The rules of private conversation and the rules of public discussion are different

Europeana en Unsplash

Laurie Miller Hornik writes

... increasingly—likely due to the influence of social media, video games, and other online distractions—many of us unwittingly fall into the trap of reading to have our predetermined opinions affirmed. We read arguments that we immediately believe or already agree with, and stamp our approval with virtual likes. We repost and share and forward—and rinse and repeat.  At the other extreme, algorithms routinely churn out pieces for us to read that it probably knows will enrage and trigger us based on past patterns. Predictably, we immediately doubt out of hand, and rant in the comments. Often, we don’t even finish reading the article before offering searing insights as to why it’s clearly wrong. 

And, without any empirical proof, Miller Hornik herself "jumps" to the conclusion:

Neither of these reading experiences truly engage our curiosity, empathy, or critical thinking skills. Neither is likely to lead to our learning much about the world or about other people’s perspectives. 

How does she know? My intuition is just the opposite. Every time we read an article that (persuasively) confirms our prejudices, we add something, very little to be sure, to our mental 'model' on that issue. Every time we read something that (with intelligence) infuriates us, our mental 'model' on that issue is honed. If one is not a halter incapable of modifying one's models (which makes you one who will hardly survive in a changing environment), this mental attitude is the one that will most effectively contribute to improving our 'models'.

Miller Hornik gives the example of the statement "Everyone should be a vegetarian." And she asks her students that, even if they are against all of us becoming vegetarians, they should try to present the best possible arguments in favor of such a statement. And then she asks them to put themselves in "doubt" mode and present the best possible arguments against such a claim.

Again, it seems to me that these intellectuals - Elbow is the 'inventor' of this method of learning - are wrong. It is much more effective to raise the debate as it is raised in general and in law schools in particular. One side has to find the best arguments in favor of vegetarianism and another the best against. After the public discussion, everyone will be better off because they will have heard the best arguments for and against and will have achieved it more 'efficiently' because of the gains of 'specialization' and 'division of labor'. When the discussion is presented as a competition, the incentives to find the best arguments are sharpened if, in the opinion of the 'audience', doing so will allow one party to the discussion to be the winner.

The feminization of education (It's just a guess) has led to the belief that the Elbow method is better than competitive debate. And I don't think that's the case. The market is always preferable because it requires less of each of us in the cooperative game of finding the truth.

Miller Hornik confuses, in my opinion, two spheres that are governed by different rules: private dialogue (or conversation) and public discussion.

In private conversations, we must try to understand each other and concede to the other that he acts in good faith; try to understand their arguments and examine them in bonam partem. But not because that brings us closer to the truth more quickly, but because if we do not act in this way, the dialogue will simply end. Private conversation is an act of cooperation that either party can terminate unilaterally and ad nutum, i.e., without giving any explanation. It is a personal relationship in which two subjects are emotionally involved that can only 'continue' if there is emotional connexion, i.e., if both are comfortable.

On the other hand, in public discussion (or deliberation), the rules are different. The discussion, if it is not engaged as a bilateral polemic between specific individuals, is not 'personal'. The emotions that keep us linked and strengthen the bonds between two specific human beings do not come into play (as you do not need to be kind with an AI bot). It is not that, after the discussion, the two who dialogue love and respect each other more and wish to intensify their relations. There are no human beings involved. In public discussion we establish market relations. And in the market, everything is allowed except deception and violence (Adam Smith). Because in the marketplace of ideas the objective is (i) to maximize social well-being by finding, together, the best solutions to social problems and (ii) to get closer to the truth about Nature and Society.

But time and again, professional and amateur intellectuals insist on applying the rules of private dialogue to public discussion. And so we come close neither to the general welfare nor to the truth. Because the audience that attends that public discussion needs powerful and clear signals of the positions under discussion. It needs the simplification, even rude, of issues in order to be able to participate in public decisions. The good thing about the market is that it does not force anyone to take part. If you find the comments section of your newspaper scathing, don't read them. If you think someone is posting biased, insincere, or harmful opinions, don't read them. Read poetry and fiction books instead. And have private conversations with whoever you like, so that you can easily empathize and sympathize with them and the conversation will flow and generate positive emotions in both of you. But in this way, we will all be happier, perhaps. But we will not be a prosperous or scientifically and technologically advanced society.