[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.