Is Polite Philosophical Discussion Possible?
June 27, 2016 7:53 AM Subscribe
It is a big part of moral behavior in ordinary situations not to kill people. Yet the morally healthy inhibition against killing people has to be lost, of necessity, in war—even in a morally justified war. It is a big part of politeness—not in the sense of using the right fork, but in the sense of civility—in ordinary situations not to tell another person that she is wrong and misguided about something she cares a lot about, or that she cares about being right about. For brevity’s sake, let’s just say it’s a big part of politeness or civility not to correct people. Yet the civilized inhibition against correcting people has to be lost, of necessity, in a philosophical argument.Is Polite Philosophical Discussion Possible?
oh my god yes, this is amazing.
I used to be very sportingly argumentative. I played with ideas and when I was at parties I found others who did likewise and either found a corner to ourselves or shouted across a table at each other for a good long time, having intellectual debates.
I was pretty good at holding forth.
But what I've found is the tactics required to hold forth are almost completely at odds with the tactics required for discovering truth.
Now I spend more time trying to understand what I actually believe, and less time trying to convince others. My tactics still rear their ugly heads from time to time - Just lastweek night I butted in to a conversation with "That's a common misconception."
I miss trying to discover truth. I feel lost in my own navel. But I do not miss the hostility, the belligerence, the stares from the rest of the people at the party, the comments afterwards on how "when you get started, you kind of kill all the other conversations in the room."
More politeness please! From me and others!
posted by rebent at 8:41 AM on June 27, 2016 [20 favorites]
I used to be very sportingly argumentative. I played with ideas and when I was at parties I found others who did likewise and either found a corner to ourselves or shouted across a table at each other for a good long time, having intellectual debates.
I was pretty good at holding forth.
But what I've found is the tactics required to hold forth are almost completely at odds with the tactics required for discovering truth.
Now I spend more time trying to understand what I actually believe, and less time trying to convince others. My tactics still rear their ugly heads from time to time - Just last
I miss trying to discover truth. I feel lost in my own navel. But I do not miss the hostility, the belligerence, the stares from the rest of the people at the party, the comments afterwards on how "when you get started, you kind of kill all the other conversations in the room."
More politeness please! From me and others!
posted by rebent at 8:41 AM on June 27, 2016 [20 favorites]
MetaFilter: For brevity’s sake, let’s just say it’s a big part of politeness or civility not to correct people.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 9:02 AM on June 27, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by ZenMasterThis at 9:02 AM on June 27, 2016 [4 favorites]
Soooo my dad is a philosopher.
If you immediately surmised that I grew up to be one of those people for whom any hint of a disagreement sends me running for the hills, you would be correct. I grew up in a loving, non-abusive household, but I have many of the same coping strategies as people subjected to verbal abuse because a certain tenor of philosophical argumentation was present in the day-to-day conversations in my house. By the age of 13, I'd had enough of that mode of discourse to last me my entire life. I'm not any smarter for having been exposed to it, that is for sure. I'm just way way faster to nope out of an argument.
posted by soren_lorensen at 9:08 AM on June 27, 2016 [23 favorites]
If you immediately surmised that I grew up to be one of those people for whom any hint of a disagreement sends me running for the hills, you would be correct. I grew up in a loving, non-abusive household, but I have many of the same coping strategies as people subjected to verbal abuse because a certain tenor of philosophical argumentation was present in the day-to-day conversations in my house. By the age of 13, I'd had enough of that mode of discourse to last me my entire life. I'm not any smarter for having been exposed to it, that is for sure. I'm just way way faster to nope out of an argument.
posted by soren_lorensen at 9:08 AM on June 27, 2016 [23 favorites]
An excellent piece, and I'd like to highlight the part about participation by women, beginning:
posted by languagehat at 9:21 AM on June 27, 2016 [21 favorites]
I would like to add the following. I think the state of women in philosophy can be improved significantly simply through the elimination of rudeness in philosophical discourse. One can have many views about things we could or couldn’t do, should or shouldn’t do, to improve the state of women in philosophy, but before we settle those issues, why not start by doing what we already know that we have excellent reasons to do—utilitarian, Kantian, virtue-oriented, and commonsensical reasons, independent of any special feminist theory—and reduce our rudeness?I just recently read a TLS review of Women in Philosophy: What Needs to Change?, edited by Katrina Hutchinson and Fiona Jenkins, and was infuriated because the reviewer was completely clueless about what women go through, stroking his hypothetical beard (of course it was a he) and musing about why there are so few women in the field: maybe women just aren't that interested? It reminded me of the suggestion that blacks simply didn't want to play in the majors, back before Jackie Robinson. Of course, I was able to experience that fury thanks to reading the many contributions by women here over the years. Thanks, women of MetaFilter!
posted by languagehat at 9:21 AM on June 27, 2016 [21 favorites]
There was a comment at the bottom about how won't tempering rudeness just enforce the status quo (that pesky politeness status quo that so many dudes seem to think is the number one problem of our times), the reply to which was that being able to challenge the status quo without dire personal consequences is a form of privilege.
posted by soren_lorensen at 9:32 AM on June 27, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by soren_lorensen at 9:32 AM on June 27, 2016 [6 favorites]
An excellent piece
I think the points and substance are great, but she needs (needed) a better editor. It's all over the place. A lot of rough sentences too. But that's philosophy, eh? ;)
posted by mrgrimm at 10:06 AM on June 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think the points and substance are great, but she needs (needed) a better editor. It's all over the place. A lot of rough sentences too. But that's philosophy, eh? ;)
posted by mrgrimm at 10:06 AM on June 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
It is a big part of politeness—not in the sense of using the right fork, but in the sense of civility—in ordinary situations not to tell another person that she is wrong and misguided about something she cares a lot about, or that she cares about being right about.
I was surprised to read this, because I would say being polite affects the way you tell another person they are wrong but doesn't ordinarily preclude telling someone when they are misguided, regardless of how deeply they care about something. I wouldn't demur if someone said, "Sometimes it's polite to overlook it when another person is in error," but my sense of civility doesn't go so far as to set up ignoring people who say something wrong as a social norm.
Do others agree with the description of being polite as typically declining to correct people when they are wrong?
posted by layceepee at 10:07 AM on June 27, 2016 [2 favorites]
I was surprised to read this, because I would say being polite affects the way you tell another person they are wrong but doesn't ordinarily preclude telling someone when they are misguided, regardless of how deeply they care about something. I wouldn't demur if someone said, "Sometimes it's polite to overlook it when another person is in error," but my sense of civility doesn't go so far as to set up ignoring people who say something wrong as a social norm.
Do others agree with the description of being polite as typically declining to correct people when they are wrong?
posted by layceepee at 10:07 AM on June 27, 2016 [2 favorites]
Well, you know, an armed philosophical discussion is a polite philosophical discussion.
we would also have accepted: the only thing that stops a bad argument is a good argument, with a gun
posted by Naberius at 10:16 AM on June 27, 2016 [6 favorites]
we would also have accepted: the only thing that stops a bad argument is a good argument, with a gun
posted by Naberius at 10:16 AM on June 27, 2016 [6 favorites]
Is philosophy even possible any more? Seems like the real issue here. Otherwise the article can only say "it's good to be polite"---anyone's free to disagree depending on what her first principles might be.
posted by resurrexit at 10:28 AM on June 27, 2016
posted by resurrexit at 10:28 AM on June 27, 2016
I tell her that we humans are pretty bad at imagining what having the opposite view would be like (more on the badness of our imagination some other time), and thus there is no substitute for talking to someone who disagrees with you...This applies very well to the average Metafilter comment about conservatives, and to the average National Review comment about liberals. I can't speak to philosophical discussions, but I have noticed that in politics, rudeness is often a way to ensure that you don't have to talk to people who disagree with you. When disagreement leads to rudeness, walls between groups go up quickly, and each side gets good at badly imagining the other view.
posted by clawsoon at 10:52 AM on June 27, 2016 [2 favorites]
Hypothetical beards are much easier to groom with no wild hairs unless by design.
posted by y2karl at 10:53 AM on June 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by y2karl at 10:53 AM on June 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
Do others agree with the description of being polite as typically declining to correct people when they are wrong?
I'd say that among people without graduate degrees, there is a strong non-correction norm. Here on Metafilter, obviously, there isn't, but there's even a kind of non-correction norm in place in concerns about the mansplainer's "well, actually." Philosophers have a kind of "well, is it actually?" practice that's pretty similar. Arpaly, though, endorses that practice: she goes on to say that philosophers have to reject the non-correction norms in a way that doesn't sacrifice the rest of politeness. That's why she writes: "They say revenge is best served cold. Objections can be delicious at room temperature."
(Can you tell I love this piece?)
I'd also like to call out this amazing comment from DN which basically describes my whole approach:
posted by anotherpanacea at 10:55 AM on June 27, 2016 [19 favorites]
I'd say that among people without graduate degrees, there is a strong non-correction norm. Here on Metafilter, obviously, there isn't, but there's even a kind of non-correction norm in place in concerns about the mansplainer's "well, actually." Philosophers have a kind of "well, is it actually?" practice that's pretty similar. Arpaly, though, endorses that practice: she goes on to say that philosophers have to reject the non-correction norms in a way that doesn't sacrifice the rest of politeness. That's why she writes: "They say revenge is best served cold. Objections can be delicious at room temperature."
(Can you tell I love this piece?)
I'd also like to call out this amazing comment from DN which basically describes my whole approach:
"Excellent post. I think there’s another, corresponding virtue worth cultivating here which could (cumbersomely) be called: “Pleasure in Being Proved Wrong,” the disposition to feel exhilaration when corrected by a polite (even if “frightening”) objector. The reason we should try to feel pleasure in being (politely and civilly) corrected, rather than embarrassment or humiliation, is simply that, as the author points out, this kind of correction improves our positions in ways that are nearly impossible to achieve by other means. In a sense then, objectors (provided they are not hostile or rude) are really just assisting the presenter towards a goal they both share (doing good philosophy). Of course, it’s essential that the objectors appreciate this shared goal as well, and present their objections accordingly. If all parties view successful objections as pleasurable, mutually beneficial exchanges rather than humiliating losses or merciless victories, there will be fewer frightened presenters and fewer rude objectors."Yay!
posted by anotherpanacea at 10:55 AM on June 27, 2016 [19 favorites]
I'll drink to that, Anytus," said Socrates.
posted by CincyBlues at 11:30 AM on June 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by CincyBlues at 11:30 AM on June 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
I've heard it said that philosophy is destructive criticism. For a long time -- probably back into the middle ages -- philosophy has had a combative model, where a partisan of some school or tradition lives in a grand (imaginary) castle and occasionally sallies forth to do battle with partisans of other schools or traditions who all live in their own castles. We talk about attacking or defending various positions and about whether this or that position is tenable. We have many points, all aimed at someone or something.
And it's absurd. We ought to be thinking about how to build up each other's projects, rather than reflexively tearing them down, since we do not really know where our inquiries are leading, who is right, or precisely what value our inquiries have or what valuable things they will turn up in the end.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 11:49 AM on June 27, 2016 [3 favorites]
And it's absurd. We ought to be thinking about how to build up each other's projects, rather than reflexively tearing them down, since we do not really know where our inquiries are leading, who is right, or precisely what value our inquiries have or what valuable things they will turn up in the end.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 11:49 AM on June 27, 2016 [3 favorites]
My thought, is that if one's ideas are what is important, then it shouldn't change anything to be polite. If a philosophical debate requires rudeness, then that's an argument that what is really happening is actually one-upmanship devoid of real meaning.
posted by happyroach at 11:56 AM on June 27, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by happyroach at 11:56 AM on June 27, 2016 [2 favorites]
My thought, is that if one's ideas are what is important, then it shouldn't change anything to be polite. If a philosophical debate requires rudeness, then that's an argument that what is really happening is actually one-upmanship devoid of real meaning.
According to the article, part of being polite is not to tell another person they are wrong. It seems like is Arpaly trying to create a middle ground between rude and polite, because the article argues against being rude in philosophical discussions while starting from the premise that civility requires we don't correct people. So while Arpaly would presumably agree with you that rudeness is not required, your point that it shouldn't change anything to be polite in philosophical debate seems to be at odds with the definition of polite behavior established in the article.
posted by layceepee at 12:13 PM on June 27, 2016
According to the article, part of being polite is not to tell another person they are wrong. It seems like is Arpaly trying to create a middle ground between rude and polite, because the article argues against being rude in philosophical discussions while starting from the premise that civility requires we don't correct people. So while Arpaly would presumably agree with you that rudeness is not required, your point that it shouldn't change anything to be polite in philosophical debate seems to be at odds with the definition of polite behavior established in the article.
posted by layceepee at 12:13 PM on June 27, 2016
It's not impolite to correct people. Friends aren't supposed to be "yes men." If I'm walking around being wrong about something and people let me do it, they are not my friends, and it's not me who's too preoccupied with looking good. That said, philosophy as a field could benefit from being less comfortable arguing merely for the sake of argument. We could all probably stand to do better about that, especially since it should be well understood by this point that any formal argument can be trivially made to seem broken by using one of any number of techniques to deconstruct the language the argument is made in.
posted by saulgoodman at 12:51 PM on June 27, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by saulgoodman at 12:51 PM on June 27, 2016 [4 favorites]
One thing that helps me to be polite is remembering that I might be wrong.
When I forget to do that, I'm more likely to be rude.
posted by clawsoon at 12:59 PM on June 27, 2016 [4 favorites]
When I forget to do that, I'm more likely to be rude.
posted by clawsoon at 12:59 PM on June 27, 2016 [4 favorites]
I am always wrong, and so are you. Nobody has ever been correct. When I point out that you are wrong, I do not mean to imply that I am correct. I simply wish for you to experience the same despair and hopelessness that I do at all times.
posted by Faint of Butt at 1:19 PM on June 27, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by Faint of Butt at 1:19 PM on June 27, 2016 [9 favorites]
Everyone's afraid to comment...
YOU TAKE THAT BACK!!!
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 1:33 PM on June 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
YOU TAKE THAT BACK!!!
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 1:33 PM on June 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think polite is not the right word. One can be both polite and hurtful. Maybe a different word like "sporting." Something that conveys that one should play to win, yet do so with the knowledge that victory transcends the rules of the game.
posted by ethansr at 1:45 PM on June 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by ethansr at 1:45 PM on June 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
It depends what you mean by 'polite'.
and 'philosophical'
and 'possible'
and 'discussion'
and 'is'
posted by Segundus at 1:46 PM on June 27, 2016 [4 favorites]
and 'philosophical'
and 'possible'
and 'discussion'
and 'is'
posted by Segundus at 1:46 PM on June 27, 2016 [4 favorites]
The reason we should try to feel pleasure in being (politely and civilly) corrected, rather than embarrassment or humiliation, is simply that, as the author points out, this kind of correction improves our positions in ways that are nearly impossible to achieve by other means.
This is my thoughts rolled up cleaner than I could.
And what's interesting is this is a skill that mathematicians have to do anyways. Terence Tao, and I'm sure mathematicians interested in pedagogy, has written that one of the hardest things to teach beginning students is proof by contradiction, e.g. non-constructive reasoning. Even in AI there are algorithms for counterexample-based learning, and they're crucial for getting results that would be otherwise extremely inefficient to compute.
For human beings, cognitively, dealing with negative information is a higher-order reasoning skill, one that is nonintuitive, primarily taught—and that's where the issue of privilege can enter. Psychologically, it may have a lot to do with what's called "need for closure", or some scientists suggest what works well is separating (or re-engaging in a different way) their identity from the discourse—the instinctive shame that you talk about would be relevant to this. I think it cuts both ways.
Because on the other hand, academic philosophy, at least the American style of it, can be a huge turnoff. I tried some of the classes, and these were the top professors in their field, and you'd think philosophers would have some insight in running their classes in the given sociopolitical setting, but the whole experience was very traditional and stifling, i.e. typical authoritarian lecturing, no feedback mechanism, etc. Philosophy should examine this.
posted by polymodus at 2:11 PM on June 27, 2016 [3 favorites]
This is my thoughts rolled up cleaner than I could.
And what's interesting is this is a skill that mathematicians have to do anyways. Terence Tao, and I'm sure mathematicians interested in pedagogy, has written that one of the hardest things to teach beginning students is proof by contradiction, e.g. non-constructive reasoning. Even in AI there are algorithms for counterexample-based learning, and they're crucial for getting results that would be otherwise extremely inefficient to compute.
For human beings, cognitively, dealing with negative information is a higher-order reasoning skill, one that is nonintuitive, primarily taught—and that's where the issue of privilege can enter. Psychologically, it may have a lot to do with what's called "need for closure", or some scientists suggest what works well is separating (or re-engaging in a different way) their identity from the discourse—the instinctive shame that you talk about would be relevant to this. I think it cuts both ways.
Because on the other hand, academic philosophy, at least the American style of it, can be a huge turnoff. I tried some of the classes, and these were the top professors in their field, and you'd think philosophers would have some insight in running their classes in the given sociopolitical setting, but the whole experience was very traditional and stifling, i.e. typical authoritarian lecturing, no feedback mechanism, etc. Philosophy should examine this.
posted by polymodus at 2:11 PM on June 27, 2016 [3 favorites]
It's not impolite to correct people. Friends aren't supposed to be "yes men." If I'm walking around being wrong about something and people let me do it, they are not my friends, and it's not me who's too preoccupied with looking good.
It generally is considered impolite to correct people, because whatever people may say almost everyone hates being pubicly corrected. We should strive to accept correction without embarassment or humiliation, but we all know that usually isn't the reality. Part of being polite is not making other people unnecessarily uncomfortable and considering their feelings.
This is basically the principle of "picking your battles". It would be kind of dickish to go around correcting every mistake your friends made, because we all make constant mistakes. Unless it's a serious mistake that you genuinely think may cause them trouble, let the little things slide.
In the case of philosophical arguments, I used to be like rebent and would never pass up a chance to argue. But it really is kind of shitty behavior. Even among friends, maybe especially among friends, you don't need to do battle every time one of them says something you feel is wrong, especially if everyone's position on things has been long known and settled.
posted by Sangermaine at 2:12 PM on June 27, 2016 [5 favorites]
It generally is considered impolite to correct people, because whatever people may say almost everyone hates being pubicly corrected. We should strive to accept correction without embarassment or humiliation, but we all know that usually isn't the reality. Part of being polite is not making other people unnecessarily uncomfortable and considering their feelings.
This is basically the principle of "picking your battles". It would be kind of dickish to go around correcting every mistake your friends made, because we all make constant mistakes. Unless it's a serious mistake that you genuinely think may cause them trouble, let the little things slide.
In the case of philosophical arguments, I used to be like rebent and would never pass up a chance to argue. But it really is kind of shitty behavior. Even among friends, maybe especially among friends, you don't need to do battle every time one of them says something you feel is wrong, especially if everyone's position on things has been long known and settled.
posted by Sangermaine at 2:12 PM on June 27, 2016 [5 favorites]
If you quote saulgoodman saying "it's not impolite to correct people" and respond It generally is considered impolite to correct people, it seems like you are correcting saulgoodman. But your remark didn't seem to me to be impolite.
posted by layceepee at 2:37 PM on June 27, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by layceepee at 2:37 PM on June 27, 2016 [3 favorites]
The Internet is a dark void where all human norms are scoured away.
posted by Sangermaine at 2:38 PM on June 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Sangermaine at 2:38 PM on June 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
I get all my Philosophical thought from Existential Comics.
Show me a polite Philospopher and I'll show you someone who will never get published and whose brilliant thoughts will not be remembered fifteen minutes after their death. The world belongs to the most obnoxious, more so now in the internet era. For myself, I'm okay with being forgotten, but that doesn't mean I'm going to be polite, assholes.
posted by oneswellfoop at 2:44 PM on June 27, 2016
Show me a polite Philospopher and I'll show you someone who will never get published and whose brilliant thoughts will not be remembered fifteen minutes after their death. The world belongs to the most obnoxious, more so now in the internet era. For myself, I'm okay with being forgotten, but that doesn't mean I'm going to be polite, assholes.
posted by oneswellfoop at 2:44 PM on June 27, 2016
Is philosophy even possible any more? Seems like the real issue here. Otherwise the article can only say "it's good to be polite"---anyone's free to disagree depending on what her first principles might be.
Well, the article is in a publication with the masthead "news by and about the philosophy profession", so it stands to reason that the author is talking about academic philosophy, which is indeed still very much possible.
But what is academic philosophy talking about? I was riding the bus once, here in a college town with a good philosophy department. Someone was engaging a young guy seated near me in conversation. It turns out the guy was a philosophy grad student. When his interlocutor asked him like , well, what is that, what do you study?, he was totally unable to render an answer. I felt bad for him; it's like watching a chess master fall to give checkmate with only a bishop and knight. If you can get into a goddamned top 20 ranked PhD program you ought to be able to explain roughly what you are about to a guy on the bus, in my view. I mean, the guy didn't even try.... not even "how do we justify our moral judgements" or anything like that.
posted by thelonius at 2:53 PM on June 27, 2016
Well, the article is in a publication with the masthead "news by and about the philosophy profession", so it stands to reason that the author is talking about academic philosophy, which is indeed still very much possible.
But what is academic philosophy talking about? I was riding the bus once, here in a college town with a good philosophy department. Someone was engaging a young guy seated near me in conversation. It turns out the guy was a philosophy grad student. When his interlocutor asked him like , well, what is that, what do you study?, he was totally unable to render an answer. I felt bad for him; it's like watching a chess master fall to give checkmate with only a bishop and knight. If you can get into a goddamned top 20 ranked PhD program you ought to be able to explain roughly what you are about to a guy on the bus, in my view. I mean, the guy didn't even try.... not even "how do we justify our moral judgements" or anything like that.
posted by thelonius at 2:53 PM on June 27, 2016
Reguarding the Guy on the Bus problem, I have a similar Customs Person At the Airport problem which is really bad.
Them: What do you study?
Me: Nervous giggle and blush... um... cognitive science... like the mind... and stuff
Every. Fucking. Time.
You really have to negotiate a lot of common ground to have a useful discussion about anything even mildly technical.
posted by ethansr at 3:18 PM on June 27, 2016 [4 favorites]
Them: What do you study?
Me: Nervous giggle and blush... um... cognitive science... like the mind... and stuff
Every. Fucking. Time.
You really have to negotiate a lot of common ground to have a useful discussion about anything even mildly technical.
posted by ethansr at 3:18 PM on June 27, 2016 [4 favorites]
To riff on the author's war metaphor, I like to think of most conversations as having rules of engagement. Most of the time, correcting someone in a point-by-point manner will not go over well. But from time to time, this kind of discussion is exactly what one is going for.
In each case, the key is to know in advance which kind of conversation you're having. "Devil's advocate", being hyper-critical, or adopting weird positions are an absolutely legitimate thing to do occasionally... but you're an asshole if you haven't explicitly laid that out in advance with agreement from all parties involved. The point should be to learn, not to demonstrate your own cleverness.
(Annoyingly, that kind of asshole is entirely too common. I try to do my best not to be that guy... Which leads to many fewer "philosophical" discussions than I had in college, but they are more productive and we're more likely to still be friends after.)
posted by fencerjimmy at 3:58 PM on June 27, 2016 [2 favorites]
In each case, the key is to know in advance which kind of conversation you're having. "Devil's advocate", being hyper-critical, or adopting weird positions are an absolutely legitimate thing to do occasionally... but you're an asshole if you haven't explicitly laid that out in advance with agreement from all parties involved. The point should be to learn, not to demonstrate your own cleverness.
(Annoyingly, that kind of asshole is entirely too common. I try to do my best not to be that guy... Which leads to many fewer "philosophical" discussions than I had in college, but they are more productive and we're more likely to still be friends after.)
posted by fencerjimmy at 3:58 PM on June 27, 2016 [2 favorites]
I am a biologist who is often lucky enough to attend parties full of philosophy grad students, as I have married a philosopher.* anotherpanacea has encapsulated the experience very nicely -- "Well, is it actually?" sounds so much like "Well, actually" if you're not really aware of the stew they've been marinating in for the last several years.
An analytically trained philosopher is like Karnak the Inhuman -- she can see the flaw in your argument and pull it apart in bewildering fashion. They see the way ideas are put together, the way arguments are put together, in a sort of preternaturally complete way. It's a bit unnerving. And yeah, when it's something that you care really deeply about, that you think that you've got a good idea about, that you feel like you understand really well, it can feel very hurtful. Mostly because it's bewildering until it's embarrassing -- you don't see that they've pulled the cotter-pin out of your argument until you try to move it again and it all falls apart.
Though, when they really are being the best philosophers, and approaching things with real charity, they'll usually help you fix it up into something that works better. I swear to Darwin, it's made me a WAY better scientist, and more importantly** a way better grant writer, to spar with philosophers.
*this is not sarcasm! They're lovely!
**OK but that's a little bit sardonic.
posted by Made of Star Stuff at 4:00 PM on June 27, 2016 [6 favorites]
An analytically trained philosopher is like Karnak the Inhuman -- she can see the flaw in your argument and pull it apart in bewildering fashion. They see the way ideas are put together, the way arguments are put together, in a sort of preternaturally complete way. It's a bit unnerving. And yeah, when it's something that you care really deeply about, that you think that you've got a good idea about, that you feel like you understand really well, it can feel very hurtful. Mostly because it's bewildering until it's embarrassing -- you don't see that they've pulled the cotter-pin out of your argument until you try to move it again and it all falls apart.
Though, when they really are being the best philosophers, and approaching things with real charity, they'll usually help you fix it up into something that works better. I swear to Darwin, it's made me a WAY better scientist, and more importantly** a way better grant writer, to spar with philosophers.
*this is not sarcasm! They're lovely!
**OK but that's a little bit sardonic.
posted by Made of Star Stuff at 4:00 PM on June 27, 2016 [6 favorites]
Show me a polite Philospopher and I'll show you someone who will never get published and whose brilliant thoughts will not be remembered fifteen minutes after their death. The world belongs to the most obnoxious, more so now in the internet era. For myself, I'm okay with being forgotten, but that doesn't mean I'm going to be polite, assholes.
Exhibit A: Josh Knobe. There are maybe two or three people I've ever met who are more polite, kind, and encouraging. And he has a ton of publications. It can be done.
Reguarding the Guy on the Bus problem, I have a similar Customs Person At the Airport problem which is really bad.
Once I was going through Customs and when I told the agent at the gate that I was on my way to a philosophy conference, he asked how I answered brain-in-a-vat skeptical challenges. I was blown away. I didn't know what to say because I was so unprepared for the question in that context. And then I couldn't stay to talk because of the large line behind me. Best trip through Customs ever.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 4:14 PM on June 27, 2016 [6 favorites]
Exhibit A: Josh Knobe. There are maybe two or three people I've ever met who are more polite, kind, and encouraging. And he has a ton of publications. It can be done.
Reguarding the Guy on the Bus problem, I have a similar Customs Person At the Airport problem which is really bad.
Once I was going through Customs and when I told the agent at the gate that I was on my way to a philosophy conference, he asked how I answered brain-in-a-vat skeptical challenges. I was blown away. I didn't know what to say because I was so unprepared for the question in that context. And then I couldn't stay to talk because of the large line behind me. Best trip through Customs ever.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 4:14 PM on June 27, 2016 [6 favorites]
So first off, I'm of the opinion that when the question is one of truth one should use an adversarial process. Like the legal system and science. This shifts the burden of dealing with emotional suffering to the individual participants, who must distance themselves from the argument, divorce their egos from their "side" and make an attempt at being objective about the process. All very difficult things, and the systems are always imperfect and the attempt to eliminate biases *has* to be built in to the foundation of the process.
When the goal is the good functioning of a group of people, and the question is one of subjective opinion or values, that is the time for consensus building. Finding some common ground and making concessions is necessary. The fact that mob-rule is in effect, bullies have increased influence on the outcome and the inherent status quo bias is an acceptable compromise. Adversarial processes don't end with agreement, they end with one or both sides having been attacked mercilessly. Consensus building fixes this problem wonderfully.
But this seems to be the minority opinion here (and in reddit's /r/philosophy). People seem to be arguing that one can get the benefits of an adversarial debate without questioning the other side enough to make them upset through the act of attempting to tear apart their argument. Everyone agrees that tearing the other person down is rude, pointless and completely unhelpful, but the adversarial position tearing down their opinions and ideas, not the people.
So, how would this work? I see a lot of argument for it but how exactly do I tell someone their value system is incoherent and has lead them to do evil things or that their cherished idea is based on faulty assumptions and faulty logic without them being offended. How do you challenge the status quo without causing emotional pain to people who have their egos tied to the defense of the status quo?
posted by Infracanophile at 4:39 PM on June 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
When the goal is the good functioning of a group of people, and the question is one of subjective opinion or values, that is the time for consensus building. Finding some common ground and making concessions is necessary. The fact that mob-rule is in effect, bullies have increased influence on the outcome and the inherent status quo bias is an acceptable compromise. Adversarial processes don't end with agreement, they end with one or both sides having been attacked mercilessly. Consensus building fixes this problem wonderfully.
But this seems to be the minority opinion here (and in reddit's /r/philosophy). People seem to be arguing that one can get the benefits of an adversarial debate without questioning the other side enough to make them upset through the act of attempting to tear apart their argument. Everyone agrees that tearing the other person down is rude, pointless and completely unhelpful, but the adversarial position tearing down their opinions and ideas, not the people.
So, how would this work? I see a lot of argument for it but how exactly do I tell someone their value system is incoherent and has lead them to do evil things or that their cherished idea is based on faulty assumptions and faulty logic without them being offended. How do you challenge the status quo without causing emotional pain to people who have their egos tied to the defense of the status quo?
posted by Infracanophile at 4:39 PM on June 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
His whiggish wig would fall off in fright at the idea that his work could be used to further the end of more women in philosophy, but I think this is a case where the third Earl of Shaftesbury would have something to teach contemporary philosophers (I'm thinking of The Moralists, or a Philosophical Rhapsody (1709ish) in particular).
Who's the philosopher man, who commends and exemplifies polite philosophical conversation with his brother man? Shaftesbury--can you dig it?
posted by sy at 5:57 PM on June 27, 2016 [2 favorites]
Who's the philosopher man, who commends and exemplifies polite philosophical conversation with his brother man? Shaftesbury--can you dig it?
posted by sy at 5:57 PM on June 27, 2016 [2 favorites]
So first off, I'm of the opinion that when the question is one of truth one should use an adversarial process. Like the legal system and science. This shifts the burden of dealing with emotional suffering to the individual participants, who must distance themselves from the argument, divorce their egos from their "side" and make an attempt at being objective about the process.
I disagree. I think a lot of the ethical, moral, and philosophical issues of this world are more subjective than objective, and distance from an argument results in some lost information. Building a relationship of love and caring within which less useful ideas can be sloughed off while shared and strong ideas can flourish will reach a truth which isn't stripped bare of humanity, and thus is a truth which can make people better. I think the same in science - trying to prove the null hypothesis works when such a thing can be identified, but often it either is not or trying to prove it would make people do cruel things. I wish more care was taken with minding the emotional aspects of people, and that such considerations weren't viewed as burdens but rather as opportunities for a more nuanced understanding of what was going on.
I'm informed by strengths-based philosophy, however, which always starts with the best parts of a person and builds on them, rather than focusing on the worst aspects of a person and trying to excise them away. I think we do a lot of harm in pretending that if people could just be less people-like than things would be better.
posted by Deoridhe at 7:57 PM on June 27, 2016 [3 favorites]
I disagree. I think a lot of the ethical, moral, and philosophical issues of this world are more subjective than objective, and distance from an argument results in some lost information. Building a relationship of love and caring within which less useful ideas can be sloughed off while shared and strong ideas can flourish will reach a truth which isn't stripped bare of humanity, and thus is a truth which can make people better. I think the same in science - trying to prove the null hypothesis works when such a thing can be identified, but often it either is not or trying to prove it would make people do cruel things. I wish more care was taken with minding the emotional aspects of people, and that such considerations weren't viewed as burdens but rather as opportunities for a more nuanced understanding of what was going on.
I'm informed by strengths-based philosophy, however, which always starts with the best parts of a person and builds on them, rather than focusing on the worst aspects of a person and trying to excise them away. I think we do a lot of harm in pretending that if people could just be less people-like than things would be better.
posted by Deoridhe at 7:57 PM on June 27, 2016 [3 favorites]
Sangermaine: Of course you're right. I'd prefer to be corrected privately in most cases like anyone else, but I'd still personally rather be corrected, and then try to incorporate the correction into my life from then on. Be more than polite: be kind. And please don't talk down to me, but kindly do correct me, thanks. Consider it a friendly service. But it's important to differentiate between opinions, tastes, and facts, too, and generally only to "correct" the latter. Bad facts are like cultural rot or decay. But without bad opinions, there wouldn't be much recognizable as culture left.
posted by saulgoodman at 9:07 PM on June 27, 2016
posted by saulgoodman at 9:07 PM on June 27, 2016
So first off, I'm of the opinion that when the question is one of truth one should use an adversarial process. Like the legal system and science.
I don't think that science is fundamentally adversarial. There is certainly a lot of disagreement, but that isn't the same as having an adversarial system. You won't find any departments of physics, say, with a post of Devil's Advocate that has an institutional role of criticizing work done by the members of that physics department. The closest you get, I think, is where science looks most like philosophy: where there are big, sweeping theories that could plausibly be threatened by a single good counter-example. Then there is some incentive for scientists to try to falsify the theory by finding such a counter-example. It's a fast way to become famous. But notice that lots of science doesn't work that way. Lots of science proceeds by experimentation, observation, and report, regardless of whether the results confirm or disconfirm a big, sweeping theory. Lots of science is exploratory: find the next galaxy, species, etc. Or find the next whole area of investigation. Lots of science builds explicitly on prior work without really being opposed to that work and in many cases without even challenging earlier results.
Could you explain why you think that science is adversarial? Maybe that would help me to see why you think that an adversarial system is unavoidable.
The legal system is trickier, I think. In part, it's trickier because it's not even clear that the legal system is designed to get at the truth. If it were (for example), then there wouldn't be such things as illegal searches. The legal system has only a half-interest in the truth, at best. The state has an interest in the truth just insofar as getting the truth serves its interests, which might include things like protecting its citizens or deterring crime. The individual is only going to be interested in the truth insofar as the truth is on the individual's side. I mean, if I committed some crime, I am really hoping that the legal system fails to get at the truth. My interest is in avoiding punishment, not in truth-seeking. So, when I am actually guilty, my half of the adversarial system is actively trying to establish a falsehood.
In any event, it seems to me that a genuinely adversarial system is actually a large barrier to getting at the truth. There are two reasons for that. First, an adversarial system over-generates skepticism and wastes resources. When a system is genuinely adversarial, someone is obliged to take up the alternative position, regardless of its merits. The result is that there will be systematic doubt where none is justified. (See the twentieth-century exploitation of exactly this feature by certain powerful business interests, from tobacco companies to oil companies.) And the people defending the indefensible could have been better employed. Second, an adversarial system generates tribal commitments that are hard to shake off and that tend to lead to confirmation bias.
So now, can you help me understand why you think an adversarial system is better for truth-seeking?
People seem to be arguing that one can get the benefits of an adversarial debate without questioning the other side enough to make them upset through the act of attempting to tear apart their argument. Everyone agrees that tearing the other person down is rude, pointless and completely unhelpful, but the adversarial position tearing down their opinions and ideas, not the people.
So, how would this work? I see a lot of argument for it but how exactly do I tell someone their value system is incoherent and has lead them to do evil things or that their cherished idea is based on faulty assumptions and faulty logic without them being offended. How do you challenge the status quo without causing emotional pain to people who have their egos tied to the defense of the status quo?
I don't think anyone is saying that we shouldn't have disagreements. But there is a difference, I think, between disagreeing with someone and attacking another person's opinions and ideas. Take this exchange. At first blush, anyway, we disagree. I would like to explore and hopefully dissolve that disagreement. So, I state my own position and ask some questions about yours. I want to get a clearer idea of how things stand. Later, if we pursue it far enough, I'll look for common ground and see if either of us is missing something about what follows from the ground that we share. If it turns out that we don't have much common ground or that we aren't really making progress toward settling our disagreement, then I can turn to try to sharpen our positions. I can point to places that you might try to rework your own views, and I can ask for help reworking mine.
In your last paragraph, I think you raise a troubling worry. Engaging it only superficially, I think that since the kinds of serious disagreement you mention -- like disagreement about whether what someone just did is evil -- are very rare in the discipline of philosophy, we can make enormous progress by being kinder and more constructive as a general rule, even if we don't really know how to handle these rare cases. And even if we decide it would be a good thing to be combative in such cases. Engaging your worry a bit more deeply, it seems to me that we can't really control how other people react to gentle disagreement. But the fact that we can't control how other people react does not give us license to be rude when we disagree. So, the questions need to be: how do we do a better job of being cooperative and constructive and how do we do a better job of receiving correction when it is offered in a cooperative and constructive spirit? Finally, engaging it at a more psychological level, it seems to me that there are lots of strategies for softening criticism, even when it is very serious. I may think that someone is being logically incoherent, but I'm not going to get anywhere saying so. Rather, I need to assure my interlocutor that people make mistakes, even serious ones, all the time, and that I care about my interlocutor. Possibly this doesn't help with respect to real, genuine evil. In such a case, I suppose I'm not opposed to standing on the barricades, but how widespread is disagreement at that level?
Closing thought: At bottom, what I want to do is to get onto the same side with respect to the project of finding the truth. Once we're there, everything else becomes easier. I'm not convinced that an adversarial system is a good one for getting onto the same side with respect to finding the truth. And I'm not sure that it promotes finding the truth, even if we're non-adversarial with respect to that project.
Sorry for the wall of text. I didn't mean to write that much. But anyway ...
What do you think? How can we move this conversation forward? And what general lessons can we draw from the discussion here?
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 9:30 PM on June 27, 2016 [7 favorites]
I don't think that science is fundamentally adversarial. There is certainly a lot of disagreement, but that isn't the same as having an adversarial system. You won't find any departments of physics, say, with a post of Devil's Advocate that has an institutional role of criticizing work done by the members of that physics department. The closest you get, I think, is where science looks most like philosophy: where there are big, sweeping theories that could plausibly be threatened by a single good counter-example. Then there is some incentive for scientists to try to falsify the theory by finding such a counter-example. It's a fast way to become famous. But notice that lots of science doesn't work that way. Lots of science proceeds by experimentation, observation, and report, regardless of whether the results confirm or disconfirm a big, sweeping theory. Lots of science is exploratory: find the next galaxy, species, etc. Or find the next whole area of investigation. Lots of science builds explicitly on prior work without really being opposed to that work and in many cases without even challenging earlier results.
Could you explain why you think that science is adversarial? Maybe that would help me to see why you think that an adversarial system is unavoidable.
The legal system is trickier, I think. In part, it's trickier because it's not even clear that the legal system is designed to get at the truth. If it were (for example), then there wouldn't be such things as illegal searches. The legal system has only a half-interest in the truth, at best. The state has an interest in the truth just insofar as getting the truth serves its interests, which might include things like protecting its citizens or deterring crime. The individual is only going to be interested in the truth insofar as the truth is on the individual's side. I mean, if I committed some crime, I am really hoping that the legal system fails to get at the truth. My interest is in avoiding punishment, not in truth-seeking. So, when I am actually guilty, my half of the adversarial system is actively trying to establish a falsehood.
In any event, it seems to me that a genuinely adversarial system is actually a large barrier to getting at the truth. There are two reasons for that. First, an adversarial system over-generates skepticism and wastes resources. When a system is genuinely adversarial, someone is obliged to take up the alternative position, regardless of its merits. The result is that there will be systematic doubt where none is justified. (See the twentieth-century exploitation of exactly this feature by certain powerful business interests, from tobacco companies to oil companies.) And the people defending the indefensible could have been better employed. Second, an adversarial system generates tribal commitments that are hard to shake off and that tend to lead to confirmation bias.
So now, can you help me understand why you think an adversarial system is better for truth-seeking?
People seem to be arguing that one can get the benefits of an adversarial debate without questioning the other side enough to make them upset through the act of attempting to tear apart their argument. Everyone agrees that tearing the other person down is rude, pointless and completely unhelpful, but the adversarial position tearing down their opinions and ideas, not the people.
So, how would this work? I see a lot of argument for it but how exactly do I tell someone their value system is incoherent and has lead them to do evil things or that their cherished idea is based on faulty assumptions and faulty logic without them being offended. How do you challenge the status quo without causing emotional pain to people who have their egos tied to the defense of the status quo?
I don't think anyone is saying that we shouldn't have disagreements. But there is a difference, I think, between disagreeing with someone and attacking another person's opinions and ideas. Take this exchange. At first blush, anyway, we disagree. I would like to explore and hopefully dissolve that disagreement. So, I state my own position and ask some questions about yours. I want to get a clearer idea of how things stand. Later, if we pursue it far enough, I'll look for common ground and see if either of us is missing something about what follows from the ground that we share. If it turns out that we don't have much common ground or that we aren't really making progress toward settling our disagreement, then I can turn to try to sharpen our positions. I can point to places that you might try to rework your own views, and I can ask for help reworking mine.
In your last paragraph, I think you raise a troubling worry. Engaging it only superficially, I think that since the kinds of serious disagreement you mention -- like disagreement about whether what someone just did is evil -- are very rare in the discipline of philosophy, we can make enormous progress by being kinder and more constructive as a general rule, even if we don't really know how to handle these rare cases. And even if we decide it would be a good thing to be combative in such cases. Engaging your worry a bit more deeply, it seems to me that we can't really control how other people react to gentle disagreement. But the fact that we can't control how other people react does not give us license to be rude when we disagree. So, the questions need to be: how do we do a better job of being cooperative and constructive and how do we do a better job of receiving correction when it is offered in a cooperative and constructive spirit? Finally, engaging it at a more psychological level, it seems to me that there are lots of strategies for softening criticism, even when it is very serious. I may think that someone is being logically incoherent, but I'm not going to get anywhere saying so. Rather, I need to assure my interlocutor that people make mistakes, even serious ones, all the time, and that I care about my interlocutor. Possibly this doesn't help with respect to real, genuine evil. In such a case, I suppose I'm not opposed to standing on the barricades, but how widespread is disagreement at that level?
Closing thought: At bottom, what I want to do is to get onto the same side with respect to the project of finding the truth. Once we're there, everything else becomes easier. I'm not convinced that an adversarial system is a good one for getting onto the same side with respect to finding the truth. And I'm not sure that it promotes finding the truth, even if we're non-adversarial with respect to that project.
Sorry for the wall of text. I didn't mean to write that much. But anyway ...
What do you think? How can we move this conversation forward? And what general lessons can we draw from the discussion here?
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 9:30 PM on June 27, 2016 [7 favorites]
Most of my philosophy profs were gentle with all students, actually I can't think of a rude one, like ever. I know I felt comfortable in class discussions. Maybe the swaggering "Aristotle was an idiot" kids got it now and then; most of them were men, IIRC, and probably needed taking down a notch. Actually notallmalephilosophystudents, though, and I'm sure I was annoyingly overconfident about determinism (and needed to be taken down a notch).
maybe women just aren't that interested?
I think plenty are interested in the relevant concerns, but many more might be more interested in getting a qualification they could argue for on a job application without having to get a graduate or professional degree. Same reason this
if we reduce rudeness, I solemnly promise that more women will want to do philosophy.
feels implausible to me.
It's possible the whole disciplinary MO of problematizing the terms of debate, to a painfully granular degree, might be offputting to some... I believe I left at least one class thinking, "it is a shameful indulgence in perversity, ultimately" (again re something about free will) and feeling like I'd left the worst party ever.
posted by cotton dress sock at 10:10 PM on June 27, 2016
maybe women just aren't that interested?
I think plenty are interested in the relevant concerns, but many more might be more interested in getting a qualification they could argue for on a job application without having to get a graduate or professional degree. Same reason this
if we reduce rudeness, I solemnly promise that more women will want to do philosophy.
feels implausible to me.
It's possible the whole disciplinary MO of problematizing the terms of debate, to a painfully granular degree, might be offputting to some... I believe I left at least one class thinking, "it is a shameful indulgence in perversity, ultimately" (again re something about free will) and feeling like I'd left the worst party ever.
posted by cotton dress sock at 10:10 PM on June 27, 2016
(Not that I expected my metaphysics class to be like a party. It just reminded me of a particular [terrible] party I'd actually attended.)
posted by cotton dress sock at 1:55 AM on June 28, 2016
posted by cotton dress sock at 1:55 AM on June 28, 2016
I"m studying philosophy currently and I go to quite a few events, seminars, conferences in London and Brighton in the UK and I don't really see any of this supposed "rudeness". There are critical questions posed to speakers but they are seldom done that "agressively".
I honestly don't know who the poster is talking about. Maybe its different in the USA?
posted by mary8nne at 2:58 AM on June 28, 2016 [2 favorites]
I honestly don't know who the poster is talking about. Maybe its different in the USA?
posted by mary8nne at 2:58 AM on June 28, 2016 [2 favorites]
The existence of this Popper / Wittgenstein book though is actually proof of the rarity of such antagonistic encounters. If these encounters happened all the time there would be no interest in documenting or immortalising them in print.
posted by mary8nne at 6:22 AM on June 28, 2016
posted by mary8nne at 6:22 AM on June 28, 2016
Some version of that event happens a lot; that's what Arpaly is referencing in her interview story.
posted by anotherpanacea at 8:24 AM on June 28, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by anotherpanacea at 8:24 AM on June 28, 2016 [1 favorite]
Nomy Arpaly is the best. I've seen her be put off and underestimated in professional contexts (as a result of the very stupid norm of questioners being deliberately rude)... much to the loss of the underestimating party.
posted by LobsterMitten at 8:56 AM on June 28, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by LobsterMitten at 8:56 AM on June 28, 2016 [1 favorite]
Some version of that event happens a lot; that's what Arpaly is referencing in her interview story.
These are the examples the author refers to:
Being compelled to break the rule of thumb against telling people that they are mistaken in the understanding of an important thing is no excuse for also yelling at them, repeatedly interrupting them and talking over them, responding to their painstakingly prepared talks with a sneering “why should I be interested in any of this”? (as opposed to a “does this have any implications for my field” or “how does it fit in the literature”), and worse things that we philosophers do, such as asking a job candidate about the counterfactual merits of hypothetically slapping her.
I mean, these are just out-of-line interactions. Maybe the relative lack of humanities funding generates increased stress levels and over-competitive behavior. The slapping example to modern eyes is just hazing; whatever philosophical point is to be had would have been obscured by the triggering aspects of such language.
What the author doesn't go into, though, is the reason for this sort of aggression. These academics are aggressive or passive-aggressive for some underlying reason that is probably comprehensible, and what could help is not only showing that a different interpersonal/social approach is better, but also acknowledging or helping they themselves acknowledge the thing that threatens them.
posted by polymodus at 10:42 AM on June 28, 2016
These are the examples the author refers to:
Being compelled to break the rule of thumb against telling people that they are mistaken in the understanding of an important thing is no excuse for also yelling at them, repeatedly interrupting them and talking over them, responding to their painstakingly prepared talks with a sneering “why should I be interested in any of this”? (as opposed to a “does this have any implications for my field” or “how does it fit in the literature”), and worse things that we philosophers do, such as asking a job candidate about the counterfactual merits of hypothetically slapping her.
I mean, these are just out-of-line interactions. Maybe the relative lack of humanities funding generates increased stress levels and over-competitive behavior. The slapping example to modern eyes is just hazing; whatever philosophical point is to be had would have been obscured by the triggering aspects of such language.
What the author doesn't go into, though, is the reason for this sort of aggression. These academics are aggressive or passive-aggressive for some underlying reason that is probably comprehensible, and what could help is not only showing that a different interpersonal/social approach is better, but also acknowledging or helping they themselves acknowledge the thing that threatens them.
posted by polymodus at 10:42 AM on June 28, 2016
what could help is not only showing that a different interpersonal/social approach is better, but also acknowledging or helping they themselves acknowledge the thing that threatens them.
The rudeness I take Arpaly to be noticing is not, I don't think, a vulnerable rudeness of those threatened by lack of funding. It's the jocular rudeness of someone who thinks that dishing out and receiving rudeness is part of how the game is played, and that the inability to deal with the ribbing is an indication of weakness--of both character and argument. That's the self-conception of many--although I'd like to think a decreasing number--highly-esteemed full professors in the field.
posted by anotherpanacea at 11:31 AM on June 28, 2016 [1 favorite]
The rudeness I take Arpaly to be noticing is not, I don't think, a vulnerable rudeness of those threatened by lack of funding. It's the jocular rudeness of someone who thinks that dishing out and receiving rudeness is part of how the game is played, and that the inability to deal with the ribbing is an indication of weakness--of both character and argument. That's the self-conception of many--although I'd like to think a decreasing number--highly-esteemed full professors in the field.
posted by anotherpanacea at 11:31 AM on June 28, 2016 [1 favorite]
I just think she's conflating a bunch of stuff. Bias against women influencing interviewing styles/interviewers =/= adversarial debate or hole-finding =/= "rudeness" (although demonstrating bias is rude, it's a strange way to describe the phenomenon). And then just calling for "less rudeness", I mean what is that intended to do? How does she think that's best accomplished, on what grounds? There's social science research that might point to how some of those gaps might be filled.
An interest in "how" is one reason I did not end up with a degree in philosophy.
posted by cotton dress sock at 12:40 PM on June 28, 2016
An interest in "how" is one reason I did not end up with a degree in philosophy.
posted by cotton dress sock at 12:40 PM on June 28, 2016
There was an mid-century era of a kind of tough guy, anti-metaphysical, style, and maybe that's got an influence still, in some circles. While Wittgenstein devotees were by no means the sole practitioners of this kind of thing, sources like the book about the Popper incident describe them as often using a very aggressive "how could you possibly be so stupid as to think that" style of bullying opponents. I didn't see very much of that sort of thing personally, in my school days. Maybe someone would be accused of Rortyism, or being soft on deconstruction, (strictly verboten in most philosophy programs at the time) was as about bad as I saw.
posted by thelonius at 7:55 PM on June 28, 2016
posted by thelonius at 7:55 PM on June 28, 2016
The rudeness I take Arpaly to be noticing is not, I don't think, a vulnerable rudeness of those threatened by lack of funding. It's the jocular rudeness of someone who thinks that dishing out and receiving rudeness is part of how the game is played, and that the inability to deal with the ribbing is an indication of weakness--of both character and argument. That's the self-conception of many--although I'd like to think a decreasing number--highly-esteemed full professors in the field.
Yes, but that's a whole field of equivalence. Exactly, there are connections to power dynamics, social status, people coming from traditional (misogynistic or patriarchal) backgrounds—all of this is subject to cognitive therapeutic approaches that address aggression in the psychological sense. "How the game is played", and "indication of weakness"—these are the pathological aspects of the status quo. That is, these full professors behave this way because it serves them, somehow—it allows them to behave without having to self-examine, etc. In therapy, they might be encouraged to confront what is it that threatens them that makes them engage with incoming people in this way. Their inappropriate behavior and culture that supports it has a raison d'être with a psychological basis. Cognitive-behavioral psychology posits that people use aggression to compensate for some other perceived vulnerability.
posted by polymodus at 8:36 PM on June 28, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yes, but that's a whole field of equivalence. Exactly, there are connections to power dynamics, social status, people coming from traditional (misogynistic or patriarchal) backgrounds—all of this is subject to cognitive therapeutic approaches that address aggression in the psychological sense. "How the game is played", and "indication of weakness"—these are the pathological aspects of the status quo. That is, these full professors behave this way because it serves them, somehow—it allows them to behave without having to self-examine, etc. In therapy, they might be encouraged to confront what is it that threatens them that makes them engage with incoming people in this way. Their inappropriate behavior and culture that supports it has a raison d'être with a psychological basis. Cognitive-behavioral psychology posits that people use aggression to compensate for some other perceived vulnerability.
posted by polymodus at 8:36 PM on June 28, 2016 [1 favorite]
I just noticed, anotherpanacea, I quoted you earlier upthread in response to another user's comment, but I chose yours, because I very much agreed with your comment which made me go back and find that paragraph in the article.
posted by polymodus at 8:51 PM on June 28, 2016
posted by polymodus at 8:51 PM on June 28, 2016
That's a very nice piece; thanks for linking to it. I liked the last line very much: "It might even entertain actual pacifism, which need not be weak."
/an actual pacifist
posted by languagehat at 2:23 PM on July 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
/an actual pacifist
posted by languagehat at 2:23 PM on July 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
The thing about the martial metaphor in Arpaly's piece is that it sort of sets up the reasonable, moderate position as "kill people, but not wantonly." That feels weird, even if I do endorse "disagree with people, but not rudely."
posted by anotherpanacea at 2:50 PM on July 2, 2016
posted by anotherpanacea at 2:50 PM on July 2, 2016
« Older “Just because we’re magic doesn’t mean we’re not... | HB2 is "an undue burden on abortion access" Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Greg_Ace at 8:28 AM on June 27, 2016 [3 favorites]