Convince Me

Walter Sinnott-Armstrong likes arguing, and he wants everyone else to like it, too. But there is a difference between thoughtful debate and self-interested point scoring, and which one we choose in the moment may have ripple effects on our personal lives and the culture at large. In his new book, Think Again, the Duke University professor of practical ethics explains why (and how) we should strive to present careful justifications for the views that matter to us—not to "win" but to learn.

What's wrong with how we think about arguments?

Many view them as fights or competitions. You might win a fight, but you're still bloodied. Some arguments are like that: People yell and call each other names, and both end up worse off. If we instead listen carefully and charitably to the other side's arguments, we can better understand the reasons for their position, which can lead to more fruitful compromise.

How might such an approach play out?

Some want to raise the minimum wage to $15. You might think people who oppose that are just selfish. But if they say they're worried it would reduce work for people in minimum-wage jobs, and you take them seriously, you'll want to find out whether that's true. If it is, then maybe you'll still support an increase, but over time, or with simultaneous increases in unemployment benefits.

What conditions support a friendly argument?

Harvard legal scholar Cass Sunstein found that if extremists on climate change are given data supporting the opposing side, it only makes their views more extreme—but that people in the middle respond to evidence. So you have to pick whom you're going to talk to, or at least the issues you're going to talk about with them. If you want to get to know somebody whose politics are different from yours, talking about an issue on which that person is a moderate can get you into a constructive discussion. Simply asking others for their reasons and giving your own is a signal that you consider them rational and worth listening to.

Why do people often hesitate to admit that an opponent has a point?

It may simply be due to concern that those who are listening might think they're unintelligent or uninformed. But there are other motivations as well. Having to admit that your position is too extreme can require you to make it more complicated, and then you might worry about whether you'll be able to state it properly or even remember all of the qualifications. Complexity and subtlety come with an added cost.