Debates

My naive attempt to

~~fix~~ tackle an old problem

in the modern setting

Why this is important?

We suck at being rational
- We should increase the odds for rational decisions
One of the few things we can manage is how we use our time
It is sad to watch smart people trying to communicate their point and fail

I recently tried to analyze a debate

FAILED

I kept losing track even though I had the log and took my time
Several threads for seemingly same discussion
Temporal distortions (Déjà-vu)
Arguments were orbiting around an unidentifiable problem
Some key arguments were seemingly
ignored. I got curios - why?

So how did I become a respected author on this topic?

I didn't. I'm just a hobbyist.

Reading / Listening

Books I've apparently read
according to the Internet

Podcasts

Brain Science with Ginger Campbell
The Sceptics Guide
The Psychology Podcast
Naked Neuroscience
Psychology in Everyday Life: The Psych Files
Stuff You Should Know (a bit far fetched, but worth
mentioning)

How to start a debate?

Somebody comes up with an idea
Works with it (invests to it, becomes familiar with it)
And then somebody questions it... tadaa.

Oh, I just described a mini-version of the Sunk cost fallacy

Questioning is, however, important

But pick your battles - it takes time * participants
If used too much, may block innovation?
But still a necessity for rational(ish) decisions
- (we suck at being rational)

We suck at being rational

Our brains are specialised in coming up with an opinion first and having an explanation for it later.
Our brain is very good at deceiving us in other fronts
You think you see colours equally around you?
- Full vision? No spots?
Magic tricks, mentalists, the scientific method - quite a lot of things/professions work with or around our fallacies.

Selective attention test

We suck at communicating -

so bad that there was a professor to study it

Few tools to get a bit better

Starting Point

Your thoughts are deceiving you. Apply scepticism also to your own ideas.

WATCH OUT!

Also, read Internet-memes with the grain of salt.

Distinguish these

Problem / requirement vs solution
If you have a requirement, you should have a
- problem which you can describe the way your peers understand
Only after that, a sensible solution can be presented
- There rarely is perfect solution(?)
Thus, at the end,
- after rational debate (ha-ha),
- alternatives can be weighted objectively (ha-ha)
- and rational decision is made (ha-ha)

Be mindful with the "moving target"

"the moving target" = confusing the discussion by spawning new problems and requirements to justify the solution
The way the chat discussions are flowing, it is easy to ignore the fact that the previous topic was never handled.
- Few debatees may be attempting to keep an logical construct of the debate in their head
- Rest just cram forward? -> Drives people to insanity

Try to align where you can

Don't drop the ball if you don't understand the opposite argument
Ask -> Answer -> Ask -> Ask -> Answer -> Align

"No ought from an is"

E.g. The Hume's guilliotine
Of course it is good to know how the rest of the world operates
This, however, should not be the key argument
We don't want to be the Angry Monkeys

Understanding the alternative

Proposed solution might be outside my box
I need to do the effort to figure out if it is a good solution
Prerequisite for that is that I understand and see the solution
Example from our previous debate: "one repo for a product" requirement
- If I haven't used pull requests up to their full potential, combining requests, issues, comments etc - how could I appreciate the argument?
- So now I understand that I need give up thing X I understand well, to get vague thing ? in return.
- No thanks. <- I've may have made a bad decision.

May our debates be glorious!