I thought I would share a version of an email I wrote a little while ago. I help to organise my research group's weekly seminars - the idea has, broadly, been to foster an open space in which to discuss things of a less technical nature. Recently, however, one of the profs raised some concerns about people making less substantiated or emotional statements. It got me to thinking about how or whether these two goals reconcile. In any case it reminded me of the discussions around the Sam Altman post from a while back, and just hubski's mantra/culture in general.
___
Of late I have been thinking quite broadly about issues around debate, discussion and opinion. It seems perhaps a bit trite but it appears to me that in many spheres of public discourse we seem to be constantly bombarded with people disagreeing with one another and a fair amount of the vitriol that often accompanies such disagreements.
Whether the nature of public discourse now is any different to how it was in the past is not really something I have the experience to say – in any case I mention this state only inasmuch as it forms a contextual basis for discourse writ large.
The main point is that it feels self-evidently necessary to have discussions which are worthwhile (constructive?) as opposed to pointless – from the national level down to the interpersonal. The question is then what form a worthwhile, valuable or constructive discussion should take. In order to begin to answer this question we must unpack a number of issues – knowledge, perception, opinion, experience and truth are all elements which form part of this muddle.
With that in mind I want to put forward a few of the nascent ideas I have had around all these and their relationships with one another. I do not for a minute believe the thinking is "complete" nor even necessarily consistent. But hopefully it can be food for thought amongst us all, and something which may stimulate (recursively) some discussion.
The dynamics of opinion
My first contention is about belief and opinion. It may seem paradoxical but in the moment where a person expresses an opinion of theirs, I think it is impossible for them to not simultaneously believe that opinion to be true. Consider the converse – that it is possible. What would this look like, in terms of cognition and expression? I make a statement: “I believe the world to be this way”, but in my heart of hearts I believe that it is in fact a different way – in this case I have simply not expressed the opinion that I actually believe, but I still have a certain truth that I hold on to.
There are some edge cases to this theory: I believe thing A as well as thing B, but these happen to be logically inconsistent. In this case I am suffering from cognitive dissonance, which is in fact the exact paradox I am attempting to describe – the situation where, because A and B are both my opinions, I must hold both to be true regardless of their inconsistency (the stability of such a situation is a separate issue).
The reason I mention this oddity is that it naturally plays itself out whenever two people engage in a debate – both people have different beliefs, but their beliefs are equally true to themselves. Of course, beliefs can change, but during this process one’s internal truth remains intact – I was wrong but I can never be wrong (in the sense I am describing here).
On a personal level, I know that my opinion has changed for many things over the years. To me this firstly signifies that I really shouldn’t clutch my current opinion with too much force, regardless of the fact that I must believe it – and for anyone interested is also the reason why I much prefer playing Devil’s advocate than actually expressing my real opinion.
Note that this is related, but subtly different to the idea that “we are all ignorant”. To my mind, ignorance implies that there is some truth we are not aware of. I think my point is that “truth” is not really what we are after, but rather the ability to see opinions/beliefs as malleable and ductile.
Furthermore, I am explicitly not saying that we can never know anything or that there is no universal truth. What perhaps is questionable is the conflation of individual truth and universal truth.
The dynamics of perception
My second contention is that what constitutes this individual truth is influenced by perception in ways that are very fundamental to the acquisition of knowledge. Without getting into the philosophy too deeply, it seems fair to me that we can only really know the world which we perceive: Sartre said that “consciousness and the world are given in the same blow” and I tend to agree. Because, however, our own consciousnesses are all different in any myriad ways, does it not follow that we all perceive equally valid yet irreconcilably different worlds?
Consider the case of languages with different conceptualisations of colour – in Japanese for example (I am told), there is only one word which captures both blue and green. So to a Japanese person, the sky and the trees appear to be the same colour (or at least, shades of the same colour) in a way that is not the case for others. The point is that our perceptions in turn are modulated by a number of different things which are probably unique for every person, although there may be similarities among people who share the same way of interpreting aspects of the world.
This idea needs to be borne in mind very strongly when we begin to discuss things with the idea of reaching a consensus or advancing our understanding – that the sky and the trees have different wavelengths of light is largely irrelevant in terms of the effect it will have on our perceptions. Consensus in this context becomes more of a practicable understanding of how everyone sees the issue, rather than everyone seeing it the same way. Otherwise stated, at which point do our different lived experiences of the same physical world imply that a “rational” basis might not be able to accommodate all “worldviews”? Hence the need for a different basis.
On axioms and substantiation
One of my friends often has stories of his classmate with a fringe political ideology. I never want to meet the guy because him and I apparently do not see eye to eye on some very fundamental issues – things like whether equality is an ideal etc. Inasmuch as it seems like one’s deepest-downest ethics are not really based on anything else, it follows that we probably won’t ever agree on some things unless one of us changes our foundational ethics.
The reason I bring this up is because I think it’s often pointless to try and debate something if we can’t agree on the axioms which underpin the discussion. In other words, it’s a different kettle of fish to disagree on the way in which the idea that “all men are created equal” should manifest itself than to disagree about that same statement: on the one hand can be a discussion of how to navigate redress/affirmative action when all should be equal, on the other hand live “race realists” and eugenicists. No prizes for guessing which of the two debates I am not interested in having.
Tying it back to consensus building (i.e. the process I mentioned above), it seems to me that we stand to benefit the most in terms of a discussion when we attempt to drill down into opinions and dissect the axioms/justifications on which they are based – regardless of what form these axioms may take, from feelings to data. Note how this flips around the traditional academic notion of substantiation – in this mode we move from the starting point that the justification exists somewhere (i.e. I must hold my opinions to be true) and seek instead to expose and interrogate it, rather than expect that everyone is explicitly aware of every belief or fact they base their worldview on.
The dynamics of spaces
Which brings us to the next question – what kind of spaces are conducive to this process? In order to answer this, we must first examine what it is that gives a space a certain nature. Firstly, there is the question of what kinds of opinions are admissible. This can be stated in terms of axioms as well: what are the axioms that we must assume to be shared in order to have a discussion that is meaningful. These are best defined in terms of what the stated goal of the space is: in a court environment, one assumes that everyone is reading and basing their arguments off the same laws. In a completely open, “anything goes” discussion there are no prescriptions. I have been sat in many plenary sessions during FeesMustFall protests in which the discussion moves from a very particular ideology, and where deviations from this are not appropriate.
I want to mention here that part of what I am getting at is that the classically liberal notion of free speech and open debate is in fact a very myopic way to consider discussion and discourse. In my view, what kinds of opinions are acceptable depends entirely on the nature of the space and more pertinently on the whims of the humans involved in that space. Note that I don’t think anyone has ever accused the Constitutional Court of being an “echo chamber” due to its deliberations being based on a single and human-defined set of axioms, i.e. the constitution.
What I am getting at is that setting up these axiomatic boundaries is exactly what constitutes defining a space. The idea that there is one universal set of rules which must define how we approach discussion and discourse is one which, I think, neglects to factor in the way that it is our relations with one another which shape our worldview, and not necessarily the prescriptions of a universal moral truth.
The second issue that must be addressed is a practical one: when the discussion does start to veer into the realm of inadmissible opinions, who will play the role of the arbiter? Arbitration is necessary because it is impossible to know a priori everything that is in the limits and everything that is outside the limits. This is also an issue of discipline in terms of the space being dynamically held together by those who constitute it. When an opinion is threatening to dissolve the space (via challenging the axioms that it is based on), this opinion can either be accepted or rejected (with the axioms then changing to accommodate this). In many ways this process of acceptance and rejection is the hallmark of a constructive discussion. How we fill such a role in the broader public discourse is however not clear…
In summary
Opinions are malleable, ductile and furthermore shaped by perception as well as reason. Opinions are not static. Nevertheless, any opinion held represents (for the time being) the holder’s truth. When different truths clash we can hopefully channel this clash in a way that allows both parties to walk away with an improved understanding of one another’s views, and occasionally with a new shared consensus.
Whether this will be possible depends heavily on who is involved in the discussion, mostly because our opinions are either explicitly or implicitly based on certain axioms. In order to have a constructive debate, what must be interrogated is not so much the opinion itself, but the chain of axiomatic justification which underpins it.
I hope that this exposition gives a little bit more structure to the kinds of questions which I certainly know have been milling around in the back of my head for a while. I found it valuable to try and analyse the things we find seem to represent competing or irreconcilable goals – open discussion vs knowledge-based; free speech vs safe spaces etc.
Cheers,
DW
I don't agree with opinions representing the holder's truth, at least not all the time. For most people, some of their opinions are more like part of their identity. Identifying with that particular belief lets them belong to some group or tribe, or lets them see themselves in a certain way. They see these beliefs as axiomatic, rather than a fact-based opinion (not that most people would ever admit this). Attacking that belief, in their eyes, is tantamount to attacking them, because they see it as an attack on part of who they are. And to change that belief, part of them has to die. This can be useful to keep in mind when someone comes along who believes odd or even reprehensible things even in the face of bullet-proof logic and great emotional rhetoric.
This is so very true. Attaching things to identity is a tried-and-true methodology for propaganda and control that is, unfortunately, very effective with many people. It's this very reason that certain parties are so interested in linking political affiliation and lifestyle to people's internal sense of identity. It makes it so much easier to control discourse when everything is earmarked into what party you are affiliated with or what type of lifestyle you should be living. It's this reason that discussions about capitalism become left vs right, rather than discussions about economics, culture, and society. Why some people can't believe in or discuss issues like Climate Change without it becoming a conservative vs liberal issue that somehow affronts them personally, rather than a scientific and social one. And why corporations franchise out identities to people, rather than products, targeting impressionable youth, retired biker daddies, tattooed bearded whisky sipping malcontents, house moms, and hipsters based on what values they should have, beliefs they should hold, behaviors they should adopt, the type of people they should associate with -- and, of course, what products and services should go along with that lifestyle. Wink. Wink. Identities are big business these days. Data driven cash-cows. The present and the future of marketing, politics, and culture. And it is technology and science that are driving this beyond anything we could have predicted even a generation ago; which is probably one downside to having never been where we are as a society, today -- we don't yet understand the impacts and problems that come with this data driven, identity peddling world we have constructed around us. Nor do we have the regulation and the rules to properly regulate it the way it should be.
Very interesting read. One element I would like to add, which came to me during my time studying communication and the effects of propaganda, is the underlying concept of motivation and intent in regard to how someone might communicate during discussion and frame the delivery of their intended message, or guide it to the outcome they want. As per your above argument, we tend to assume during most active discussions that the beliefs, opinions, and attitudes of those engaged in the activity are based on some sort of internal logic (whether or not that logic is substantiated through evidence and reason), and that, even though their reactions are guided by past experiences and beliefs, the responses you receive are generally spontaneous and in the moment, not planned or constructed or motivated before hand. Rarely do we give much thought to what active intentions and/or conscious or subconscious motivations may play a role in someone's ability or inability to accommodate the cognitive dissonance you mentioned above, or their willingness to adapt and change rather than retreat from, or intervene in, the flow of the conversation to alter its outcome. We all harbor biases and experiences that create the individual realities you discussed, but we sometimes don't consider how unknowingly powerful those biases and experiences can be when they play into tough situations and/or uncomfortable discussion (or challenge something someone needs or wants to be true). When these motivations come from knowingly, actively influencing discourse they can be even more powerful, especially if other members are unaware of its happening. Such influences don't necessarily have to be overtly malicious in nature, only an underlying motivation or need that guides someone's stance in a conversation for private reasons -- it is actually one of the fundamental aspects of critical discussion over passive sharing of opinion. Intent and motivation are powerful forms of influence that can dictate, at a fundamental level, the very nature of communication and discussion. Sometimes, internal (and perhaps unknown) influences can interfere before a discussion becomes productive -- and make it difficult or impossible for some people to overcome even active, critical attempts to open themselves up to alternative view points (I've personally witnessed people completely give themselves over to an idea and accept it only to discard it in practice due to it challenging them on an emotional level, even when mentally they new the opposite to be true -- this is probably one of the hardest types of people to have critical discussion with) I think this aspect of discussion is just as important as any other, being mindful of such influences. An effective member of a discussion has to spend equal if not more time in consideration of the positions of other group members, and other peoples reactions to the conversation, as they do their own. Only then will they be mindful of barriers that are going up or aware of other intentions that may be influencing the outcome of the conversation (or know when to walk away). This is probably more important than any concrete, fact-only based arguments: the flexibility to know when and how to step forward (or back) and lean more on emotion, or reason, or fact, without being dishonest in what you want to accomplish, or letting other vent or retreat when necessary, in an effort to keep a beneficial dialogue moving forward. So I guess my, hopeful, contribution to this conversation, is that most successful discussions don't really come from defending your own personal beliefs and opinions, but by actively understanding those of the people you engage. Only then can you truly construct an argument that they will accept, or successfully challenge their beliefs (You know, if that is the intent that motivates you to engage in discussion with them).
A question: Let's assume you understand the other's viewpoint. Through discussion, research, what have you, and you have a steel-man understanding of their position. That is to say, you can formulate the strongest possible case for their given opinion/position. Let's say that they also have a steel-man understanding of your position/opinion. And you still disagree. You understand each other and still cannot find a common ground or consensus. What kind of value, if any, is there in continuing discussion at such a point? There are several issues like this that come to mind with contemporary public policy in the United States, but I think that discussing this in the abstract is best.
Sometimes the goal of debate is just to deepen our connection with the other person not necessarily change their mind. I think the arguing happens when neither person in the discussion is willing to let the other person in. I had a FwB who I probably spent more time talking too than sleeping with and it was almost always about something political or something we disagreed on. We have a great connection and respect for each other despite disagreeing on a number of things. I've also dated guys who I could never have that deep of a conversation with and it's not because we didn't both have good arguments, it was their refusal to let the conversation go anywhere. Like when you debate with somebody on the internet and they sound so impersonal, like a robot spitting out lines that give you deja vu of other internet debates you've had before. Half the time our opinions on social issues are just lies we tell ourselves to cover up our real feelings. Believing immigrants are the reason your life didn't turn out as you were told it would is just as much of an emotional crutch as alcohol or binge eating. In order to change that opinion we need to connect with somebody on a deeper level outside of the debate, the debate itself is kind of useless. Every good opinion changing debate connects with something in the other person.
I wanted to keep this discussion abstract and I find myself incapable. Excuse me. To use a stupid example, what do I gain from a deeper connection to a flat earther? To use a not-stupid example, what do I gain from a deeper connection to someone who has taken a principled stand against women's access to safe, legal abortions? This hypothetical person understands the public health argument, understands that if abortion is made illegal more people end up dying in back rooms, and doesn't care because they see abortion as a violent moral wrong. What benefit is there in connecting more with this person when all relevant information on the topic has been exchanged?Sometimes the goal of debate is just to deepen our connection with the other person not necessarily change their mind.
Well, the one I've met in person did a great job fixing my friends watch. The debate ended up being fruitless for both of them when he denied the existence of gravity but writing him off wouldn't have been very kind. People aren't one dimensional and when their entire person gets written off as not worthy they tend to start disliking the people doing it. Enter all those angry statements about liberal elite. I've got friends who believe in conspiracy theories, they are still people worth having in my life for their many other qualities and maybe one day I'll figure out why they need that belief. Another friend believed women were more important to a child growing up and for that reason didn't support gay men being married with children which is a really convenient belief to have when your kid was moved across the country. In that scenario it's not easy to be the gay man and see them as worthy of knowing. It's also not easy for Daryl Davis to befriend members of the KKK who hate him. Derek Black would have been pushed farther into white supremacy had he not been invited to have dinner with acquaintances. The reason this stuff worked is because there is more to changing a persons mind than sharing all the seemingly relevant information. I get that on a larger stage we sometimes need to push against more than we try to get to know because stakes can be higher. On a personal level though we don't need to write people off for their positions. I also know it can backfire, I'm not going to go try and befriends a bunch of guys who frequent the same forums as the guy who plowed a truck into pedestrians in Toronto because that would only cause problems. Other men could help, but unfortunately the ones doing that are largely toxic while the others just write them off. Fair enough, I would like to write off anybody who spreads toxic shit that affects myself as a woman, but it doesn't solve anything. I try to be open about my experiences because most people pick a side without really knowing what goes on in somebodies day to day life. I think that's a way we connect with people and I think it's also a way to talk about this stuff while the other person doesn't have their defenses up. I'm rambling, but to get to the point I think there is more to changing somebodies mind than just exchanging all the relevant information. I think people hold their beliefs for a reason and that reason is more loosely related to the facts presented than anybody wants to admit. To use a stupid example, what do I gain from a deeper connection to a flat earther?
I just learned about this. On reddit of all places