I previously wrote How to Argue which was a collection of tips on how to have fruitful discussions. This post is a follow up to that post and is inspired by the book Whats our problem by Tim Urban. My previous post talked about how to get the best out of a discussion by keeping an open mind, this post describes some common pitfalls that can derail a discussion. Before we can jump into what to avoid, it makes sense to understand the higher and the lower mind thesis and the different ways we defend our opinions.
The higher mind and the lower mind
Tim Urban describes the concept of higher mind (conscious, wise, knows what we should do, etc) and the lower mind (controls our primal behaviours and what we can do). These don’t map exactly to System 1 and 2 of Thinking fast and slow but can be thought of as abstractions of them.
This high v low terminology segues into the vertical thinking which is an often forgotten dimension of discussions. for ex when we discuss politics, we just think of a linear scale from left to right that describe what you believe in but there is a vertical axis as that describes, how you believe. Higher mind thinks like a scientist (constantly looking to be proven wrong in the short term to get it right in the long term) and often times like a fan (motivated reasoning). The lower mind thinks like an attorney (vehemently defending their beliefs) or a zealot (consider the world as a simple black and white).
Framing a weak Counterargument or Strawman
The sign of a weak argument is a weak counterargument. Greatly authored papers always come with a great counter argument. It shows the authors have thought through the problem and have considered the other side of the argument. If people cannot come up with a good counterargument it means their own arguments are flimsy and weak.
A strawman argument is a misrepresentation of an opponent’s argument that is easy to defeat. It is a fallacy because it fails to address the actual arguments that the opponent is making. It is a form of argument that is aims to give the impression of refuting an opponent’s argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One can easily spot a strawman argument when the counterargument is a caricature of the original argument.
Always steelman your counterpart, i.e. address the core issue being discussed and not a caricature of it. This is the only way to have an intellectually honest discussion.
Motte and Bailey
In ancient times, Bailey was the flat land used for living and cultivation while the Motte was a fortress atop the adjoining hill. When under attack, people living in Bailey ran up to the Mott and held the fort which was far more defensible. This is what people do when their arguments come under fire. They run to the Motte which is easy to defend and has similarities with the original argument however is a different argument.
A simple example would be you defending a specific idea like gun control and you run to the Motte and say something like “I am for protection of freedom at all costs”. This is a classic motte and bailey. The motte is easy to defend and is a weaker version of the original argument.
Always defend your original and exact position, not an abstraction or dilution of it that is obviously easy to defend or not even a point of contention.
Discrediting the speaker
Discrediting the speaker is the easiest way to not address the arguments posed by the speaker. This is also known as ad hominem. When you hear arguments formed in a way that are directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining, you know they are indulging in ad hominem.
Apart from being unproductive, ad hominem is also a logical fallacy. It is a fallacy because the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made). Needless to say calling someone names or attacking their character is not a good way to have a fruitful discussion.
Esteem protectiveness
The final point is not too get too entangled with your opinions. We all have a tendency to protect our self esteem and our opinions are a part of our identity. When our opinions are challenged, we feel threatened and our lower mind takes over that pushes us to become closed minded. We use the tactics described above because of our confirmation bias and esteem protectiveness. We twist observations into stories we want to hear that validate our already formed beliefs. Nobody wants to look like an idiot who was brainwashed, so we defend our positions like a zealot.
I run a startup called Harmonize. We are hiring and if you’re looking for an exciting startup journey, please write to jobs@harmonizehq.com. Apart from this blog, I tweet about startup life and practical wisdom in books.