> but you can't help regressing to some sort of common ground in order to make conjectures and refute them.
> In order for someone to make a conjecture that A does B, and for someone else to point out that A actually doesn't do B, both parties need to agree on the meanings of A and B, as well as what it means for A to do B…
You try to establish common ground, of course, but there’s no process you can follow that guarantees that you’re not being misunderstood or justifies your belief that you’re not being misunderstood.
> Because one does not reach the same conclusion as you does not make their conclusion automatically irrational.
I didn't, initially, fault their conclusion. However, I noted that their conclusions consistently and increasingly favoured their immediate self-interest, regardless of what else was happening.
Another thing I noticed, in the same people and the same situations, is a difficulty noticing any nuance regarding the issue. When I presented them with something, instead of addressing it, they would react to the threat they perceive.
To me, this also suggests that they are arguing from their thesis, rather than the situation.
> Because of this I often make explicit when I converse that I'm engaging in a "collaborative exploration" and not an fight about who is right.
Have you found that successful?
One of my big struggles in my social life is that I am quite curious how things are and more often than not my discussion/arguments are interpreted somehow so that I supposedly want to show my "opponent" is wrong. And really, most of the time, who is right and who is wrong is one of the last things crossing my mind.
> You usually have to accept other people being wrong about things you're right about in order to build credibility.
I don’t think this is the correct way to look at it. Rather than accepting other people being wrong, you should be very open to the possibility that it’s you who is wrong. Always doubt your own assumptions, and be willing to change your stance when new information comes to light.
> If you cannot convince someone of something then it basically means you yourself don't understand the concept/idea well enough and concretely.
It takes two sides to have a meaningful communication. No matter how well I understand (or don't) something, the other person has to have the ability to step outside of where they're at in order to meet at some common ground.
In the generalized case you can't unilaterally blame a single side in a multi-party conversation.
> But you can win any argument by first granting that it must be true, which is what you do in your second paragraph.
If we disagree on that point, then we will obviously reach different conclusions and there is no point in arguing with each other. That is why I stated it as an assumption.
> Your comment only works if it’s possible to construct your words so precisely that there is no way to misinterpret them.
Not really. We have a responsibility for the effects of our actions. There is a practical limit to how far we can take worrying about those effects, but that doesn't mean the responsibility goes away.
The same is true for considering how different audiences will interpret your words. You have a responsibility do take those interpretations into consideration but there is a practical limit to how far it can be taken.
However, I believe the listener shares some of the responsibility to consider other (possibly more generous) interpretations beyond their initial reaction.
If both parties do this, is is remarkable how quickly disputes get resolved. If neither party does this, a conversation accomplishes nothing.
> I also wonder if there's a universal central reason behind why it is important to understand someone else's argument if their conclusion differs than yours.
In fact, if you can't argue for their side as well as they can, you haven't really understood it, so you shouldn't argue.
> While true, people also get mocked when they are perceived as being uncertain.
I’ve only seen this be a common thing when people use (implicitly or explicitly) a weakly held premise as the basis for a strongly held conclusion, or one with a very high cost born by other people.
> Well, rational people can and should dismiss the views of others because they don't share them... if they've taken the time to investigate the validity of those views.
You can only make that kind of a conclusion assuming two things:
1. Perfect information. You are aware of everything there is to know which might be tangential to the matter at hand.
2. Identical environment. You share the same exact circumstances as everyone else.
Neither #1 nor #2 are ever true.
You never know everything there is to know. Frequently, we know very little and more important, what little we know doesn't overlap with the knowledge of others. So every person has a little bit, never the entire picture, and we all have very different little bits.
We also don't exist in the same environment. We have vastly different backgrounds, circumstances, motivations, etc. which lead to wildly diverging self-interests.
When you dismiss the views of others because you don't share them, you're not being rational ... you're just being stupid.
> Accept that the position that there are some differences is a reasonable one and move on, even if you disagree.
Accepting that there are some differences does not lift the burden of persuasion off those who assert the existence of a particular difference, in the same way that accepting the idea that there are some murderers in the world doesn't lift the burden of persuasion off those who insist that a particular person is a murderer.
I think the best way to get into the habit of doing this is to actually believe it. Respect the people around you enough that you consider your own misunderstanding as likely a reason for disagreement as theirs. Constructive communication then comes completely naturally, instead of feeling forced.
> If I say something to a few people and I know that one of them will misunderstand it (the reason doesn't really matter) in a way that makes the statement untrue then I've just lied to that person.
If you can avoid the misunderstanding, then sure. But even then you don't always have the time to explain yourself fully. Sometimes, the very ideas you are expressing are liable to trigger strong emotions in other people. It can't be helped.
But that's why I like his disclaimers. I know ahead of time that the point he is trying to make isn't likely the one that is salient to me on my first pass.
> in order to be taken seriously I must provide sources, backing, it is not enough to explain my thoughts cogently
You must at least provide reasoning, for the thoughts to be cogent. Your assertions are vague - you allude to things without clarifying what you mean, and why you believe it to be so.
> in order to be taken seriously I must...
> I must show...
> I must acquire...
You must do theses things? According to who. again, assertion without explanation. Understand, your thoughts don't explain themselves!
> Two similar societies warring over a trivial idea probably means neither is right.
Well, sure, that it’s a trivial idea pretty much inherently means either that neither is right or (and this is very much not an exclusive or) being right doesn’t matter.
The problem with real cases is that people inside the conflict don’t believe the idea is trivial (conversely, to people outside rhe conflict—or caught in the middle—even the conflicts we think of as about foundational ideas seem like trivial or irrelevant differences.)
> It's safe for them to express their opinions, because the source of their opinions is whatever it's currently acceptable to believe.
The premise is not sound. Not everyone who has a conventionally accepted idea has that idea because the idea is conventionally accepted. It could be, for example, that there is some other cause that leads to me having an idea and that idea being conventionally accepted.
As an obvious example, I don’t think that one plus one equals two because I observe that to be conventionally accepted. I have good reasons to think that’s true even if most people disagreed. And I certainly wouldn’t think anyone who disagrees was being discriminated against for having unconventional ideas.
Right. We should develop all arguments from commonly agreed, basic principles in every discussion. Or you could accept that some of these people have a better understanding, did put forth some arguments, and that it's your turn to rebuke those arguments, or point at arguments which do. Otherwise, you'll have to find somebody to trust.
> In order for someone to make a conjecture that A does B, and for someone else to point out that A actually doesn't do B, both parties need to agree on the meanings of A and B, as well as what it means for A to do B…
You try to establish common ground, of course, but there’s no process you can follow that guarantees that you’re not being misunderstood or justifies your belief that you’re not being misunderstood.
reply