Thank you. I will do likewise.

That certainly overlaps with what I'm saying. There are two aspects to conflict resolution which interest me, one is the actual methods which can be used to resolve conflict (or get to a satisfactory understanding that the conflict cannot be resolved), the other is the psychology of being in conflict and of undertaking some attempt to explore it (I don't say 'resolve it' here because I think many of the activities people undertake within conflict have nothing to do with resolving them).

The two aspects link together for me when considering the abuse of the methods determined in the first aspect to satisfy tangential or occult objectives arising from the second aspect. We cannot derive useful methods of conflict resolution without acknowledging the extent to which our choices can be thus abused.

I like

when I correct someone who's doing mathematics really badly but being obstinate about their correctness; it strikes me as wrong cognitively, but also it's somehow a violation of my identity. — fdrake

I think that really captures one of the most important issues within the second aspect I mentioned above. At some point during a disagreement (even a trivial hobbyist discussion) you might stumble across a contrary position to a belief which forms a central node of your Quinean Web of Beliefs. We feel compelled to quash it.

As you know I tend to see things through a computational lens, so that's how this is going to be phrased. I think we're bound, to a certain extent, to take cognitively efficient paths to modelling and re-modelling. When faced with the potential for a fundamental aspect of our thinking to require adjustment, it's simply more efficient to attempt to quash it (and only change if we absolutely fail to do so) than it is to explore it. The number of threads which would need to be hypothetically cut to really 'see' where the other person is coming from is simply too much work, we often just don't have the bandwidth.

I think people underestimate the consequences of the fact that all our concepts, beliefs etc are actually processes. It's not that we hold a concept that 'A leads to B' somewhere in our mind and so on perceiving A we apply the concept to some other cortex and make B. The having of the concept 'A leads to B' just is the fact that perceiving A makes B. This is very efficient, but makes it quite hard to really see how others might see some issue if the matter is quite fundamental.

So these two threads of the discussion strike me as two sides of the same thing. I don't know what they're two sides of, but I'm very convinced they're the same thing. — fdrake

Elsewhere, I have claimed that community is made by communication, and communication is a movement of truth. But I'm not sure if I am understanding you or @Isaac. I wonder if it will help if I describe an ideal:

The end point to be ensvisaged, would be for us to reach the state of agreement that might be called 'being of one mind', about whatever our topic is. So if there is an action that follows, we cooperate to act. And this agreement cannot be a victory for one or a defeat for another, because they are not in agreement.

I happen to have mentioned this ideal, because it just seemed to come up for examination, but it is not my possession, and it does not possess me. Perhaps it will inform some state of mind that some people might share at some point, or maybe not. But if I am still counting how many of my ideas reach the final draft, compared to how many of yours, then we are not really resolving a conflict or properly communicating. So from this perspective, Game Theory is the structure of non-communication. It is that to which solitary silence is preferable.

If we resolve our conflicts, have we produced an echo chamber? — unenlightened

The end point to be ensvisaged, would be for us to reach the state of agreement that might be called 'being of one mind', about whatever our topic is. — unenlightened

I'm not sure if you perhaps had this distinction in mind anyway, but this ideal surely only applies to quite a narrow (albeit important) range of differences. I couldn't care less if, after a discussion (disagreement) about the place of music in human culture, we remained entirely at odds. My goal in having such a discussion would be to try and understand why you think what you do. My method might be to poke at your beliefs with a stick to see what happens. I might even find myself disbelieving your own answers, if I've good cause, but reaching agreement wouldn't be a goal.

If we're discussing how best to help the homeless, however, I really want us to agree. I want either for you to adopt my methods or for me to find out from you that my methods were flawed and so arrive at better ones.

The purpose of entering into the conflict makes a huge difference to what constitutes a satisfactory outcome. Which I think is where much of the disingenuity we experience lies. Topics which really shouldn't have any need for unanimous agreement at any point, that should be quite satisfying without ever reaching that place, end up being approached as if they were the kind where agreement mattered.

I speculate this happens, in part, as @fdrake says. A discussion about something which should be innocuous stumbles upon something fundamental to one's character and all of a sudden entertaining an alternative perspective becomes hard work, dangerous even.

Of course it also happens for far more mundane reasons. Mostly to do with dishonesty about the purpose of the discussion. One party hiding the fact that they really wanted to play the role of teacher, or that they're deliberately trying to lead to some more important disagreement (usually about God).

Absent of either of these cases discussions about unimportant matters should be like cricket, we can just walk away at the end and say "good game".

I couldn't care less if, after a discussion (disagreement) about the place of music in human culture, we remained entirely at odds. — Isaac

If we're discussing how best to help the homeless, however, I really want us to agree. — Isaac

We might not agree about what is and isn't important. I'm not clear what the distinction is for another.
__________________________________________________________

I want either for you to adopt my methods or for me to find out from you that my methods were flawed and so arrive at better ones. — Isaac

Ok, I'll adopt your methods.
_____________________________________________________________

I put it to you that this would not be at all a satisfactory discussion. You see the way I wish you would have put it is that you don't care whose method, all you care about is to find the best method. Because then you want to hear my method, and you want me to hear yours, and you want to hear what I think about your method and what I think about what you think about my method. That's a discussion.

Here's a good list of proposed agreements to form a basis for better discussion.

1 Some conflicts get resolved.
2 Sometimes the audience members are uncertain which side to believe(assuming two different opinions/narratives/explanations for the same events).

Do we agree that the two statements above report upon two remarkably different situations, consisting of remarkably different things?
— creativesoul
Sure. — Harry Hindu

Perfect!

Do we agree that there are some conflicts involving people who will not change their mind, regardless of what they are presented with?

:smile:

You see the way I wish you would have put it is that you don't care whose method, all you care about is to find the best method. — unenlightened

Spot on. No need to openly admit fallibility in a discussion where everyone already knows it, and shows that much as well... with comments precisely like you've wished for above.

So these two threads of the discussion strike me as two sides of the same thing. I don't know what they're two sides of, but I'm very convinced they're the same thing.

Side (1): Setting out one's claims defeasibly; paying attention to what would make you wrong, not just what makes you right. Writing so that the link between your claims and your motivation for having them is clear.

Side (2): Putting one's beliefs and identity at risk when arguing. Being not just open to, but enthusiastically pursuing, sites of tension in one's beliefs and identity as revealed in communication with the other.

It strikes me that writing in manner (1) requires willingness to engage in manner (2).

It also strikes me that it's easier to cultivate side (1) habits than side (2) habits. I base that on there being some general principles which can be written down, and some heuristics, like:

Being able to state what it would take for me to be wrong.
Being able to describe the connections between my claims in a somewhat neutral manner; why does x follow from y, and in what way does it follow?
Being able to describe the motivating context for my engagement.

that are relatively easy to understand in the context of side (1).

But, that "being able to describe the motivating context for my engagement" looks to me to be bleeding into side (2), often when I post on here I'm bringing baggage; intellectual and emotional; to the discussion. The things that motivate me to respond aren't just intellectual; they're aesthetic and emotional. Like when I correct someone who's doing mathematics really badly but being obstinate about their correctness; it strikes me as wrong cognitively, but also it's somehow a violation of my identity.

I speculate that there are motivational/emotional analogues of hinge propositions; statements and motivating contexts which are archetypical of my identity, and my attachment to those statements is very strong and very hard to revise. A hinge proposition is (roughly) an epistemic device that must be believed in order to have a discussion, but phrased as a statement; like "There is a world outside my mind". It is not something which can be doubted without doing considerable violence to how one makes sense of the world.

It seems to me that there are analogues to that regarding my identity insofar as it intersects with intellectual commitments; there are things I must believe to make sense of the world in the way I do. Someone who appears not to operate under those assumptions will simultaneously be judged by me to be wrong intellectually, but I'll condemn the belief to distance myself from it to save myself doing emotional work or to otherwise preserve my belief structure as it is.

That condemning might occur when a core belief; something strongly connected in my network of beliefs; is being challenged. Challenged in the manner that if I were to accept it, I wouldn't just have to change my mind or admit that I believed something falsely, I would also have to change how I think and thus what I believe about myself. — fdrake

Really good stuff in there!

I wanted to have a bit of discussion about some concern(s) that you've repeatedly expressed, but I'd like to take them one at a time.

Ok?

First up...

You seem to believe that because I use logic as a means to deny that logic is capable of discriminating between true and false statements, that that is somehow a problem for my denying that logic alone is enough to reliably determine and/or establish which competing/conflicting opinion is true.

I'm not sure what problem you think that that amounts to.

Could you explain how it is a problem that I use logic while denying it's ability to discriminate between true and false statements?

I wish you would have put it is that you don't care whose method, all you care about is to find the best method. Because then you want to hear my method, and you want me to hear yours, and you want to hear what I think about your method and what I think about what you think about my method. That's a discussion. — unenlightened

What happened to charitable interpretation? There are (at least) two methods in a conflict about how to help the homeless (my example). Your method and my method. If it is a conflict between me and you, then one of those methods can be identified with the label 'yours' and the other with the label 'mine'. It's just a linguistic device used in a single sentence. I could have called them method 'A' and method 'B', but I didn't, I chose the more conventional 'yours' and 'mine'. The post before you said you didn't understand my position, next post apparently you understand it so well that on the basis of a single sentence you find yourself so convinced you understand it that you're faced with no more charitable alternative than to conclude I'm an egotist so obsessed with my own thoughts that I don't even want to hear those of my interlocutors.

I let it go the first time you went on about honest enquiry and then simply declared everything I'd said to be untrue without even so much a sentence to explain why. Now you've spent another few posts writing about "concepts like trust and respect." and then accuse me of not even wanting to hear my interlocutor's arguments on the basis of a single ambiguous choice of expression. Where's the ""[asking] me for expansion, justification an so on" - again. Where's the "did you mean...?", or even the more charitable "I'm sure you didn't mean..."

These are not rhetorical questions, I seriously want to know what was going on in your head when you read that one sentence "I want either for you to adopt my methods or for me to find out from you that my methods were flawed and so arrive at better ones" and despite all our talk about respect, trust and charitable interpretation, you decide you're left with no choice but to presume it means I've no interest in hearing anyone else's opinion?

All logic consists(in part) of premisses.

All premisses are statements/propositions/claims/assertions/expressions of thought and belief. Henceforth, I'll just use the term "statements".

All logic consists(in part) of statements.

All thought and belief presupposes correspondence with/to fact/reality by virtue of consisting entirely of correlations.

All correlation presupposes the existence of it's own content.



So...

Logic presupposes truth.

When we use logic, we presuppose truth by virtue of treating premisses as if they are true, because that's precisely how one follows an argument. That's of the utmost importance here, because judiciously discriminating between conflicting opinions is an exercise of discriminating between mutually exclusive statements as well as identifying the thought and belief that they are grounded upon, and doing that requires knowing the rules of correct inference(logic).



Fast forward to a pair of conflicting opinions about what's happened and/or is happening. When and if the pair of opinions can be adequately simplified to a pair of mutually exclusive statements, much becomes clear, even if only by virtue of coincidence. I think this is close to focusing upon "hinge propositions" or "core belief", in the sense that drake used earlier.

I wish you would have put it is that you don't care whose method, all you care about is to find the best method. Because then you want to hear my method, and you want me to hear yours, and you want to hear what I think about your method and what I think about what you think about my method. That's a discussion.
— unenlightened

What happened to charitable interpretation? There are (at least) two methods in a conflict about how to help the homeless (my example). Your method and my method. If it is a conflict between me and you, then one of those methods can be identified with the label 'yours' and the other with the label 'mine'. It's just a linguistic device used in a single sentence. I could have called them method 'A' and method 'B', but I didn't, I chose the more conventional 'yours' and 'mine'. The post before you said you didn't understand my position, next post apparently you understand it so well that on the basis of a single sentence you find yourself so convinced you understand it that you're faced with no more charitable alternative than to conclude I'm an egotist so obsessed with my own thoughts that I don't even want to hear those of my interlocutors. — Isaac

While that could be what someone means when saying precisely what Un said... I can assure you that that's not an accurate report of Un's thought and belief on the matter. Those are certainly NOT the words he chose to use. That's only one of many different things that can be derived from those same words. I suggest you imagine a few other possibilities.

:brow:

We are all teachers. We are all students. We are all susceptible to believing falsehoods that have been passed down from generation to generation.

Academics are certainly not immune.

Report of what's happened and/or is currently happening...

Some guys poke and prod others and/or their beliefs in a deliberate intentional I'm-just-being-a-dick fashion, which is devaluing another. It's best for everyone to see that those guys are just dicks. The world is chock full of 'em.

Common sense...

Such people have no business wielding tremendous power over anyone they care so little about...

I can assure you that that's not an accurate report of Un's thought and belief on the matter. — creativesoul

Good.

But he used the contingent "I wish you would have..." along with the conditional "Because then you want to hear my method, and you want me to hear yours, and you want to hear what I think about your method and what I think about what you think about my method.". If I've missed some rhetorical use of the contingent/conditional paring that doesn't imply that in the absence of the condition, that upon which it is conditional does not occur, then I will be glad to be shown ways in which this new device is employed and what it means.

Additionally, if he's not implying that I've no desire to hear another's method, or hear what they think about mine, then I'm not sure what the conditional is trying to say. If that's the state of affairs as things stand, then what does the 'If...Because then...' do?

If I say "I wish you had said X because if you had then it would have meant Y", I can only think of either one of two cases. Either Y is currently not the case and only would become the case contingent on my saying X, or Y is contingent on X but not exclusively so, Y may be the case anyway - in which case the statement seems to have no purpose, as Y may or may not be the case regardless of my saying X.

Current conflict...

Many people have been encouraged to feel hostile and angry about the economic shutdown and other consequence of covid19 such as the social distancing measures. So, there is a conflict between what the foremost experts in the field of infectious disease demand must be done in order to stop the novel corona virus, and the feelings that much of the American public have. Those negative, angry, and hostile feelings are the result of correlations drawn between the way they've come to terms with what's happened and what's happening(which includes not only the virus stuff, but also their own terrible feelings of uncertainty/discontent).

The idea of being mad about being forced to follow social distancing guidelines was encouraged and perpetuated. That was and is a horrible public disservice. It remains in place, and is as active as ever. Growing, in fact.

A diversion.

The focus has changed from Trump's undeniable incompetence and other real problems regarding the pandemic that are not Trump's fault, to a broad-based sense of fear that one's liberty and freedom have been taken away by virtue of being required to do what it takes to stop the spread of covid19.

I can assure you that that's not an accurate report of Un's thought and belief on the matter.
— creativesoul

Good.

But he used the contingent "I wish you would have..." along with the conditional "Because then you want to hear my method, and you want me to hear yours, and you want to hear what I think about your method and what I think about what you think about my method.". — Isaac

I'm not saying that your interpretation would be mistaken regardless of who used those terms. I'm saying it is mistaken because not everyone uses them like that.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Had you said what was suggested, I too would have been a bit more convinced that who proposed the method did not matter, and that you were - in fact - interested in considering another method. It also would indicate that you were open to the idea that your own method could be improved, or that you were not all that certain that you have the best method. All of this is assuming the sincerity of the speaker. That's reading charitably.

Of course, in another vein of thought...

If one is certain that they have the best method, they will use it when it's appropriate to do so. Method is about attaining a goal, achieving something of worth, pursuing an end, etc.

The method here, as it pertains to the OP, is how to go about deciding which of two differing opinions is best. I think hearing them out(at least until they are found sorely lacking) is crucial in any such comparative analysis.

Don't you?

In that... Un not only hit the nail squarely on the head, he drove it home...

If I say "I wish you had said X because if you had then it would have meant Y", I can only think of either one of two cases. Either Y is currently not the case and only would become the case contingent on my saying X, or Y is contingent on X but not exclusively so, Y may be the case anyway - in which case the statement seems to have no purpose, as Y may or may not be the case regardless of my saying X. — Isaac

Yeah. I can see that. However, it could also be the case that the reader/listener was looking for some confirmation that you were willing to do those things, but were uncertain based upon what you did say...

:smile:

These are not rhetorical questions, I seriously want to know what was going on in your head when you read that one sentence "I want either for you to adopt my methods or for me to find out from you that my methods were flawed and so arrive at better ones" and despite all our talk about respect, trust and charitable interpretation, you decide you're left with no choice but to presume it means I've no interest in hearing anyone else's opinion? — Isaac

I seem to be very good at upsetting people with my proposals in this thread, including myself. This is not surprising to me. I wrote:

this agreement cannot be a victory for one or a defeat for another, because they are not in agreement. — unenlightened

And when you replied in terms that I was at pains to rule out, it would not be charitable to assume you understood and agreed. This is my first duty as I see it; to make as clear as I can that every difficulty in discussion has its root in identification of the participants with their views. And whenever I point out that this is what is happening in the very discussion we are having, I get another demonstration of the truth of it from myself or someone else.

So let me try and piss everyone off at once with a proper pontification:

The only pain that can be felt in a discussion is that of a bruised ego, and there is no place for ego in a discussion.

I'm saying it is mistaken because not everyone uses them like that. — creativesoul

I gathered that from your first post, what I was asking was what these other ways of using conditionals are, I can't really think of any.

Had you said what was suggested, I too would have been a bit more convinced that who proposed the method did not matter, and that you were - in fact - interested in considering another method. — creativesoul

Indeed, but charitable interpretation does not require that one use the language most likely to convince the listener of their positive intent. It is a duty on the reader to assume positive intent unless convinced otherwise, not a duty on the writer to do all in their power to prove positive intent.

it could also be the case that the reader/listener was looking for some confirmation that you were willing to do those things, but were uncertain based upon what you did say — creativesoul

Possible (although a strange way of going about it - what's wrong with "did you mean...? "), but my point is rather that there is no prior cause to even question this, why would anyone not simply presume such willingness of their interlocutors until overwhelmed by evidence to the contrary?

And when you replied in terms that I was at pains to rule out, it would not be charitable to assume you understood and agreed. — unenlightened

I think you and I have very different ideas of what 'charitable' means. To me it refers to seeking the most agreeable interpretation of someone's expressions. As such, the most charitable interpretation would be that I did agree with you unless my choice of words indicated overwhelmingly to the contrary. Simply labelling the two ideas under discussion 'mine' and 'yours', is not, by any stretch, overwhelming evidence that I disagree with your notion that "this agreement cannot be a victory for one or a defeat for another, because they are not in agreement." I can't even see how it could be interpreted that way, but am open to the possibility. What is absolutely beyond the pale is the idea that my choice of identifier provides overwhelming evidence that I disagree with your notion about victory and defeat in conflict resolution.

I think you and I have very different ideas of what 'charitable' means. To me it refers to seeking the most agreeable interpretation of someone's expressions. — Isaac

Yes. It means something very different to me. So I would never assume within the limits of ambiguity, that you said whatever is most agreeable to me, but rather I make the interpretation that maximises your clarity and consistency. Thus wiki:

In philosophy and rhetoric, the principle of charity or charitable interpretation requires interpreting a speaker's statements in the most rational way possible and, in the case of any argument, considering its best, strongest possible interpretation.

In this context, it occurs to me to remind y'all, and myself ,of the tradition of advocatus diaboli, whereby one adopts in discussion the view one opposes, in order to avoid that echo chamber effect. Something to add to that list of techniques...

would never assume within the limits of ambiguity, that you said whatever is most agreeable to me, but rather I make the interpretation that maximises your clarity and consistency. — unenlightened

OK, so in what way did you think my choice of identifiers ('yours' and 'mine') meant that the clearest and most consistent interpretation of my view is that I don't care to listen to other people's opinions, or that discussions must result in victory or defeat. What else had I said to that effect that led you to the conclusion that this was the most 'consistent' interpretation?

Thus wiki:

In philosophy and rhetoric, the principle of charity or charitable interpretation requires interpreting a speaker's statements in the most rational way possible and, in the case of any argument, considering its best, strongest possible interpretation. — unenlightened

The wiki here uses the terms 'most rational', 'best' and 'strongest'. I don't see how that supports your emphasis on 'clarity and consistency', perhaps you could explain the link.

OK, so in what way did you think my choice of identifiers ('yours' and 'mine') meant that the clearest and most consistent interpretation of my view is that I don't care to listen to other people's opinions, or that discussions must result in victory or defeat. — Isaac

Well you are responding to me, so I tend to assume that you haven't (in the context of my talking about how victory and defeat are not resolutions,) accidentally immediately brought in those terms that personalise the positions. but to be sure, because it might have been just from habit, I said well I "wish" you had put it this way instead because, bla bla. At which point I think if you hadn't been quite so primed for me to be being contemptuous, you might well have said something like 'yeah that's petty much what I meant'.

But now, I'm feeling again like we're going to go round and round in a circle, whereby my attempts at explaining my thinking simply serve to reinforce the insult you already perceive.

I'll just mention that I wrote my own explanation of how I meant 'charity', and added the wiki definition as an afterthought, and I leave it to you to pick over which of us has the more conventionally correct interpretation. That my agreement with you that we were using the word differently has now become an attack on you means to me that I need just to stop saying anything at this point. This will be my last post on this thread.

It is a duty on the reader to assume positive intent unless convinced otherwise, not a duty on the writer to do all in their power to prove positive intent. — Isaac

And you...

...when you are the reader?

:brow:

I tend to assume that you haven't (in the context of my talking about how victory and defeat are not resolutions,) accidentally immediately brought in those terms that personalise the positions. — unenlightened

But throughout our recent disagreement about the meaning of 'charitable interpretation' you have consistently referered to the alternatives under consideration as 'yours' and 'mine', what 'I' and 'you' think. This seems an entirely normal and unimportant way of identifying two positions, completely devoid of significance. I'm still not understanding the thought process and that bothers me because some (obviously quite strong) false supposition has been made about my position and its a position which, as was discussed earlier, forms a core part of my world view. I can correct the supposition easily, as you say, I could have said "yeah that's petty much what I meant", but correcting the false supposition is only half the solution. What I really need to correct is the background which led to such a (seemingly) skewed interpretation of what was at best extremely ambiguous pointers as to what I might be thinking.

And you...

...when you are the reader? — creativesoul

Yeah, same applies, obviously.

Here's a good list of proposed agreements to form a basis for better discussion.

1 Some conflicts get resolved.
2 Sometimes the audience members are uncertain which side to believe(assuming two different opinions/narratives/explanations for the same events).

Do we agree that the two statements above report upon two remarkably different situations, consisting of remarkably different things?
— creativesoul
Sure.
— Harry Hindu

Perfect! — creativesoul

No. Not perfect, because I asked you a question regarding your statement that you avoided.

So when someone keeps asking you questions that you answer, yet they won't answer the questions you posed to them, is that not a great example of someone who will not change their mind, regardless of what they are presented with.

Do we agree that there are some conflicts involving people who will not change their mind, regardless of what they are presented with? — creativesoul

Sure. So which method is useful for determining which party is the on that is unwilling to change their mind, regardless of what they are presented with?

When someone continually contradicts themselves and avoids questions, or when the questions get tough they abandon the discussion, or just ignore the questions while asking their own, or continually attack the person rather than what they say (ad homs), then I think those are great examples of someone that doesn't want to change their mind regardless of what they are presented with. Think of how religious people cling to their religion. You, unenlightened and Pantagruel have exhibited characteristics of the religious that cling to their religion.

You seem to believe that because I use logic as a means to deny that logic is capable of discriminating between true and false statements, that that is somehow a problem for my denying that logic alone is enough to reliably determine and/or establish which competing/conflicting opinion is true.

I'm not sure what problem you think that that amounts to.

Could you explain how it is a problem that I use logic while denying it's ability to discriminate between true and false statements? — creativesoul

Do you know what a contradiction is? Do you know what a self-defeating argument is?

The problem is that you continually avoid the questions I ask and then later on act as if I never asked the question.

If logic is missing something, then what is it? What other methods are there? You haven't been able to provide any. I did and they were all logical fallacies.

The program you're using is faulty. — creativesoul

"I think everyone should learn how to program a computer, because it teaches you how to think."
-Steve Jobs