It often happens to
me when I’m in a debate that I will make some statement that expresses a part
of my view, but not the whole thing. I do this for many good reasons.
One is that I want
my conversation to be a mutual discussion, not a soliloquy, so I start
by saying a little bit instead of a lot in order to gauge my interlocutor’s
interest. Another reason is so that I have a better understanding of my
interlocutor’s position and/or familiarity with the thinking behind mine. It
wouldn’t do me any good to make a point about “Dunning-Krueger effects” if I’m
talking with someone who has never heard the term before. It also helps us both
understand where our point of disagreement is; does my friend think that the
minimum wage should be raised because he doesn’t know what the classic economic
argument against minimum wages is, or because he doesn’t think that the
argument applies in this one example?
I could try to move a bit faster, by directly asking my
partner, “Are you ignorant of the economic treatment of minimum wages, or do
you just think they don’t apply here?” My fear in asking this kind of a question,
though, is that it might come off as being unnecessarily aggressive. Besides, I
want my partner to tell me what he’s
thinking, rather than merely responding to my framing of the issue with simple
yes-or-no answers.
In doing so, however, I expose my own position to a
particular kind of weakness: the absence of reciprocity. That is, I might be
very interested in giving my partner enough space to clearly state his position
and make his best case for it; but he might not want to extend to me the same
courtesy.
Indeed, I have often been in conversations where I express a
part of my view, hoping to gain a little feedback from my interlocutor, and
perhaps expecting that he’ll ask follow-up questions once he’s had a chance to
consider the first part of what I said. Instead, it’s more often the case that
my interlocutor will simply assume that everything I just said is everything he
or she needs to know in order to respond. If I pause to check whether we’re all
following along, the other person will simply assume that I have nothing
further to say. Then, he or she will start picking apart a partially
articulated argument.
In the best case, I’ll have a chance to fill in the blanks
as I respond to the counter-argument, and my interlocutor will say, “Why didn’t
you say that before?” (You never asked.) In the worst case, my partner will
respond with a long diatribe attacking a straw man argument that I don’t
actually believe; then, when I point this out, I’ll be accused of “changing my
story” or making a “motte-and-bailey,” or some other such thing.
In the future, I’ll have to give some thought toward how I
can best approach debates in order to avoid eliciting this kind of response
from people. But for now, I’ll just say this: I hope you will all take the time
to pause and ask questions about what you’re hearing when you’re debating
someone. Help them articulate their point and check for understanding. Only
then should you attempt to refute what you’ve heard.
No comments:
Post a Comment