What the Backroom is good for, and what it is not

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Had a colleague who believed in the tabula raza thingee. Never could agree with her, though I am very much a believer in the importance of culture. However, while much of who we are is malleable, there are certain physical dispositions that are encoded in our DNA sequencing that can and do influence how we will develop. Your sister's friend is wrong. If what he really meant is that much/most of how we develop is a culturally influenced combination of factors that is not entirely fixed in advance then he would be correct.

Monty wears me down sometimes, and Pan about the Brexit. Mostly I enjoy the interplay.

[Pannonian]

Had a colleague who believed in the tabula raza thingee. Never could agree with her, though I am very much a believer in the importance of culture. However, while much of who we are is malleable, there are certain physical dispositions that are encoded in our DNA sequencing that can and do influence how we will develop. Your sister's friend is wrong. If what he really meant is that much/most of how we develop is a culturally influenced combination of factors that is not entirely fixed in advance then he would be correct.

Monty wears me down sometimes, and Pan about the Brexit. Mostly I enjoy the interplay.

I'm extremely willing to be open and malleable, if the debate is evidence based and the conclusion gradual and reversible. Where this is no longer so, I am not prepared to be malleable. If one's argument is simply that you won and therefore I should suck it up, and you don't care about the consequences, I'm not going to bend and accept your point of view. Brexit is a parallel of the Confederate split from the Union. There was polarisation in that debate, and so there is in Brexit. Same with the eventual break up of the UK resulting from Brexit (see the Scottish debates a few years ago). A super-majority of the UK's population now reckon the Brexit referendum should never have been held in the first place.

[Furunculus]

Good post, PFH.

My view on this is that in matters of political preference, rarely can a person be said to be right or wrong in moral terms:
There is an overton window here, and it is pretty wide!

There is nothing incorrect or immoral in taking a different view to me on contentious issues.
There is absolutely everything right in taking a nuanced view at the wider argument, although the way debate plays out here in setting traps - and looking to trip people up - it is often deeply unrewarding to 'reveal' and explain that nuance when the easier life of the purist beckons.

There is of course space outside this 'overton' window, where people move beyond an acceptable moral viewpoint, but too often here we see this attempt to close down debate in seeking to brand someone else's view as beyond the pale. Outside that window of acceptability.

It is also possible to be factually wrong.
Both on the details of the evidence, and on its political consequence as something that will be judged by wider society.
Here there is a perhaps a cultural difference in how we interpret that latter point depending on where we are from.

And this difference is most easily seen when discussion crosses over the divide between issues and people from adversarial and consensual political systems:
When weighing the political consequence of something, it is easy for US/UK voices to write off an idea as impossible when in fact that idea is situated in a political system that makes space and legitimises wildly different ideas. e.g. the idea of a 'successful' Corybnite part in most european countries would be normal and of no particular mention.
When weighing the political consequence of something, it is easy for european voices to accept an idea as normal when in fact that idea is situated in a political system that delegitimises radical ideological niches. e.g. the idea of a 'successful' Corybnite party in the UK is difficult to comprehend, as he polarises opinion in a way that cannot gather widespread support.
This problem can equally happen within a country too, where someone looks at the other system and wants it here, and then makes domestic judgement in a political framework that doesn't really exist.

This makes it easy for us to misunderstand each other, particularly when we're more interested in looking for mistakes from the other that we can use to our advantage, than accepting that difference motivations that can lead to different political choices.

[Gilrandir]

Brits managed to drag their Brexit into the thread on usefulness of backroom debates. Good God! Will you ever stop?

[Furunculus]

Fixed, by removing two words.

[Crandar]

Aiming to convince is a necessary element of arguing. I don't share the general pessimism about how unrealistic this goal is. As you said, our viewpoints are always fluid and shaped by many factors, one of which is arguing with intelligent interlocutors. It's true that the direct target of your arguments will usually disregard them, but this cannot be said for guests and members who simply observe the discussion, without actively participating in it.

Backroom has helped me form opinions about subjects I was clueless about and I doubt that I'm a special case. An example I can mention about a heated issue doesn't exactly concern the .org, but the circumstances are pretty similar. I used to believe that the position of North Macedonia in the name dispute was unjustified, simply because every media, intellectual and politician in Greece parrots the same one-sided story and I never bothered to examine the issue in-depth. When Ferrets54, who is actually a very aggressive user and who accidentally makes his best to alienate everyone, explained the other side, in his usual hostile manner, I was easily persuaded by his arguments, despite their excessive toxicity, and was encouraged to study the controversy in more detail. Nowadays, I hold a completely different opinion on the matter and I am grateful to Ferrets54 making me more open-minded.

tldr: It's not all in vain, there's room for optimism and I am sure that all our regulars can share stories of how fellow .org members convinced them to change their position.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I think it's important to to aim to be convincing but this is slightly different from "aiming to convince". Historically a necessary part of passing a degree in the West was the ability to argue both sides of a given proposition because if you can only successfully argue one side you don't fully understand the proposition in question.

There are two ways to argue - you can either seek to undermine your interlocutor and destroy their arguments or you can engage with them and seek to understand their argument. If both parties engage in the latter way of arguing then not only is the experience generally more congenial, it is also more humble.

It's the difference between saying, "You're wrong, because..." and saying, "I'm sorry, I don't believe that because..."

Put another way, you should be seeking to argue for your position and not against your opponent.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Brits managed to drag their Brexit into the thread on usefulness of backroom debates. Good God! Will you ever stop?

We're all secretly in it together. Brexit is actually a conspiracy to lull Europe into a false sense of complacency about the state of Britain and Her Empire.

[Gilrandir]

There are two ways to argue - you can either seek to undermine your interlocutor and destroy their arguments or you can engage with them and seek to understand their argument. If both parties engage in the latter way of arguing then not only is the experience generally more congenial, it is also more humble.

There is a third way - to promote YOUR argument whatever the opponent thinks of it.

We're all secretly in it together. Brexit is actually a conspiracy to lull Europe into a false sense of complacency about the state of Britain and Her Empire.

If we=all EU citizens then you may be right. If we=all forumers then I don't think so. Americans are too occupied with discussing what Trump has already done and anticipating what he might yet do. As for others, they have their own joys and sorrows to pay more than a cursory attention to the bickerings inside a far away prosperous country on an issue that is unlikely to concern them personally.

[Gilrandir]

Double post.