[acjohnson55]

Admirable, but misguided. Fact-based argument has never been effective. The Greeks knew this. We keep forgetting it at our own peril. We know how to think critically; most of us simply choose not to.

The audience who would see this kind of course/site are likely people who pretty much already have their head screwed on the right way. It would be much better to train them in effective rhetoric so they can counter the bullshit in real arguments.

We keep forgetting that people tend to support policies and politicians for largely social and psychological reasons, not because of facts and ideology. The former are where the real battle is fought.

I spend a lot of time debating with people who disagree with me politically. It's nearly impossible to have a factual debate. So stop trying. Instead, make your point based on common morals, do it with compassion and generosity of spirit, and don't allow the goalposts of the debate to be moved. Throw in like two of couple of your choicest facts and sources, but don't expect them to help. Move on and repeat.

[swanson]

From Scott Adams (Dilbert):

> Rational People: Use data and reason to arrive at truth. (This group is mostly imaginary.)

> Word-Thinkers: Use labels, word definitions, and analogies to create the illusion of rational thinking. This group is 99% of the world.

> Persuaders: Use simplicity, repetition, emotion, habit, aspirations, visual communication, and other tools of persuasion to program other people and themselves. This group is about 1% of the population and effectively control the word-thinkers of the world.

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/147595892021/how-persuaders-see...

[TheGrumpyBrit]

I used to really enjoy Adams' blog - he used to be fairly easy to read, conversational, and just controversial enough to be entertaining.

Over the last couple of years though, it seems that he's become obsessed with this whole "master persuader" idea. It made for interesting reading for the first month or so, but it's slowly taken over all of his other content to the point that he now seems afraid to actually express an opinion of his own, instead trying to angle his posts as a "persuasion". He actually seems to be spiralling into madness.

I just checked back and at least he's re-enabled comments now, so maybe there will be some entertaining reading there again (the comments were always the best part).

[mark-r]

Reading the blog, it appears this is a subject he's obsessed about his whole life. He wanted to share but held off until the perfect situation presented itself. I'm not sick of it yet, I think it's fascinating. You're right about the comments though, I missed them when they were gone.

[Paul-ish]

Something about this categorization seems ironic to me. Does this mean that Scott Adams sees himself as a "word-thinker", because he is certainly labeling people in coming up with this list.

[smsm42]

I think at least he considers himself a Persuader, that should be clear is you read the blog.

[bad_user]

Even though I have some training, skills in mathematical logic, probabilities and in mathematics in general being very good for spotting bullshit, I still need help. The only thing that actually protects me is this little voice in my head telling me "this guy could be full of bullshit, I'd better check".

But then fact checking is too time consuming, many times I do it, but not often enough. And you can't just wipe clean from your memory whatever you heard. This is the genius behind repetition: if unchallenged, it sticks to your subconscious, whether you want it or not, especially when spoken by people you happen to respect.

So here's the problem, even those of us with a logical, science-oriented mind, that studied the right things in school, even us need help. Do you think that us developers are immune to yellow journalism? Think again. Here's one concrete proof that we can swallow bullshit whole, much like everybody else: https://twitter.com/timbray/status/810157215478755328

The answer is always education and even if you educate a tiny minority, those people can then educate others. And personally I feel like I need that education as well.

[croon]

I agree with all your reasoning, except I'm unsure what you mean to say with the link.

Are you saying we bought the bullshit when Oracle claimed they wouldn't monetize it? If that's the case, that was never a verifiable statement, or better yet, was never an immutable state either way. I don't think anyone convinced themselves they knew anything from that claim.

That's not the same thing as accepting that someone claims that man landed on the moon. While still hard to verify (really), it still either happened or not. Monetizing Java could change at any time, what was the case yesterday might be changed today, and could be back again tomorrow.

[scandox]

People know how to think critically in a particular context. What I find is that when they're in an unfamiliar context their level of critical thinking is lower. Also tiredness, stress and so on contribute to less critical thinking. Also most people have certain irrational trigger topics, things that are so emotive to them or so wrapped up in their sense of identity that they can't break them down critically. (All of this also applies to myself of course.)

Newton is, I guess, an example of someone very critical in one context and less critical in another (scientific historians rush to correct me).

Still, though, I don't think we can all do enough work on training young people to at least have the tools to think critically. Studying medieval history at 17 changed my entire way of thinking about credibility. I think I'd be a much less critical thinker if I had not had that experience.

[marcosdumay]

Critical thinking is a piece of technology that evolved a lot since the Middle Age. I don't think Newton could do much better. If he wasn't at the leading edge on "critical thinking", he was very near it.

And that's something most people choose to ignore, that even "how to think" is something that evolves, and our current standards were created by many people improving on what came before them.

[brachi]

> People know how to think critically in a particular context

I observe that we tend to make an implicit assumption that most statements contain an opinion, perception, and anectotes. It gets harder to think everything in terms of data, e.g. I could ask "What people? Did you perform a study yourself?" for your statement, however, if it aligns with my perception or makes sense even without hard data, I'm not going to do it.

> Studying medieval history at 17 changed my entire way of thinking about credibility

Any books you would recommend?

[scandox]

God's War By Dr Christopher Tyerman. He was my teacher so I think that it was his influence that was key.

[ci5er]

> It's nearly impossible to have a factual debate.

You contextualize this as related to politics. But, I've noticed, in certain fora, that it's nigh-on impossible, even for something as measurable as energy production. And that's just inputs and outputs where the units of measurement are already agreed to! :-O

What's the difference? What causes some topics to be amenable to rational debate (or even discussion that doesn't go off the rails) and not? Politics, economics (because it's related to politics?), and religion - no. No rationality to be had there. Anything that have to do with harmful invisible vapors (vaccines, electromagnetics, radiation, environmental toxins) and health - no. Any form of "alternative lifestyle", including digital nomadicism (!) - no. Law - all over the map. Computer programming - all over the map.

In fact, right now, I'm trying to think of something that humans debate rationally, and I'm having a difficult time thinking of one (I'm sure they exist - but I'm only lightly caffeinated so far).

Regardless of my inability to think of topics that we (humans) can debate about rationally, why do some topics "work" for rationality and some not?

> Move on and repeat.

Why? You just said it almost never helps.

[acjohnson55]

> Why? You just said it almost never helps.

Yeah, great question! I didn't really address that part.

What I really meant is that I almost never "win" the argument. I've overtly changed someone's mind before, but that's like 10% of the time, at best. So making that my goal wouldn't be a good idea.

More often, I can get the other person to expand their point of view, even just a little bit. I can gain some credibility in their minds as someone they may disagree with, but can respect. And it opens the door to the perception that maybe the point of view I represent isn't directly opposed to their tribe. For people I tend to debate repeatedly, I can tell there's a shift over time.

Not to mention the fact that I'm not always right. I learn a lot from people who aren't already inclined to mindlessly Like everything I post. Debating people makes me a better thinker and persuader.

But I think most importantly, I do it for the audience. I suspect that in many of these debates, the lurkers are much less entrenched in their point of view than me or the person I'm debating with. Those are the people I really want to move. And that's a big reason why it's crucial to be civil, sincere, and avoid blowing up on people. Nothing turns off a neutral onlooker like someone being an asshole, even if it's righteous.

[ci5er]

That makes a ton of sense. I almost always forget that there is an audience -- and that the audience, because they aren't in participant mode might well be less in their chosen position. Thanks!

[ It still baffles me why people would take on a non-rational position on (say) power generation. It's just engineering and physics. Anyone can look up the math in any library - it doesn't really even change that often! ]

[linkregister]

Even the most fundamental comparison between two energy production techniques requires hours or days to calculate all relevant aspects: cost, production cycle, transmission, and storage. It isn't that surprising that anything that requires that much work could be considered as an article of faith.

Most people take the analysis provided to them by their trusted authorities: newspapers, magazines, television, public figures, esteemed friends and family; and form their world view based off of that. "Team" membership and identification also are prominent.

[ci5er]

I think "Team" membership is key -- it tells which opinions they are likely to listen to. Any team can rustle up a credentialed opinionator that didn't do the math themselves (or will say anything, just, because) to round arm the rubes with talking points to unleash onto Reddit (or wherever). It would be a quite the dance spectacle, if it didn't make my stomach hurt. And, the worst thing is? My brain is just as broken (for the purpose of thinking rationally) as any of theirs! :-O

[smsm42]

10% of the time? You are either a genius of persuasion or choose your battles very carefully :)

[Xgatt]

I will always remember what my neuroscience professor told me in college: "You know, after having worked in this cutting edge field for almost two decades, with some of the greatest thinkers in the world, I have learned one very important thing. Given all of the mounting research, vast amounts of data, and incredible imaging technologies, at the end of the day people will believe whatever they damn well want to."

[ci5er]

> "... at the end of the day people will believe whatever they damn well want to."

I finally learned this and, after long denial about it, now "know" this as a fact about the universe. Or at least humans. That humans operate 1000% out of beliefs and that they didn't come to those beliefs rationally. And that you can't reason someone out of a position that they didn't reason themselves into.

It's actually been hard for me to come to grips with this emotionally and to integrate it into my day-to-day operational instincts/intuition.

[mistermann]

You forgot: gender, ethnicity/culture

[ci5er]

Disagreements about gender and ethnicity/culture? I don't get it. Do people debate about those?

[smsm42]

And how. Starting with existence of those as such, and to how to define ones, and who can be rightly considered belonging to either one of them. All the time.

[driverdan]

> We know how to think critically

Most people don't know how to think critically. You're right about the target audience, people who are already interested will take it.

[mistermann]

I'll go even further: not only do most people not know how to think critically, but they are explicitly hostile (often extremely) to the idea of thinking or conversing about a controversial topic. Rarely do I ever see someone say "I don't know", and rarely have I observed anyone changing their mind, or conceding that their "opponent" may have some valid information they hadn't considered.

[saosebastiao]

Thank you. I've always been a facts based argument type, and while I'm extremely proud of some of my best work, I never thrived in the places where I did it, and precisely for this reason. I wish I had studied rhetoric much earlier.

As an aside, I read a book on rhetoric (Thank You for Arguing) written by a guy who is extremely passionate about it, to the point where he persuaded me to teach it to my 4yo. It was extremely effective. He picked up negotiation quickly, and has been analyzing (if you ask him, he can tell you whether his argument is ethos, pathos, or logos) and tuning his arguments as he gets older. Now he uses negotiation and reasoning for everything. While I feel like sometimes it works against me (I have to negotiate everything with him), he now knows how to compromise in a negotiation so that arguments don't end in tantrums. And I honestly feel like he'll be better off with that one skill than he ever would with a trust fund or inheritance.

[blazespin]

I think you're close, but still misguided. The issue isn't so much critical thinking (though that is a part of it) but a mismatch in baseline assumptions. Right makes might versus Might makes right, belief in the golden rule (duoaywhtduy or he who has the gold, makes the rules), the glass is half empty versus half full, etc. Unless you share the answers to these assumptions, you can't have a common dialogue.

I mean, you can argue facts all day long but if someone believes that having a bigger gun makes them right -- what's the point? You really think Kim Jong-un is going to listen to reason when he has nukes?

[BeetleB]

>You really think Kim Jong-un is going to listen to reason when he has nukes?

This statement, my friends, is how most persuasion works in the world.

No facts, just statements like:

"You really think...?"

If the person responds with "It's plausible - why not?", then you say:

"I mean, Come On!"

While it may be hard for some to believe, I write this comment with full seriousness and not as a joke. This really is how most persuasion works.

It's been mentioned multiple times on HN, but Influence, by Cialdini, is a great read. Especially the chapter on Social Proof.

I've seen this in action in the engineering world. You can have your data, as well as your error-free mathematics (no calculus, I promise! Just a few lines of algebra) to back your argument up. And the other person (PhD, no less) only needs to look at someone who shares his view of how the system under examination works to reject my mathematics.

Hence, his social proof was stronger than my mathematical proof.

I used to get upset about how I was working amongst the top engineers in one of the top companies in the world, and how illogical they seemed. But then I read the book and realized that's the "natural" order of things, and most people will not escape it.

Academia was a nice place where this was less of a problem.

[AnimalMuppet]

> I've seen this in action in the engineering world. You can have your data, as well as your error-free mathematics (no calculus, I promise! Just a few lines of algebra) to back your argument up. And the other person (PhD, no less) only needs to look at someone who shares his view of how the system under examination works to reject my mathematics.

It can be that the PhD's "view of how the system under examination works" indicates that your mathematics doesn't actually apply to the system. At that point, it doesn't matter how error-free your mathematics is.

Is the PhD right about that? They might have higher odds than you, not by virtue of being a PhD, but perhaps by virtue of being more of a domain expert. (Though even that is no guarantee...)

[BeetleB]

>It can be that the PhD's "view of how the system under examination works" indicates that your mathematics doesn't actually apply to the system. At that point, it doesn't matter how error-free your mathematics is.

If they pointed out that it doesn't apply, sure.

However, this is how it usually happened (meant to put in the original post but forgot):

He looks at his colleague and asks "Have you ever heard of this?" The other person shakes his head. Hence, rejected.

That's why the chapter is called social proof.

No commentary about my mathematics, or how applicable it is.

I'm not talking really complex stuff. We had a model of a physical process (equations) that they had put into their software. The equations were in a reference document we all had access to. Occasionally they would say something like "This cannot be modeled because the equation in our model is not monotonic". At which point I take the equation, compute the derivative (sorry, this example did have calculus), and show that it is monotonic.

Response: "Look, everyone knows such a system is not monotonic!" (note again the socialness of their proof)

I'll give you a reverse example.

(Details varied to simplify the example).

We had a circuit (netlist) whose output (e.g. current) we were interested in. I was tasked with tweaking some of the components such that we hit a target current. I did it, but did not modify any components' capacitance. However, some of the frequency output was impacted, which we normally control by varying the capacitances in the circuit.

Their response: You screwed up - we told you not to change the capacitance!

Me: The capacitances are all the same. They are unchanged. You can verify for yourself.

Them: Impossible. I've been doing this for 15 years, and have never heard of the frequency changing for reasons other than capacitance.

Me: Here are the actual equations for the frequency measurement that you're worried has changed (I know them because I coded them into the system!). Capacitance is not an explicit input, but can creep in indirectly. It's not obvious to me from the equations what role capacitance even plays here (linear, quadratic, exponential, lognormal, etc). Can you point out to me why you're so certain?

Them: Look. The frequency never changes unless you change the capacitance. Everyone who has done this for years knows that (and he was right - everyone did say that). Go redo all this work.

So I redid it with the exact same result (wasn't really hard - I version controlled my work).

Them: Unacceptable. I will not accept this work unless you can explain to me why the frequency is changing when it shouldn't.

Me: It's a complex circuit. I didn't design it. I'm not a circuits guy. I don't know the intricacies.

Them: You're going to have to figure it out.

Me: I'll go to the circuit designer (in another team).

(Walk to his cube - he's out for a week on vacation).

Them: Sorry, we cannot continue this work unless this is resolved.

(Twiddle my thumbs for a week till the designer returns. Then ask him).

Circuit Designer: Of course it can change even if the capacitances don't change. Why are they saying it only changes with capacitance? Based on what?

Me: Based on (making the quotes symbol with hands) "everyone knows". (Yes, I really did respond that way - the absurdity was getting to me by then).

Designer: Let me talk to them.

Overall, 2 weeks wasted because "everyone knows". I think in the whole team, I was the only one who questioned the tribal wisdom. Whenever someone joined the team, they were taught this incorrect tribal wisdom. I was in the (un)fortunate position to have done some work that just happened to go against the tribal wisdom. I had to defend myself, and that forced me to question the wisdom (once I determined I had done all the steps correctly).

But they did not have to explain why they believed what they did. I had to explain why I did not believe what they did. They were the ones making an assertion about the relationship between capacitance and frequency. However, it was my job to disprove it - not their job to prove it. Essentially, I was put in a position to prove a negative, because they already had their proof (social proof). My proof was very clear: I had a clear counterexample to their theory, but it didn't hold up to their proof. They were not willing to examine my counterexample.

The guy grilling me who wasted 2 weeks wasn't just anyone. He was one of the most senior engineers in the company. Very sharp guy who deserved his post. Not an idiot.

But even they fall prey to social proof.

[richard___]

People pull the "everyone knows" and "it's obvious" card all the time. It usually happens for two reasons 1) they don't actually understand the argument or subject matter enough to explain what's going on or 2) they don't want to spend the time arguing on something they are certain is true

[gknoy]

For anyone else who was interested in looking this up on Amazon:

https://smile.amazon.com/Influence-Psychology-Persuasion-Rob...

[blazespin]

It's called proof by contradiction. I thought it was self evident that Kim Jong-un wouldn't listen to reason once he had nukes, but perhaps you know better.

[BeetleB]

First: In case you felt that way, I did not write this to criticize you. I'm not saying you're wrong or you're trying to manipulate people. I'm highlighting the persuasion tactic you used.

>I thought it was self evident that Kim Jong-un wouldn't listen to reason once he had nukes, but perhaps you know better.

Thing is, I don't know better! Tell me how you know better.

And "self-evident" is really code for "everyone knows..."

If I said "Sure, I think he can listen to reason just like all the other nuclear leaders", what is your response?

[blazespin]

Well, I can really only go on by what I read in the press. All that killing he's doing to squash dissent. Doesn't sounds like spends much time listening to any rational argument beyond he who can kill people makes the rules.

And, to be fair, that argument seems to work for a lot of people (looking at you, Putin, Assad, etc).

[acjohnson55]

For sure, there are hard-nosed people out there. I agree with you that arguing with these folks is a waste of time. But they are vastly outnumbered. A functional society requires those hardliners to be marginalized and the oppression they advocate to be rejected. For that to happen, there needs to be some baseline solidarity amongst diverse people who mostly simply want safety, opportunity, and justice. It's not a stable equilibrium. It takes constant work to shore up that consensus and good faith, and avoid the collapse into centralized or distributed authoritarianism.

[blazespin]

"A functional society requires those hardliners to be marginalized"

Well, that is one theory for sure. But it's a tough one to argue when the reality is that having a bigger gun generally does mean you're right.

[acjohnson55]

I agree. Many parts of the world work that way, quite explicitly. I'm pretty sure it's the human default. And yet, we have liberal democracies that are at least somewhat functional. I'm interested in how best to work within that scope. I've got a lot less to say about how you achieve progress in a society ruled by warlords, even though that's very timely issue in many places.

[augustocallejas]

> We keep forgetting that people tend to support policies and politicians for largely social and psychological reasons, not because of facts and ideology. The former are where the real battle is fought.

Your comment was perfect as a lead up to this story about this Table of Knowledge group in Iowa:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/12/us/donald-trump-iowa-cons...

I bet there are a large number of these informal groups around the country. Listening to how they reason and what their units of reasoning are, which are not necessarily facts, is elucidating.

[mistermann]

That's a great article, thanks for posting. I find it deeply saddening that so many people ask "How could people vote for Trump, what are they thinking!", but have less than zero interest (aka hostility) in any answers, and there are many, to that question.

[Chris2048]

> people who disagree with me politically

Problem is, the truth is pretty hard to determine based on the usual suspects (studies, facts etc):

"I worry that most smart people have not learned that a list of dozens of studies, several meta-analyses, hundreds of experts, and expert surveys showing almost all academics support your thesis – can still be bullshit." -- http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/12/beware-the-man-of-one-s...

Yikes. what we really need is to discuss the practicality of citing studies performed by third-parties, and of trying to "prove" truth individually rather than collect evidence over time, as a community.

> do it with compassion and generosity of spirit

This is just good-faith, and it needn't be "compassion and generosity" which can easily be abused.

[smsm42]

It is entirely possible to have a factual debate about facts and logical conclusions. It is, of course, impossible to make factual debate about opinions, moral principles and preferences, and politics is a mix of both kinds, heavily skewed to non-factual side, unfortunately. Still, I think there's demand for factual discussion even in politics. That's why "fact checking" became a thing and why "fake news" became a popular pejorative. Unfortunately - and probably inevitably, given the stakes - "fact checking" was taken over by opportunists and turned into partisan mudsligning, and "fake news" has been turned into a club for bashing political opponents. But the demand is still there. It's just that MSM media structures may be by now so corrupt that they are institutionally unable to satisfy it.

[samirillian]

So we need a course called: bullshitting people who want to be bullshitted?

I'd worry a lot about the personal/existential implications. Gramsci says that the demagogue is the first one bitten by the snake of his own demagoguery.

[frozenport]

Yeah but being a demagogue is a lot of fun. It feels like you're telling me the wealthy are suffering, or the role reversal in Hegel's master slave relationship.

[notahacker]

> The audience who would see this kind of course/site are likely people who pretty much already have their head screwed on the right way. It would be much better to train them in effective rhetoric so they can counter the bullshit in real arguments.

I'd like to see the principle of calling bullshit taught in high schools.

[dandrick]

What a cynical view - and coming from me, that's pretty bad.

Things can improve, and in fact, they have improved quite a bit over the last several centuries.

The appeal to authority of the ancient Greeks is sometimes a good one I guess, but not always. For instance, the Greeks "knew" a lot of things that they were flat wrong about.

[dennis_jeeves]

acjohnson55, your observation is spot on. There is one suggestion that I have for 'rational' people: Band together, discriminate against the 'irrational' people in your lives and help out each other. That is one way to preserve your sanity. Often I have found that 'Rational' people also tend be be non-discriminatory and very accommodating on the non-rational people to a point where it hurts their interests. Contact me if interested.