.

thomascgalvin 7y ago

It seems to me that even when a statement is prefaced with something like "just for the sake of the argument", this is just a cover, allowing the writer to state an unpopular (or hateful, or patently wrong) opinion, while hopefully shielding themselves from some of the blowback. It's the whole "I'm just asking the question" phenomena, and I see it a lot with people who claim to be centrists but are more accurately described as right wing reactionaries. It allows them to seed the discussion with bullshit, without having to defend any of it.

Fellshard 7y ago
Presuming that is always the case will also lead you to some very incharitable conclusions, and in turn lead /you/ to take up the lattermost position of the article: taking up positions solely in order to be in opposition.
anigbrowl 7y ago
There's lots of rhetorical contexts where it's a valid approach if both parties are operating in good faith - ie in pursuit of some mutually agreeable truth or within the bounds of some mutually agreed-upon process such as litigation. Many bitter political debates involve the deliberate confusion of substantive and rhetorical claims for deceptive effect.

trevyn 7y ago

>Unless someone prefaces their statements with a disclaimer (like "just for the sake of the argument"), I will assume in good faith they believe their own statements. That is perhaps an unusually... mechanical... way of conversing. Human conversation can be a playful dance when contextual grey areas of shared and individual intent and information are explored. Most people do this implicitly, without need for explicit disclaimers — indeed, explicitness extinguishes much of the pleasure of the dance. In other words, many people talk with others for the sheer pleasure of conversation, as opposed to a simple exchange of facts. This conversation-as-pleasure naturally leaks even into specific conversations that are indeed largely about the exchange of facts, because many people are accustomed to, familiar with, and enjoy the dance.

anigbrowl 7y ago
the pleasure of the dance That's great when it's mutually understood, but just like a real dance you should solicit someone's agreement to participate beforehand.

chmod775 7y ago

Most of the time it doesn't even matter whether that someone actually believes what they say. It should be all the same to you either way.

bittercynic 7y ago
It matters when one of your goals is to determine what the people around you believe.
- Supermancho 7y ago
  Either an assertion is a conventional belief, which is a truth that has no evidence, or a logical conclusion belief, which they don't fully understand (eg lack of understanding about cause and effect in a study). These concepts are often confused, but neither of them are fundamental to a rational discussion. A lack of acknowledgement when these biases are discovered, is a compelling reason to eject from a discussion. Discussion is one tool to convert beliefs to truths. Sometimes the beliefs changed are ill-recieved, but it your own or another's.
- nordsieck 7y ago
  >> Most of the time it doesn't even matter whether that someone actually believes what they say. > It matters when one of your goals is to determine what the people around you believe. What people say is some of the lowest fidelity information to use when trying to assess what people believe. Actions >>> Words
  - mycall 7y ago
    Body language is very important and sits between Action and Words.
anigbrowl 7y ago
It should not. The decision to assess a claim in context (eg a speaker's expertise or lack thereof) or in isolation is often an important one, and creating an implicit contextual fork and then attacking an opponent for choosing the 'wrong' prong is a well-worn rhetorical tactic for seizing control of an argument on procedural rather than substantive grounds.

_eht 7y ago

This is good feedback. I default to devils advocate more often than not for some reason and have had to explain myself more than once.

menacingly 7y ago

I guess that's fine but don't presume the other person is somehow accountable to you for their opinion or values your assessment that they're a liar at all. I frequently make points to taste test them without being married to them, but I'm not going to lose sleep if someone wants to get worked up over whether or not it was genuine.

reshie 7y ago

it can also be called devils advocate. it can be helpful when you do not have someone to argue that side and good for understanding a issue from many sides and can be in good faith. stating a disclaimer does make things more transparent though and may or may not be good for the sake of the argument. bad faith in this case would be misrepresenting or downplaying the other argument wrongfully to further your own opinion.

WorldMaker 7y ago
Also, it can be useful to remember that if you find yourself playing Devil's Advocate a lot, you should maybe check your pay stubs from the Devil. Even if you don't believe in the arguments that you are making, you still might be persuading others towards those causes. There are things to consider when advocating for opinions you do not personally hold. Relatedly too, getting called in a lot to play Devil's Advocate by other people for sides/opinions that you do hold and care about can be an indicator that those people do not value your opinion and think you may be in the Devil's employ already. While they may not mean harm by it, it can be important to realize the emotional investment you are putting into the work will not be returned in how it is perceived, you might not be well enough "compensated" for that work, and should maybe renegotiate terms (or stop agreeing to it).

hippich 7y ago

If no party to the conversation tries to win, but rather discuss it - it should not matter. It doesn't matter what my world view is at one particular moment - I am sure it is faulty in one way or another always. And world view changes all the time. Stepping out from that worldview, especially when there is no one to argue a different point of view, IMHO is beneficial (as long as it is not malicious). And adding some sort of disclaimer makes such viewpoint automatically weak since no one in the room holds this viewpoint, therefore it must be wrong.

lkrubner 7y ago
About this: "it should not matter" The notion that these conversations are free is an idea held by a very small group. Most people have reasonable reasons for assuming that the conversation has a cost and therefore you have a motivation for proposing a particular point of view. Some people find conversations emotionally draining, some people perceive every conversation as a risk to one's political capital, other people feel that any time invested in a conversation is a cost that should be recouped at other points, other people are keenly aware of the meta message sent by one's words and therefore the impact on the relationship of those who participate in the conversation. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that most people will assume that a person advancing a viewpoint also believes in that viewpoint, and since that perception is wide spread, if you refuse to acknowledge it with a comment such as "for the sake of argument" then ask yourself why you feel those 5 words cost you more than the 500 or 5,000 other words that you'd like to invest in the conversation.
- asveikau 7y ago
  I suspect based on your writing you may be taking yourself a tad too seriously, and that can have huge costs in terms of anxiety. The point being made is if it's a substantive point it doesn't matter how much the speaker identifies with it, the valid point has been made to you and it is to be considered. Hence it should not matter provided you are sticking to the facts. It seems you have made this into a personal insult about whether or not your transactional view of the costs of speaking are being respected. That is to shoot the messenger. The person is doing you a favor by pointing out valid concerns even if they don't agree with them.