mathbabe

I remember when I was considering moving to New York from Boston, in late 2004. I came to give a number theory seminar at the CUNY Graduate Center, and afterwards we had a very nice dinner and discussion. Bush had just won re-election, and being typical left-wing academics, we were all disappointed by the news. The most startling aspect of that conversation to me was how often the word “crazy” or “stupid” was used to describe this result. In other words, it seemed like the only way we could come to terms with how half the country had voted for Bush was to describe them as feeble-minded one way or the other.

Gary Gutting wrote a wonderful Opinionator article in today’s New York Times which addresses this issue. It talks about the difference between logical argument and rational thought. He first promotes the idea that we each carry around a developed “picture” of the world:

Conservatives, for example, see business as primarily a source of social and economic good, achieved by the market mechanism of seeking to maximize profit.  They therefore think government’s primary duty regarding businesses is to see that they are free to pursue their goal of maximizing profit. Liberals, on the other hand, think that the effort to maximize profit threatens at least as much as it contributes to our societies’ well-being.  They therefore think that government’s primary duty regarding businesses is to protect citizens against business malpractice.

He then goes on to say that it’s not irrational to have a picture of the world in mind- we all do it, and it’s an important if not essential way to develop moral, political, and religious views. Moreover, we reasonably view other peoples’ opinions in the context of our pictures, looking naturally for evidence that ours is right.

But what does qualify as irrational is when we stick to our picture in light of really good evidence against its consistency:

But although accepting one of these rival pictures is not irrational, inflexible adherence to it can be.  Neither picture would be viable without an exception-clause that acknowledges a certain validity to the rival picture. When an issue about regulation comes up, it’s entirely appropriate (and rational) for liberals and conservatives to begin with an inclination to the response generally favored by their picture.  But both sides need to attend to the specific facts of the situation at hand and take seriously the possibility that these facts give reason for invoking the exception-clause in their picture.   (For example: The risk from that nuclear plant is too big to take for the sake of free market principles, or the severity of our unemployment makes it worthwhile to exempt small businesses from some record-keeping regulations.)   When liberals or conservatives become incapable of thinking this way, their positions become irrational.

I’d like to go one step further (because I agree with everything he said) and ask, what can we do to encourage ourselves and the people we disagree with to have this exception-clause out and ready to use?

It seems to me that when you approach a disagreement armed with facts and arguments to prove your point, you may as well concede defeat before you begin – you won’t “win” an argument that way, at least if it’s a deep argument, even if you can leave it feeling like you made the cleverer points, because you will not have persuaded anyone to change their mind. On the other hand, if you approach disagreement genuinely wondering why the other person feels and thinks the way they do, it becomes much easier to hone in on the basic cause for conflict, and for each person in the discussion to take out their exception-clause and listen to logical argument. In fact I don’t think logical argument can be useful until this point of readiness has been reached. I will call this approach, where you are each mutually assured of the exception-clause readiness before delving into logical argument, as “disagreeing well”.

For example, if I had the time, it would be fascinating to get to know sufficiently many people who voted for Bush in 2004 to be not at all surprised that he won the election. It’s a sad fact about the insularity of my life that I don’t know enough people like that.

More generally, I think a key element of developing your ability to disagree well is to expose yourself to lots of opinions. I am glad to have done a few really different jobs – loading trucks for Fair Foods, barista at Coffee Connection, secretary at a corrupt computer hardware store, student, teacher, quant, professor, data scientist – and met enough people of different classes and backgrounds that I feel relatively exposed to the world- but only the world of the Northeast United States, which is primarily composed of Democrats (although my excursions into the Bluegrass community may be the exception to that rule).

Here’s the irony of disagreeing well: you end up not actually believing your own opinion nearly as much as you thought to begin with. That’s probably why it’s hard to do, because it’s scary to put your belief on the line in an attempt to understand someone else’s viewpoint better. It’s way more work, and it’s for the most part a relationship-building event, with the logical discussion coming in after a long time and sporadically. In particular you can’t plan it and you won’t know how long it will take or even if it will work. I think, though, that to have the most interesting and provocative discussions, we need to do it anyway, even though for the most part you end up more confused than convinced, or convincing.

What about you? How do you disagree well? How do you take out your exception clause and how do you convince other people to do the same?