How to Argue
On the weekend, I read a very good article which asked the question, “Just how charitable are you supposed to be when criticizing the views of an opponent?” It had an immediate impact on me as I often struggle to not disparage those who are innocently uninformed, ignore or try to pervert economic science. Embarrassing or insulting someone is not likely to motivate them to see, understand and to become convinced of the insights gained from the economic way of thinking.
Maria Popova, the author of the article, suggested that American philosopher Daniel Dennett had identified the best antidote for the tendency to lampoon one’s opponent. According Dennett the remedy is contained in a list of rules formulated by mathematical psychologist Anatol Rapoport, best-known for devising the famous tit-for-tat strategy of game theory in the 1960s. Dennett synthesized Papoport’s method in four steps:
- You should attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way.”
- You should list any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).
- You should mention anything you have learned from your target.
- Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.
I can improve my ability tremendously as a social scientist by following this code of conduct. In fact, its applicability transcends my professional life and extends to all aspects of my everyday interpersonal interactions. Rather than being viewed as intransigent, impertinent and prejudiced I prefer that others, especially those with whom I disagree, regard me as understanding, respectful and rational.
