The Economist Video on Slowing Aging

Cheers, 

Colin

Humanity's Plight

 

Cheers, 

Colin

Good Arguments (Autumn Reading Group, session #2)

This is part 2 of the book summary for the Philosophy Kingston Meetup reading group on the book Good Arguments.  Part 1 summary is here.

This my summary of some themes and issues from Chapters 4-6.

First, two related videos that might be of interest are:

#1.  Rhetoric in communication/ argumentation

#2.  How dirty debaters win against better opponents 

Chapter 4:  RHETORIC

Seo describes the disagreement between Socrates and Gorgias concerning the value and function of rhetoric (the art of persuasive communication).  Socrates gives the example of a doctor and rhetorician when it comes to medicine.  The former has knowledge about what will actually treat the health malady of the patient, whereas the latter may just engage in flattery, impressive words and a confident speech to convince the masses to consume some fake elixir to cure the health malady.  For the critics of sophistry like Socrates, rhetoric is hallow and pretentious speech, imprecise and irrational.  We should instead engage in “straight talk”, with “no spin”.  Seo responds that rhetoric has a legitimate and important place to play in argument, because of the apathy and biases of the listener.  Getting someone to change their mind, or revise their beliefs, is hard to do.  “HOW” a debater conveys their message is just as important as WHAT they convey.  One’s mannerism, tone and pace, moving the listener by appealing to their emotions, etc. are all important aspects of rhetoric and winning an argument contends Seo. 

Chapter 5  QUIET:  How to know when to disagree

In life we must pick our battles wisely, to be judicious about determining when to enter into a disagreement.  Sometimes it would be ill-advised to engage in a debate and argument with someone or about a specific topic.  Seo offers the following checklist for gauging whether an argument has a good change of going well:

(1)   the disagreement is real.  That is, there is an actual difference of opinion vs one or both parties simply wanting a quarrel and thus are in search of a topic they can quarrel about.   

(2)   the disagreement is important.  That is, the difference is important enough to justify a disagreement.  We should reflect on why the disagreement is worthy of debate-  perhaps it touches on core values we care about, or it is an opponent we love and respect so we want to better understand their position, etc.  We should not enter into disagreements that are motivated by pride or defensiveness. 

(3)   the disagreement should be specific.  A very general or vague topic (e.g. “the economy”) will not enable both sides to make progress in the allotted time. You cannot debate everything.

(4)   the goals of the two sides are aligned.  That is, the reason for engaging in the disagreement are aligned (thought not necessarily identical).  For example, I might enter the debate to try to change your mind, and you to gain a new understanding of the topic.  Those goals are aligned.  But if I start the disagreement because I want to express my anger or simply to hurt your feelings then engaging in such a disagreement is ill-advised. 

Can you think of examples in your own personal or professional life where you entered into disagreements that contravened this check list?  How would you handle things differently now, if at all?

 

Chapter 6:  Self Defence:  How to Defeat a Bully

This chapter focuses on The Art of Being Right by Arthur Schopenhauer.  Schopenhauer defined the “eristic dialectic” as the art of winning an argument whether one is in the right or the wrong.  And he identified 38 different techniques typically employed by debaters employing this art- such as changing the topic, goading an opponent into anger, claiming victory despite defeat, etc. 

Seo contends we must know what the dishonest tricks are so that we can defeat the opponent with their own tricks.  Clean debaters risk being out maneuvered by bad debaters if they do not know how to combat these bad tactics.  When both sides of a debate are skilled in the eristic dialectic then mutual deterrence ensures a good argument is more likely to take place (as no side will act like a “bully”).

Seo highlights 4 types of personas a bully may adopt, and details how to respond to these personas.  These are:

 

(1)             The “Dodger”: someone who never responds directly to an argument.  Instead they “pivot”, meaning they do not completely ignore the point, but instead comment on a broader argument but not the specifics they should address (e.g. ad hominem).  Response:  pursue the original argument, don’t let them ignore the original subject.

 

(2)             The “Twister”:  someone who misrepresents arguments.  For example, they construct a straw person argument that expands the epistemic burdens the  original argument must meet.  Response:  correct the record and misrepresentation.

 

(3)             The “Wrangler”:  someone who is great at re-buttle but never puts forth their own argument.  They employ a strategy of just always attack the opponent’s argument.  In doing so they always moving the goal posts for their opponents.  Response:  pin down the wrangler to a position.  Ask questions like “what do you belief?” or “what do you mean by that?” and then hold them to those answers.

 

 

(4)             The “Liar”:  someone who makes statements they believe are false to mislead people.  Do not respond to this by charging “That is a lie!” for such a tactic is not sufficient to defeat them.  Instead, it makes you sound emotional and appear desperate- resorting to personal attacks.  Response:  Prove the falsehood is a lie by engaging in what Soe calls the two-fold strategy of “plug and replace”.  “Plug” the lie into a broader view of the world and explain what problems arise.  Then replace the lie with the truth, and explain why this is more likely the reality.

 

Looking forward to our discussions and debates!

Cheers,

Colin

Dsychedelic Drug Closer to Approval

Naturenews reports on the psychedelic drug MDMA's effectiveness in treating PTSD.  A sample from the story:

The psychedelic drug MDMA, also known as ecstasy or molly, has passed another key hurdle on its way to regulatory approval as a treatment for mental illness. A second large clinical trial has found that the drug — in combination with psychotherapy — is effective at treating post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The results allow the trial’s sponsor to now seek approval from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for MDMA’s use as a PTSD treatment for the general public, which might come as soon as next year.

....In June, Australia became the first country to allow physicians to prescribe MDMA for treating psychiatric conditions. MDMA is illegal in the United States and other countries because of the potential for its misuse.

....MDMA doesn’t make the therapy process more “fun”, Mitchell says, but the drug seems to induce self-compassion in a way that other therapies don’t. She calls it “a communication lubricant” that helps people to recall traumatizing events and talk to their therapists without experiencing shame or horror.

Cheers, 

Colin

Sleep and Depression Risk

Eurekalert has this news item on a new study  of lifestyle and depression risk in nearly 300 000 people.  A sample of the study's main findings:

…the team was able to identify seven healthy lifestyle factors linked with a lower risk of depression. These were:

• moderate alcohol consumption
• healthy diet
• regular physical activity
• healthy sleep
• never smoking
• low-to-moderate sedentary behaviour
• frequent social connection

Of all of these factors, having a good night’s sleep – between seven and nine hours a night – made the biggest difference, reducing the risk of depression, including single depressive episodes and treatment-resistant depression, by 22%.

Frequent social connection, which in general reduced the risk of depression by 18%, was the most protective against recurrent depressive disorder.

Cheers, 

Colin 

Special Issue on Obesity (Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond., B, Biol. Sci. )

The latest issue of The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences is a special issue (part 2) on obesity I should note for future reading.  

Cheers, 

Colin

Good Arguments (Autumn Reading Group, session #1)

From September through November I am running a reading group for my local meetup group (Philosophers, Kingston) on Bo Soe's recent book Good Arguments in Lake Ontario Park. Seo is a two-time world debating champion.  Here is a video of him describing the themes of the book.  I will post my review notes for my meetup group here on my blog.

Here is my summary of some of the main points from the intro and first 3 chapters of the book, along with a few questions/exercises for us to discuss. We are turning our attention to the art of competitive debate to learn how to *disagree better* (vs convince people we are correct).

Here are a few examples of poor forms of disagreement:

 (1) avoidance of disagreement- just not engaging with people you disagree with, closing yourself to other’s views and instead functioning within an echo chamber in which you only converse with like-minded people

(2) talking past one another. In other words, not actually debating the same issue(s)

(3) attacking the other person (ad hominem) versus attending to their actual argument or position

(4) “squirrelling” the debate which means one side interprets the motion in a disingenuous way to make it easier to argue for their position.  

Seo contends that we should aspire to disagree in such a way that the outcome is better than not having the disagreement. This means the goal of debate is not to eliminate disagreement (i.e. consensus) but rather to reveal gradations of agreement and disagreement. This is the product of GOOD DISAGREEMENT. Here is a 5 mins video on that point:

The book will cover 5 elements of debate, what he calls the “physics of everyday argument”:

1. topic    2. argument   3. rebuttal    4. rhetoric    5. quiet

In the second half of the book Seo applies the lessons from debate to four areas of life:

(1) bad disagreements   (2) relationships  (3) education  (4) technology

On the issue of topics for debate, Seo mentions insights from one of his debating coaches on what makes for a good debate topic: 

    (1) balanced topic (doesn’t favour either side)

(2) deep (there are many sides to the issue)

(3) accessible (doesn’t require specialized knowledge)

(4) interesting

Which topics do you like debating? Or which topics do you not like debating? Can you think of examples of topics that are particularly deep and interesting, or ones that perhaps are not balanced or accessible? People often say one shouldn’t bring up either politics or religion if one wants to have a pleasant social interaction with someone, what is it about these topics that often create tension in our discussions and debates?

Seo offers the following taxonomy of disagreement:

(A) facts  (B) judgements   (C) prescriptions

These entail different stances on facts and norms. Can you think of any major policy or social issues where 1-2 of these issues loom large?

On the issue of rebuttal, Seo mentions his debating nemesis named Deborah. What made her such a formidable opponent was the fact that, before debating, she would think about the other side’s best argument in great detail. The greatest strength of rebuttal is thus the art of LISTENING. To refine and develop this skill, think of an issue you have strong opinions on. Now try constructing the strongest argument you can for the opposing position. This is not easy to do. Think imaginatively. After doing this, you might have a better sense of where your disagreement actually lays (e.g. facts, judgements or prescriptions).  

Can you think of particular people in your life, either in your family, or friends, work or political leaders who display good (or poor) listening skills? That is, before they make the case for their position they genuinely try to understand the other side, and make their argument with those insights in mind.

Cheers, 

Colin