Unfortunately the best way to win a 1v1 argument is to simply refuse to concede any points no matter what. You may not be optimal to win, but you by definition cannot lose. Try arguing with a pet about not serving second dinner. You have the rhetorical advantages of billions of extra neurons, grasp of language, education etc. but you're still never going to convince an animal that you're morally correct.
By discouraging any engagement on the merits (bullying/meta bullying in your model), the discussion stays on a level of blanket refusal that means they simply cannot lose any ground.
Here's how I think about this: Most people interpret political disagreement using an "intentions heuristic"--they try to determine who means well, and then they defer to those people on empirical and policy questions. But once you have run that procedure, it also works in reverse. If somebody disagrees, they must not mean well. And saying "well it isn't actually that they think X, really they think Y, now I'm not saying I agree..." is correlated, if you accept the intentions heuristic, with having bad intentions.
I believe that most people who have a side in the culture wars have not thought out their position. Rather, they've chosen sides in a tribal war ... and usually they have not 'chosen', they grew up in the tribe they're in. They couldn't really argue for their views, which are mainly attitudes and not articulated beliefs, and are not in a position to understand the arguments for the views of the other side.
And ...trying to understand the other side is in tension with demonizing them. But in a war, it's functional to demonize the other side. Suppose American soldiers preparing for the invasion of Normandy were exposed to information aboutt the young Germans they were preparing to kill: told that these young men believed they were fighting for their country, having been subjected to ten years of unchallenged Nazi propaganda, that many of them had parents who had hated the Nazis, that they were forced to become soldiers (ie conscripted). Would that have made the Americans more, or less, effective?
Thus, as Social Justice Warriors advance to the task of destroying racist, capitalist, homo-Islamo-Trans-phobic America, they must not see their enemies as humans, but as demons.
I used to teach philosophy. I had to teach the abortion debate, and many other less emotionally-charged topics. I'd tell the students to allow themselves to be persuaded by the other side's argument, because that's the only way to really, deeply understand it. That's how you feel the emotional pull of an argument as well as the intellectual pull. The students HATED doing that. It's deeply uncomfortable to let yourself be persuaded by "the bad guys", whichever side you might take that to be. People fear that they'll never climb out of the snare of the other guy's argument. They are afraid they'll lose their sense of self. They're afraid that maybe they were wrong about a morally important point. Never underestimate the force of emotional discomfort in intellectual debates.
Great post! Perhaps there's a seventh model of "self-preservation of the group" (or is it a mix of the 5th & 6th models?) where, on certain topics that everybody know hinge on faith rather than proof, there's unbounded value in the collective suspension of disbelief. The group IS the belief, so if the belief disappears the group's existence is threatened. Anything that threatens the fiction (on either side) has to be squashed, lest we have to admit that the emperor has no clothes and we're all clueless on the matter. For abortion it goes like this: liberals know the definition of personhood is blurry but if enough people repeat that it happens post birth[1], it lends credibility to their faith-based belief. ([1] or post week X, but it has to coalesce around a fixed Schelling point, otherwise it's open to discussion and no longer faith-based; however it's hard to figure out what X is, which might explain why you're uneasy bringing up a specific X). Conversely, conservatives know their stance of "conception = personhood" cannot be argued with facts, so it has to be based in faith and thus closed to challenge.
Note that it's not so much about refusing to understand the other side, as it is to prevent self-doubt at all cost. Each group is willing to accept the consequences of their belief on policy-making as long as the group perpetuates its existence.
I'd strongly recommend Jonathan Haidt's book "The Righteous Mind" [I'm not endorsing anything else outside of the book]. He discusses this mainly from the tribal perspective. A quote:
“Morality binds and blinds. It binds us into ideological teams that fight each other as though the fate of the world depended on our side winning each battle. It blinds us to the fact that each team is composed of good people who have something important to say.”
I think about morality and motivation. When we make a strong moral statement, it will be a strong motivator, but we don't get to choose the direction of the motivation. It could motivate someone to be act in line with our morality, or it could motivate someone to act against our group.
I recently had an experience where I tried to explain that pro-lifers see abortion as "murder," and that it's a fair point to a certain degree.
My conversation partner was unreceptive to my analysis.
When I asked them why, they said that extending empathy and understanding to the opposite side hurts. This is similar to Ellen's explanation, but rather than being "afraid of being wrong," my partner came from a place of pain.
Many members of historically oppressed classes (like women) are unable to dissect the logical argument from reality. Understanding your oppressor forces you to internalize reasons to oppress yourself. This can lead to self-loathing and assimilation.
Dynomight, this might also be a partial explanation for why this phenomenon is hyper-specific to CW issues. There is more pain / trauma built up that can make understanding the opposition akin to self-harm.
Unfortunately the best way to win a 1v1 argument is to simply refuse to concede any points no matter what. You may not be optimal to win, but you by definition cannot lose. Try arguing with a pet about not serving second dinner. You have the rhetorical advantages of billions of extra neurons, grasp of language, education etc. but you're still never going to convince an animal that you're morally correct.
By discouraging any engagement on the merits (bullying/meta bullying in your model), the discussion stays on a level of blanket refusal that means they simply cannot lose any ground.
Here's how I think about this: Most people interpret political disagreement using an "intentions heuristic"--they try to determine who means well, and then they defer to those people on empirical and policy questions. But once you have run that procedure, it also works in reverse. If somebody disagrees, they must not mean well. And saying "well it isn't actually that they think X, really they think Y, now I'm not saying I agree..." is correlated, if you accept the intentions heuristic, with having bad intentions.
I believe that most people who have a side in the culture wars have not thought out their position. Rather, they've chosen sides in a tribal war ... and usually they have not 'chosen', they grew up in the tribe they're in. They couldn't really argue for their views, which are mainly attitudes and not articulated beliefs, and are not in a position to understand the arguments for the views of the other side.
And ...trying to understand the other side is in tension with demonizing them. But in a war, it's functional to demonize the other side. Suppose American soldiers preparing for the invasion of Normandy were exposed to information aboutt the young Germans they were preparing to kill: told that these young men believed they were fighting for their country, having been subjected to ten years of unchallenged Nazi propaganda, that many of them had parents who had hated the Nazis, that they were forced to become soldiers (ie conscripted). Would that have made the Americans more, or less, effective?
Thus, as Social Justice Warriors advance to the task of destroying racist, capitalist, homo-Islamo-Trans-phobic America, they must not see their enemies as humans, but as demons.
I used to teach philosophy. I had to teach the abortion debate, and many other less emotionally-charged topics. I'd tell the students to allow themselves to be persuaded by the other side's argument, because that's the only way to really, deeply understand it. That's how you feel the emotional pull of an argument as well as the intellectual pull. The students HATED doing that. It's deeply uncomfortable to let yourself be persuaded by "the bad guys", whichever side you might take that to be. People fear that they'll never climb out of the snare of the other guy's argument. They are afraid they'll lose their sense of self. They're afraid that maybe they were wrong about a morally important point. Never underestimate the force of emotional discomfort in intellectual debates.
Great post! Perhaps there's a seventh model of "self-preservation of the group" (or is it a mix of the 5th & 6th models?) where, on certain topics that everybody know hinge on faith rather than proof, there's unbounded value in the collective suspension of disbelief. The group IS the belief, so if the belief disappears the group's existence is threatened. Anything that threatens the fiction (on either side) has to be squashed, lest we have to admit that the emperor has no clothes and we're all clueless on the matter. For abortion it goes like this: liberals know the definition of personhood is blurry but if enough people repeat that it happens post birth[1], it lends credibility to their faith-based belief. ([1] or post week X, but it has to coalesce around a fixed Schelling point, otherwise it's open to discussion and no longer faith-based; however it's hard to figure out what X is, which might explain why you're uneasy bringing up a specific X). Conversely, conservatives know their stance of "conception = personhood" cannot be argued with facts, so it has to be based in faith and thus closed to challenge.
Note that it's not so much about refusing to understand the other side, as it is to prevent self-doubt at all cost. Each group is willing to accept the consequences of their belief on policy-making as long as the group perpetuates its existence.
Well that was a fun read.
I'd strongly recommend Jonathan Haidt's book "The Righteous Mind" [I'm not endorsing anything else outside of the book]. He discusses this mainly from the tribal perspective. A quote:
“Morality binds and blinds. It binds us into ideological teams that fight each other as though the fate of the world depended on our side winning each battle. It blinds us to the fact that each team is composed of good people who have something important to say.”
I think about morality and motivation. When we make a strong moral statement, it will be a strong motivator, but we don't get to choose the direction of the motivation. It could motivate someone to be act in line with our morality, or it could motivate someone to act against our group.
I recently had an experience where I tried to explain that pro-lifers see abortion as "murder," and that it's a fair point to a certain degree.
My conversation partner was unreceptive to my analysis.
When I asked them why, they said that extending empathy and understanding to the opposite side hurts. This is similar to Ellen's explanation, but rather than being "afraid of being wrong," my partner came from a place of pain.
Many members of historically oppressed classes (like women) are unable to dissect the logical argument from reality. Understanding your oppressor forces you to internalize reasons to oppress yourself. This can lead to self-loathing and assimilation.
Dynomight, this might also be a partial explanation for why this phenomenon is hyper-specific to CW issues. There is more pain / trauma built up that can make understanding the opposition akin to self-harm.