Screenshot from inanimate alice, perpetual nomads. Available at itch.io.
Do not share,
what you do not want to be known
The three gates of speech
Before you speak, let your words pass through three gates.
- At the first gate, ask yourself, is it true.
- At the second gate ask, is it necessary.
- At the third gate ask, is it kind.
Rogerian rhetoric
You should attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly,
vividly, and fairly that your target says, “Thanks, I wish I’d thought
of putting it that way.”
You should list any points of agreement (especially if they are
not matters of general or widespread agreement).
You should mention anything you have learned from your
target.
Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal
or criticism.
Dennett’s version of Rapoport’s Rules
Argument Ranking
●●●●● - High-level generators - Disagreements that remain when
everyone understands exactly what’s being argued, and agrees on what all
the evidence says, but have vague and hard-to-define reasons for
disagreeing.
●●●●○ - Operationalizing - Where both parties understand they’re
in a cooperative effort to fix exactly what they’re arguing
about.
●●●○○ - Survey of evidence - Not trying to devastate the other
person with a mountain of facts and start looking at the studies and
arguments on both sides and figuring out what kind of complex picture
they paint.
●●●○○ - Disputing definitions - Argument hinges on the meaning of
words, or whether something counts as a member of a category or
not.
●●○○○ - Single Studies - Better than scattered facts, proving
they at least looked into the issue formally.
●●○○○ - Demands for rigor - Attempts to demand that an opposing
argument be held to such strict standards that nothing could possibly
clear the bar.
●○○○○ - Single Facts- One fact, which admittedly does support
their argument, but presented as if it solves the debate in and of
itself.
●○○○○ - Gotchas - Short claims that purport to be devastating
proof that one side can’t possibly be right.
○○○○○ - Social shaming- A demand for listeners to place someone
outside the boundary of whom deserve to be heard.
“How to apologize: Quickly, specifically, sincerely.”, by Kevin
Kelly
Arguments category
- Ad baculum : Argument relying on an appeal to fear or a threat.
- Ad ignorantiam : Argument relying on people’s ignorance.
- Ad populum : Argument relying on sentimental weakness.
- Ad verecundiam : Argument relying on the the words of an “expert”,
or authority.
- Ex silentio : Argument relying on ignorance.
- Ex nihilo : An argument that bears no relation to the previous topic
of discussion.
- Non sequitur : An inference that does not follow from established
premises or evidence.
Responses
- Akrasia : State of acting against one’s better judgment.
- Connotation : Emotional association with a word.
- Intransigence : Refusal to change one’s views or to agree about
something.
- Inferential distance : Gap between the background knowledge and
epistemology of a person trying to explain an idea, and the background
knowledge and epistemology of the person trying to understand it.
- Straw man : Creating a false or made up scenario and then attacking
it. Painting your opponent with false colors only deflects the purpose
of the argument.
- Steel man : To steelman is to address the strongest possible variant
or the most charitable interpretation of an idea, rather than the most
available phrasings.
- Red herring : A diversion from the active topic.
- Rationalization : Starts from a conclusion, and then works backward
to arrive at arguments apparently favouring that conclusion.
Rationalization argues for a side already selected.
- Dogpiling : A disagreement wherein one person says something wrong
or offensive, and a large number of people comment in response to tell
them how wrong they are, and continue to disparage the original
commenter beyond any reasonable time limit.
- Grandstanding : An action that is intended to make people notice and
admire you, behaving in a way that makes people pay attention to you
instead of thinking about more important matters.
- Whataboutism : An attempt to discredit an opponent’s position by
charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving
their argument.
- Dissensus : The deliberate avoidance of consensus.
Beliefs
- Belief : The mental state in which an individual holds a proposition
to be true.
- Priors : The beliefs an agent holds regarding a fact, hypothesis or
consequence, before being presented with evidence.
- Alief : An independent source of emotional reaction which can
coexist with a contradictory belief. Example The fear felt when a
monster jumps out of the darkness in a scary movie is based on the alief
that the monster is about to attack you, even though you believe that it
cannot.
- Proper belief : Requires observations, gets updated upon
encountering new evidence, and provides practical benefit in anticipated
experience.
- Improper belief : Is a belief that isn’t concerned with describing
the territory. Note that the fact that a belief just happens to be true
doesn’t mean you’re right to have it. If you buy a lottery ticket,
certain that it’s a winning ticket (for no reason), and it happens to
be, believing that was still a mistake.
- Belief in belief : Where it is difficult to believe a thing, it is
often much easier to believe that you ought to believe it. Were you to
really believe and not just believe in belief, the consequences of error
would be much more severe. When someone makes up excuses in advance, it
would seem to require that belief, and belief in belief, have become
unsynchronized.
- A Priori : Knowledge which we can be sure of without any empirical
evidence(evidence from our senses). So, knowledge that you could realize
if you were just a mind floating in a void unconnected to a body.
Leading
“A leader is best when people barely know they exists, when their
work is done, their aim fulfilled, people will say: we did it
ourselves.”
— 老子 (Lao Tse), 道德經 (Dao De Jing)
Wikipedia’s etiquette
The first principle of Wikipedia etiquette has been said to be Assume
Good Faith, also they Be Bold, but not Reckless.
Wrong discourse
- Answer: Jumping into a conversation with endless unapplicable,
unrealistic or unrelated answers to the question.
- Question: Spouting accusations while cowardly hiding behind the
claim of just asking questions, and ignoring the answers. Asking loaded
questions.
Good discourse
- Answer: A clear and honest response to the central point of a
question without an aggressive attempt to convince.
- Question: question asked with the intention to be fair, open, and
honest, regardless of the outcome of the interaction.
Social rules are expected to be broken from time to time, in that
regard they are different from a code of conduct.
Response Ranking
- ●●●●●● - Central point - Commit to refute explicitly the central
point.
- ●●●●●○ - Refutation - Argue a conflicting passage, explain why it’s
mistaken.
- ●●●●○○ - Counterargument - Contradict with added reasoning or
evidence.
- ●●●○○○ - Contradiction - State the opposing case, what.
- ●●○○○○ - Responding to Tone - Responding to the author’s tone,
how.
- ●○○○○○ - Ad Hominem - Attacking the author directly, who.
Interaction Ranking
Discussion
- ●●●●● - Release - Initiating a discussion on the lessons learnt from
a project.
- ●●●●○ - Update - Presenting the recent development of a personal
experience, ongoing event or work in progress.
- ●●●○○ - Soapbox - Spontaneous and or enthusiastic posts about a
general topic of interest or finding.
Low-Effort
- ●●○○○ - Rant- Venting frustration publicly without explicitly
looking to have a conversation about the matter.
- ●○○○○ - Shitpost - Aggressively or ironically looking for the
biggest reaction with the least effort possible. Includes subtoots and
vague-posting.
Emotional Reaction
- Seduction - You are led to feel that the fulfillment of your dreams
depends on your doing what the other is encouraging you to do.
- Alignment - The interests of the system are presented as fulfilling
your emotional needs. You are led to feel that your survival, your
viability in society or your very identity depends on your doing what
the other is requiring of you.
- Reduction - Complex subjects are reduced to a single, emotionally
charged issue.
- Polarization - Issues are presented in such a way that you are
either right or wrong. You are told that any dialogue between different
perspectives is suspect, dangerous or simply not permissible.
- Marginalization - You are made to feel that your own interests (or
interests that run counter to the interests of the other) are
inconsequential.
- Framing - The terms of a debate are set so that issues that threaten
the system cannot be articulated or discussed. You are led to ignore
aspects of the issue that may be vitally important to your own interests
but are contrary to the interests of the other that is seeking to make
you act in their interests.
Quotes
“Kings speak for the realm, governors for the state, popes for
the church. Indeed, the titled, as titled, cannot speak with annyone.” —
James P. Carse, Finite and Infinite Games
“Instead of trying to prove your opponent wrong, try to see in
what sense he might be right.” — Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State, and
Utopia
“You should mention anything you have learned from your
target.”
“I don’t argue: I just say what I know or what I believe, as the
case may be.” — John W. Cohan
Copy
The whole page is licensed under cc-by-nc-sa; it is adapted from
https://wiki.xxiivv.com/site/discourse.html to make it easier for me to
change it. I also avoid the words “bad” (replaced with “wrong”) and
“faith” (replaced with “discourse”), a few other changes.
