[nuancebydefault]

> Arguments would be better if by "argument" we mean some effort, no matter how difficult, to communicate how you arrived at the beliefs you have, rather than a "well" crafted linear rational argument.

Strong point, have you. How did you arrive at the belief that an argument strengthened by such effort, would be better?

[Icy0]

To be clear, I meant that the conversation (the argument) would be a better experience for everyone involved, not the argument itself being somehow strengthened by it.

Nevertheless, I'll try to recall how I arrived at this conclusion. The biggest influence was seeing for all my life, the left and right in America each claim the other is stupid, irrational, and un-convinceable by rational argument. When I was 16 it really did seem to me that the right was the irrational side here, but seeing everything come full circle with what's happening on the left these days, I realized it's kind of weird and unlikely that half the population, divided on a political line, is actually worse at thinking than the other half.

(See the bottom of this thread for a vivid example.)

[nuancebydefault]

Thanks for this. Indeed I can confirm the conversation is conceived to be stronger. That said, still I am not convinced that about half the population would not be worse at thinking, the weird it may be.