The Simple Reason for the Decline of Rational Argument

The author quoted this:

“… to disagree well you must first understand well. You have to read deeply, listen carefully, watch closely. You need to grant your adversary moral respect; give him the intellectual benefit of doubt; have sympathy for his motives and participate empathically with his line of reasoning. And you need to allow for the possibility that you might yet be persuaded of what he has to say.”

I certainly agree with this. The author of the piece also pointed out that students today aren’t tasked to read perspectives they disagree with, to engage opposing viewpoints. They don’t read. I don’t believe this is a new thing at all. I don’t remember having to think too critically during high school. There were a few bright spots:

• In 9th grade, we spent a few months discussing the Russian Revolution. We read Animal Farm. We learned a lot of history. Clearly, it was a history class, but I really don’t remember. I do remember writing an essay where, foolishly, I concluded by proclaiming that communism wouldn’t happen in the USA, because “there are too many good people who would stop it.” I still remember the teacher returning the essay, and asking me to think a little bit more deeply about that analysis. I;;ve never forgotten that. I still remember those few months we spent learning about the Russian Revolution. It was a good class.
• I took English literature and American literature as elective classes. They were taught by a crusty ex-Army guy, an insane Irishman with an MA in English literature. We read a lot. A lot. I got most of my literature reading in those two years; Chaucer, Beowulf, Shelley, Shakespeare - everything. We wrote an essay every week on what we read, according to whatever assignment the crazy Irishman gave. He’s the one who taught me how to write an essay.

It’s hard to look back now, and weigh the impact they had on me. Are kids really not getting this now? Am I a more well-rounded person, because of this experience? I’m not sure.

Was thinking about this a bit, and the flip side is that there are any number of people who’ve been all over the world and have read very widely, but yet can not see beyond the end of their nose. So I think we’ve got to ask why someone can not, or will not, consider ideas outside of their experience. Not that this is a soapbox of mine or anything—and of course it is—but I dare suggest that one of the big problems is that our country has, as a whole, allowed genetic fallacies (personal attacks, guilt by association, etc..) to substitute for arguments.

Hence if the data comes from a place we don’t like, we don’t heed it.

The distinction here is crucial; I’ve known a lot of people who have rarely been outside their home state who have a tremendous amount of curiousity about the world, and who can even be mistaken for people who’ve experienced things they never have. On the flip side, see above. Experience of the world is no substitute for being willing to consider ideas.

Two wise quotes from my father:

1. “Stop and think, son. Stop and think.”
2. “Be a critical thinker, without a critical spirit.”

We’re missing these qualities today.