Facilitate respectful disagreements with epistemic barter

Have you grown tired of how debates typically tend to play out? I know I have. There's no love lost between me and protracted, unproductive, unpleasant, and frustrating disputes that don't lead to any changes of mind when they don't further polarize every person involved.

After several attempts at stubbornly duking it out in my late teens and early twenties, I've concluded that it's mostly a waste of time and peace of mind. Is this truly the only way to navigate dissent? Wouldn't it be nice to enjoy exploring disagreements without angsty defensiveness, and instead see what we can learn in the process?

In my experience, this alternative is possible. It hinges on the framing we decide to approach the conversation with. As such, in this post, I will describe the mindset I would recommend to navigate divergent opinions smoothly and constructively. I've dubbed it epistemic barter.

Do note that this approach is tailored for intellectual disagreements. If you're interested in navigating conflicts more generally, you might be better served by my series on productive empathic inquiry.

Definition #

The purpose of philosophical argumentation is to find out whether or not a view is really true. A good philosopher would never want to win an argument for the sake of winning.

– Sharon Kaye, Philosophy - A Complete Introduction

Epistemic barter stands for a respectful and reciprocal exchange of goods and services within the realm of knowledge. In this context, goods and services correspond to ideas, insights, framings, questions, and so on.

As with all the other communication frameworks I advocate for, it is based on a mindset of collaboration and humility rather than conquest and arrogance. At its core, it's simply about coming to the conversation from a place of curiosity rather than proselytism. In other words, epistemic barter is the antithesis of ideological imperialism.

It's a shift from "How can I control their thoughts and beliefs to my liking?" to "What can I learn from them, and do I have anything to share that could suit their needs and interests?"In this way, it's similar to Jordan Peterson's 9th rule for life: "Assume that the person you are listening to might know something you don't." He's a controversial figure, but regardless of your feelings towards the guy and whether you deem he follows his own rules or not, I think this is a good rule of thumb.

You can think of it as sharing, comparing, and trading items from each other's respective treasure troves of insights gleaned over time in the hopes of finding mutual items of interest. This exchange of perspectives can definitely include challenging our interlocutors' views, as long as it is done in a spirit of clarification and coconstruction, not with the aim to crush and convert.

On top of being the type of discussion most likely to lead to constructive outcomes, it's also the most enjoyable and rewarding to engage with.

However, if you remain skeptical about whether it's truly worth the bother, I explain what you stand to gain from being receptive to differing views in my post on the unsung perks of diplomatic open-mindedness. Give it a read and come back to this one if it piqued your interest in giving this approach a try.

Assuming everyone is on board from this point on, let's proceed with how to go about it in practice.

Best practices #

Holding on lightly #

In order to make this work, you have to be willing to take a bit of distance from your own views. I'm not saying you should drop all your values and beliefs to become a complete blank slate. However, you should be detached enough to be able to appreciate the variety of possible standpoints that can be chosen for any particular topic and some elements of legitimacy in those that differ from yours.

You can't be receptive to what your interlocutor might have to share with you if you're clinging on for dear life to all of your positions. You'll also alienate them if you're hellbent on fighting to the death for each one of them. It's pretty tricky to engage in playful exploration under the constant threat of high-stakes confrontations.

Listening to an opposing viewpoint should rarely jeopardize positions you feel very confident in, especially if you've thought them through. You can go right back to them once the conversation is over.

Furthermore, should one of these beliefs get dismantled in the process, that means you hadn't explored the topic enough, your confidence was overblown, and this outcome was unavoidable with time. I guess you could always try to isolate yourself in an echo chamber, but that's not a very sustainable strategy.

One factor in your confidence level should be how much time and how many objections a position has managed to survive. So, engaging with dissent is a necessary step in pumping that number in the first placeOf course, not all objections belong to the same quality standard. Repeatedly countering the weakest dissenting arguments shouldn't afford all that much confidence. You need to contend with a variety of the best stuff the opposition's got..

To get back to concrete advice: don't get stuck in a stubborn stance of "no, you're wrong, and I'm right." Epistemic barter is predicated on an interest in exploration and potential discovery. So, be willing to temporarily assume a different perspective and engage with hypotheticals to see what it all builds up to. As the Aristotle apocryphal quote goes: "It is the mark of an educated mind to entertain a thought without accepting it."

This cognitive flexibility is necessary in order to get a good grasp of your interlocutor's views, which, as we are about to see, is a prerequisite for constructive discussions.

Proper understanding #

Your first order of business should be to reach a clear mutual understanding. As I argued in my video on the importance of rigorous inquiry, you need to know what you're operating with before you can elaborate upon it. Constructive criticism and improvement cannot grow from a place of ignorance. It's hard to cook a decent meal if you have no idea what ingredients are at your disposal. It's tricky to hit the bullseye if you are blindfolded.

The illusion of knowledge is even worse than utter yet self-aware ignorance. Misunderstandings give a false sense of certainty and increase the likelihood that you'll act on incorrect information and suffer the consequences of whatever blunder ensues. That is why you should ensure you're building an accurate model of your interlocutors' viewpoint and corroborate it by asking for their confirmation frequently.

Another good reason to avoid misunderstandings is that feeling unheard and misrepresented is one of the fastest ways to sour an interaction. You'll be hard-pressed to recover an opportunity for smooth epistemic barter once the conversation devolves into resentful conflict.

You also notice certain standard failure modes. Discussions predictably break down and turn into shouting matches or stalemates born of baffled confusion. And it’s often totally avoidable if the participants can find the real sources of their disagreement. It seems to me that people don’t get mad when other people disagree with them, they get mad when they’re not being understood.

– John Nerst, Origin Story

Assuming you now agree that mutual understanding matters, you might be wondering how to achieve it in the first place. If you would like to facilitate and speed up this process, I recommend trying out Gist triangulation. It's an approach that relies on proactive listening and helping find a common language to express what they're getting at. You can read the post for more details.

The Socratic method is another good and pretty famous technique. It consists in delineating the edges and nuances of their perspective through iterative questioning, including some they might not even have consciously thought through up to this point.

These types of meticulous clarification require a certain level of candor and vulnerability from the person whose beliefs are under scrutiny. So, if we want our interlocutors to open up, we need to lead by example, exemplify good faith, and foster trust throughout the conversation.

Fair play & graciousness #

Jumping on the first opportunity to viciously shank a perceived chink in your collocutor's armor after they gallantly opened up is the surest way to annihilate any possibility of mutual trust for that relationship.

I know from experience that pettiness can sometimes be an alluring temptress when you glimpse an opening for a smug checkmate on a pretty passionate point of contention. All the same, you must resist this self-satisfied lure, for your choice reveals your true colors.

Scorching all the goodwill built up to that point for a vainglorious rush betrays an underlying agenda of ideological imperialism rather than epistemic barter, more concerned with dominating than understanding. It's also a misguided long-term strategy if you intend to keep having this type of conversation, as you'll quickly sully your reputation. Conversely, foregoing juicy opportunities to jab a fat finger in a raw nerve is the best and fastest way to demonstrate your trustworthiness.

Additionally, actual argumentative checkmates are much more uncommon than we would naively tend to think. As I like to reiterate, our access to knowledge is limited and certainties are better represented in percentile confidence levels than binaries. And seeing as most of our beliefs are built on an intertwining of several clues and experiences, it's pretty rare to topple the entire network by taking a single one out. All of this means there's a good chance you'll be overestimating how much of a blow you were really going to land, and you'll just end up looking like a presumptuous bozo.

If you want to safeguard epistemic barter, I'm afraid you'll have to leave checkmates at the door. Coming to the conversation with a healthy dose of humility is the best arrangement for everyone. It greases the wheels of interactions and opens up minds to a greater discovery potential. Overall, a mutual feeling of reciprocity, consideration, and respect are important to keep communication constructive and sustainable.

If you want to avoid making the conversation come to a premature end, striving to be charitable is a good idea. I think disagreements should follow the same principle as most sensible justice systems: innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If they make seemingly shoddy or shady assertions, make sure you've correctly understood what they meant. Give them a chance to clarify and defend themselves before jumping on the offensive. Follow the due process of investigation before presuming.

View your interlocutor as an equal, if not in reasoning ability, at least in human worth, deserving fair treatment and entitled to their freedom of thought. Avoid condescension and hasty judgments. After all, contempt is the most toxic and pernicious bane of camaraderie. It's the greatest predictor of divorce, according to some research.

All that being said, I'm not trying to suggest that you can't issue criticism or point out potential flaws in their views. What matters is the way you go about it.

Respectful pushback #

As I mentioned in the previous section and other posts, what you want to prevent is making things personal and coming off as disparaging. That will only lead to defensiveness and resentment. Instead, try to acknowledge the legitimacy of your interlocutor's position as much as you honestly can. Then, raise potential flaws, oversights, and contradictions non-confrontationally.

This can be achieved by keeping your pushback in the realm of ideas, rather than venturing into how perceived inconsistencies reflect on their intellect and moral character. Remember to temper your inquiry with an appropriate level of cautious humility. Avoid assuming they haven't considered an objection and that you've caught them with their pants down. Ask earnest clarifying questions instead of making presumptive judgments, for example: "What about <insert counterpoint>?" or "How do you reconcile X with Y?"

Point out where you see holes, objections, and omissions they don't seem to have contended with yet, and leave it at that. Don't gloat. Don't shove it in their face. And don't assume they'll never be able to come up with any answers. Give them time to think about it. There's a chance they will improve their framework based on your feedback.

Issuing a tricky challenge beats professing a dubious zero-sum victory. It also demonstrates respect for two reasons. First, it doesn't take away your interlocutor's agency. They get to choose how they want to go about resolving it. Second, the only way you can come up with a good stumper is by genuinely considering their viewpoint first.

In that vein, the derivable catch-22 is a type of playful criticism I'm quite fond of. I find them fun to turn over in my mind, whether they support or challenge my positions. You can't help but admire the ingenious craftsmanship. Severus Snape might not take kindly to students using his own spells against him, but I personally regard it as a tribute.

Throwing a good catch-22 someone's way has nothing to do with ideological imperialism. Instead of trying to shove a stance that might leave them completely indifferent down their throat, you're appealing to them by using their own language, logic, and values. That's a much more compelling case.

The evil God challenge is a good example. It argues that most of the arguments that reconcile the existence of evil with an all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good God can be just as easily repurposed to justify the opposite. Namely, why an all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-malevolent God may tolerate the existence of good in order to ensure the possibility of maximal evil. Hence, to accept these arguments, one must also acknowledge that the belief in a maximally evil God is just as reasonable as the belief in its virtuous counterpart. If you're interested in learning more, this video by Alex O'Connor covers the topic in greater detailYou might also want to check out the Wikipedia pages on the problem of evil and the theodicies..

The evil God challenge is an instance of a catch-22 I enjoy, even if it's inconvenient for my personal set of sneaking suspicions (i.e. God exists and isn't a complete douchebagTechnically, I'm not fully aligned with the traditional monotheistic views on the matter, but I can't completely escape the evil God challenge nonetheless.). The Münchhausen Trilemma is another one I'm keen on. It serves as a foundation for much of my philosophical views. I made a video on the topic.

Nonetheless, it's important to remember that these catch-22s are not checkmates. They are refined stalemates. And frankly, that's usually as good as it gets in philosophy. You can't use them to force your personal opinions onto others. However, the opposite is also true. It prevents intellectually consistent interlocutors from trying to dominate you in return. At the very least, it should keep them busy for a while. Playful and respectful criticism is the name of the game.

Now that I've laid out all these concrete best practices, I'd like to illustrate the approach I'm promoting through a more holistic metaphor that may help drive home what I mean.

The apartment visit analogy #

I think assimilating exploring divergences in opinions to visiting an acquaintance's dwelling and hosting them in yours can serve as a decent parallel for the etiquette of epistemic barter. It exemplifies both the things you stand to gain from such an occasion and the way you'd reasonably be expected to act assuming you're not a rabid troglodyte.

Discovery & inspiration #

As you peruse your host's abode, there's a good chance you'll come across some decorations or appliances that you aren't familiar with yet. Among these, you'll occasionally find something nifty enough to make a positive impact on your life, and you'll be glad you bothered to take a gander.

Recently, I visited my aunt's house, and I was impressed when I noticed her elaborate setup of night lights that automatically turned on based on nearby movement. It's a welcome assistance to avoid shattering your toes in the midst of a brisk nocturnal expedition to the loo. I'm too lazy to bother, but someone wiser and more dedicated might be inspired to replicate this system in their own home.

Sometimes a discovery won't be a good fit for you despite being interesting. Maybe it's a nice big L-shaped couch that can double as a guest bed but wouldn't fit in your small flat, or some unique antique that you probably won't be able to find anywhere else.

However, even if that specific appliance or piece of furniture doesn't suit your needs perfectly, simply knowing that this family of items exists can be helpful. You might be amazed by a friend's hybrid standing desk but could do without the garish dark angular hunk of metal and plastic design with gratuitous RGB tinsel that's become the hallmark of gamer-targeted merch. So you'll take a reference and check if any other looks are available once you're back home.

People's needs and priorities change with time. Sometimes, there can be a significant delay between the initial exposure and its influence on someone's behavior. So, a lack of response in the beginning doesn't mean this new piece of information won't have an impact in the long run.

For instance, I discovered the existence of water carbonators in someone's house years before I finally decided to buy one myself. By that time, I'd stopped consuming soda and would frequently buy heavy 6-bottle packs of bubbly water as a substitute. I realized I'd probably end up saving effort and money by simply getting a machine and making my own.

On the other hand, when you're the one hosting a visitor, you'd probably be delighted if they were to find something new and useful in the process. It feels nice to be of help, even more so when your sense of taste and your garnering skills are vindicated in the process.

With that said, let's now consider how you would go about offering constructive criticism in this type of scenario.

Diplomatic feedback #

Let's say you notice something while touring your host's quarters. If you thought this input could be valuable to them, how would you approach sharing it?

Perhaps they confide that they're currently struggling with an issue and, as it so happens, you know just the piece of equipment that could help them with it. In that case, you would probably bring it to their attention and let them consider whether it's a good fit for them on their own time.

Alternatively, you might note that they're using a suboptimal tool for a particular task, say a defective third-rate vacuum cleaner. One option would be to give them the reference to a better alternative. Mentioning a trustworthy brand or reviewer could also be a good idea, seeing as their needs and budget might differ from yours.

If you find a leak in their bathroom's ceiling, you'll probably want to point it out to them to make sure they're aware of the issue. It would also probably be useful to share any best practices that come to mind based on your own experience. However, I'd like to stress that you would be doing this as an act of courtesy, not an attack.

Should they flatly deny the existence of any leaks as fresh drops regularly sprinkle their hair or seem concerningly laid back about the issue with no apparent intention to tackle fixing it anytime soon, there wouldn't be much more you could do. You might want to emphasize the consequences, just to double-check that they understand the stakes. However, I think most would agree that escalating to the point of clobbering them into submission should they remain unmoved would be taking it too far.

If they have landlords or neighbors that this could end up affecting, you'd be doing your civic duty by warning them, but beyond that, it's out of your hands. At the end of the day, you don't live there. They're the ones who will have to live with the consequences. Life is too short to give that many fucks about things you have no control over nor stakes in. And it'll only get shorter with all that extra chronic stress.

You might argue that this analogy starts tearing at the seams here, seeing as some toxic ideas usher their believers to actively harm others, and a lackadaisical "live and let live" attitude can't be justified in that context. If the leak somehowYeah, it's a philosophical thought experiment. Don't ask logistical questions. It's a world where yeeting an obese guy on its tracks can completely negate the kinetic energy of a moving trolley and several people spend their whole life sitting on their ass watching the same shadow puppet show in some damp cave. So don't start splitting hairs about my Strega Nona level leak. threatens to flood the entire city, you can't just go about your day whistling carelessly.

I'll cover this legitimate strain of objections in greater depth in an upcoming post. To make a long story short, either our hypothetical zealot is a direct threat, and self-defense is probably a more appropriate reaction than "well actually... ☝️🤓", or their views represent a latent threat, and you're not going to debate them out of their violent ideology in one argument bout, anyway. If anything is to be done, I'm afraid that frog will have to be boiled. Refer back to my post on the unsung perks of diplomatic open-mindedness if you need a refresher as to why that is.

With that parenthesis out of the way, I'd like to point out that the same general approach applies when the situation is reversed. Your guests would be doing you a favor by warning you of leaks and suggesting the best workarounds they've come across up to this point. You should remain open to their feedback and do your best to appreciate what you may learn from it. Albeit, when all is said and done, it's your call to decide what to make of said feedback and how you deal with the situation.

Having said that, there's one last problem we must contend with. Indeed, the astute reader might yet raise another objection. What I'm describing is all nice and well, as long as everyone involved roughly plays by the same rules. This entire section started on the assumption that the people we were interacting with were endowed with a modicum of respect and decorum. But what should we do if they aren't?

Curating guests #

How are you supposed to engage in cordial epistemic barter and give a tour of your philosophical house to ideological imperialists when, all the while, they're attempting to plant their flag in your living room and urinate on the rug to claim the territory? That's a good question, especially considering that there seem to be a great many more ideological imperialism devotees than epistemic barter enthusiasts out there. Well, the long and short of it is you don't.

Technically, you can still partake in visits to their households. Although, after doing it once, the discovery potential will slump for other members of the same ideology since they follow stringent layout and decoration standardization. You'll also have to redouble your diplomatic efforts if you intend to suggest constructive criticism, lest you commit blasphemy and incur the wrath of the parish. Receiving, on the other hand, definitely gets dicier if you're not a fan of guests taking it upon themselves to overhaul your residence without asking for your opinion.

A constructive exchange isn't impossible when only one interlocutor demonstrates a spirit of receptiveness and collaboration, but it's definitely a lot more challenging. So here's to hoping this post might help make epistemic barter a bit more prevalent out there.

On a more practical level, you have no duty to debate people who have no regards for your agency and wellbeing. It probably won't achieve much anyway and there are a lot of other contenders who will happily take them up on that challenge in your stead. Demonstrating better alternatives through actions rather than invectives is the best way to convince people over time.

Just to be clear I'm not advising you to take shelter in an epistemic bubble. Rhetorical posturing isn't the only way to engage with differing views. If you enjoy live conversations you can still watch others mud fight from enough distance to avoid getting splattered. You can also limit yourself to asking questions tactfully and in so doing avoid triggering your interlocutor's competition instinct. Another option is to research summaries of all the best arguments and objections for any given position in books or online.

You can't control other people, but you have a decent level of influence on who you decide to mingle with. Boundaries are healthy. Not only do they help protect your well-being, but they also foster more considerate behavior from people who would like to keep connecting with you. If domination is the only mode of interaction a specific interlocutor knows, then just don't engage with them if you can afford to.

The man shouted at him, but he didn't want to have anything to do with such an uncouth person, so he ignored him.

– The Gods Must Be Crazy

I don't know about you, but personally, I have no interest in letting boorish ruffians inside my apartment. The type who will barge in with dirty shoes, leaving smears of gunk all over the floor, start rearranging the furniture without asking for my permission, breaking fine porcelain tableware in the process, and touch the artwork on display with their greasy fingers when they don't occasionally forget to flush. I'd rather exchange pictures to get an idea of their recommendations and choose whether to use those as inspiration or dismiss them from a safe distance.

If you liked this post, you might also enjoy: