Arguing in good faith

[Bootstrap]

The opposite of straw manning is steelmanning—presenting your opponent's argument in its strongest, fairest form before responding to it.
If we did this, I think it would make for much better discussion on MN.

It would - that goes well beyond just arguing in good faith. I have heard some podcasts where people do this, clearly disagreeing with each other but also helping the other person develop their argument further and pointing out its strengths.

It would be great if we could even simply argue in good faith, trying to understand what the other person said and responding to it without going after the other person or misrepresenting their position. Actually, I think most people usually do argue in good faith. Unfortunately, some threads can end up dominated by posts that don’t.

It struck me this morning that many of the pages of debate on MN are the result of people not arguing in good faith.

Poisoning the well, oversimplification, mischaracterization, misrepresentation, false attribution, hollow man arguments, nutpicking, cherry picking, quote mining, caricature and distorting what someone says in order to build a case against someone that doesn't exist, results in huge amounts of wasted time both in reading and writing.

The common themes here are:

1. Try to respond to the content of what the other person is saying, asking questions if you aren't sure.
2. Present your own position, let the other person present theirs. Unless you are steelmanning and asking for their help to construct the strongest possible version of their argument.
3. Don’t go after the other person or try to score points through polarization or drama.

And that's what connects this to arguing in good faith.

I think if we would call these sorts of things out rather than responding to such posts, it would save a lot of time, and be more helpful in the long run.

Publicly accusing one another of arguing in bad faith would probably become another distraction from discussing the topic itself. And I think it would tend to trigger debate mode rather than discussion mode.

I think a lot of the problem is that much of our media and social media plays exactly the same kinds of games that we see some people play here. They thrive on political drama and blatantly use the techniques you mention because they aren't trying to argue in good faith. Propaganda techniques are dramatic and compelling and entertaining. I think that rubs off on people, and you see some of that here.

[Ernie]

I think if we would call these sorts of things out rather than responding to such posts, it would save a lot of time, and be more helpful in the long run.

Publicly accusing one another of arguing in bad faith would probably become another distraction from discussing the topic itself. And I think it would tend to trigger debate mode rather than discussion mode.

I think a lot of the problem is that much of our media and social media plays exactly the same kinds of games that we see some people play here. They thrive on political drama and blatantly use the techniques you mention because they aren't trying to argue in good faith. Propaganda techniques are dramatic and compelling and entertaining. I think that rubs off on people, and you see some of that here.

For nearly 20 years I've watched folks on MN spend many posts trying to correct the opinions of others that they disagreed with or tangle with folks who don't converse or debate the way they like. It goes on for years and neither one convinces the other.
Calling out things once in a while can be good I think but trying to convince someone to argue in good faith who doesn't want to argue in good faith seems rather pointless to me.

[barnhart]

I agree with Ernie. Another shift I have noticed over that time is a "flood the zone" mentality around ideas where people might have differing viewpoints that short circuits exchange of ideas.

A current example might be the response of the church to same sex attracted people or people suffering gender disphoria. Of all internet based discussion groups, I suppose Mennonet has as much commitment to exchange of ideas as I have seen, yet I cannot suggest that Jesus is still asking the church to respond in love to these individuals without pushback and correction. Once an issue has entered the culture war zone, simple exchange of ideas becomes increasingly difficult.

Vaccines have saved as much human life as any other medical intervention in history yet now it really hard to have a discussion about how, when and how often to administer them. Quarantine is an effective strategy against infectious disease that dates back to Bible times, yet a conversation about when and for how long seems beyond reach.

Another example is immigration. If I mention something about responding to individuals caught up in the system with compassion, the discussion turns scorched earth very quickly. There is no room for someone who wants to respect law, sees injustice and wishes laws could be modified.

In this atmosphere code words substitute for rational thought, Pride, Hate, open borders, Intolerance, Racist, affirming, pro-life, pro-choice, grooming...

I suppose this is an era to freshly consider Ecclesiates:
Be not rash with thy mouth, and let not thine heart be hasty to utter any thing before God: for God is in heaven, and thou upon earth: therefore let thy words be few.

[Soloist]

I had many things I thought about saying, but I couldn’t figure out how to write it very well.
I appreciate what you wrote Barnhart

[Bootstrap]

Once an issue has entered the culture war zone, simple exchange of ideas becomes increasingly difficult.

And even if your issue and your post are not at all culture wars, it only takes one post to make it so. We've seen that in topics ranging from arguing in good faith to basic issues of church and state - pretty fundamental to Mennonite theology.

You post something that is not at all about culture wars. Within minutes, someone else might jump in, accuse you of having whatever motives, claim that you have said things in the past that you clearly have not, slap very emotional culture wars polarizing labels on you and insist that's what motivated you, whatever.

This is an effective way to silence people.

At this point, your original topic is lost. You are in the middle of the fight that nobody here wants to be part of - especially you - so people are unlikely to respond to what you posted. That's what you wanted to discuss, but there's no room for that now.

I don't know why, but in the last few days, this is not happening much at all. And discussions are developing in a way that has often been very difficult because there is room for them to breathe and for people to respond to each other.

In this atmosphere code words substitute for rational thought, Pride, Hate, open borders, Intolerance, Racist, affirming, pro-life, pro-choice, grooming...

Culture wars needs the drama. It needs the conflict. It rejoices in tearing others down. This is fundamental to the way that it looks at all issues.

Rational thought is gentler, it needs time, it needs room for people to read what others have written and respond to it. It often takes several responses to actually understand each other.

[temporal1]

Luke 4:23 / ἰατρέ, θεράπευσον σεαυτόν
https://biblehub.com/q/Meaning_of_Physi ... urself.htm

[Bootstrap]

Luke 4:23 / ἰατρέ, θεράπευσον σεαυτόν
https://biblehub.com/q/Meaning_of_Physi ... urself.htm

Yes, that's exactly what each of us should be doing.

I assure you, I have spent a lot of time thinking and praying about how I can contribute to arguing in good faith, promote conversation from a Christian perspective and a rational perspective, discuss things without tearing others down while allowing different perspectives, etc. We each need to heal ourselves and examine ourselves before God.

I think I saw only one response about arguing in good faith from you in this thread so far, here:

https://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.ph ... 63#p308463

That responds to Mike's original post, but seems to focus on a different set of issues. Mike’s post described arguing in good faith as things like:

* Stating what you actually believe.
* Trying to understand the other person’s argument accurately.
* Using evidence and reasoning honestly.
* Admitting mistakes when shown to be wrong.
* Being willing to change your mind if the evidence warrants it.
* Avoiding deliberately misleading, distracting, or manipulating others.

Your response discussed things like:

* Free speech.
* Censorship.
* Banning language and thought.
* Force and coercion.
* Social pressure and conformity.
* Letting the moderators handle moderation.

Those seem like different topics to me. I don’t really see your post engaging with the specific characteristics Mike listed for arguing in good faith. I also haven’t seen you engage much with what others have said about the characteristics of arguing in good faith.

I would be interested in what you have to say about arguing in good faith. I would appreciate it if this topic could focus on that.

[temporal1]

i think mike’s OP is so good it doesn’t require much or any response.

as i wrote, i might emphasize his word, discussion. the word, argue, often stimulates the negative, even when not intended.

for perspective, i “fill out” mike’s OP with what i notice in his forum history, which is informed, while not negative or argumentative.

[Bootstrap]

i might emphasize his word, discussion, more. the word, argue, often stimulates the negative, even when not intended.

I agree.

Do you have any thoughts on what leads to arguing and what leads to discussion? How we can discuss the subject instead of letting everyone know just what we think of other forum participants, who we like and who we dislike, take jabs at the other person, etc?

[temporal1]

i might emphasize his word, discussion, more. the word, argue, often stimulates the negative, even when not intended.

I agree.

Do you have any thoughts on what leads to arguing and what leads to discussion? How we can discuss the subject instead of letting everyone know just what we think of other forum participants, who we like and who we dislike, etc?

1) i always thought Robert’s emphasis on “i” statements was very valuable.
2) i believe ohio jones’ requests for mods to be flagged is great advice, altho not well tested, so far as i’m aware.