Robin Hanson makes a list of warning signs that you are arguing for sport rather than arguing for insight.
My favorites
You have little interest in getting clear on what exactly is the position being argued.
Nailing down mutual definitions and exact positions can be annoying and it is common for certain intellectuals to overinvest here. However, skipping over them completely is a recipe for disaster.
Relatedly, I’d suggest trying to use as a debating point the fact that someone has misused a term is another sign that insight is not what we are after. If the definition of marriage is X then fine, I want narriage which is exactly like marriage except it also includes two dudes.
Realizing that a topic is important and neglected doesn’t make you much interested.
This is a big one. Realizing that not enough people are talking about an important issue is reason to run around like your hair is on fire; not move on to something else.
Likewise, once the conversation moves beyond your ability to contribute its time to look for something else.
You find it easy to conclude that those who disagree with you are insincere or stupid.
My bugaboo. As far as I can tell the number of people who are engaged in a consistent and deliberate attempt to argue for something they know is false is vanishingly small. Moreover, even when you suspect it, it is not worth worrying about because the fact that your opponent is lying or stupid is not somehow worse than the fact the she is just mistaken or confused on a particular point.
Bad actions have bad consequences regardless of why we choose them.
Your opinion doesn’t much change after talking with smart folks who know more
Our opinions should change a little bit even if we are talking to stupid folks who know less. The chances that a person is so stupid and so ignorant that they literally have zero value to add is probably not high enough to measure.
For example, a lot of people are making fun of Christine O’Donnell. However, I’ve learned a lot from listening to her. Despite having some odd opinions she is an incredibly clear communicator and thus a lot of useful information can be transmitted from her.
In particular I have learned from her that many people are not concerned about the expansion of government because they think the government will do a bad job at running the economy. They believe that the government will move to actively oppress them and they are concerned that the government will do a good job at that.
As such pointing out that TARP was actually run fairly well, all things considered, does little to ease their concerns. Indeed, it heightens them.
2 comments
Comments feed for this article
Wednesday ~ September 29th, 2010 at 11:56 am
Rebecca Burlingame
Okay, since you’ve decided to go here, I’ll bite. Do you think that non-economists have little interest (or stake) in getting clear on the positions being argued? Be honest. Maybe the non-economist just does not have enough information or smarts to be a part of the argument, right? However what of the fact that the non-economist has to live with the same sets of solutions as economists, and so need to be a part of the argument. Also, when you posted “Rome is Burning” I could be wrong, but I felt like that was done for sport.
Thursday ~ September 30th, 2010 at 9:45 am
Karl Smith
I thought of Rome as Burning as running around with my hair on fire. But, I can see how others could get a different impression.
As for non-economists arguing. So, I think that a minority of people are interested in getting a better understanding. I would like to think that many of them are readers of this blog.
For most people I think policy debates are just a substitute for watching football. They argue GOP vs. Dems in the same way someone would argue Saints vs Cowboys. They are not particularly concerned with the merits of their argument but with supporting their team.
That being said my sense is that some people take sports extremely seriously and try to do their best to give an honest informed analysis.
However, in all these cases I think what primarily attracts people is the love of conflict.
Lastly as for not having much information. Not to be too, whatever, but this is the point of studying. I spent much of the Nineties in the University Library. I remember coming home one night and noticing that all my fraternity brothers were standing around the TV in the Main House. I asked what they were watching. They said the President was finally admitting to affair with some woman. I responded “the President had an affair?”
This is how disconnected I was from public discourse. However, if you are going to sit and read Locke and Mill and Friedman and Rawls and Hayek, etc it just takes a lot of time.