completely agree about the imperative we have to argue with an open mind and in good faith, and how beneficial that is.
somewhat inclined to disagree, however, with your example — and this truly is a stark indictment on just how bad politics in the united states have gotten — that a majority of our politicians do sincerely care about helping people: i think, in this day and age, as evidenced by our current president, they care a lot more about power and furthering their own interests than anything else.
but i am just nitpicking. this has nothing to do with the premise of your article. thank you, as per usual, for a quality post.
I hope Mr. Thomson will weigh in if I am off the mark here, but this seems to run counter to my understanding of the steel man approach. The article states, "This is where you not only represent someone’s arguments faithfully and with respect, but you do so in the best possible light." What do you think?
This is such a good article. If only we weren’t so divided and more of us could put aside deeply embedded bias and dogma to consider an attempt to be fair and open minded. I still have Hope.
Having spent more than 40 years in national politics and policymaking, I find this piece insightful. The best politicians I have observed follow many of the 4 steps outlined in this article. Publicly, of course, they will simplify to silliness, often because the patience and concentration of the public is very short lived. But in dealing with their colleagues, the ones who succeed in changing policy are the ones who listen, ask, and then suggest. It seems important to distinguish the demands of public discourse (the imperative of keeping the troops aroused) and the results of serious policymaking.
I strive to find areas of agreement with those whose ideologies differ significantly from mine. However, as far as the example of a Christian, I know quite a few who have said they actually believe in the man with a white beard in the sky, Moses did part the red sea, and Noah did build an Ark, etc... It's difficult but necessary to move past these dillusional and irrational beliefs in some, to even start a conversation. I've found that I have to "pick my battles" if we are going to agree on anything. Sadly, "anything" is typically much of nothing. I continue to try to understand where people are coming from.
This is not a good summary of Dennett’s rules for good argument as laid out in his 2013 book “Intuition Pumps”. In the short chapter on Rapoport’s Rules, Dennett recommends that you (1) précis your interlocutor’s argument; (2) list your points of agreement; (3) say what you E learned from that process; and only then (4) critique the whole of the remaining points where you disagree.
I am currently re-reading The Republic. I do so every few years. And every time I do I cringe at how poor our ability for constructive argument still is today, especially in politics where it is needed most. It baffles me how constructive debate principles are not embedded in our education systems by now, despite being as old as the hills and revered as they are. One notices though, when looking at Dennett's rules, that fundamental to it all lies the ability to listen.
That is the conventional view of Socrates. An alternative view is that he was an agenda-driven advocate for Plato’s eternal verities, a bully who was quite unfair to Sophists, and the last person to hang out with, in a room, if one wanted to have a serious dialogue.
I think that in contemporary political discussion it's often enough to simply lay out what you believe (and why) and emphasize that you're good-willed. You're not frightened or ignorant or bigoted or brainwashed. You have an understanding of the world such that the thing that you're arguing for will help people and society overall.
In today's intolerant times we often forget that most policies can be argued for on these grounds, even if they end up being mistaken. We also forget that WE COULD BE WRONG. Very few people deserve a feeling of moral certainty, yet lots of people have them.
I wonder if I would be permitted to share a link here--not a marketing or phishing link, but a link to an organization that promotes conversations across significant differences--
I cannot recommend them highly enough. RTT is striving to do just what this article proposes, to build dialogue that can assist us in truly seeing each other. RTT teaches excellent listening and reflection skills, so that we might do as Mr. Thomson suggests, not to
"...agree or compromise on your position"
but to
"...fight what is there to fight, and not an imaginary shadow or straw man."
completely agree about the imperative we have to argue with an open mind and in good faith, and how beneficial that is.
somewhat inclined to disagree, however, with your example — and this truly is a stark indictment on just how bad politics in the united states have gotten — that a majority of our politicians do sincerely care about helping people: i think, in this day and age, as evidenced by our current president, they care a lot more about power and furthering their own interests than anything else.
but i am just nitpicking. this has nothing to do with the premise of your article. thank you, as per usual, for a quality post.
…”as evidenced by our current President”…just so I understand (steel man approach)…..
what an incredible job he’s doing…
doing what The People elected him for…
reversing the incompetency of predecessor…
I hope Mr. Thomson will weigh in if I am off the mark here, but this seems to run counter to my understanding of the steel man approach. The article states, "This is where you not only represent someone’s arguments faithfully and with respect, but you do so in the best possible light." What do you think?
This is such a good article. If only we weren’t so divided and more of us could put aside deeply embedded bias and dogma to consider an attempt to be fair and open minded. I still have Hope.
It seems that there is usually a good with most people even those we disagree with.
Having spent more than 40 years in national politics and policymaking, I find this piece insightful. The best politicians I have observed follow many of the 4 steps outlined in this article. Publicly, of course, they will simplify to silliness, often because the patience and concentration of the public is very short lived. But in dealing with their colleagues, the ones who succeed in changing policy are the ones who listen, ask, and then suggest. It seems important to distinguish the demands of public discourse (the imperative of keeping the troops aroused) and the results of serious policymaking.
Thanks for this. Every thinking person should read it.
Needs to be taught in schools and the workplace
I strive to find areas of agreement with those whose ideologies differ significantly from mine. However, as far as the example of a Christian, I know quite a few who have said they actually believe in the man with a white beard in the sky, Moses did part the red sea, and Noah did build an Ark, etc... It's difficult but necessary to move past these dillusional and irrational beliefs in some, to even start a conversation. I've found that I have to "pick my battles" if we are going to agree on anything. Sadly, "anything" is typically much of nothing. I continue to try to understand where people are coming from.
This is not a good summary of Dennett’s rules for good argument as laid out in his 2013 book “Intuition Pumps”. In the short chapter on Rapoport’s Rules, Dennett recommends that you (1) précis your interlocutor’s argument; (2) list your points of agreement; (3) say what you E learned from that process; and only then (4) critique the whole of the remaining points where you disagree.
I am currently re-reading The Republic. I do so every few years. And every time I do I cringe at how poor our ability for constructive argument still is today, especially in politics where it is needed most. It baffles me how constructive debate principles are not embedded in our education systems by now, despite being as old as the hills and revered as they are. One notices though, when looking at Dennett's rules, that fundamental to it all lies the ability to listen.
That is the conventional view of Socrates. An alternative view is that he was an agenda-driven advocate for Plato’s eternal verities, a bully who was quite unfair to Sophists, and the last person to hang out with, in a room, if one wanted to have a serious dialogue.
The problem with the "man" argument that it is not good debate has one big flaw.
I have a sister in law that is MAGA, there is no straw. I can't assign good intentions, she'll deny.
I can't exaggerate her position, it's hers.
If I try to validate, she will reconfirm the extreme MAGA, leaps of logic and hypocrisy be damned.
Dennett debates serious scholars not real people. Good for him, but kind of a useless article for most of us.
I think that in contemporary political discussion it's often enough to simply lay out what you believe (and why) and emphasize that you're good-willed. You're not frightened or ignorant or bigoted or brainwashed. You have an understanding of the world such that the thing that you're arguing for will help people and society overall.
In today's intolerant times we often forget that most policies can be argued for on these grounds, even if they end up being mistaken. We also forget that WE COULD BE WRONG. Very few people deserve a feeling of moral certainty, yet lots of people have them.
https://jmpolemic.substack.com/p/talking-to-the-other-side-a-brief/comments
https://jmpolemic.substack.com/p/scout-mindset
Wonderful piece!
I wonder if I would be permitted to share a link here--not a marketing or phishing link, but a link to an organization that promotes conversations across significant differences--
Resetting the Table (RTT) at https://www.resettingthetable.org/
I cannot recommend them highly enough. RTT is striving to do just what this article proposes, to build dialogue that can assist us in truly seeing each other. RTT teaches excellent listening and reflection skills, so that we might do as Mr. Thomson suggests, not to
"...agree or compromise on your position"
but to
"...fight what is there to fight, and not an imaginary shadow or straw man."
Thank you!
I don't waste my time debating.
Excellent
Hear! Hear! Hear! Hear! Hear!