Ep. 393 Shutting Down Debate
Adam Haman returns again, this time to discuss the pros and cons of shutting down debate. The context is Darryl Cooper’s recent appearance on Joe Rogan.
Mentioned in the Episode and Other Links of Interest:
- The YouTube version of this conversation.
- Darryl Cooper’s March 2025 appearance on the Joe Rogan Experience.
- The HamanNature substack.
- Help support the Bob Murphy Show.
About the author, Robert
Christian and economist, Chief Economist at infineo, and Senior Fellow with the Mises Institute.
bob just cranking out the episodes
Heh it was due to the backlog…
I mostly agree with the spirit of addressing arguments rather than ridiculing or dismissing them.
But I think that approach assumes that the person you’re trying to convince is hearing you in good faith, and that they’re basing their opinion on the content of the argument. In reality, I think a lot of people are deciding what to believe based on social considerations rather than what is true. For example, the wokesters have been phenomenally successful at pushing patently absurd ideas by exploiting people’s desire to minimize conflict in their lives. So if believing x will make one relative happy, and the another a mortal enemy, while believing y will make one relative happy, and the other merely disappointed, they’ll believe y. Others are social climbers who will believe whatever is most likely to ingratiate them with powerful people. Others are interested in conforming with a social group. I’ve noticed this with what I’m calling the “Based Olympics,” where anti-woke types gradually begin competing over who can adopt the most shocking opinions to woke orthodoxy, regardless of whether they’re good and true things to believe.
Along these lines, ridiculing an argument can sometimes be about projecting strength, or sending a social signal that “those guys are the losers, you don’t want to be a loser do you??” I used to content myself by saying that I’m trying to convince open-minded witnesses to the argument rather than the person I’m actually arguing with, but when people are put in a permanently defensive posture by the hostility of the political climate, they simply won’t hear you. I wonder if that margin of people who are listening is still large enough to pull an ideological victory. If it isn’t, we need new rules of argumentation to exploit those social factors. Don’t get me wrong, I do think the truth is still an invaluable asset, and abandoning it to try and compete in the arena of mud-slinging is surely a losing battle, but we may need a smarter strategy than just delivering a sermon in the middle of the field, comforting ourselves that if we eat enough mud, any day now people will become inspired by our example.
Yep these are all good points Tyler and I probably would agree with you if we got more specific. I for sure don’t engage in arguments with people on Twitter if I don’t think they’re actually listening to me.