XXIIVV
Maude picture
18T02 — Maude

A cheatsheet on Discourse.

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.”
—Rapoport's First Rule

The arguments rankings are taken from Scott Alexander, and the responses rankings are taken from Paul Graham.

How to apologize: Quickly, specifically, sincerely.
—Kevin Kelly

Argument Ranking

●●●●●High-level generatorsDisagreements 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.
●●●●○OperationalizingWhere both parties understand they're in a cooperative effort to fix exactly what they're arguing about.
●●●○○Survey of evidenceNot 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 definitionsArgument hinges on the meaning of words, or whether something counts as a member of a category or not.
●●○○○Single StudiesBetter than scattered facts, proving they at least looked into the issue formally.
●●○○○Demands for rigorAttempts to demand that an opposing argument be held to such strict standards that nothing could possibly clear the bar.
●○○○○Single FactsOne fact, which admittedly does support their argument, but presented as if it solves the debate in and of itself.
●○○○○GotchasShort claims that purport to be devastating proof that one side can't possibly be right.
○○○○○Social shamingA demand for listeners to place someone outside the boundary of whom deserve to be heard.

Response Ranking

●●●●●●Central pointCommit to refute explicitly the central point.
●●●●●○RefutationArgue a conflicting passage, explain why it's mistaken.
●●●●○○CounterargumentContradict with added reasoning or evidence.
●●●○○○ContradictionState the opposing case, what.
●●○○○○Responding to ToneResponding to the author's tone, how.
●○○○○○Ad HominemAttacking the author directly, who.

Emotional Reaction

SeductionYou are led to feel that the fulfillment of your dreams depends on your doing what the other is encouraging you to do.
AlignmentThe 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.
ReductionComplex subjects are reduced to a single, emotionally charged issue.
PolarizationIssues 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.
MarginalizationYou are made to feel that your own interests (or interests that run counter to the interests of the other) are inconsequential.
FramingThe 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.

Found a mistake? Submit an edit to discourse.

arguments

responses

beliefs

the three gates of speech

Last update on 18Y03, edited 2 times. +7/10fh