Types of Disagreements
I tend to argue a lot with people on LJ and lately I've been stepping back and thinking about what kind of disagreements are productive to argue about and what kinds are less productive.
First, there are personal opinions. "Chocolate is delicious." "Getting the flu feels like getting kicked in the head by a Swede." "I love the smell of Napalm in the morning." Statements rooted in personally subjective perception. Maybe I love the grand canyon but you think it's boring and want to get back in the car after five minutes. I love cilantro but I can't prove you don't think it tastes like soap. There's no way to "win" these arguments and no common ground on which to win it; if someone doesn't enjoy chocolate or birthday parties or they enjoy getting their testicles kicked that's not my experience but there's not a lot you can say.
Then there are objective facts. "The earth is 4.8 billion years old." "The CDC's annual vaccine will give you 60-80% protection against influenza." "Barack Obama bought a house from a corrupt felon." "Fried chicken has lots of trans fats." "Two guys have a bigfoot corpse in their freezer." Factual statements. These arguments are "winnable" because they share the common ground of objective reality. We can discuss the certainty of these statements and find evidence to increase or decrease their certainty. As long as both people are good faith actors with compatible standards of evidence you can eventually sort out what's what.
And then there are value judgements which frequently take the shape of political statements. Raising children without belief in God will make them behave badly and society suffer. You shouldn't force children to get polio vaccinations before attending school. The only acceptable role of government is enforcing contracts. We shouldn't allow secret Muslims to be president. You shouldn't eat fried chicken because it is too unhealthy. Value judgements are complicated because they're composite arguments. There's an implied objective component. "If you do X you will suffer Y and Z consequences." And there's a personal and subjective component. "Getting X is not worth suffering Y and Z."
It seems most productive to distill these arguments down into both parts, hash out the objective disagreements and "agree to disagree" on the subjective ones. Reasonable people can agree on the factual premises but disagree on the subjective conclusions. And that's kinda where I've drawn the line lately. I won't get bent out of shape if we disagree about opinions or value judgments as long as we can at least agree on the basic facts.
First, there are personal opinions. "Chocolate is delicious." "Getting the flu feels like getting kicked in the head by a Swede." "I love the smell of Napalm in the morning." Statements rooted in personally subjective perception. Maybe I love the grand canyon but you think it's boring and want to get back in the car after five minutes. I love cilantro but I can't prove you don't think it tastes like soap. There's no way to "win" these arguments and no common ground on which to win it; if someone doesn't enjoy chocolate or birthday parties or they enjoy getting their testicles kicked that's not my experience but there's not a lot you can say.
Then there are objective facts. "The earth is 4.8 billion years old." "The CDC's annual vaccine will give you 60-80% protection against influenza." "Barack Obama bought a house from a corrupt felon." "Fried chicken has lots of trans fats." "Two guys have a bigfoot corpse in their freezer." Factual statements. These arguments are "winnable" because they share the common ground of objective reality. We can discuss the certainty of these statements and find evidence to increase or decrease their certainty. As long as both people are good faith actors with compatible standards of evidence you can eventually sort out what's what.
And then there are value judgements which frequently take the shape of political statements. Raising children without belief in God will make them behave badly and society suffer. You shouldn't force children to get polio vaccinations before attending school. The only acceptable role of government is enforcing contracts. We shouldn't allow secret Muslims to be president. You shouldn't eat fried chicken because it is too unhealthy. Value judgements are complicated because they're composite arguments. There's an implied objective component. "If you do X you will suffer Y and Z consequences." And there's a personal and subjective component. "Getting X is not worth suffering Y and Z."
It seems most productive to distill these arguments down into both parts, hash out the objective disagreements and "agree to disagree" on the subjective ones. Reasonable people can agree on the factual premises but disagree on the subjective conclusions. And that's kinda where I've drawn the line lately. I won't get bent out of shape if we disagree about opinions or value judgments as long as we can at least agree on the basic facts.