Lesenswerter Text von Steven Pinker: Wege, in diesem Jahr rationaler zu werden.
Whenever we engage in an intellectual discussion, our goal ought to be to converge on the truth. But humans are primates - and often the goal is to become the alpha debater.
bbc.com/news/world-597…
Whenever we engage in an intellectual discussion, our goal ought to be to converge on the truth. But humans are primates - and often the goal is to become the alpha debater.
bbc.com/news/world-597…
It can be done non-verbally - the supercilious posture, the hard stare, the deep voice, the peremptory tone, the constant interruptions and other dominance displays.
Dominance can also be pursued in the content of an argument, using a host of dirty tricks designed to make an opponent look weak or foolish. These can include:
•Arguing "ad hominem" - attacking the person rather than the argument itself
•Arguing "ad hominem" - attacking the person rather than the argument itself
•Knocking down a "straw man" - distorting the other person's argument and then attacking the distortion
•Guilt by association - rather than exposing flaws in an argument, calling attention to disreputable people that are sympathetic to it
•Guilt by association - rather than exposing flaws in an argument, calling attention to disreputable people that are sympathetic to it
Intellectual combat can be a titillating spectator sport. Readers of literary magazines savour the withering ripostes between intellectual gladiators. A genre of YouTube video features the hero who "destroys" or "owns" or "takes down" a hapless questioner (note the metaphors).
But if the point of debate is to clarify our understanding - rather than bow to an alpha - we ought to find ways to control these bad habits.
We can all promote reason by changing the mores of intellectual discussion, so people treat their beliefs as hypotheses to be tested rather than slogans to be defended.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
