Irrational Argument

There's more about rational argument that I want to explain. Before going there, though, I'll mention one more thing really fast: how do you know when you're arguing with someone who is irrational by this definition?

There are a bunch of ways, and it really isn't easy. A person can look rational in the sense of giving lots of factoids, lots of evidence, and coming back with arguments, when really, nothing in the world is going to change their mind--they aren't actually rational on the subject. The most straightforward way I know is if you know the person's history: do they admit error? have you seen them change their mind? do they abandon a precommitment when new evidence emerges?

This isn't to say that irrational people never change their minds. Sometimes there is no philosophical coherence to the positions they take, but there is always something sacred. So, for instance, John Calhoun sometimes supported states' rights and sometimes didn't, sometimes defended property rights and sometimes didn't, but he never did anything to hurt slavery. So, in the sense I'm using it here, Calhoun wasn't rational on anything that impinged on slavery (which was an awful lot). That isn't to say he was foaming at the mouth--his arguments had lots of logical moves, and he could quote chapter and verse from the Constitution (albeit with some odd interpretations), but his arguments weren't logically consistent except insofar as they consistently protected slavery.

Now, again, you might still want to argue with someone like that--because you think knock-down drag out arguments are good fun (after all, you don't play racquetball because you expect to solve world problems, and this is just a verbal version of an aggressive game), you're trying to persuade some other group entirely (as in a courtroom or public debate), you think it's fun to pound your head against a wall, you want to understand that other side better, you're procrastinating some other task, you're hoping to pound them into submission and get your way. But, if you are really trying to get some issues settled, and deliberate in a rational manner, this kind of person is not a productive interlocutor.

So, why do people argue irrationally? And, by "irrational," I want to emphasize that I mean "willing to defend precommitments at all costs."

Which I should explain, I suppose. Everyone has precommitments--that is, beliefs and values that they bring to a discussion--and there's nothing wrong with that. But, I'm saying that a "rational" discussion is one in which the people involved are willing to reconsider the beliefs and values they bring in. (That isn't all it is--there's more to it, but that's the post I keep promising.)

So, sometimes people are willing to reconsider precommitments because they're paid not to. Rush Limbaugh, for instance, is precommitted to the supporting the GOP because, as he says, he's most concerned with maximizing ad revenue, and he'll say what he needs to say to do that.

Sometimes people won't reconsider precommitments because they like a good fight, and that makes fights bloodier. I had two friends who, every time we got together, would argue about whether Renaldo Nehemiah was going to make a good football player. You could basically count--third beer, here comes the Renaldo Nehemiah argument. I noticed, around the fourth time they had this argument, that they didn't necessarily stick to the same sides. The previous time Bryce had argued Nehemiah would be a great pro football player and Bruce had said he'd be terrible, but this time it was flipped. But, whatever side one began (on that third beer), he would stick to with both hands, feet, and belt. So, they weren't really invested in answering the question; they were invested in having the fight.

Sometimes people won't reconsider a precommitment because they are filled with a personal loathing for their opposition. Their opposition could cure cancer, bring peace to the middle East, erase the national debt, and still that person would not grant that they might have a point or two. This is the kind of thing where someone needs to pay a hundred dollars an hour to work it out--argumentation isn't going to help.

You also get it the other way. If a person identifies with a major leader, for instance, s/he will take personally any criticism of that leader, and therefore can't think rationally about his/her real character. Leaders who make people think they are one of the people (the "little corporal," for instance) function this way. Since I am a good person, you reason, and this person is just like me, he cannot have done the terrible things they say he did, because I wouldn't do them. (So, supposedly, the more that a jury identifies with a defendant, the less likely they are to convict.) I think this is why people value "authenticity" and "sincerity" tremendously in leaders, although those are much harder to assess than people think (everyone who met him agreed that Hitler was sincere, and he struck even his opponents as a very "authentic" person), and are also totally irrelevant.

The more that one's ego is on the line in the argument, the less likely one is to give any ground. There are various factors that affect how much one's ego gets involved. Some people have their egos at stake in every single interaction, so can never admit error (it's losing face for them). There's a book called something like _Toxic Bosses_ that talks about working for someone like this, and, iirc, it recommends never pointing out that kind of person's error--you find a way to disagree with them that doesn't look like disagreeing because otherwise the person goes postal. People who are very drawn to authoritarianism, people who see all interactions as one-up/one-down (you're either controlling or being controlled), and people who take all criticism personally are all people who won't admit to changing their minds.

There are other conditions that make it hard to admit error. Having said the opinion in public, for instance, makes it harder to admit you were wrong, having suffered for it (which is why people who've given up all their belongings expecting the end of the world on a certain date will still stick with the cult after the date has come and gone), having staked one's reputation on it--those are all things that make it harder to perceive (let alone say out loud) that one has blown it.

For some people, the identity of the critic is hugely important. Adolescents won't admit that their parent might just have a clue or two; some people get enraged at dissent from a woman, subordinate, or member of an "outgroup" (whatever group--ethnic, religious, political, or whatever--they prefer to scapegoat) when they'd listen to it from another person. Sometimes someone just gets on our nerves, and we'd rather cut off a limb than admit they were right and we were wrong.

As per usual, I could go on, but my point is just that there are so many reasons that good faith argumentation is hard that none of us succeeds at it at all times. But, some people never manage it, and, unless you're on that third beer and you feel like a real adrenaline rush, save your breath.