Pat Gunn (dachte) wrote,
Pat Gunn

Camofalanged as Science

Brief meditations on a common, usually-misleading tactic in discourse;

Predicting a response from a particular (type of?) opponent and mentioning it before that response, often using the opportunity to characterise it.

Why does this "work", in that why do people feel it is a successful move?

  • Offering a (possibly) false explanation - It allows one to either be the first to frame a line of argument as one likes, or it allows one to offer a false explanation of the reasoning behind the objection, perhaps pressing buttons (stressing their membership in some widely-disliked groups) along the way.
  • Conversaitonal flow dynamic - Arguments often are not entirely about their content; there's a give-and-take to issues that happens on an emotional level, and this disrupts that
Less bad related tack: identifying possible objections to what one's saying and addressing them, either accepting that they have some weight but pointing out that that weight is limited, or showing their invalidity.

  • Typing in Colours

    (Cross-posted to G+, but it's more of a definitive statement of views so it goes here too) A recent instance of 「Wasted Talent」: here I'm not…

  • Loyalty

    This is meant to address three ideas: Don't blame the victim If you care for me, you'd support me unconditionally Safe zonesAnd to be a topic in…

  • What Do We Owe Each Other?

    One of the central questions in political philosophy, or perhaps one of the most intuitive initial framings, is "what do we owe each other?". I…

  • Post a new comment


    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded