People Have Forgotten How to Argue

When the COVID pandemic started I was optimistic. Not so much about the prospects of not getting sick myself or about the world reacting correctly, but, I thought, maybe, this crisis will make people realize the importance of science, scientific thinking, and scientific funding. I couldn’t have been more wrong…

Not only that hasn’t happened, but this pandemic may me realized the sad state of public discourse. I’m not talking about politicians, that I knew. I’m not talking about the press or “media” either that I, at least, suspected. I’m talking about people with a science background that should know better.

After countless discussions on Facebook, I decided to rid my life of these people. I don’t need them, they don’t need me. Examples of the problem goes as follows, but bear in mind that this article is not about COVID and that I don’t want to discuss COVID with you. It’s about how to argue.

Case 1: Someone posts a taxonomy of countries separating “Good COVID Response” to “Bad COVID Response”. When I point an error in the taxonomy their answer is: “Make that change, it won’t change the argument.” Without even acknowledging that an error (in a taxonomy) may indicate there may be other errors or that the whole taxonomy is wrong.

Case 2: Someone messages you with an alarming article about a number that has increased in some region… The numbers have been changing, but bear with me. The total number of cases is not a very meaningful number, doesn’t take into account the population. Even cases per million is not a good number, doesn’t take into account the number of tests or the state of your healt system. Percentage of positive tests is a particularly absurd number as you can manage strategies to get any number you would want. So, what would be a good number? Remember at the beginning of the pandemic we wanted to “flatten the curve”? The idea was to reduced the number of critical cases needing scarce resources like ICUs and ventilators. At that point I criticized that argument as misguided in the sense that the resources could change, but never mind that. The number of serious/critial/ICU cases per million would be a good measure of how a region is doing. I don’t have access to that number so I used deaths per million as a substitute (even if it is inadequate). Most common answer to this argumentation from the person sending the original article (which included numbers)? “Numbers can’t be trusted!”

Case 3: Someone starts spreading the straw person argument of asking “How can a disease with 1% mortality rate stop the economy?” I immediately get alarmed... Is someone predicting COVID will be have a 1% mortality rate (currently it’s about .12% in the worst place and 0.04 in the USA? I ask. Answer: “It is a dangerous disease! Take care!” When I insist (with data), they argue first as above that numbers can’t be trusted or that they can’t be compared between regions. When I point out that then there is nothing we can talk about (since their arguments started with a fake, made up number), they point out that there are a lot of cases in my region and that I should take care…

Note that nowhere in these arguments I’ve tried to diminished how grave the COVID pandemic is. If anything I would argue that a 0.01% mortality rate should be scary enough. Going up to 1% seems way too alarmist and run the risk of back firing if we don’t get near that number (which I hope we’ll never do). This is about how to argue.

I’m not saying that every argument used to be good. I’m saying that some arguments with some people used to go like this:

Bob: “There are a hundred birds there”

Alice: “I count only ten”

Bob either admits his counting mistake or argues that there are more birds hiding in the trees with supporting evidence.

Nowadays that same argument goes like this:

Bob: “There are a hundred birds there”

Alice: “I count only ten”

Bob: “There are five trees”

Alive: “I thought we were counting birds?…”

Bob: “There may be more birds in the trees!”

Alice: “Maybe, but ten times more? How would you know?”

Bob: “I’m sure Trump would (or would not) agree with me!” or “Numbers can’t be trusted anyway!”

Alice: “…”

And I’m just not saying that everything is politicized, I’m pointing out that the argument is absurd. You can’t get the trees in there without having an argument about the relation with the birds and you have to address what the other is arguing, not a different point about numbers or politics.

Note that the second argument is much longer than the previous one. We are not only wasting time, we are wasting more time!

It seems to me that people think arguing is defending your position no matter what and setting an a priori list of counterarguments for the attacks you have thought of, but not listening to a new argument. And then procceed to not listen to new arguments, but quickly assume they are arguing one of your listed arguments. The thing is that growth is in learning, and thinking about, the new arguments.

Many years ago my co-founder Fernando Aguerrevere taught me that you win an argument when you change your own opinion because of the arguments of the other person. If you convince the other person, you have done them a favor, which is nice, but you have not changed, you have not grown. This is perhaps the most valuable lesson I’ve gotten in all my years as a entrepreneur or as a mathematician.

I don’t expect all my arguments to produce growth in one or the other participant, but I do expect some of them to do that. Scientific arguments with scientific people in particular, but also arguments with the people close to you. Nothing gets you closer than learning from someone and nothing makes a relationship last longer that learning from each other. Growing together if in different ways. It wouldn’t be fun to be with someone that you always agree with, I think.

If you are starting to worry and you are a scientific inclined person, let me assure you that science will be fine, though it may not be fine around you. Science is too much of an advantage, both for society and personnaly, that it will always prevail. There is just no guarantee that that will happen where you are.

But what we are getting right now is people arguing above each other, to prove they are right and the other side is wrong, without any intention of learning and growing.

This. Is. Toxic. As. Fuck.

And you should get away from it.

• Learn to argue. Not only the retoric tricks and fallacy arguments, but how to argue with someone with the intend of learning.
• Learn to listen and abandon the idea that you know what the other person is going to say. Particularly if you are arguing with someone more intelligent than you.
• Assume everyone is more intelligent than you or, once they give ample proof to the contrary, assume at least they have something to say you don’t know. If that stops happening get away from them. You don’t need them.
• Get out of Twitter. Its business model is predicated in this type of empty arguments. Short responses and long threads with too many deviations. At the very least, do not engage. You can stay for the memes and the lulz if you enjoy that kind of thing.
• Unfriend people in other Social Media if they engage in this kind of aeguments frequently. In Facebook you can unfriend them, or unfollow, or, if you think that’s still too rad, at least hide them for 30 days. This has the unseen advantage of letting others into your top “Facebook 25”, that may help you with the last point.
• Find a tribe, even if imperfect. I know, I know, tribalism gets a bad rap, but that’s not where I’m pointing at. We were made to be “part of a family, not just a branch on a tree, but a forest whose roots make up a dinasty.” Just find some friends that you can have serious, growing, important arguments with. It doesn’t have to be with every friend, but find some.

I am lucky, because in both of my podcasts (Oh, Fork It! and Nomadas de la Acidez) people that agree with (some? most?) of what I’m saying here. I also have a few friends and family members that I can engage in a healthy way. So I don’t need to keep the empty argumenters around.

Most of the people I learn from are younger than me, most of the empty arguers are older… which have made me question if this is a problem that gets worse with age, perhaps the need for growth starts to dissipate?

None of that! “Rage, rage against the dying of the light!”