Water cooler social theorizing

Sometimes, I'll hear people make statements like the earth is round because "it's logical" or "it makes sense". If I put on my tin foil hat and inquire further, they may dismiss the conclusion that the earth is flat on the grounds that "it's not logical" or "it doesn't make sense". This is jumping to conclusions without actually saying how "it" doesn't make sense.

Do you believe?

What I say here is by no means a defense of the notion that the earth is flat, per se. Rather, it is pointing out that beginning with the conclusion claim that the earth is round is by no means an argument showing why this is so. Of course, we just accept a lot of things as facts to move forward and get on with life/discussions/etc. (more on this later). But, in treating controversial topics (i.e. many topics that are interesting to debate), we can't just jump to conclusion like that.

To start, let's define some terms we'll need to talk about talk. For the sake of simplicity, let's say that all arguments are composed of claims (or premises) from which we can draw conclusions. We say an argument is valid if the claims lead to the particular conclusion being put forth. The validity of an argument can be challenged by either showing that one or more of the relevant claims invoked are no good, or that the particular conclusion being advanced is not entailed by the claims.

A discussion of a particular topic may kick off with one person putting forth some audacious statement, whether face to face, on social media, or elsewhere. For example, you may have seen people getting behind positions like:

• The US should ban all guns.
• Prayer in public school should be outlawed.
• Anarchy is the only moral system of governance.
• White people giving their children Indian names are guilty of cultural appropriation.
• Morality without religion is impossible.
• We're all living in a simulation.
• The AI singularity is inevitable (except if nuclear war destroys of us all first)
• Jainism is a religion of peace

How do people come to claim such things? Of course, you can just agree (emotionally) with someone's statement and hit that like button 👍 to show you support...

...but sometimes you may want more of a discussion.

A friend making a statement like "The US should ban all guns", on closer inspection, may be advancing an argument such as:

It may take some discussion, background knowledge, etc. to unpack exactly what someone is claiming. But, with some work, I think it can usually be done, particularly if you are willing to suggest these claims yourself. Making a strong case for a position you are going to argue against (a "steel man" argument, c.f. "straw man" argument) is a helpful thing to do, not only to show willingness to discuss honestly, but also to develop your own understanding of some issue.

Suppose you disagree with the conclusion, "the US should ban all guns". How do you challenge the argument put forth above? One way to do this in to challenge one or more of the claims. Of the positions above, I think challenging Claim 2 might work. So, you can launch a specific counter argument to that.

Here's an example conclusion, "eliminating (legal) gun ownership will not eliminate (criminal) gun violence". And a more complete argument, with the claims leading up to that conclusion:

The person advocating banning all guns (let's call this individual Person A) can actually accept all of the opposing party's (let's call that individual Person B) claims. Person B's argument may convince Person A that banning all guns will not eliminate all gun violence, but may nevertheless prevent a lot of non-criminal (in the legal sense) gun violence. Person A may still see getting rid of legal gun ownership as something they want in spite of Person B's counter argument. Alternatively, Person A may accept Person B's argument and concede that eliminating gun ownership will not entail ending gun violence and therefore give up on their previous conclusion.

Either way, by more carefully picking apart and addressing specific claims leading to specific conclusions, Person A and Person B have made progress at not only better understanding each of their opponent's positions, they have likely found holes or difficulties in their own stances, if they had not thoroughly thought through their positions.

From writing up the example above, I leaned that I don't really know what to do about "The Riddle of the Gun" . But, through even trying to formulate some reasonable positions to take on the question of gun violence in the US, I have discovered more specifically what I can do to learn more about this subject. I may, for example, look into the history of bans on firearms and see if it really does decrease violent crime.

Evidence

A related thing to suspending and then quickly un-suspending disbelief is to interrupt somebody in the middle of a counterfactual (a statement about what has not happened or is not the case). That looks something like this:

This is supremely unhelpful (and looks bad) because it not only shows the other party you are not interested in listening (or are presently too impatient to), it shows an unwillingness to grant your interlocutor the tactic of suspending disbelief. Don't expect them to nicely grant you this tool to move the conversation along, either.

Perhaps the main way, I think, to be a helpful interlocutor is to try to make the "game" as fair as possible. You want everybody to know what the pieces are on the table (i.e. the evidence). Likewise, you want to be able to follow all the arguments being made. To get to the core of an argument (what are the claims, what conclusion(s) do they lead to?) we must relentlessly prune bullshit.

How might that be done? One way to avoid bullshit is to avoid bullshit inducing practices. The negative commandments below pertain mainly to spoken, face-to-face conversations, but can be reinterpreted to apply to written exchanges as well, though probably in different form:

• Don't interrupt unnecessarily
• Don't repeat the same things endlessly
• Don't jump topics to the dissatisfaction of your audience
• Don't ignore your interlocutor's replies/counterpoints
• Don't "play lawyer", hairsplitting over inconsequential word choices, etc. (though, do try to figure out what exactly your interlocutor is trying to say)
• Don't intentionally be ambiguous/misleading
• Don't purposely misconstrue your interlocutor's position

• Do concede points of agreement (e.g. on evidence, particular claims)
• Do charitably understand your interlocutor's position (i.e. see if you can create a steel man of their position, and even express their views better than they can)
• Do walk away rather than wasting everyone's time if all really does seem lost (it may be a better alternative than needlessly escalating conflict)

So in short, obey the golden rule 👴

Now, after describing how a good discussion of controversial topics might play out (and a handful of ways things can go wrong), I return to the questions presented at the beginning of this post:

I maintain that we can have intelligent, civil, and productive conversations about all sorts of things if we follow certain conventions. Namely, if we are able to

• Divide positions into claims leading to conclusions
• Identify which claims we have disputes about
• Screen evidence and come to a consensus on what is admissable
• Counter specific claims with agreed upon evidence
• Update our positions based on new things we learn through the exchange
• Save undecidable disagreements for future exchanges (e.g. through suspending disbelief, explicitly recognizing and agreeing to move beyond certain issues) 
• Strive for win-win, mutually beneficial conversations

If we are honest about what we know and don't know, we can talk about all sorts of things. People that aren't sociologist can certainly talk about society. But, a sociologist may be able to offer a lot more with regards to assessing evidence for specific claims. For instance, if I claim, "poverty is greater in urban areas compared with rural areas", a sociologist may have some helpful suggestions about how I can modify that statement to make it more precise, in line with facts, etc. Not having access to a sociologist doesn't prevent me from having discussions about societies. I just have to admit that I do not have very much evidence for a lot of what I'm saying ("shooting the shit") and stand ready to be corrected if good evidence is indeed provided. 

A helpful sociologist that actually wants me to say more sensible things about society will help put relevant facts about sociology on the table for others to reason about. An unhelpful sociologist will try to shut down non-sociologists by saying they can't have opinions because they are not experts. The same can be said about communists, people who want others to understand their feelings, and everyone else who is advocating some position. 

Water cooler social theorizing, e.g. engaging in casual debates with friends, colleagues, coworkers, etc. can be an enjoyable, fulfilling activity. It may even lead to new opportunities for collaboration, new friendships, and so forth. Such conversations also, however, can contribute to lots of trouble: for example pent up feelings of bitterness and resentment, aggression, and a sense of isolation. By talking about how we can discuss important topics with one another (e.g. religion, politics) in a both intellectually stimulating and respectful manner, I hope we can all get along and help each other.