3 ms·

I use that phrase on occasion but speak only for myself. To me it's a way of steel-manning the other side. If I use the phrase, then typically it means I don'

I use that phrase on occasion but speak only for myself. To me it's a way of steel-manning the other side. If I use the phrase, then typically it means I don't agree with the argument but I (in good faith) view it as the strongest counter-argument to my (and the person I'm talking too') position. I like this a lot because it makes for much deeper and more interesting conversations with someone who already shares the same opinion as me. If we just sit around agreeing then IMHO the conversation is dull. Using the phrase "Devil's advocate" is a way of communicating that this is not my personal opinion, but rather my attempt to argue/articulate "the other side." Generally speaking) nobody worships the devil - we think him the opposite of good/true/etc, so presenting "his" argument attributed to him implies well that meaning. Most people do seem to think as you though, that it's really my hidden opinion that I'm afraid to embrace. This especially becomes evident on HN and Reddit because so many people are always suspecting and looking for some hidden agenda in everything. For that reason I'd love to find a better phrase, but I don't know of one. Do you have any ideas?

lapcat 2y ago
> If I use the phrase, then typically it means I don't agree with the argument but I (in good faith) view it as the strongest counter-argument to my (and the person I'm talking too') position. Ok, but why do so-called Devil's advocates always stop there? If you don't agree with the strongest counter-argument, then why would you present it without your own response? It's fine to present the strongest counter-argument and then go on to explain why that argument doesn't hold in the end, but a simple Devil's advocate comment, by itself, does give the impression that it's really your hidden opinion that you're afraid to embrace. I think it's weird, and also somewhat hostile, to insincerely present an argument that's not your own and then implicitly place the burden of proof on everyone else to refute it. Not to mention, there are surely some sincere defenders of Google out there? Why not let them do the arguing? Of course, if nobody is a sincere defender of Google, that seems to prove that Google doesn't actually have good reasons for its actions. > Generally speaking) nobody worships the devil Metaphorically speaking, current events prove this to be quite false.
- freedomben 2y ago
  > If you don't agree with the strongest counter-argument, then why would you present it without your own response? It's fine to present the strongest counter-argument and then go on to explain why that argument doesn't hold in the end, but a simple Devil's advocate comment, by itself, does give the impression that it's really your hidden opinion that you're afraid to embrace. I do go on to explain why it doesn't hold, but not until the other parties have had a chance to consider as well, otherwise it defeats the point (which again is to get conversation going). I also don't presume to always have the answers, and part of my hope is that the other people will consider the devil's argument and come up with an interesting reply I hadn't considered before. There is one exception: back when I was a (religious) believer, I would frequently pose "literal devil's advocate" questions that were essentially atheist arguments against whatever religious teaching I was presenting at the time (or the instructor was presenting). In those situations I usually would immediately lay out my counterargument because otherwise the religious people would visibly squirm from cognitive dissonance and in one case actually berated me for not being "uplifting." He went on to say that church should be a safe place where you are never challenged in your belief, only reinforced. That was one of the final straws for my faith. Also though, it noticeably reduced the interestingness of the conversations because nobody spent any time thinking about the devil's advocate argument since they already had an/the answer. Honest question: Does it bother you that somebody might be interested in and want to explore oppositional perspectives, without holding those perspectives themselves? I think it does bother a lot of people, even people that I wouldn't have expected (like well-respected professors at prestigious colleges like Stanford, for example). I think some people just aren't capable or comfortable with the idea that there aren't rock-solid right and wrong, and can't accept that someone might respect another perspective without agreeing with it. That's purely observational though.
  - lapcat 2y ago
    > it defeats the point (which again is to get conversation going) Why is that a useful purpose? It's not like we're sitting in a room together, and there's a lull in the conversation, an uncomfortable silence. There's no inherent reason why HN threads need to continue indefinitely. > part of my hope is that the other people will consider the devil's argument and come up with an interesting reply I hadn't considered before If you're looking for help or education, then just explicitly ask for that. The phrase "Devil's advocate" doesn't give the impression of intellectual modesty. > Honest question: Does it bother you that somebody might be interested in and want to explore oppositional perspectives, without holding those perspectives themselves? That doesn't bother me - a personal, private exercise, anyway. What does bother me is insincerity and duplicity. I think that people should be open and honest about what they believe and what they don't believe; IMO the phrase "Devil's advocate" is obscurantist at best.

lapcat 2y ago

> If I use the phrase, then typically it means I don't agree with the argument but I (in good faith) view it as the strongest counter-argument to my (and the person I'm talking too') position. Ok, but why do so-called Devil's advocates always stop there? If you don't agree with the strongest counter-argument, then why would you present it without your own response? It's fine to present the strongest counter-argument and then go on to explain why that argument doesn't hold in the end, but a simple Devil's advocate comment, by itself, does give the impression that it's really your hidden opinion that you're afraid to embrace. I think it's weird, and also somewhat hostile, to insincerely present an argument that's not your own and then implicitly place the burden of proof on everyone else to refute it. Not to mention, there are surely some sincere defenders of Google out there? Why not let them do the arguing? Of course, if nobody is a sincere defender of Google, that seems to prove that Google doesn't actually have good reasons for its actions. > Generally speaking) nobody worships the devil Metaphorically speaking, current events prove this to be quite false.

freedomben 2y ago
> If you don't agree with the strongest counter-argument, then why would you present it without your own response? It's fine to present the strongest counter-argument and then go on to explain why that argument doesn't hold in the end, but a simple Devil's advocate comment, by itself, does give the impression that it's really your hidden opinion that you're afraid to embrace. I do go on to explain why it doesn't hold, but not until the other parties have had a chance to consider as well, otherwise it defeats the point (which again is to get conversation going). I also don't presume to always have the answers, and part of my hope is that the other people will consider the devil's argument and come up with an interesting reply I hadn't considered before. There is one exception: back when I was a (religious) believer, I would frequently pose "literal devil's advocate" questions that were essentially atheist arguments against whatever religious teaching I was presenting at the time (or the instructor was presenting). In those situations I usually would immediately lay out my counterargument because otherwise the religious people would visibly squirm from cognitive dissonance and in one case actually berated me for not being "uplifting." He went on to say that church should be a safe place where you are never challenged in your belief, only reinforced. That was one of the final straws for my faith. Also though, it noticeably reduced the interestingness of the conversations because nobody spent any time thinking about the devil's advocate argument since they already had an/the answer. Honest question: Does it bother you that somebody might be interested in and want to explore oppositional perspectives, without holding those perspectives themselves? I think it does bother a lot of people, even people that I wouldn't have expected (like well-respected professors at prestigious colleges like Stanford, for example). I think some people just aren't capable or comfortable with the idea that there aren't rock-solid right and wrong, and can't accept that someone might respect another perspective without agreeing with it. That's purely observational though.
- lapcat 2y ago
  > it defeats the point (which again is to get conversation going) Why is that a useful purpose? It's not like we're sitting in a room together, and there's a lull in the conversation, an uncomfortable silence. There's no inherent reason why HN threads need to continue indefinitely. > part of my hope is that the other people will consider the devil's argument and come up with an interesting reply I hadn't considered before If you're looking for help or education, then just explicitly ask for that. The phrase "Devil's advocate" doesn't give the impression of intellectual modesty. > Honest question: Does it bother you that somebody might be interested in and want to explore oppositional perspectives, without holding those perspectives themselves? That doesn't bother me - a personal, private exercise, anyway. What does bother me is insincerity and duplicity. I think that people should be open and honest about what they believe and what they don't believe; IMO the phrase "Devil's advocate" is obscurantist at best.