5 ms·

I don't understand how this adds anything different really than assuming the opponent is the worst. I would expect the advice to be 'make no assumptions about

I don't understand how this adds anything different really than assuming the opponent is the worst. I would expect the advice to be 'make no assumptions about the character of the person arguing and instead try to argue purely the content presented.' Star-man seems like some inverse ad-hominem.

smeej 4y ago
Many (most?) people identify with their ideas. They consider their ideas to be parts of, or manifestations of, themselves. This is why, if you attack an idea, the person defending it feels threatened. They go into a fight-or-flight mode, which almost completely deactivates their ability to evaluate your arguments rationally. Star-manning makes clear from the start that you recognize, appreciate, and share their intentions. You aren't opposed to the things they care about the most. You're actually an ally. They don't need to fight you or run from you. From this vantage point, you can discuss strategies for accomplishing the goals you both share, and there is a much higher likelihood they will be open to hearing the reasons you think your strategy will be more effective than they would if their hindbrain activated at the beginning of the conversation.
- exodust 4y ago
  From the article: "More often, you will run into ordinary people under the influence of bad ideas—ideas that lead them to think and act in misguided, even monstrous ways." So a presumptuous negativity lurks behind starman? The tone is like "we can cure those people infected with bad ideas, with healing power of compassion".
  - rendall 4y ago
    I took that as more a way to reach those readers who already think this way. Kind of "If you are trying to reach someone who is under the influence of ideas you think are bad, try empathizing with the values that led them to these ideas."
    - exodust 4y ago
      You needed to change what they wrote in order to take it that way.
      - rendall 4y ago
        Not really. I interpreted the quote in context of the whole, which you did not do.
        exodust 4y ago
        You're missing the part where he says "monsters are so few in number that you’re unlikely to actually encounter one." No argument there. But then he continues: "more often, you will run into ordinary people under the influence of bad ideas... Our error is in assuming these people are lost to us." You can try all you like to give him a green pass of interpretation and context, but by no means is he speaking from the cynic's point of view. He is establishing that people are infected with bad ideas. His premise is about all the ignorant people out there you can "de-cloak" with compassionate star-manning. > "Many may still think this idea naïve, but they’re wrong." I think the idea is naive, and the author comes across as arrogant, and contradicts his own advice. If you disagree, you're wrong. Don't worry, I extend you compassion!
- agentgumshoe 4y ago
  Can't this only really work if your 'opponent' agrees to also do the same up front? Imagine believing a troll arguing with you has fully honest and positive intentions (or you can convince them to be so) while they savage you. That's some weird self-torture. Or, if your opponent isn't interest in the strategies, you're back to square one. Training yourself to ignore the individual behind the comments and focus on the content sounds more useful in my opinion over time, as it allows you to debate under broader circumstances, without any social contract. I might be completely wrong, but I also imagine it would lead to better recognition of circular logic, ad-hominem and other useless argumentation rhetoric because you're actively working to remove the emotional triggers that blind you.
  - smeej 4y ago
    I think the point is that your "opponent" might agree to this if you express openness to it from the start by showing them you understand and share their deepest motives, but they will almost certainly be closed to you if they perceive themselves (rightly or wrongly) to be under attack. It's always up to you to assess whether there's any hope for a productive conversation with someone. It's also up to you to define "productive." If there is no hope, by whatever definition you select, it's probably a better use of your time to set a boundary and disengage. This strategy seems to be geared toward maximizing the chance that your "opponent" will be able and willing to hear your points, but there's only so much any strategy can do if someone is determined to see you as an enemy from the start.

smeej 4y ago

Many (most?) people identify with their ideas. They consider their ideas to be parts of, or manifestations of, themselves. This is why, if you attack an idea, the person defending it feels threatened. They go into a fight-or-flight mode, which almost completely deactivates their ability to evaluate your arguments rationally. Star-manning makes clear from the start that you recognize, appreciate, and share their intentions. You aren't opposed to the things they care about the most. You're actually an ally. They don't need to fight you or run from you. From this vantage point, you can discuss strategies for accomplishing the goals you both share, and there is a much higher likelihood they will be open to hearing the reasons you think your strategy will be more effective than they would if their hindbrain activated at the beginning of the conversation.

exodust 4y ago
From the article: "More often, you will run into ordinary people under the influence of bad ideas—ideas that lead them to think and act in misguided, even monstrous ways." So a presumptuous negativity lurks behind starman? The tone is like "we can cure those people infected with bad ideas, with healing power of compassion".
- rendall 4y ago
  I took that as more a way to reach those readers who already think this way. Kind of "If you are trying to reach someone who is under the influence of ideas you think are bad, try empathizing with the values that led them to these ideas."
  - exodust 4y ago
    You needed to change what they wrote in order to take it that way.
    - rendall 4y ago
      Not really. I interpreted the quote in context of the whole, which you did not do.
      - exodust 4y ago
        You're missing the part where he says "monsters are so few in number that you’re unlikely to actually encounter one." No argument there. But then he continues: "more often, you will run into ordinary people under the influence of bad ideas... Our error is in assuming these people are lost to us." You can try all you like to give him a green pass of interpretation and context, but by no means is he speaking from the cynic's point of view. He is establishing that people are infected with bad ideas. His premise is about all the ignorant people out there you can "de-cloak" with compassionate star-manning. > "Many may still think this idea naïve, but they’re wrong." I think the idea is naive, and the author comes across as arrogant, and contradicts his own advice. If you disagree, you're wrong. Don't worry, I extend you compassion!
agentgumshoe 4y ago
Can't this only really work if your 'opponent' agrees to also do the same up front? Imagine believing a troll arguing with you has fully honest and positive intentions (or you can convince them to be so) while they savage you. That's some weird self-torture. Or, if your opponent isn't interest in the strategies, you're back to square one. Training yourself to ignore the individual behind the comments and focus on the content sounds more useful in my opinion over time, as it allows you to debate under broader circumstances, without any social contract. I might be completely wrong, but I also imagine it would lead to better recognition of circular logic, ad-hominem and other useless argumentation rhetoric because you're actively working to remove the emotional triggers that blind you.
- smeej 4y ago
  I think the point is that your "opponent" might agree to this if you express openness to it from the start by showing them you understand and share their deepest motives, but they will almost certainly be closed to you if they perceive themselves (rightly or wrongly) to be under attack. It's always up to you to assess whether there's any hope for a productive conversation with someone. It's also up to you to define "productive." If there is no hope, by whatever definition you select, it's probably a better use of your time to set a boundary and disengage. This strategy seems to be geared toward maximizing the chance that your "opponent" will be able and willing to hear your points, but there's only so much any strategy can do if someone is determined to see you as an enemy from the start.