Thread by @Moshe_Hoffman

Ok this example is from a while ago (when trump was first tying to ban Trans from the military)

But it illustrates an important point imo: the values and logic we ascribe to don’t really drive our political stances, but vice versa.

https://twitter.com/patientmh/status/895091170438594560

Ie: Notice that there r many values we can call upon to make a political argument. Equality. Meritocracy. For instance. Which do we call upon, often depends on which political stance is desired by us and our coalition.

This illustrates a rather distinct role for logic and arguments that what is typically posited. It isn’t (for the most part*) that we get our political stance from our values.

It’s that we choose which values to use in our arguments, based on the stance

*albeit, u get a consistency hit, and lose the ability to proclaim certain values, if u advocate policies that seem inconsistent with those stated values.

So sometimes our hands r forces, by THIS incentive.

Imo that’s the REAL role logic/values r playing

An example where that incentive is binding and actually influences behavior?

Consider abortion debates.

Now between u and me, religions oppose abortions bc they r trying to police women’s sexuality

Such sexual policing norms r very common across cultures, and evolve for obvious reasons (like increasing paternal care and decreasing male male competition)

And abortions, obviously, make it harder to police sexuality (can’t really sanction extra maristal copulation, if u can’t see it, and if woman doesn’t need to live w/ consequences)

But obviously the church isn’t going to admit THAT is their motive (or even necessarily be aware of it).

So they came up w/ some b.s. value re sanctity of life. And life begins at conception.

(And of course even if u r not directly a member of the church, but a member of their political coalition, as gop has been since raegan, u now have some incentive to take on these ideologies, or at least the policies, too. Some. Maybe not as much as a church member)

Now once the church proclaims THAT as their motive. They gotta stick to it. Even when it doesn’t fit their initial, not necessarily conscious, motivation. At least when the costs to sticking to it are not huge.

So we get a church that opposes abortion even in the case of rape.

Which obv makes no sense from perspective of disincentivizing extra-marital copulation.

But is kinda required once u buy the sanctity of life+life begins at conception bullshit.

What does this all teach us?

Well ideologies/logic/values/reason matter. They have a REAL influence on policies. They r not COMPLETELY a cover story, as machieveli or might tell u.

Bc these consistency incentives

But the role of reason and values also ain’t what the enlightenment philosophers tell u either

It ain’t the logic that’s DRIVING the show. Other incentives, like pressure from the coalition, and the benefits to the coalition, are.

And ONE such incentive, is the one to appear* consistent. Which is where logic and reason and arguments come in.

*Of course it’s just an incentive to APPEAR consistent. Another way this incentives story differs from the moral realist—logic drives our morals—story is that appearing logical and not actually being logical is what matters

Hence why plausible SOUNDING arguments play such a big role.

And why there is SO much contortions in our arguments. Enough that we can and try to use “logic” to justify almost anything, including as many did: slavery, genocide, imperialism..

And why there can be two sides to an argument. And each can be “a good argument.” Like in any intro philosophy class. Or debate team. Or high school essay.

This is ONLY possible, if “a good argument” means a “plausible sounding” argument. Actual logic doesn’t work that way.

(When was the last time u took a math exam and the instructor said what matter is u make a good case, but either answer is correct?)

Ok one more point:

It’s maybe worth distinguishing this above “consistency” story, from the similar SOUNDING consistency story in social psychology (often referred to under rubric of “cognitive dissonance”)

Quite different. Let me explain

Cognitive dissonance says u get a hit for an inconsistency between your beliefs and actions. Or beliefs and other beleifs

Classic example: you r paid a dollar to give pro-communist speech. Most people, who take that dollar, then report (and presumably really feel) more favorable views of communism, after the fact.

Why? They felt dissonant, so adjusted their views to fit their behaviora

Here’s the problem with that story (although the phenomena is real. Ubiquitous. And important)

It doesn’t explain what will count as consistent

For instance, another instead of feeing dissonant, isn’t it just as logically consistent (and in fact true) to admit u both hate communism AND are willing to lie for a buck?

Of course that’s consistent. If by consistent u mean logically consistent. But that’s, implicitly, not what psychologists mean, if they wanna explain the phenomena.

They gotta mean consistent with a set of values u want others to think u hold and will act by. Lying for a buck ain’t such a desirable value. (Althoigh if it’s 20$, Ok still makes u not SO trustworthy, but less so, hence y psychologists see less dissonance in this treatment).

See the consistency story above isn’t bout consistency per sae. It’s bout consistency w/ desirable values. Like equality or meritocracy (as in my opening, trans military example), or valuing life (as in abortion example).

We r striving to make our proposed policies plausibly based on these values so you believe we will continue to adhere to these values. Which is better than if u think I’ll support any policy my coalition pressures me to support. Or that will benefit my church.

Hence, unlike the social psych story we get some sense of what we will try to be consistent with.

But also we get some sense, more so than the social psych story gives us, as to what will count as consistent

In this incentives based story, it is presumed that what will FEEL consistent is what will PASS as consistent to others. (Where feelings r, as always, presumed to be spillovers or what not from internalizing these incentives)

What will PASS as consistent? Well stuff that actually is consistent. But barring that, and sometimes you don’t have that luxury, you can go with what will be consistent GIVEN what your audience knows or is likely to know.

And barring THAT, u can go with what your audience is likely to suspect others won’t know, or anticipates having a hard time convincing others, given THEIR information.

Hence plausibility comes in. And so does presenting only one side of the argument. Eg not mentioning all the values your policy proposal goes against. Or all the evidence the policy proposal doesn’t fit the values u r claiming to be driven by

So, unlike the social psych cognitive dissonance story, the subconscious, incentives based, consistency story we r telling here, not only predicts what u r strive to be consistent w/, but also what will enable u to feel consistent

(Ie anything u could plausible make a case for, given the presentation of only one sided evidence. And the less dissonant, and less incentive to adjust your proposal or arguments, the more plausible is your case, the less evidence to the contrary u gotta ignore)