Rules for Argumentation or Debate to Succeed (or Fail) by (Part 3)

Armor for Man and Horse Presumably Made for Baron Pankraz von Freyberg (1508u20131565) by Wolfgang Grosschedel is licensed under CC-CC0 1.0

The sad reality in many of these debate situations is that the participants are not there to listen to alternate perspectives that could open them up to a better understanding of reality, but just to be heard and feel an ego validating sense of righteousness from having said their piece publicly. In a different context, this explains much of the virtue signalling that we see from politicians, activists and heads of corporations who feel the pressure from their constituents to take a particular ideological line about some contentious issue. But this again is performative, because their message will be crafted to not genuinely reflect what they believe about what they are saying, but to avoid condemnation or elicit the support of their base that their power (and continued ability to have a platform) is dependent on.

Don’t strawman, but steelman, your opponent’s arguments – To clarify at the outset what these two terms mean, when a person strawman’s another person’s argument, what they are doing is reducing it to the lowest common denominator of its meaning, playing to tropes of the counter position, deflecting the substance of the argument, or tearing out the nuance of what gives it weight. An example of this would be if I were to say that ‘in all police and civilian interactions, there is an element of personal responsibility that needs to be exercised by civilians for how these interactions can go awry’, a strawmanning of this position could be ‘this claim blames the victim of police violence and is insensitive to the personal circumstances of the civilian that have led them to act as they have’. Rather than actually dealing with the substance of the initial proposition, what the person strawmanning is doing is inferring from what was not said, an intention that contravenes their ideological position. At no stage did the person putting forward the initial proposition say that the victim should be blamed, or fail to recognise the personal circumstances of a civilian that may have been harmed in a police interaction. Steelmanning, on the other hand, is when the person responding to the original claim acknowledges the substance of it, and even bolsters it by what they have to add to the discussion with their response. An example of this with the above scenario could be, ‘while the ultimate power in police/civilian interactions does rest with the officer, I agree that there are numerous things that are within the power of the civilian to do or not do that reduce the risk of the interaction escalating to violence or an arrest being made, for example, by them being honest and respectful in answering the officer’s questions’.

As you read both of these responses to the original claim made, how do they make you, as an independent observer, feel? I think that regardless of your ideological position on the issue of police/civilian interactions, most people would have a greater level of respect for the person who is steelmanning the original claim because they are demonstrating a genuine willingness to deal with the claim on its merits, and acknowledge whatever strengths it has, while also balancing their counterclaim with supplementary points that add weight to their own position. By comparison, it is hard not to pity the person who has to resort to strawmanning because what they are actually signalling by taking that road is that they don’t have the substance to either their argument, or critical thinking ability, to deal with what is actually being said without resorting to minimising behaviour that attempts to caricature the other person and the point they are making. To make matters worse for those who make it a habit of strawmanning others’ arguments is that when they are called out for engaging in that type of behaviour, they often become defensive and resort to ad hominem attacks in order to save face.

Understand here that the focus of steelmanning is a bit different from finding common ground at the outset of a debate. What it consists of instead is being able to give due recognition to the strengths of the argument that the other party puts forward, which in nearly every debate will be present if one cares to look beyond the narrow bounds of the position that they are advocating for. In the above example given, I don’t think that any reasonable person would deny that in police/civilian interactions, police officers have the ultimate power as members of this state apparatus to dictate how these interactions will resolve. But an equally valid truth is that how a civilian chooses to deal with the police officer in that interaction will go a long way to determining how the police officer either responds or reacts to their demonstrated behaviour. Two things, that appear to be in opposition for their validity, can both be true, and it is the person who can steelman rather than strawman their opponent’s position, who earns the credibility to have their more nuanced position listened to. The conditions of life are largely complex and multifaceted, and those who can wrestle with this tension while giving due recognition to alternate positions that speak to truth, will hold a gravitas that those who address contra-points in bad faith renounce themselves of.

Many Factors, not One Cause (Part 2)

Just the other day, I heard someone claim that disparities (by themselves) are evidence of discrimination in the workplace. But is that really true? Only to the type of person who is inclined to see the world through the narrow lens of particular identity categories like race or gender, or other select metrics that support their subjective truth or map which they are attempting to lay over the broader territory of the world. While no doubt in some instances disparities can be produced by discrimination or the degeneration of a meritocratic process into one that is more ‘mirror-tocratic’, on more occasions than not, there are a multitude of other factors at play to explain those disparities. Some of these are 1) the desire or inclination of individuals of a certain race or gender to partake in the work in question (e.g. how many women have a natural desire to work in construction or as electricians?); 2) whether the representation of a particular group within the organisation is commensurate to their representation in the broader community (i.e. the national context matters here – particular racial groups who immigrate to a foreign country will as a minority naturally be more underrepresented institutionally when compared to their homeland where they constitute a majority of the population); 3) the presence of standardised or blind recruitment practices that place ultimate weight in education, experience or a particular skill set that isn’t exclusive to members of a particular race or gender (don’t forget how organisations are incentivised to practice meritocracy in the capitalist system – the best people (regardless of their identity characteristics) produce the best work of highest value to the market that will earn them a greater share of that market which will translate into more profits for the company and benefits for its stakeholders).  

It is these sorts of factors that are overlooked when hyperbolic media claims are made that women at universities are being ‘locked out’ of fields like physics or mathematics on the basis of their underrepresentation, despite 60% of all university graduates being female. Pursuant to this figure, and the underrepresentation of men in universities relative to the broader population, are we to deduce then that males are being discriminated against in higher education? Of course not, and I would never make such an absurd claim. But to those with an ideological agenda or narrative to push, pretty lies do tend to rally support better than ugly truths, so it will be convenient for them to ignore the nuance associated with these debates which I have highlighted above.  

3. Criminality – I wasn’t initially going to focus on this when I started writing this entry, but after reading about the drastic spike of some crimes in the Australian state of Queensland in recent months, and the criticisms made of police that they are not doing enough to alleviate the problem, I decided it was worth canvassing. In addition, there is often a lot of emotionality surrounding the topic which can complicate our best attempts to tease apart the Gordian knot of contributing causes that are both misunderstood and neglected. While I am not an expert in the area, the subject of the justice system and how it can be reformed through my framing of Natural Law principles will be something that I cover in my next book, so it is worth me providing some exploratory thoughts here.

The reality is that there are a multitude of internal and external considerations that contribute to criminal offending and the ability of the state to effectively respond by administering justice. While no doubt the responsiveness of police can be deficient in serving as a deterrent against crime, the system in which officers work isn’t always conducive to them putting their best foot forward. Resourcing shortfalls, the high-risk nature of the job, the public scrutiny of their performance and hostile attitude that anti-authoritarians tend to have towards their presence, to say nothing of the relatively low rates of pay they receive which makes quality recruitment difficult, are but a few of the factors that add to the challenging nature of the work. While they are an easy target to criticise in the post George Floyd era, I think those who too often get a pass are the criminals themselves. Despite some trying to make the argument that the proclivity to engage in criminal behaviour is somehow predetermined by an individual’s nature or upbringing in a particular environment (nurture), I don’t buy that thesis, as there are too many examples of people who share those environmental or dispositional traits that didn’t resort to criminality in order to make their way in the world. Even siblings in the same family unit have been shown to take radically different paths despite suffering the same types of hardship in their early years. Drug, alcohol and sexual abuse, domestic violence, family breakdown, poverty, social isolation, lack of employment or educational opportunities, and other forms of trauma are all pertinent as contributing factors to the breaking of the law that one chooses to engage in.