Understanding the person you are trying to get to do what you want doesn't dissolve the conflict or lead to immediate cooperation, but it may prove a useful tool in getting them to do what you want. — Ennui Elucidator

How many of the interpersonal conflicts, large and small, that we all experience on an almost daily basis, have to do with not being able to get others to do what we want , and how many of them have to do with our not being able to fathom why the other person will not do what we want? Put differently , I am suggesting that the depth of our anger, disappointment , anxiety , guilt and other negative affective responses to the behavior of others we are dealing with, is in direct proportion to the breakdown in trust and mutual understanding we perceive with them. A ‘conflict’ with someone who thwarts our preference due to reasons we fully understand and can empathize with is not really a conflict at all. It’s more of a minor strategic challenge: how do we incentivize their actions or negotiate a compromise suitable to us both?

But this sort of situation plays only the most minor role in the daily drama of living. What keeps us awake at night is the loved one, friend or acquaintance who inexplicably disappointed us , angered us , rejected us , severed our bond of trust with them , caused us to doubt our own worth.

These are the conflicts caused by a breakdown in understanding. And these are what account for the kinds of conflicts that take place among larger social
groups, and that lead to wars and persecutions. The problem with axioms of discourse is that they have already been implicitly violated by the time the conflict is perceived. Ethically meaningful interpersonal conflicts are only possible in the first place as the breakdown of tacit pre-existing axioms of shared understandings.

How much time and energy would be spared if these simple propositions were adopted? — Xtrix

Perhaps one simple (if not already mentioned) issue is what is the agenda, the motivation of someone to engage in a discourse. This can vary a lot.

Many say that they are engaging in a discussion and are open to ideas of others, but in truth they aren't. In fact, they can take your notes just as things to remember when winning the argument (in style). Philosophical debates can lapse into a competition about who knows best. Some think it's a contest of who is the most intelligent. Not that we can learn something from each other and different viewpoints and arguments are beneficial.

People only benefit from mediation and consensus building if they both agree to participate fully as honest interlocutors. And it's often when you arrive at the question of values that you start to hit the rocks. — Tom Storm

I just completed the duty of serving on a jury and have been made particularly sensitive to how values important to one can be seen as a threat by others. The experience brings several things home to me.

There are situations where a successful claim will deprive the other of their claim; Not just in the sense of losing an argument but having any recourse after the argument is lost. Loss of property and custody will ensue.

What we argue about here, in the sphere of discussion for discussion's sake, serving nothing but what seems most important to ourselves, is connected to other things.

That all sounds very liberal and pleasant, but what process goes into "establishing agreement not only about basic definitions... but also about basic beliefs"? And what if such agreement cannot be found? What if the other person's position remains obscure? What if the difference of commonality is exactly what is significant?

Sometimes folk are what we in the trade call wrong.

That all sounds very liberal and pleasant, but what process goes into "establishing agreement not only about basic definitions... but also about basic beliefs"? And what if such agreement cannot be found? What if the other person's position remains obscure? What if the difference of commonality is exactly what is significant?

Sometimes folk are what we in the trade call wrong — Banno

Lyotard’s distinction between a litigation and a differend. may be relevant here:

“ A differend is a case of conflict between parties that cannot be equitably resolved for lack of a rule of judgement applicable to both. In the case of a differend, the parties cannot agree on a rule or criterion by which their dispute might be decided. A differend is opposed to a litigation – a dispute which can be equitably resolved because the parties involved can agree on a rule of judgement. Lyotard distinguishes the victim from the plaintiff. The later is the wronged party in a litigation; the former, the wronged party in a differend. In a litigation, the plaintiff’s wrong can be presented. In a differend, the victim’s wrong cannot be presented. A victim, for Lyotard, is not just someone who has been wronged, but someone who has also lost the power to present this wrong.

This disempowerment can occur in several ways: it may quite literally be a silencing; the victim may be threatened into silence or in some other way disallowed to speak. Alternatively, the victim may be able to speak, but that speech is unable to present the wrong done in the discourse of the rule of judgement. The victim may not be believed, may be thought to be mad, or not be understood. The discourse of the rule of judgement may be such that the victim’s wrong cannot be translated into its terms; the wrong may not be presentable as a wrong.”

That's interesting. It's a long way from where I am, but I'm pleased to see the political aspect being raised.

As mentioned elsewhere, I'm thinking that direction of fit works here to explain some of this difference. Some things are much more difficult to disagree about, since they form the background against which disagreement takes place. Those things that we agree on include the stuff that pins our conversation to us. It's hard, for instance, for someone to deny that there is an internet while participating in an internet conversation. These are Wittgenstein's hinge propositions, Searle's intentional background - there are other names for it.

I am going to allow that some aspects may be untranslated; but I baulk at their being untranslatable.

Again, sometimes folk are wrong. Disagreements can be real.

Hermeneuticists like John Caputo and Richard Rorty call this working together in good faith toward a fusion of horizons of understanding the ‘conversation of mankind’. It has been critiqued by postmodernists like Derrida and Lyotard , who point out that in many cases the two parties are not operating with the same senses of meaning , and there is no meta-understanding that can arrived at, no perfect agreement, through an effort of ‘good faith’ What is needed in these cases is respect for the disagreement rather than pursuit of fusion. — Joshs

Yep - that's pretty much my argument too.

Again, sometimes folk are wrong. Disagreements can be real. — Banno

Yep- in a world that likes to privilege the folk wisdom of 'win/win' this is often an unwelcome truth.

An unwelcome truth is that the folk who are wrong can equally be ourselves. Charitable understanding of another's position does not presume a possible win/win; it does not compromise on truth or equivocate with definitions. It presumes that we, rather than the other, may turn out to have been mistaken all along. Or we may not.

In a perfect world every discussion would end with a Rogerian agreement. — Shawn

I don't believe that.

If I recollect correct, in logical argument, both parties run backwards together as far as necessary to find a premise upon which they agree. Then and only then do they go forward with disagreement. Otherwise, they're just two ships passing in the night, or risk being so. I think the same analysis would apply to the definition of terms. — James Riley

I think so too.

How much time and energy would be spared if these simple propositions were adopted?
— Xtrix
Perhaps one simple (if not already mentioned) issue is what is the agenda, the motivation of someone to engage in a discourse. This can vary a lot. — ssu

Sure, and I didn't make clear in the OP, but I'm assuming good faith. If there are ulterior motives, then that's a different story -- but since that's sometimes hard to tell, for the time being I suspend that judgment and assume the other person really believes what they say they do.

Philosophical debates can lapse into a competition about who knows best. Some think it's a contest of who is the most intelligent. Not that we can learn something from each other and different viewpoints and arguments are beneficial. — ssu

Yes, which is unfortunately what "debate" has often turned into: scoring points. As if it's a boxing match. That can be entertaining, but I for one am often left disappointed by interchanges like that.

That all sounds very liberal and pleasant, but what process goes into "establishing agreement not only about basic definitions... but also about basic beliefs"? — Banno

I don't understand the claim about this being "liberal."

I mentioned the process that goes into establishing agreement. It takes a willingness of both people to accurately understand the other person's point of view. I think it's essential to go to more basic questions beforehand -- for example, questions about human nature before diving into a "debate" about economics. We may find the other person's point of view is so different that any discussion will be irrelevant, or else we find that we're in agreement -- in which case, the conversation goes on.

And what if such agreement cannot be found? — Banno

Then it's often not worth having a discussion, in my view. If the other person doesn't even agree that 2 + 2 = 4, what's the sense of discussing the quadratic formula?

What if the other person's position remains obscure? — Banno

This is part of the process -- making that explicit. If they can't agree on basic terms, beliefs about the world, or goals, then it's usually a waste of time to discuss much of anything.

What if the difference of commonality is exactly what is significant? — Banno

Sometimes it is, and one can still go on talking. Other times it's not worth continuing (and in my view, that's most of the time). But it's best to know the differences beforehand, either way.

I'd rather know, before discussing geology or evolution, whether you're a Biblical literalist, and believe that God created the universe in 6 days, that the Earth is 6,000 years old, etc. Likewise, if you believe humans are essentially selfish, greedy creatures and the highest purpose of life is the maximizing and accumulation of gold and slaves, I'd at least like to know that before discussing macroeconomic policies. Would save me a good deal of time.

Sometimes folk are what we in the trade call wrong. — Banno

Of course. I don't argue differently.

An unwelcome truth is that the folk who are wrong can equally be ourselves. — Cuthbert

And often is.

I don't understand the claim about this being "liberal." — Xtrix

Really? You set out some of the basic tenets of liberalism. Was that not your intent?

Sometimes folk are what we in the trade call wrong.
— Banno

Of course. I don't argue differently. — Xtrix

Then we have some agreement.

I don't understand the claim about this being "liberal."
— Xtrix

Really? You set out some of the basic tenets of liberalism. Was that not your intent? — Banno

Well the word "liberalism" is pretty vague these days, but I was assuming you meant it in its modern context. If you're referring to classical liberalism or the enlightenment, etc., then I'm sure there's something to that. But that wasn't my conscious intent, no.

Hm. Why disavow liberalism? Is there a considered reason?

Why disavow liberalism? Is there a considered reason? — Banno

When did I disavow liberalism? I'm just not immediately seeing the connection. If you want to clarify both what you mean by "liberalism" and how you think the parts of what I said relate to it, I'm all ears.

Your axioms of discourse appear typicaly liberal to my eye. It seems I presumed too much. We might leave it there.

Your axioms of discourse appear typicaly liberal to my eye. It seems I presumed too much. We might leave it there. — Banno

They may very well be. I was being genuine when I asked you to clarify it for me, because the connection may well be an interesting one -- just one I'm currently ignorant of. But I'm happy to leave it there too.

Sure, and I didn't make clear in the OP, but I'm assuming good faith. If there are ulterior motives, then that's a different story — Xtrix

Many of those that have an agenda have the best intentions. They are there just to change your mind. :wink:

Yes, which is unfortunately what "debate" has often turned into: scoring points. As if it's a boxing match. That can be entertaining, but I for one am often left disappointed by interchanges like that. — Xtrix

And naturally we take things personally. Someone telling us we are incorrect feels to many like an ad hominem attack, a personal insult. We are social beings and in real physical meeting with people there is a multitude of factors on how we approach the other. In the internet there is just a name without anything else. Hence we can be incredibly different in the social media (or here, where we are anonymous) than when actually meet people or have to work with them.

Back to the subject, we can censorship in many different things. Let's take for example this Forum. I believe there isn't de facto censorship here. But Let's look at the suite guidelines:

Types of posters who are not welcome here:

Evangelists: Those who must convince everyone that their religion, ideology, political persuasion, or philosophical theory is the only one worth having.

Racists, homophobes, sexists, Nazi sympathisers, etc.: We don't consider your views worthy of debate, and you'll be banned for espousing them.

Advertisers, spammers: Instant deletion of post followed by ban.

Trolls: You know who you are. You won't last long

Sockpuppets

Now, how many of those who have been (and are going to be) banned because of the above will themselves think that they have been the victims of censorship? I presume many.

Besides, I remember when the old Philosophy Forums -site went down the first time, I wasn't alone in thinking that "Jesus! What did I say to get banned?". Yet the fact is that a discussion board without any moderation will become simply ugly. But what's the difference between moderation and censorship?

This is an example of understanding the world so as to understand individuals;


"The founding texts rarely mentioned it, but white and male superordination are easily tucked into the neoliberal markets-and-morals project. On the one hand, deregulated markets tend to reproduce rather than ameliorate historically produced social powers and stratification.". -- Wendy Brown

This is how conservative religious people fall into the neoliberal basket: it's not that they have any particular interest in undermining labor unions, it's just that disempowering white labor goes hand in hand with disempowering blacks, women, and anyone else who wants to move in the direction of an egalitarian society.

"Traditional morality also links preservation of the past with patriotism by casting the latter not just as love of country, but as love of the way things were, which tars objections to racial and gender injustice as unpatriotic." -- Wendy Brown

And so when neoliberals want to use the military to advance their agenda, it helps to have racism, sexism, and markets all behind a strong military.

The trick is to stop seeing the world as good and evil. That's a childish attitude that will only isolate you and your perspective.

And naturally we take things personally. Someone telling us we are incorrect feels to many like an ad hominem attack, a personal insult. We are social beings and in real physical meeting with people there is a multitude of factors on how we approach the other. In the internet there is just a name without anything else. Hence we can be incredibly different in the social media (or here, where we are anonymous) than when actually meet people or have to work with them. — ssu

Very true. I have struggled with this since the days of AOL message boards. I have seen it everywhere. In real life I’ve run into problems too, but much less — either because I’m forced to communicate better and hold my temper, because of nonverbal cues, because others are less aggressive, or a combination. But it’s always been there online, and has only gotten worse.

I think the rules I mentioned apply in both cases, but should be even more explicitly applied to the online world, where anonymity pulls one into acting poorly and generally wasting time by shouting into an ether.

But what's the difference between moderation and censorship? — ssu

A very fine line. When one agrees to rules of the game, however, it’s a different story. I think the Forum does a good job with moderation generally.

With that being said, I argue that it's best to avoid in-depth discussion of anything until this consensus is confirmed, if for no other reason than to avoid wasting time. — Xtrix

But when there is such consensus, what will people talk about?

In my experience, when I have so much in common with someone as you describe above, and when we have cleared up the terms, we end up having nothing to talk about. Except maybe the weather and trivialities.

in a world that likes to privilege the folk wisdom of 'win/win' — Tom Storm

Where is that world??!

1. Establish agreement not only about basic definitions (which is important), but also about basic beliefs.

This is an essential place to start any discussion, as mentioned above, because it saves a lot of time, effort, and confusion. I can't count how many times an argument eventually loops back to these questions somehow.

2. Make sure to understand the other person's position.

This is best demonstrated by stating what you believe to be their argument, and by them confirming your accuracy. No straw men, no caricatures, and hopefully far less later misunderstanding.

3. Build on commonality.

Once basic beliefs and definitions are agreed upon, and positions accurately understood, then go on to problems and proposed solutions. — Xtrix

This assumes that people want or should want to cooperate, that their basic belief is something like "We should all be willing to cooperate with everyone else."

Not just a few people distinctly do not want to cooperate indiscriminately to begin with.
"He that is not with me is against me. I see that you're not with me, so I'll consider you against, you're my enemy, and I seek to defeat you in every way I can."

This has led to political tribalism and dehumanizing the "other," reminiscent of religious wars. — Xtrix

And for some people, sometimes, political tribalism and dehumanizing the "other" is precisely what they are in for in discussion, even if ostensibly, they're seeking to discuss advanced mathematics or climate change or whatever.

Political tribalism and dehumanizing the "other" isn't necessarily a(n unwanted) consequence of some discussion approaches, but can be the very motivation for engaging with others to begin with.

These are good, solid ideas, Xtrix. But, like all rules for conversation, I think they will increase time and energy rather than reduce them.

Yours and my own views are quite different and I fear pulling them apart would only lead to frustration. For instance, I’m not a believer in the canard of “neoliberalism” and see any liberalization during the past 75 years as mere attempts to pull man from the ruins of statism—fascism, socialism, communism, dirigisme, and Keynesianism. But despite these attempts, government spending, interventionism, taxes, welfare statism in general, have only increased. So I think that, despite Friedman’s successes with the abolition of the draft and maybe floating exchange rates, he has had little influence worth noting, and the crimes of “neoliberalism” are too often overstated.

Given my diverging views, I cannot see any hope for saving time and energy. That’s why I think any goal of coming to some sort of agreement in discourse should be abandoned. But it is not a complete waste of time. What was said or written should stand on their own, not for the benefit of the participants in the discourse, but for those others who might come across it.

But when there is such consensus, what will people talk about? — baker

All kinds of things. How best to solve problems, personal and otherwise, comes to mind. Remember that I'm talking about answers to very basic questions, and more as a reminder of common beliefs and goals. Starting there and building on it is important, because then you better flush out the differences in solution or approach.

I've used mathematics as an example, and poker. But perhaps health is a better analogy. Any discussion about a proper diet rests upon the background assumption that there is such a thing as "healthy," that it's a goal, and that it is generally achievable.

Or perhaps what route to take. No point in discussing that if neither party agrees on the destination. And so on.

Seems very obvious, and indeed it is. It's nearly a truism. But especially in areas of politics and economics, it's worth having and worth reminding each other of. In an age where many assume the other person "hates America and wants it to fail," it should occasionally be done. Better to take the person at their word and go from there -- because if their actions, solutions, strategies are counter to their professed goals, this can then be shown with evidence. Yes, this is an idealization, but when possible should be applied. I disregard anything else -- because at that point, conversation is totally useless anyway, so all rules go out the window and you might as well be talking to a gazelle.

This assumes that people want or should want to cooperate, that their basic belief is something like "We should all be willing to cooperate with everyone else." — baker

I wouldn't use "cooperate," but be willing to learn and understand -- yes, that's assumed; indeed, it has to be. If that's not the case, what point is there in talking? Perhaps in front of an audience, to demonstrate how irrational the other person is, or something like that -- which is fine. But I don't have much interest in it -- although I admittedly fall into that trap too often without knowing it.

And for some people, sometimes, political tribalism and dehumanizing the "other" is precisely what they are in for in discussion, even if ostensibly, they're seeking to discuss advanced mathematics or climate change or whatever. — baker

Sure -- that's all over the place and, I argue, is almost always a complete waste of time which gets us exactly nowhere. Might as well just scream at each other or, better yet, fight to the death with fists, swords or guns, as they would do in times past when there was no other way to settle a dispute. I'm not opposed to that either -- but I'm excluding that from my axioms, since it falls outside the realm of discourse.

These are good, solid ideas, Xtrix. But, like all rules for conversation, I think they will increase time and energy rather than reduce them. — NOS4A2

I'm only not in favor of wasting time and energy.

Yours and my own views are quite different and I fear pulling them apart would only lead to frustration. — NOS4A2

I guess you're a good example, yeah. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I suspect your views on both the world in general and human nature are radically different, and so there's no sense in seriously "debating" any political or economic or scientific or philosophical issue.

despite Friedman’s successes with the abolition of the draft and maybe floating exchange rates, he has had little influence worth noting, and the crimes of “neoliberalism” are too often overstated. — NOS4A2

Little influence worth noting?

Again, this is just factually wrong, and demonstrably so -- like most things you think and claim -- but since I know the reason why you often make these false claims, as I would about the claims of a flat-earther or creationist, showing it as such is a good example of a waste of time. You're not capable of seeing it, so it wouldn't be for that reason, and doing so for anyone reading this exchange (in the off chance anyone *is* reading it) is generally futile or exhibitionist as well.

Where is that world??! — baker

English speaking countries.

Must be, because in my native language, we don't even have a native phrase for "win-win".

Win-win is a common old-school expression used in negotiations, based on the idea that both parties need to feel they got a win or closure will be hard or impossible. The idea is everyone walks away thinking they have benefited. Naturally it is a fabled response and not always achievable. I studied mediation in the 1980's and this was still a dominant approach.

Yes, I know what win-win means. I'm saying that in the culture I live in, it is largely unknown. In the last 20 years or so, it has gained some popularity, but for the most part, people seem to operate from the premise that it is inevitable that there are winners and losers.