Making unbearably bad debates better

I have recently come to believe that a very common misconception makes our world a worse place: people treat being reasonable, being right and being good as the same.

Being reasonable

Being reasonable just refers to the method of rational decision-making. If you are using evidence to update your pre-existing probabilistic believes about the world and future events, you are acting reasonably. At least according to the Bayesian model of reasonable decision making. Of course there are more models of reasonable decision making under epistemic uncertainty than just the Bayesian one, but I think for the scope of this article, it captures the gist of it.
Karl Popper and David Deutsch extended this model of reasonableness to include “conjecture and explanations” as the main drivers of scientific progress.
You should update your believes, once you have been presented with a better explanation with equal predictive power. “An entire political, moral, economic and intellectual culture – roughly what is now called ‘the West’ – grew around the values entailed by the quest for good explanations, such as tolerance of dissent, openness to change, distrust of dogmatism and authority, and the aspiration to progress both by individuals and for the culture as a whole.” [DEUTSCH1, p23]
Being reasonable is about the method you are applying to get to your positions. It is less concerned with your positions themselves. It’s about the journey, not the destinations.
You cannot judge a person to be unreasonable, just because they have a position you don’t have or don’t like.

Being right

Being right refers to a state, where the prediction of a person is correct and the explanation for that prediction is coherent across all known evidence – even in remote fields of science. It’s achieved, when the mental model of reality and reality coincide.
Contrary to popular belief, it is something, we might not have access to, except for some rare instances and narrowly defined fields. Even in mathematics, we can proof that there are things we cannot show to be true, even though they are. Gödel’s incompleteness theorem proofs that ” […] any set of rules of inference that is capable of correctly validating even the proofs of ordinary arithmetic could never validate a proof of its own consistency [and] that if a set of rules of inference in some (sufficiently rich) branch of mathematics is consistent (whether provably so or not), then within that branch of mathematics there must exist valid methods of proof that those rules fail to designate as valid.“[DEUTSCH2]

There is no contradiction in being reasonable and being wrong. Let us look at the current debates about the effectiveness of masks gainst the transmission of COVID19.

From a risk management perspective, a reasonable person could easily come to the conclusion, that the “cost” of the mask (tens of cents, foggy glasses, less visible emotions in others, somewhat more difficult breathing), is easily outweighed by what is believed to be a good chance to prevent the infection with and spread of a virus that is rather deadly for certain groups of people. It would be reasonable to wear them, to potentially reduce risk of harm to the wearer and others, even though it could turn out to be useless.

The problem is, another reasonable person could also come to the opposite conclusion: it just depends on the subjective probabilities assigned to outcomes and the validity of proof. If a person deems the effect of masks on the protection of other people as negligible, the costs are not outweighed. Moreover, some people put a good chance on masks being the first attempt of a malicious state in training people to be obedient, adding to the subjective costs of mask wearing.
In case you are wondering: I assign a very, very low probability to the latter proposition and would rather have worn a mask in vain, than inadvertently spreading a deadly disease.

Ultimately, there is a truth on this question. Either masks act as a filter on the spread of the virus or they don’t. The problem is, as of now, there is evidence for and against the proposition. So much so, that the only unreasonable positions would be complete certainty on either end of the question. Except for these positions, there are a lot of reasonable positions that might eventually turn out to be right. And there are a lot of reasonable positions that might eventually turn out to be wrong.

We as people crave certainty. We can only rarely get it. A core principle of science is to acknowledge that. It is to be expected that our dominant theories can eventually turn out to be wrong. Being wrong about most things and being fooled by appearance is the human condition. We have to work diligently, methodically and in cooptition to just have a stab at overcoming our biases.

Being good

Being good is an entirely different question again and pertains to morality. As you know, facts don’t matter, when it comes to morality and I have spent quite some articles on the question of justice and how good version of it would look like according to me, to show you that both of this concepts are decisions, not facts.
So being good does not say much more than that an agent behaves in a way different than what an individual onlooker would like that agent to behave. There are legal sanctions against some forms of behavior and there is certainly ample ground to advocate for or against the legality of some actions. Additionally, there are some social sanctions against behavior that is legal, but disliked by many people.
Problems arise of course, if the split of people opposing and favoring a certain actions are not too much out of balance. In these situations, people are eager to assign moral rottenness to the person acting, even though the actor might be perfectly within her legal rights and thinks herself of acting morally impeccably.
Abortions, acting in porno movies, being a member of a (fringe) religion or joining a security force or political party are just some examples that can spark the charge of “being evil”. In almost all cases this charge is completely empty and just shows that somebody is not acting according to the whims of the accuser.

The great divide: different assumptions on “human nature”

So “being reasonable” refers to a process, “being right” to an almost always unknown and potentially inaccessible state of reality and “being good” just refers to the judgement of an onlooker on actions and positions.
They are not the same and each of us should work hard on making sure we keep the distinction clear. Or else we unjustly and quite unreasonably assign moral rottenness to participants of a discussion.

There are probably a lot of reasonable people that come to conclusion that you personally might disagree with on moral grounds. That doesn’t necessarily mean that person means harm to anybody. (Intentionally doing harm to a certain group is widely acknowledged as the hallmark of “evil”. Of course discussions about what “harm” really means can lead to disagreements between reasonable people)

You can respect reasonable people, even though you disagree with them. And if you ask them how they got to their positions, you might easily get to a fact or interpretation of a fact, where your views differ. You can talk about it. And maybe, both of you can learn something form the exchange.

I believe one of the most problematic difference in assumptions that is currently plaguing public discourse and so often leads to the charge of moral rottenness is the question of the “perfectability of man”. Steven Pinker distinguishes between the “Utopian” and the “Tragic” vision on humanity on this question.

The Tragic Vision of humanity

“In the Tragic Vision, humans are inherently limited in knowledge, wisdom, and virtue, and all social arrangements must acknowledge those limits. ‘Mortal things suit mortals best,’wrote Pindar; ‘from the crooked timber of humanity no truly straight thing can be made,’ wrote Kant. The Tragic Vision is associated with Hobbes, Burke, Smith, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, the jurist Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., the economists Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman, the philosophers Isaiah Berlin and Karl Popper, and the legal scholar Richard Posner.“[PINKER]
In the Tragic Vision, all our moral sentiments, no matter how beneficial or beautiful, are just an overlay to a deeper bedrock of selfishness. “ That selfishness is not the cruelty or aggression of the psychopath, but a concern for our well-being that is so much a part of our makeup that we seldom reflect on it and would waste our time lamenting it or trying to erase it.” [PINKER] Human nature is seen as rather constant and traditions such as religion, family, social and sexual customs or political institutions are seen as evolved, time-tested techniques that are implemented to overcome human shortcomings. They are seen as just as valid as they have been in the past.
Proponents freely admit that society is imperfect, but argue that “ […] we should measure it against the cruelty and deprivation of the actual past, not the harmony and affluence of an imagined future. We are fortunate enough to live in a society that more or less works, and our first priority should be not to screw it up, because human nature always leaves us teetering on the brink of barbarism.” [PINKER]
Proponents are also very skeptical of the capacity of individual human being to design and organize a society top-down and often believe that the unintended consequences of sweeping changes to society are worse than the problems they were supposed to fix.
Proponents of the Tragic Vision try to find “systems that produce desirable outcomes even when no member of the system is particularly wise or virtuous.“
A good example for this is the capitalistic market system. Adam Smith’s famous example of the butcher, that puts dinner on our table out of pure self-interest and without any concern for us, is still good to illustrate the point. In a market system, there is no mastermind to plan or coordinate the flow of goods and services and their relative prices.
Property rights are another example. They provide an incentive to work, which, according to the Tragic Vision, is needed, because people are not believed to work as hard or diligently without “something in it” for themselves.
The emergence of prices as the main indicator of the relative scarcity of goods and services and motivator for innovation is an illustration of the power a distributed system, formed by (maybe not so) intelligent producers and consumers. In this view, “[w]e are all members of the same flawed species. Putting our moral vision into practice means imposing our will on others. The human lust for power and esteem, coupled with its vulnerability to self-deception and self-righteousness, makes that an invitation to a calamity, all the worse when that power is directed at a goal as quixotic as eradicating human self-interest.” [PINKER]
People with the Tragic Vision believe the solutions to social problems to be elusive and that the inherent conflict of interests among peoples leaves society with few options, none of which is perfect.

The Utopian Vision of humanity

In the Utopian Vision, humans are malleable; ” [P]sychological limitations are artifacts that come from our social arrangements, and we should not allow them to restrict our gaze from what is possible in a better world. Its creed might be ‘Some people see things as they are and ask ‘why?’; I dream things that never were and ask ‘why not?’ ‘[…] The Utopian Vision is also associated with Rousseau, Godwin, Condorcet, Thomas Paine, the jurist Earl Warren, the economist John Kenneth Galbraith, and to a lesser extent the political philosopher Ronald Dworkin.”[PINKER] Human behavior is believed to change “[…] with social circumstances, so traditional institutions have no inherent value. That was then, this is now. Traditions are the dead hand of the past, the attempt to rule from the grave. They must be stated explicitly so their rationale can be scrutinized and their moral status evaluated. “[PINKER] Many traditions fail that Utopian test: the traditional role of women, the stigma against homosexuality (and by extension transphobia), rules about sexuality out of wedlock, religion, segregation and so on. Forms of social organization such as absolute monarchy and slavery, once viewed as inevitable and rooted in human nature, have been pushed to the brink of disappearance. The existence of suffering is seen as an undeniable moral imperative to shake the foundations of society in an attempt to eradicate these evils. Everything else is unconscionable.
In the Utopian Vision, social goals are articulated and policies are devised to target them directly: wage a war on poverty to get rid of economic inequality, ban pollution to get rid of it, implement preferences on the basis of gender or race to get rid of imbalances.
The problem and the solution to problems are not only thought to be clear, but readily available, “[…]all we have to do is choose to implement them, and that requires only sincerity and dedication. By the same logic, anyone opposing the solutions must be motivated by blindness, dishonesty, and callousness.” [PINKER]
People with the Utopian Vision are more skeptical of systems that can and do produce inequalities. They tend to judge “fairness” on the results, not the process.

Examples of the difference in practice

These different views on “the nature of humanity” can be seen as the root of many real conflicts. [PINKER] gives a great example of the effect of these views on the question of “[…] judicial restraint on one side and judicial activism in pursuit of social justice on the other. Earl Warren, the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court from 1954 to 1969, was the prototypical judicial activist, who led the court to implement desegregation and expand the rights of the accused. He was known for interrupting lawyers in mid-argument by asking, “Is it right? Is it good?” The opposing view was stated by Oliver Wendell Holmes, who said his job was “to see that the game is played according to the rules whether I like them or not.” He conceded that “to improve conditions of life and the race is the main thing,” and added, “But how the devil can I tell whether I am not pulling it down more in some other place?”” [PINKER]

The schism also has effects on the view of war. In the Utopian Vision, war is always an error. It is caused by misunderstandings, shortsightedness and irrationality. It has to be prevented by public statements of pacifism, more communication with potential enemies, fewer weapons and military alliances. It is better to make even huge concessions than to start a war. Adherents of the Tragic Vision see war as a rational strategy for people that expect to gain something for themselves or their nation. The expectations of the aggressor could turn out to be wrong, but they are- and that is the tragic point – not necessarily pathological or irrational. Their strategy is thus to make war costly for an aggressor. Development of weaponry, arousing patriotism, publicly honoring military exploits and avoiding blackmail by negotiating from a position of strength are seen as reasonable path to avert war.

Similarly, the question of crime divides the adherents of both sides. Utopians see crime as irrational and try to prevent it by eliminating the root causes. These causes are often believed to be social, like “[…] ignorance, discrimination, slums, poverty, disease, not enough jobs“, according to Lyndon Johnson.
The Tragic View sees crime as a rational behavior and would identify more mundane causes: people rob banks, because banks have money. These difference in analysis causes a difference in responses. In the Tragic view, unpleasant punishments raise the expected cost of crime.

Conclusion

Pinker believes that “[…] the new sciences of human nature really do vindicate some version of the Tragic Vision and undermine the Utopian outlook[…]”, when it comes to general claims about the workings of the human mind. [PINKER] gives a list of evidence for this position from the perspective of cognitive and social science:

• “The primacy of family ties in all human societies and the consequent appeal of nepotism and inheritance.“

• “The limited scope of communal sharing in human groups, the more common ethos of reciprocity, and the resulting phenomena of social loafing and the collapse of contributions to public goods when reciprocity cannot be implemented.”

• “The universality of dominance and violence across human societies (including supposedly peaceable hunter-gatherers) and the existence of genetic and neurological mechanisms that underlie it.“

• “The universality of ethnocentrism and other forms of group-against-group hostility across societies, and the ease with which such hostility can be aroused in people within our own society.“

• “The partial heritability of intelligence, conscientiousness, and antisocial tendencies, implying that some degree of inequality will arise even in perfectly fair economic systems, and that we therefore face an inherent tradeoff between equality and freedom.”

• “The prevalence of defense mechanisms, self-serving biases, and cognitive dissonance reduction, by which people deceive themselves about their autonomy, wisdom, and integrity.“

• “The biases of the human moral sense, including a preference for kin and friends, a susceptibility to a taboo mentality, and a tendency to confuse morality with conformity, rank, cleanliness, and beauty.“

A different line of evidence comes from the observed outcomes of the Utopian French, Russian, Cambodian and Chinese Revolutions, which did not have the outcomes a lot of sympathizers had hoped for.

Marxism is a hybrid of the two visions, which sees the past with the Tragic view, where people fought each other for personal gain, but where the future will be shaped by people that are motivated by self-actualization, rather than self-interest.
Marxism is now generally recognized as an experiment that failed (at least) in its implementation. Adopting nations have either collapsed, moved on or turned into backwater dictatorships. Leaders eager to change human nature often turned into despots and mass murderers. Real central planners turned out to be neither as disinterested and morally impeccable, nor as cognitively competent as needed for directing an entire economy.
“Wilson, the world’s expert on ants, may have had the last laugh in his verdict on Marxism: ‘Wonderful theory. Wrong species.‘ ” [PINKER]

Personally, I subscribe to neither vision completely. I think that human beings (of course myself included!) are biased and flawed and that we need to have systems that prevent us from acting like the horrible savages all of us can be. In that sense, I hold the Tragic Vision.
But I am rather sympathetic to the goals of the Utopian Vision, to the questioning of authority, to the demands for explanations for our institutions and a permanent drive to improve upon them.
I am with Pinker’s Tragic Vision in that “[t]he best we can hope for are incremental changes that are continuously adjusted according to feedback about the sum of their good and bad consequences.” [PINKER]
In Deutsch’s sense, optimism “is the theory that all failures – all evils – are due to insufficient knowledge. [DEUTSCH1, p221]
I am a pessimist about the malleability of human behavior, but I am optimistic in Deutsch’s sense, that we can build systems that can create better lives for so many people, by piecemeal improvements on the existing institutions. That gives us great power to change our situation in a way that we would like them to. The future can be almost unimaginably better than the now. We “just” need to find new knowledge to solve our problems.

But I wouldn’t think of anyone as unreasonable or evil to hold a different opinion. I would be very interested in the explanation for having that different opinion, though.

I think that REALism offers exactly that: giving people a bedrock of support, while keeping options open for people to contribute to – and profit from – society as much as they like – or can. Leaving no one behind, keeping no one back.

To sum it up, our debates would become way better, if we realized that good and reasonable people might disagree with you. This doesn’t mean you are irrational or bad.
You could be wrong, though. With a little bit of humility and just a little bit of interest in other positions, we all can contribute to better debates. And therefore to a better world – one way or another.

Sources:

[DEUTSCH1] Deutsch, David. The Beginning of Infinity (Penguin Press Science). Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle-Version.

[DEUTSCH2] Deutsch, David. The Fabric of Reality (Penguin Science) . Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle-Version.

[PINKER] Pinker, Steven. The Blank Slate (Penguin Press Science) . Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle-Version.