3 ms·

> "Until you can passionately make arguments for both sides," she says, "you don't understand the issue." I think this is the key quote. It should really be ta

> "Until you can passionately make arguments for both sides," she says, "you don't understand the issue." I think this is the key quote. It should really be taboo to have an opinion without an understanding of how the other side argues. (Ironically the search for counterarguments would often strengthen my position because they would turn out to be quite weak. Nevertheless I think that the exercise is important.) I think the words "well-reasoned opinion" describe it well: try to see what part of your opinion is fact, which experts you trusted for that, and what part is morality and ethics.

UncleOxidant 5y ago
> I think this is the key quote. It should really be taboo to have an opinion without an understanding of how the other side argues. It's a nice quote, but I don't find it accurate for all topics. Should I be trying to figure out how to make passionate arguments for the Q Conspiracy nuttiness? There are lots of antivaxx conspiracy theories that are pretty close to mainstream in parts of the US - should I be trying to figure out how to make a passionate argument for those? For many of these conspiracy theories the 'understanding' part should probably be more along the lines of epistemic forensics - "What kind of misinformation got them to this point?"
- bena 5y ago
  It's not accurate for all topics. Can you make a passionate argument for a flat Earth? One that isn't rooted in ignorance or denial of something basic? So obviously there are some topics in which you can understand the issue well, but still not be able to make a credible defense of the other side. Now, the point of the exercise is valid. We should always be approaching an issue from the perspective of "What am I missing?" or "How am I wrong?" Of course, bad faith debaters will ask this of you while not doing it themselves. Or they will do so only superficially. They won't actually try to disprove themselves. Which makes discussing things with such people exhausting.
- aidenn0 5y ago
  I don't know that you should absolutely not have an opinion without understanding the other side, but if you don't spend at least a little bit of time understanding what motivates people to believe in conspiracy theories you will struggle to understand over half the population of the US. Most of the main tenets of QAnon are recycled conspiracy theories that predate Q, which is why the "X% of people believe in QAnon" headlines that have been going around recently are so misleading. Epistemic forensics is necessary for an awful lot of things people believe (true or false) given that for many things personal experience is insufficient to uncover the truth, and for any single truth, only a tiny fraction of the population is making direct observations at scale.
ahelwer 5y ago
The issue with this standard is it can only be applied to situations where you're making decisions about the fates of other people - where you don't have skin in the game. It would be ridiculous to, for example, require that all trans people possess in-depth knowledge of TERF arguments against the validity of their identity (along with counter-arguments) before accepting that they understand their own identity. So sure, subject the lofty peanut gallery to this standard. If you're actually personally affected by a political issue it's usually pretty easy to figure out where you stand on it.
- insickness 5y ago
  > It would be ridiculous to, for example, require that all trans people possess in-depth knowledge of TERF arguments against the validity of their identity Is it though? If you want to convince someone of something, you have to understand the opposing viewpoints well. Many rational viewpoints labeled TERF don't "infringe on the validity of [trans people's] identity." For example, trans women competing against women in sports. You wouldn't convince anyone by straw manning one side by saying that people who oppose trans women competing against women are all simply transphobic; you would say that they believe that trans women have a physical advantage over non-trans women in sports.
- prof-dr-ir 5y ago
  I think I see what you are trying to argue and let me say, with as much respect as this comment box allows me to convey, that I completely disagree. First of all, if you have skin in the game then it becomes even more important to try to understand the opposition's arguments in order to convince them to join your cause and to prevent others from joining the other side. As for your example, I am convinced that trans people have a battle to fight for greater acceptance in most (all?) societies. But I would still insist that they have only earned the right to call someone, or something, trans-exclusionary, if they have given careful thought to the argumentation and the positions actually taken. Sometimes this is easy: if someone says "trans women are not women" then in my mind that is not even a coherent position (define "woman"). But if someone says "most trans women have not had the same childhood experiences as cis women" then that is (to me at least) a statement of fact. Calling the latter statement trans-exclusionary is not what I would call a well-reasoned opinion.
joe_the_user 5y ago
>> "Until you can passionately make arguments for both sides," she says, "you don't understand the issue." > I think this is the key quote. It should really be taboo to have an opinion without an understanding of how the other side argues. There's a difference between "understand" and "make a passionate argument for" a given position. It's become standard for just about any ideological position to claim that anyone who disagrees "doesn't really understand" and to primarily use extreme emotions paired with unverifiable claims. At what point does one "understand" in these conditions? The idea that most issues today have two reasonable sides arguing is itself an ideology. Often there's not even one reasonable position.
asdff 5y ago
The vast majority of people do not have the time to even research for an informed opinion. Not to mention for any hotbed issue, being able to differentiate between the actual factual reports and opinionated bullshit is next to impossible on the modern internet unless you are a domain expert who can sniff this stuff out.
bagacrap 5y ago
But lots of times people will make an argument for the other side, then poke holes in it, aka a straw man. So it's pretty annoying to hear "people on the other side argue X but that's wrong because Y" as a demonstration of one's enlightenment.

UncleOxidant 5y ago

> I think this is the key quote. It should really be taboo to have an opinion without an understanding of how the other side argues. It's a nice quote, but I don't find it accurate for all topics. Should I be trying to figure out how to make passionate arguments for the Q Conspiracy nuttiness? There are lots of antivaxx conspiracy theories that are pretty close to mainstream in parts of the US - should I be trying to figure out how to make a passionate argument for those? For many of these conspiracy theories the 'understanding' part should probably be more along the lines of epistemic forensics - "What kind of misinformation got them to this point?"

bena 5y ago
It's not accurate for all topics. Can you make a passionate argument for a flat Earth? One that isn't rooted in ignorance or denial of something basic? So obviously there are some topics in which you can understand the issue well, but still not be able to make a credible defense of the other side. Now, the point of the exercise is valid. We should always be approaching an issue from the perspective of "What am I missing?" or "How am I wrong?" Of course, bad faith debaters will ask this of you while not doing it themselves. Or they will do so only superficially. They won't actually try to disprove themselves. Which makes discussing things with such people exhausting.
aidenn0 5y ago
I don't know that you should absolutely not have an opinion without understanding the other side, but if you don't spend at least a little bit of time understanding what motivates people to believe in conspiracy theories you will struggle to understand over half the population of the US. Most of the main tenets of QAnon are recycled conspiracy theories that predate Q, which is why the "X% of people believe in QAnon" headlines that have been going around recently are so misleading. Epistemic forensics is necessary for an awful lot of things people believe (true or false) given that for many things personal experience is insufficient to uncover the truth, and for any single truth, only a tiny fraction of the population is making direct observations at scale.

ahelwer 5y ago

The issue with this standard is it can only be applied to situations where you're making decisions about the fates of other people - where you don't have skin in the game. It would be ridiculous to, for example, require that all trans people possess in-depth knowledge of TERF arguments against the validity of their identity (along with counter-arguments) before accepting that they understand their own identity. So sure, subject the lofty peanut gallery to this standard. If you're actually personally affected by a political issue it's usually pretty easy to figure out where you stand on it.

insickness 5y ago
> It would be ridiculous to, for example, require that all trans people possess in-depth knowledge of TERF arguments against the validity of their identity Is it though? If you want to convince someone of something, you have to understand the opposing viewpoints well. Many rational viewpoints labeled TERF don't "infringe on the validity of [trans people's] identity." For example, trans women competing against women in sports. You wouldn't convince anyone by straw manning one side by saying that people who oppose trans women competing against women are all simply transphobic; you would say that they believe that trans women have a physical advantage over non-trans women in sports.
prof-dr-ir 5y ago
I think I see what you are trying to argue and let me say, with as much respect as this comment box allows me to convey, that I completely disagree. First of all, if you have skin in the game then it becomes even more important to try to understand the opposition's arguments in order to convince them to join your cause and to prevent others from joining the other side. As for your example, I am convinced that trans people have a battle to fight for greater acceptance in most (all?) societies. But I would still insist that they have only earned the right to call someone, or something, trans-exclusionary, if they have given careful thought to the argumentation and the positions actually taken. Sometimes this is easy: if someone says "trans women are not women" then in my mind that is not even a coherent position (define "woman"). But if someone says "most trans women have not had the same childhood experiences as cis women" then that is (to me at least) a statement of fact. Calling the latter statement trans-exclusionary is not what I would call a well-reasoned opinion.

joe_the_user 5y ago

>> "Until you can passionately make arguments for both sides," she says, "you don't understand the issue." > I think this is the key quote. It should really be taboo to have an opinion without an understanding of how the other side argues. There's a difference between "understand" and "make a passionate argument for" a given position. It's become standard for just about any ideological position to claim that anyone who disagrees "doesn't really understand" and to primarily use extreme emotions paired with unverifiable claims. At what point does one "understand" in these conditions? The idea that most issues today have two reasonable sides arguing is itself an ideology. Often there's not even one reasonable position.

asdff 5y ago

The vast majority of people do not have the time to even research for an informed opinion. Not to mention for any hotbed issue, being able to differentiate between the actual factual reports and opinionated bullshit is next to impossible on the modern internet unless you are a domain expert who can sniff this stuff out.

bagacrap 5y ago

But lots of times people will make an argument for the other side, then poke holes in it, aka a straw man. So it's pretty annoying to hear "people on the other side argue X but that's wrong because Y" as a demonstration of one's enlightenment.