“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.’” – Issac Asimov.

If you have ever been in the midst of a conversation fiercely disputing a topic with a contemporary unwilling to budge on minor points (never mind the main issue), you may have fallen victim to the prevalent form of disputation best known as “debate.” The concept of debate, while great for sharpening one’s wits and increasing one’s mastery over language and argument within a specific context, is fundamentally flawed in its approach to truth-seeking. This is best exemplified by a look at the US Congress.

The plurality of Congress is dominated by those who practice state law as their main profession (37% of the Senate and 23.91% of the House). The remaining industries are poorly represented and sadly, we look to those individuals unfamiliar with science, economics, and world affairs to make decisions regarding these very items as if they knew more than they could possibly claim to know. Presently, we delegate our most important decisions to those who debate for a living – those who learn in secondary school how to win a verbal altercation regardless of the position one has arbitrarily been granted. As a result, we have been gifted with politicians insistent on the failed gold standard (documented by well-known economists such as Milton Friedman and Barry Eichengreen) and Congressmen confident of positive US relations with Pakistan, a country that has not only been caught harboring Osama bin Laden, but also known to have created the Taliban to colonize Afghanistan. Through too much trust in the government of our founding fathers, we give too much respect to the very lawmakers who bend the truth to fit their reasoning, rather than bend their reasoning to fit the truth.

The truth is not something that can be found through clever application of wordplay, but something that must be accepted on the basis of evidence. But even evidence is oftentimes insufficient for the conversion of oneself and others, and this list has been compiled to help change minds and move conversation.

1. We are all closed-minded with respect to something.

Just as we can’t imagine why some cultures eat insects or snakes or why teenage girls like Justin Bieber, most of us are open only within the confines of the world that we do understand. Just as we, as humans, cannot intuit dimensions beyond three, the fact that we do not understand or agree instinctively and immediately does not necessitate a position’s falsity (and it often doesn’t). Currently, we place understanding by the least informed of society as the standard by which we determine truth from non-truth, and truth should not be held hostage by the ignorant. Nobody knows everything, and just as we expect others to be, for some reason, ignorant of what we know is correct, we should never assume full knowledge of any particular subject.

2. The best form of persuasion is like fishing.

Anyone who was gone fishing should know that the reel is – with good reason – not a one-way device. Pulling too hard during the wrong moments breaks the string or the rod, but giving slack strategically helps one ultimately succeed in catching even the largest of fish. The wonderful feeling of crushing your opponents should be saved for the times you wish to humiliate your worst enemies in a public forum. Changing minds is not unlike seduction, while debate is closer to a contest to see who can assault whom first; people do not like being brutally attacked and will usually stubbornly cling to their beliefs if pushed too hard at once.

3. Your goal should not be to convince the other person of your position, but to learn his or her position and test it. You should be willing to give up your beliefs.

If both parties go in absolutely convinced that they are 100% correct in points of contention at the expense of the other’s view, it is inevitable that they talk over each other. However, if both go in conceding at least that the other could be correct, then the real problem is confirming whether or not the other argument is convincing. One should go into each argument fully willing to lose, but to also use his own body of evidence to set a high bar for the other person to jump over. This is a subtle change, but is not a petty one with a difference without a distinction.

4. Know in advance what type of evidence would force you to give up your position.

All arguments should be falsifiable. It is important to know and determine beforehand what would convince you that you are incorrect, and this bar should not be changed to accommodate your world view given new, opposing evidence. Evidence that refutes your own claims should not be used to further your own argument through misappropriation. It is fine to concede specific points, but one should in no way, to use a terrible borrowed phrase, move the goalposts, or the necessary conditions for defeat.

5. Minds rarely change in real-time.

Often, people view their opinions given by their parents, their professors, or experiences as inseparable from who they are as individuals. As a result, it is important to plant the seeds of doubt rather than bulldoze over their sense of identity and cause potential fall-outs. Minds are changed in the privacy of people’s homes, not during debate, and the expectation that people capitulate in front of their attackers is an unrealistic one.

6. Nobody likes a devil’s advocate.

While it is ideal to be intellectually curious and to test the limits of what one believes at the margins, nobody likes a person who wastes time. Originally, advocatus diaboli was officially known as promotor fidei, or the Promoter of Faith, within the Roman Catholic Church before the “Devil’s advocate” became a popular phrase, and the position was used to cause proponents of beatification to strengthen their arguments that certain candidates were worthy of sainthood. One should not be a contrarian simply for the sake of being different or deliberately obtuse, but for exploring the depth of one’s knowledge and opinions.

Trending Articles: