7 ms·

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

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.
goto11 7y ago
It doesn't matter if the discussion is inconsequential anyway, like in a high school debating exercise. But if the discussion actually influence real-world decisions then it matters a great deal what people actually believe.
- asveikau 7y ago
  > But if the discussion actually influence real-world decisions then it matters a great deal what people actually believe I really don't understand why more people are not getting this. It can be plenty consequential in the real world, I said from the start of this thread that someone could be arguing a popular opinion that nobody in the room happens to hold. This happens all the time in silicon valley as an example: a bunch of educated, comparatively wealthy, mostly white men make decisions. Maybe they are not very in touch with the opinions of the vast majority of humans who fall outside that category. What I am advocating for this case is the ability to have empathy for those who are unlike you, step outside your biases and adopt an argument that is not your own. This is a good skill. People are falling over themselves trying to call that lying and universally bad or nearly so.
- hippich 7y ago
  Sorry, I got lost a little in the second part. I assume you mean "a negative influence". How exactly discussing viewpoint, which is not believed by the person, influences the real-world decision in a negative manner, considering that more information is processed, not less?
  - goto11 7y ago
    Lets say two presidential candidates are having a debate. Does it matter if they actually believe in what they are arguing? Of course it does. Or two prospective parents discussing how to best raise a child? Of course it matters if they actually believe what they say.
    - hippich 7y ago
      Presidential "debates" to me appears as a PR campaign. I guess there indeed it is important to know exactly what candidates are standing for and proving their view is the right one (i.e. aligned with viewer's worldview) With parenting - I see no issues. And I do use such an approach, but my spouse, I believe, trusts me. So... It looks like the problem is - when the debate is used to judge world view of the person to decide if one would like to trust them - such "devil advocate" arguments are harmful. I believe it is just one possible use of the discussion, but I will keep in mind that and try to avoid arguing from some other perspective if I see the person is trying to figure out if they want to trust me or not.

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.

goto11 7y ago

It doesn't matter if the discussion is inconsequential anyway, like in a high school debating exercise. But if the discussion actually influence real-world decisions then it matters a great deal what people actually believe.

asveikau 7y ago
> But if the discussion actually influence real-world decisions then it matters a great deal what people actually believe I really don't understand why more people are not getting this. It can be plenty consequential in the real world, I said from the start of this thread that someone could be arguing a popular opinion that nobody in the room happens to hold. This happens all the time in silicon valley as an example: a bunch of educated, comparatively wealthy, mostly white men make decisions. Maybe they are not very in touch with the opinions of the vast majority of humans who fall outside that category. What I am advocating for this case is the ability to have empathy for those who are unlike you, step outside your biases and adopt an argument that is not your own. This is a good skill. People are falling over themselves trying to call that lying and universally bad or nearly so.
hippich 7y ago
Sorry, I got lost a little in the second part. I assume you mean "a negative influence". How exactly discussing viewpoint, which is not believed by the person, influences the real-world decision in a negative manner, considering that more information is processed, not less?
- goto11 7y ago
  Lets say two presidential candidates are having a debate. Does it matter if they actually believe in what they are arguing? Of course it does. Or two prospective parents discussing how to best raise a child? Of course it matters if they actually believe what they say.
  - hippich 7y ago
    Presidential "debates" to me appears as a PR campaign. I guess there indeed it is important to know exactly what candidates are standing for and proving their view is the right one (i.e. aligned with viewer's worldview) With parenting - I see no issues. And I do use such an approach, but my spouse, I believe, trusts me. So... It looks like the problem is - when the debate is used to judge world view of the person to decide if one would like to trust them - such "devil advocate" arguments are harmful. I believe it is just one possible use of the discussion, but I will keep in mind that and try to avoid arguing from some other perspective if I see the person is trying to figure out if they want to trust me or not.