PDA

View Full Version : Rules of Intellectual Etiquette



Capitalist
12-06-2004, 06:21 PM
This is from Wendy McElroy, and I think it is germane to discussions today. Excerpted from 'The Reasonable Woman: A Guide to Intellectual Survival'

A lot of people cause themselves headaches and grief by getting into conversations that, upon reflection, they know should have been avoided. They get into arguments they cannot win and in which nothing can be accomplished. They go away with pounding temples or an upset stomach, and a lurking sense of unease. There are all sorts of ways that people do harm to themselves, because they go away with a bad self-image as being intellectually inept.

In preparing to argue -- and, perhaps, as an argument commences -- the most important question you can ask yourself is 'what do I want out of this exchange?' Stop for a second and ask yourself what you expect to accomplish from this discussion. Instead of taking a 'what the hell' attitude and plunging thoughtlessly in, clarify to yourself why you are there, why you are talking to this particular person.

Everyone Has the Right to Be Uninterested
When you are trapped in an unpleasant or boring conversation, you are well within your rights to state, "I don't care to talk about this (or to you) further." Make the statement without hostility, as a matter of fact, then simply walk away.

No one has an unconditional claim on your time or on your attention. And the assumption that you should care about every issue and event in the world at all times is a ridiculous one. It leads to the intellectual equivalent of what the media has termed "compassion fatigue" -- the emotional state of being overwhelmed and short-circuited by the demand that you care about every injustice committed on the planet. Don't allow yourself to be intellectually overwhelmed by the unrealistic demand that you find everything and everyone interesting.

Everyone Has the Right Not to Understand

Most of us spend a lot of time trying to avoid uttering the sentence, "I don't understand what you are saying." Too often, people see this statement as an admission of ignorance or inadequacy on their own part rather than considering the likelihood that the other person is either not explaining things well or holds a position that makes no sense.

Even if the intellectual ball is being dropped on your side of the discussion, what of it? No one understands everything, and it is folly to pretend you do. There is a vast difference between being confused about a line of argument and being stupid. The fear of appearing stupid frequently underlies our reluctance to admit that we simply do not understand what is being said.

Do not apologize. Just ask whoever is peaking to repeat or to rephrase what has been said. Ask them to clarify what they mean. Most people are more than happy to expound at length in front of an attentive audience.

Everyone Has the Right to Be Uninformed

This point of intellectual etiquette is closely related to, but distinct from, the preceding one. Rather than feeling unable to understand what is being said -- either because the terminology is technical or the arguments are tangled -- you are confronted with an issue you know nothing about.

Again, what of it? No one can know everything. In fact, in a world exploding with information, there are certain to be vast areas of human knowledge about which you are absolutely ignorant. There will always be books you have not read and events you have not heard about. The worst thing you can do is to become embarrassed and fake knowledge you do not possess. Instead, exercise the intellectual right to say, "I am not familiar with that. Why don't you explain it to me?"

Everyone Has the Right to Make a Mistake

This is far more than a right. It is an inevitability. You will commit errors, and frequently. If this upsets you, then curse human nature. As a human being, you are a fallible creature without the godlike automatic knowledge of what is true and false, right and wrong. Yet many people will argue themselves (and everyone else) into the ground or into a

zyreon
12-06-2004, 07:22 PM
Nice

Intellectual development can only be the greatest meaning created by civilisation.

Incidentally; I will reproduce a list of rules I found in a book [How to Think: Building your mental muscle -Stephen Reid], thinking them to be rather applicable in discouraging unuseful conceit.
1. You shall not presume that you are anyone.
2. You shall not presume that your are as good as us.
3. You shall not venture to think that you are any wiser than we are.
4. You shall never indulge in the conceit of imagining that you are better than us.
5. You shall not presume that you are more knowledgeable than we are.
6. You shall not venture to think that you are more than we are.
7. You shall not presume that you are going to amount to anything.
8. You are not entitled to laugh at us.
9. Never imagine that anyone cares about you.
10. Do not suppose that you can teach us anything.

I thought it to have utility in diminishing arrogance; with the following quasi-syllogism in mind: Arrogance is conducive to complacency.
Humility (i.e. inferiority complex)often leads to a desire to improve.
Therefore Humilty is the more useful mindset as, should the aforementioned be true, it will lead to enchanced motivation and self improvement.
Hopefully that isn't too specious a comment, as I may hope to utilise the theory.

anyway exams start next week so I am going to go do some more cramming!

Capitalist
12-06-2004, 07:36 PM
Well I have to disagree about humility, if you mean the quality or condition of being meek and submissive. Since virtues are guides to actions, humility as a virtue asks that one act pathetic and lowly, IMNSHO :D.

Good luck with your exams Zyreon and congrats on what you have achieved with your website.

zyreon
12-06-2004, 08:36 PM
Thanks re: exam luck

perhaps I should have added a slight but important caveat to that theory, that confidence is not only useful but vital. Meekness and obsequiousness would probably actually produce apathy, a fate worse than complacency. The concept of inferiority that I am attempting to highlight is a sense of not yet possessing high levels of knowledge/wisdom etc in order that one may attempt to over compensate for the illusion of desperation that this would create.

summoned in part from the quote:
"In success people tend to party, in failure people tend to ponder"

And from the state of mind where the person overwhelmed; places their fist forcefully down on the table and tingling with frenzied inspiration they shout, no more! It's time to act.

And aspex, yes that is perhaps more the slant I am aiming for, I suppose I could say that I am merely trying to paraphrase in a way the wisdom of eastern philosophy-religions such as budhism... (but I still bear the chains of gold so i'd best not claim too strongly towards such a philosophy ^_^)

*sigh* now on to the addmitedly neglected area of standard deviations and coefficients of variation [|)][xx(][|)]

Gryffyn
12-06-2004, 10:45 PM
Cap - nice post to ponder. Technically though rules and etiquette are not the same thing really but I like the sentiments expressed - I think I try and abide by them most of the time.

Gryffyn
12-06-2004, 10:47 PM
Zyreon - succinct.

Capitalist
13-06-2004, 03:58 PM
quote:Originally posted by Gryffyn

Cap - nice post to ponder. Technically though rules and etiquette are not the same thing really but I like the sentiments expressed - I think I try and abide by them most of the time.


Now don't be a pedant Gryffyn :D. I think you abide by the 'rules' too. I try to but often fail as some things are acutely personal to me.

I'm often laughing as I write stuff, but with some people you just imagine the bile in them as they put their prejudices forward in such a disgusting manner.

Gryffyn
13-06-2004, 07:48 PM
Cap - the problem is often in the medium. Print (or comp text) stares one in the face reinforcing all the negativeness that the reader may perceive when reading it. Sometimes I react to the tone of a post more than the message. There's many posters here who I disagree with but seem to at least have a considered view point and a few I agree with that anoy me with their style.

I think a few of the 'debates' on this site wouldn't reach the levels of vitriol that they have if people were sitting around a table with a vino / beer in hand - perhaps a bit more agreeing to disagree.

Can't say I agree with all your posts about Israel but I see where you are coming from. All I'd like to say is that having travelled alot in the Mid East that a lot of Palastinians wish Arafat was gone and I wish you wouldn't tar all Arabs with the same brush. Egypt has been very enlightened in recent years.

It's sad but we seem further from some sort of peaceful settlement now than the Oslo accord and fault lies on both sides for that :-(

I think I'll keep my posts to shares, and NZ sport this week and try and do more study. I will try and let a few threads 'wither' as you put it.

marcer
13-06-2004, 10:06 PM
CAP, there's nothing unreasonable about the suggested guidelines for constructive debate listed above.

I would personally add to the final one that one needs to provide some reasonably irrefutable proof to substantiate their opinion.

Also to the first one re:uncomfy conversations: one would need to decide this early on in the conversation and leave, not if they suddenly decided their reasoning was actually wrong and didn't have the guts to # 4.

PS: That is not aimed at your decision to disengage from debate about Reagan with me.
That is not my intention at all.

It just seems to that it would be an easy way avoid admitting a mistake by dismissing your conversee as uninteresting.

Goodnight all
Marcer

stormrose
14-06-2004, 08:54 AM
There is a fine line between humility and self-deprecation.