I’ve seen a lot of internet drama lately (not just ElevatorGate, there are other things too you know!) and I have a speculation about why misunderstanding/hostility erupts so often. It has to do with people having different ideas about what level the argument is at. I’ve drawn a diagram of the three areas you would usually place your opponent*:
- The first level is when you argue with someone in your ingroup. Such a person is entitled to both arguments and civility. You’re not likely to be too snarky when you’re debating an issue with friends or people you place in your ingroup.
- The next level is with someone in your outgroup. Here, the opponent is entitled to arguments and explanations but not (necessarily) civility. Snark, sarcasm and insults are allowed and often happen.
- But there’s one more level and that’s the beyond-the-pale group. This is someone whose opinion you consider so far out that you don’t believe they’re even entitled to an argument. You would probably just dismiss them out of hand or ridicule/insult them.
Note the actual details of the argument don’t dictate which level the argument will be on. A creationism/evolution argument can have the participants treat it as an ingroup argument or an outgroup argument or a beyond-the-pale. Of course, certain situations are more likely to fall in one category. If a creationist starts arguing at an evolutionary biology conference, the most likely category of disagreement the others will place him will be the third one.
Now, you might think I’m complaining about how tribal people are. “Isn’t it terrible that there are people who are considered by others to not even be worth an argument!” It’s actually the opposite. I think the above situation is inevitable and not necessarily a problem — it’s only when people deny it or rail against it or try to cover it up that it becomes a problem.
I don’t think this scale is likely to change, nor should it. Everyone has ideas they consider beyond-the-pale, as they should. To me some examples would be: Holocaust denial, the idea that Ayn Rand is god, the idea of “OMG, can’t men ask women out anywhere that’s ok with the feminazis?”**. Of course, the boundaries are different for each person. That’s why I only included only one that would be on most people’s beyond-the-pale list, to highlight variability.
The hostility usually comes when there’s a mismatch between levels. If A and B both consider each other to be in the outgroup then it’s fine: a debate will ensue which may escalate, be resolved or more likely reach a stalemate. But let’s say A considers B’s opinion beyond-the-pale but B thinks wants the debate. That’s when trouble starts. It would be much easier if people made their categorisation a bit more clear upfront. And it’s also often disingenuous for B to complain about being placed beyond-the-pale by A (and cry censorship or intimidation) when B almost certainly has the same categories just in a different shape.
Of course if your shape is such that almost everyone is beyond-the-pale you write yourself out of rational discourse. The same is true if you engage every opinion with the civility and argument from the ingroup. But someone can still have a balanced spread of categories and place something beyond-the-pale even if you don’t.
*This can apply to a whole person or to a person with respect to the specific topic you are discussing. Or something in between, there’s probably a continuum.
**Cue someone interpreting this as me saying “Objectivists are Nazis” or saying “those who dare to stand up against the feminist gynocracy are Nazis” in 3..2..1.
7 comments ↓
I love colourful visual aids, haven’t found any good editing/drawing tools for diagrams do have any suggestions?
Thanks, off-topic a little though.
No worries — I usually just use Powerpoint but since I no longer have a copy I used Paint.NET.
I wish I was cluey enough to write a blog like yours at your age!
Nice pic. One trick may be to imagine you have a loved one in the out side groups — maybe you will be nicer then.
BTW – for images, I use Omnigraffle.
Maybe that illustrates an interesting difference between our perspectives — because I’d ask you to imagine the same thing but if say a family member was a member of the outgroup that you’d consider very extreme (eg. a neo-Nazi). In that case I think that even if you don’t shun this person I think you’d still be less likely to bother offering any counterarguments?
@ Michael
Perhaps I am misunderstanding you.
Are you saying:
(a) Descriptive: It is natural to tx in-group folks the same as out-group folks when arguing?
(b) Prescriptive: It is not only natural but this is how it *should* be done.
I must say, I tend (at times) to be a bit more pragmatic than prescriptive/normative. That is, I don’t think about what is ‘deserved’ or ‘appropriate’, but what will get me my desired ends. So sometimes I may be civil to the outgroups or even harsh and argumentative with my ingroup.
So, I wouldn’t say how we *should* treat outsiders until we decide what we want and explore the effectiveness of tactics.
But I would imagine you would agree. So perhaps I am misunderstanding you. You are probably thinking specifically about the ElevatorGate thing which I have not followed much. But I am thinking about your statements generally and now realize I am not clear on what you are trying to prescribe — if you are even prescribing at all.
Thanks for clarifying
PS – what did you mean by “that illustrates an interesting differences between our perspectives”?
Hi Sabio
I’m not thinking of ElevatorGate — it was only the catalyst that made me realise this pattern happens in all kinds of debate. To an extent I believe in this model both descriptively AND perscriptively, maybe because in this case the two are tied so closely together. I think these categories are [descriptively] so ingrained that to speak of [prescriptively] overcoming them requires us to invoke huge changes to human psychology. Which is a fine perspective, just not the one I was taking.
In terms of pragmatics and tactics, yes there may certainly be reasons to be more (or less) generous than the above graphic illustrates. What I mean is we should be a bit more forthright in how we actually do use these categories when we do (which is most of the time). As opposed to supporting an idea like “civil debate is always important” which I think is a fiction.
I’m interested in what you mean by “civil to the outgroups or even harsh and argumentative with my ingroup” — is this a permanent ingroup/outgroup or one that’s specific to a single issue? As I mentioned, I think the idea of permanent groups is not general enough — sometimes we might be speaking to someone who we agree with most of the time but whose view on just 1 topic is so far out (to us) that we place them in the outgroup, but only for this topic. Hope that made some sense.
Being kind to an enemy sometimes works.
Tough love with those close sometimes is the best thing.
Just as simple as that. I am not being philosophical.
Leave a Comment