An excellent thread from @farnamstreet on producing better arguments. Priceless advice for any campaigner or lobbyist.
Too often we use straw arguments, thinking they will win. They don’t. They a swept away, and you don’t win. Instead, use this technique, and create a steelman, and your chances of winning will increase.
Strange it appeared as I was suggesting something similar to someone yesterday to address a recent Commission proposal.
We often use these bad arguments without realizing it or experience them without recognizing them, but these types of debates are unproductive and unlikely to help anyone learn. If we want our arguments to create buy-in and not animosity, we need to avoid making bad ones.
It’s never fun to admit we’re wrong about anything or to have to change our minds. But it is essential if we want to get smarter and see the world as it is, not as we want it to be.
Any time we engage in debate, we need to be honest about our intentions. What are we trying to achieve? Are we open to changing our minds? Are we listening to our opponent?
Whatever the purpose, bad arguments are harmful to everyone involved in a debate. They don’t get us anywhere because we’re not tackling an opponent’s actual viewpoint. This means we have no hope of convincing them. So how do we prevent bad arguments?
“In Intuition Pumps and Other Tools for Thinking,” the philosopher Daniel Dennett offers some general guidelines for using the principle of charity, formulated by social psychologist and game theorist Anatol Rapoport: