Also, it’s tough to remain dispassionate when you’re pissed because it affects you personally. I don’t think it wrong to be passionate. I just don’t find it personally persuasive.

But I think (a guess) you also mean that dominant folks use it with proportionately more frequency. I don’t know if I agree with that, though I don’t have enough evidence to really mount a disagreement.

However, what “universe” are you discussing? In the blogosphere, my own experience suggests that pretty much everyone uses that tactic to disagree with everyone else. I’ve seen MRAs use it against feminists and vice versa.

Because obviously, there are situations in which subjectivity is 100% important. If I’m trying to institute a policy to “make kids happier” then only their experience is relevant; it doesn’t matter worth a hoot what I want, or what would make me happy. Those things are pretty rare, though, in policy discussions.

this rule seems only to be applied when it means that straight white cissexual, etc. men get to be the experts, and the voices of those who are defined as “other” can be silenced or ignored. (bolding added by me)

I never intended to allege that there was never bad treatment for anyone. I’m discussing the “only” part.

Anyway, I think that the different treatment can still be described generally. Those who are directly affected by something tend to vote for “subjective = good.” As an example, women tend to believe that being female should give them superior control of the abortion debate.

Those who are not directly affected tend to think that subjectivity is either bad (which makes no sense to me at all) or, more commonly, not dispositive either way (my view.) This is based on the belief that there IS some “objective truth” or “objectively ideal situation” and that finding such is beneficial.

As for selective perception, I think a lot of people misread the statement “subjectivity is irrelevant” to be “subjectivity is bad.”

Also, I did a bad job explaining another factor. There are occasions where multiple group characteristics overlap, and there’s a tendency for us to misconstrue decisions based on Set A as actually being based on Set B.

So it’s possible, say, to believe that people with Ph.Ds in economics are the ones best able to make decisions regarding welfare laws. Although I suspect white males are overrepresented in that category, this hypothetical belief doesn’t stem from their privilege, but their training. However, other people may selectively perceive that this belief is “anti-Other” instead of “pro-training.”

As someone pointed out in a thread on Feministe, if you support that people who are personally involved are the wrong people to be making decisions about what affects them (and I realize you used the word “may”), then would you concede that the best people to make decisions about American politics are non-Americans?

It’s not that being personally involved biases your perception; it’s that only experiencing the costs or only experiencing the benefits of a particular trade-off biases your perception.

And the vastly different treatment between women who discuss their own abortions, and men who discuss their wives’ abortions stems from…?

Mandolin Writes:
May 21st, 2007 at 7:22 am

“The person who feels the most passionately about a subject may very well NOT be the person who can best promote the subject in a debate. ”

This is an interesting argument, and certainly plays into the American concept of objectivity.

However, why is it any more dubious for:

a woman, who has experience of sexual abuse, to describe what she feels should be done about it

than for

a man, who has experience of law, to describe the law

I’m assuming you meant to make that second sentence equivalent (since you’re comparing), iow “a man, who has experience of law, to describe [what he feels should be done about it]”

With the rewrite, there’s little difference.

But that doesn’t explain anything about subjectivity. I haven’t seen anyone question that people can have opinions on things. The issue is whether someone who is extremely subjectively affected can have an opinion that adequately takes into consideratio the experiences of others who are unlike them. That’s what the subjective/objective complaints are about.

As someone pointed out in a thread on Feministe, if you support that people who are personally involved are the wrong people to be making decisions about what affects them (and I realize you used the word “may”),

This isn’t usually how it’s presented. More commonly, the phrase is that only people who are personally involved should be entitled to make decisions about what affects them. See, e.g., the reasonably common statements which boil down to “only women can really define rape;” “only POC can really define racism” “only women can really define sexism,” etc.

People who (like me) disagree with those assessments note that subjective experience is neither a guarantee for or against accuracy. It can either tend to make you less accurate (fox-guarding-the-henhouse bias) or more accurate (by intimate knowledge of the subject at hand.) But it’s not an obvious “gimme” for either side; both extremes are wrong.

then would you concede that the best people to make decisions about American politics are non-Americans?

Sort of, though that statement is a bit vague. Certainly, non-Americas are likely to do a better (non-self-interested) job of assessing certain policies. Though of course they have their own interests to deal with.

It’s pretty undisputed, for example, that we’re shredding the earth’s fisheries. And it’s also pretty undisputed that the countries whose economies or national predilections are vastly in favor of fishing, are atrociously self-interested and are botching the “management” of it all.

Someone on that same thread observed that this rule seems only to be applied when it means that straight white cissexual, etc. men get to be the experts, and the voices of those who are defined as “other” can be silenced or ignored.

Selective perception, I think. Probably because most of what gets to be discussed on blogs of this type are things that are subjectively important to those often classified as “others.”

However, let me acknowledge a counter-example: the Great American Think-Off. While styled as a competition of thinking, the application form specifically asks people to speak from personal experience and observation, and finalists generally (always?) articulate a personal connection to the issue being debated. Why?

Maybe the people who make the debate rules believe that only people with personal experience can speak knowledgeably, articulately and logically. Or maybe the rules reflect the idea that debate is a form of theater, and judges are less interested in which person is learned, articulate and logical than in which person can provide the greatest drama. Dunno for sure, but I have my suspicions.

I think an analogy is useful here. Imagine an expensive car on one side of a football field. On the other side is a group of people. Whoever gets to the car first will win the car, and gets to drive off with it.

Will it be the best driver of the group that gets the car? No. The one who gets the car will be the best runner.

In a debate setting, and this applies in the case of setting public policy as well, no other qualities matter in order to determine who wins except for which side is best at debating. This has nothing to do with personal experience of the issue being debated or decided upon, and everything on playing the field and winning over the audience by whatever means are deemed acceptable.

The question then becomes: Who sets the rules of the debating game? Who decides that the person that runs the fastest gets the car? If it is the case that the game is biased towards some participants, what should the others do? I think this is partly what the XKCD comic is getting at; the teacher feels that her honestly held convictions are being played with, so she begins to ask herself “how do I win the debate game?” and “how exactly is it played?”.

There are several strategies that can be used to affect the rules of a game that is biased against oneself and one’s group. One is to reject outright any participation in such a game, thus keeping oneself “morally pure” and above reproach. However, in the eyes of those still playing this is equivalent to conceding defeat. Whether or not one cares about this depends largely on the stakes of the game.

Another tactic is to attempt to introduce new rules in order to rectify the bias. The problem in this is that the new rules may not become universally accepted, thus fracturing the game into a number of smaller, local games, each with its own set of rules. As long as these separate games don’t come into contact with each other, this is fine, but if they do intersect, confusion and frustration is frequently the result. Online debate is but one example of this.

A third option is to engage in the game by the rules set by the opposition and use their tactics to win. This is a strategy that can bring quick results, but is liable to backfire since it makes the player vulnerable to accusations of being a sellout or having surrendered to the opponents.

There are instances where these strategies work, and other instances when they don’t. But the main point I’d like to get across is that experience, and passion, does not automatically win an argument or decide policy. Rationalizaton does have a place in debate as well, and even if it is a tactic one may personally reject, remains a tactic widely used, so ones position in a debate benefits from understanding it.

As a model to describe how thing happen it’s fine. But I do think that arguing for a position you don’t really want in hopes of getting a good compromise is deceptive. In other words if you argue that “Abortion is a moral good” when you really want “safe legal and rare” you’re being dishonest.

Still new to the Overton window so I let me know if I’m getting it wrong.

Extreme nationalists are a good example of this. While I believe it’s true that the US as a good system I can see the flaws and need for improvement. Someone who isn’t willing to admit any flaws in the United States, or how dismisses them automatically isn’t (to me) as persuasive as someone who argues that while those flaws exist on balance the US system has more good than bad.

The same can be said for most any position.

Note: This is just an example. I’m not trying to start a discussion is if the US is good or bad.

a man, who has experience of law, to describe the law

I don’t mean to say that the person who feels most passionately about a subject is NEVER the person who can best promote the subject in debate. I just mean that passion is not a guarantee of persuasiveness, and that persuasiveness is not a guarantee of passion – or even sincerity.

That said, you raise a tough point about “objectivity.” In any rape trial, a defendant will ask to have any victims of sexual assault dismissed from the jury; a certain number of jurors will have filed police reports about sexual assaults, and will therefore feel compelled to identify themselves for dismissal. The prosecutor will also ask anyone who has committed a sexual assault to be dismissed, but only jurors who had actually been convicted would ever volunteer this information about themselves. Because the number of complaints will always exceed the number of convictions, the effort to create an impartial jury may actually skew the jury.

[I]f you support that people who are personally involved are the wrong people to be making decisions about what affects them (and I realize you used the word “may”), then would you concede that the best people to make decisions about American politics are non-Americans?

I’ve often thought that if the US is going to act as the policeman of the world, then everyone in the world should get a vote. US citizens too, of course.

This is an interesting argument, and certainly plays into the American concept of objectivity.

However, why is it any more dubious for:

a woman, who has experience of sexual abuse, to describe what she feels should be done about it

than for

a man, who has experience of law, to describe the law

As someone pointed out in a thread on Feministe, if you support that people who are personally involved are the wrong people to be making decisions about what affects them (and I realize you used the word “may”), then would you concede that the best people to make decisions about American politics are non-Americans?

Someone on that same thread observed that this rule seems only to be applied when it means that straight white cissexual, etc. men get to be the experts, and the voices of those who are defined as “other” can be silenced or ignored.

http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/05/19/why-im-here-probably/

Reason: For purposes of my discussions on this web site, I have no goals besides my own edification. I strive to minimize the number of conclusions I hold, and the strength with which I hold them, in order to remain open to new ideas and analyses.

Commitment: In contrast, I understand Amp to embrace and proselytize for feminism. As I understand it, he will not permit any amount of information or analysis to cause him to accept views he would regard to be anti-feminist.

In short, I strive to embrace reason even at the expense of commitment; I understand Amp to embrace commitment even at the expense of reason. Happily, the facts and analyses with which I am acquainted have left Amp and me with many areas of agreement.

Debate: To me, debate is a ritualized contest of persuasion. In the US and elsewhere, high schools and colleges have turned it into a sporting event, with rules and tournaments and champions. It is no less ritualized in US political campaigns.

Mandolin objects to the suggestion that political debates reflect “rationalizations” – that is, arguments that promote a speaker’s conclusions but not a speaker’s motivations. But much like any other contest, people have learned strategies for winning. The person who feels the most passionately about a subject may very well NOT be the person who can best promote the subject in a debate. (Recall the adage, “The man with himself for a lawyer has a fool for a client.”)

I believe Amp is passionately committed to the cause of feminism. As a consequence, I cannot trust that he would candidly concede if he found evidence or analysis that would cause him to doubt the cause of feminism. To put it another way, I must suspect that any argument he offers merely reflects a smart person rationalizing.

This doesn’t offend me. I’m just not that interested in Amp’s endorsements, no matter how sincere. I’m more interested in learning about his data and analysis. And Amp has demonstrated reasonable felicity with arguments grounded in classical economics, libertarian thought and Christian scripture. I don’t concluded that Amp necessarily embraces all these world views; he merely offers them for the benefit of those who do. Some may regard these arguments as disingenuous rationalizations; I regard them as demonstrating regard for a diverse readership.

The Overton Window: I understand that people with philosophical commitments will seek to move the Overton Window of Respectable Discourse one way or the other. Lacking such philosophical commitments here, I don’t have an ambition to move the goalposts left or right. But I do want to move them.

See, I cannot profess to be immune to the effects of the Overton Window. (Jonathan Chait notes how the strategy of “triangulation” involves Democrats running against their own party, constantly yielding ground, and how progressive bloggers have been pushing back.) Presumably this Window impinges on the range of ideas that I’m willing to consider – that is, it impinges on my own capacity for reason. So I do have a dog in this fight.

Consequently you’ll often find me taking a contrarian or apologist position in arguments. I’m not pushing the posts left or right; I’m pushing them apart. This pisses some people off, I know. Still, I hope you can look on this practice as my little effort to expand the range of options that people are willing to consider.

I think we should go out there ‘abortion on demand without apology’. Not because that’ll mean that ‘Safe, Legal and Rare’ will become the middle position, but to win ‘abortion on demand without apoology.’

While the overton window and the tyranny of the majority are sometimes true, they’re not always true. People can and have been convinced of radical ideas (think of juries who didn’t convict activists on all sorts of charges in the late 1960s and 1970s, sometimes knowing full well that the person had done what htey were accused of).

Those are very good points, Maia. Thank you.

If you leave out any mention of party political stuff I agree with you, mostly. I think we should go out there ‘abortion on demand without apology’. Not because that’ll mean that ‘Safe, Legal and Rare’ will become the middle position, but to win ‘abortion on demand without apoology.’

While the overton window and the tyranny of the majority are sometimes true, they’re not always true. People can and have been convinced of radical ideas (think of juries who didn’t convict activists on all sorts of charges in the late 1960s and 1970s, sometimes knowing full well that the person had done what htey were accused of).

I withdraw this.

For some reason I had the impression that Stentor and SamChevre were self-identified Men’s Rights Activists. I don’t know why I had this impression, and I apologize for not checking it out before speaking on it.

It interests me that this post has drawn attention from the people who have chosen to respond, including Stentor and SamChevre — and to a lesser extent, Robert (since he hangs out here more than S&SC, his participation doesn’t surprise me as much). I appreciate that it’s gotten y’all thinking, and provided an opportunity for Joe and Sailorman to express their defenses of a moderate position. That can only be to the good, and as a writer, I appreciate you all taking the time to read and respond.

Still, in my particular place as an activist, I am particularly interested in the reactions of people who are more likely to identify as left-wing or radical, and so if there’s anyone who is interested in participating in the discussion — but who, for instance, really doesn’t want to interact with the thread of the conversation that’s about proving gay rights don’t hurt people — I do hope you’ll join the conversation.

As regards the thread about gay rights, I realize that I set up certain political notions in the post, and so reacting to them is not exactly off topic. I used a specific example; you’re reacting to the specific example. But I’d rather talk about the forest than the bark on the tree, if at all possible.

In the second panel, the character in question says “how can I trust myself to know the truth about anything?” This shifts the point from being “a pox on both your houses” to an expression of legitimate self-doubt. Anyone who engages in political debate for any significant length of time will discover how resistant people’s opinions are to being changed by the force of the better argument. This intransigence naturally suggests that there are a lot of “smart people rationalizing,” and it’s reasonable to self-reflectively ask whether you are one of them.

You can read his entire post here.

Which way you state the question makes a big difference.

In most accounts of rights, self-ownership and freedom of association are both critical human rights. So, how do you pose the question? Is it, “homosexuals have the same rights as everyone else, so why is it OK to discriminate against them,” or “Don’t people have a right to associate with, and to avoid, others based on any criteria they please”?