On Constructive Debate and Loserthink

In the political sphere I've seen  a sentiment out there that there is "no point debating" because you won't change anybody's mind. I think this is a very wrong-headed thought in general, though can see the point based on the quality of many debates engaged in today. However, bad examples of pseudo-debate should not mean that we should abandon debate altogether, for therein lies madness. Rather, we should all commit to fixing debate, starting with ourselves.

And lest you think I am pointing the finger at other people, know that I am also and mainly pointing a finger at myself. I observe myself engaging in unhealthy, unhelpful, debate practices. I am quick to anger and exchange barb for barb, insult for insult, rather than turning the other cheek, de-escalating, and patterning good debate practice. In the emotionalism I sometimes engage in bad thinking. Sometimes I have been known to even throw the first slap myself.

Healthy, polite debate is a major civilizing influence. The alternative to talking things out is physical violence. In the words of Winston Churchill, in response to a critic saying all his attempts at diplomacy amounted to was "jaw jaw", he replied "better jaw jaw than war war".

It is true that often your points will not sway your debate opponent. They have likely heard many of your points already, and have already passed judgment on them. As well, as human beings we have massive amounts of so-called "confirmation bias". Once we've made up our minds on something, our minds will twist every fact except the most blatant into conforming to our point of view. We will sometimes resort to some great mental gymnastics to make a fact fit our beliefs.

For the most blatant facts opposing one's point of view, where no amount of gymnastics can bend it into submission, something called "cognitive dissonance" sweeps in. Our brains are incapable of processing this new, contradictory fact, and it's like the computer in Star Trek malfunctioning. You see "word salad" coming out as the next argument, or the fact being totally ignored as if it wasn't there.

I would argue that some of the effects above are not as bad as they seem. I will often debate a point fiercely, seeing myself engaging in likely confirmation bias and even cognitive dissonance, yet keep going as a form of advocate system, such as is practiced in a court of law. Make an argument until it is completely exhausted in order to draw out all possible arguments on both sides. You won't hear a defense lawyer, mid-court-battle, say to the prosecutor, "well that's a damned fine point you have there". Rather, he will stretch to find something that counters the point. This is good.

Realize that the debate is not only, or even mainly, about the debaters. It is also about the audience. Those who have not yet made up their minds strongly at all, and can still be swayed. By hearing the two debaters go at it, most of the facts and arguments get uncovered, and the audience gets an intuitive sense of when confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance are kicking in more for one or the other of the debaters.  If one side descends to insults and personal attacks more quickly than the other, this also helps the audience get a sense of which way they lean. All of this helps them form a decision, like the jury in a criminal trial.

It is not always the case that people's minds get made up based on listening to two opposing points of view debated vigorously.  All too often we are "programmed" into our beliefs, and likely more so today than at any other time in history. Much of the information we are presented is one-sided propaganda. If something is said often enough and forcibly enough, human beings who have no pre-conceived strong thoughts on the subject will be swayed. It is especially compelling if one's entire social circle is of a certain point-of-view. Human beings desperately want to fit in, and are afraid of being cut out of the herd, and will conform. It will not be a conscious cynical conformation. We will develop a genuine, fervent, conviction. It's how we are wired.

If opposing facts and argument can be hidden through this initial period when the mind gets mostly made up, then confirmation bias will kick in hard, and keep us there despite compelling objective facts and evidence to the contrary presented at a later time.

I imagine many of you reading this are saying to yourself, "Yes! Exactly! That's exactly how my political opponents think!" If you are saying that to yourself, you have utterly missed the point. We are all subject to those forces. It is of minimal value having the thought that the other side is subject to this. The valuable thought is that you yourself are subject to it.

Some of the most brilliant thinkers we recognize as people who have deeply escaped this trap. Einstein in 1905 when he came up with his Theory of Relativity, Newton before him, and Galileo before him. Charles Darwin on evolution. Ghandi on non-violent opposition. Jesus. Buddha. I could go on.

While none of us are Buddhas or Einsteins, we can strive to be more like them, and escape our thought shackles.

As I said, I believe there is some utility in "sticking to your guns" during an argument, even when you are starting to doubt inwardly. This helps drive out the full argument. The wise person will leave the debate and come back for a round 2 with modified views. And any audience to the debate will also become better informed as well. In this way, we seek truth.

So what are some rules we can abide to in order to elevate the tone of our debates? Here are a few that come to mind. I'd be interested in yours in the comments.

1. Be polite, avoid personal attacks or things that can be easily perceived as personal attacks
"You're evil and stupid" is something to be avoided. You can think it (though you ought not to), but certainly don't say it or write it. Even "that idea is stupid" is only a hair's breadth away from "you are stupid". Don't say the idea is stupid. Respectfully disagree and marshal your reasons why. The preparatory comment does not add anything.

2. Assume good motives, don't get addicted to moral outrage
Assume your political opponent has good motivations. They want to better the world and so do you, you just have different beliefs about how to go about doing it. Don't jump to the conclusion that your opponent is a communist, or a racist, or whatever is most morally outrageous to you. A real communist will tell you that is what they are, directly. A real racist will tell you that is what they are, directly. And if in doubt ask them, and believe the answer.

3. Don't generalize
Avoid saying "all people in this group behave this way". It is unlikely to be true, and can be insulting to those who identify as belonging to that group.

I think if we followed those simple rules, we get an 80% improvement in debate already.

Don't get me wrong, I actually enjoy a little insult slinging and find it to be amusing, but that is a thing in and of itself and if done well,cleverly, and in a good-natured way, can contribute some lighthearted comic relief to the debate. I have in the past, and will continue in future, to give as good as I get, because that's who I am. But I never want to be the instigator, and you are all free to call me out if I am the one instigating any of the above beyond some good-natured ribbing.

Beyond just these proper rules of conduct, we turn to constructive and destructive ways of thinking. Scott Adams, the writer of Dilbert, in 2019, wrote an excellent book on the subject.

The book is full of pithy little "rules" illustrated with examples in contemporary society. I find there to be a lot of wisdom in it.

He starts by saying loserthink isn't about being dumb or about being underinformed. Loserthink is about unproductive ways of thinking. Scott says people in different fields, such as psychologists, artists, historians, engineers, leaders, scientists, entrepreneurs, economists, all have different methods of thinking that we ought to gain some familiarity with. If you have been exposed to the thinking styles in only a few of these disciplines, you will have large gaps in your ability to think productively about the world.

My top 20 favourites of his pithy little rules are as follows.

1. If your opinion depends on reliably knowing another person's inner thoughts, you might be experiencing loserthink.
   
   
2. If you think you can gaze into the soul of a stranger and see evil, you might be experiencing a loserthink hallucination.
   
   
3. It is loserthink to imagine you can accurately discern the intentions of public strangers. It is better to ask people to clarify their opinions and accept that as the best evidence of their inner thoughts.
   
   
4. If your response to a disagreement is to assign your opponent a dismissive label, you have surrendered the moral and intellectual high ground to wallow in loserthink.
   
   
5. Don't believe every member of a group is as bad as its worst 5%.
   
   
6. If you can't imagine any other explanation for a set of facts, it might be because you are bad at imagining things.
   
   
7. If you believe you learned an accurate version of history in school, you are probably wrong.
   
   
8. If you are wondering how skeptical you should be about expert advice on complicated issues, keep in mind that the next expert probably has no respect for the last expert. And vice versa.
   
   
9. Be skeptical of any experts who have a financial incentive to mislead you and almost no risk on their end.
   
   
10. We live in a world in which it is dangerous to ignore the advice of experts, but it is almost as dangerous to follow their advice. The trick is to know when the experts are the solution and when they are the jailers of your mental prison.
    
    
11. If you analyze a complicated situation with multiple variables in play, and you conclude that only one of them was decisive, there's a good chance you are practicing loserthink.
    
    
12. If you find yourself obsessing over the accuracy of facts versus the direction those facts will lead you, you might be in a mental prison.
    
    
13. If you are reaching a general conclusion about a big topic by looking at anecdotal evidence, you are engaging in loserthink.
    
    
14. If you have a strong opinion about a proposed plan but have not compared it to the next best alternative, you are not part of a rational conversation.
    
    
15. If your opinion considers only the benefits or only the costs of a plan, you might be in a mental prison.
    
    
16. If you find yourself experiencing certainty in a complex situation, you are probably experiencing loserthink.
    
    
17. Arguing for fairness is loserthink because no two people will agree on what it looks like.
    
    
18. If members of your group discourage you from listening to opposing views, it's time to plan your escape.
    
    
19. Agree with people as much as you can without lying, and you will be in a better position to persuade.
    
    
20. You can't get to the right answer until you frame the question correctly. And partisans rarely do.
    

I highly recommend the book. It is a short read and really revs up your mind and bursts mental bubbles. Warning - if you believe that "all Trumpers, apart from the useful idiots, are evil white nationalist nazi racists!" or "All the left, apart from the useful idiots, are evil globalists seeking Communist world domination!" the book will induce serious cognitive dissonance in you possibly requiring medical attention ;-)