There’s this idea:

to criticise ideas (not people)

 

But it becomes difficult when it’s the PERSON that is the problem,

not particular idea, that they’re conveying at the time

 

How is the person a problem?

Well a person is a set of characteristics

A particular set of characteristics is more prone to give rise to a particular set of beliefs

 

This is nothing new,

Certain attributes are more likely to occur in the presence of other attributes

 

So it’s not shocking we intuitively blame the person for the STUPID ideas they believe in

Because we “know that type”

We have seen it before

 

Humans are tribal, and before them lobsters were, apparently, you’ve heard that story before

Humans are tribal — therefore our brain is intuitively, quite subconsciously attuned to make snap judgements about other people

You just know what to expect from a given person once you have observed certain attributes in them

Including certain ideas

 

This of course is also profoundly biased,

But quite the contrary — historically these intuitions were often at least USEFUL enough to persist

They were not nearly wrong enough to NOT be useful. And in their usefulness they were quite right, if inaccurate

That’s how they became encoded in our literal DNA, AND collective consciousness

The trick is that they are not always right — and those times they aren’t — we’re often blind to

 

And thus when a person holds certain set of beliefs, you often CORRECTLY guess their other attributes

But the main problem is that OFTEN is not enough

To learn something new — you have to look beyond the often and the usual — into what you haven’t seen before, obviously

 

And of course if your argument against someone’s belief is that they are:

STUPID in general,

CORRUPT in general,

IGNORANT in general,

VILE in general,

then you’re not really engaging the idea, are you?

NOR are you providing them with any opportunity to correct

other than overhauling their entire being,

entire stupidity, corruption, ignorance, ugliness

 

…and you may actually be right

Again, biases can be right

Your gut feeling, intuition — should be often right. Or at least coherent with what you already believe, and believe to have reason to believe

At any rate — what someone believes is probably BETTER EXPLAINED by WHO THEY ARE — than by any set of arguments, even presented by them themselves

 

…and yet it’s still unhelpful to blame them, criticise them

and it is imprecise

and epistemically useless

 

Truth is not a property of the person

It’s the property of a proposition

So if you’re serious about arguing truth or falsity of something — you would not start with who the person postulating that proposition is

It may explain the origin of the error

It may convince you that it’s a waste of time to argue that

But if you’re serious about that proposition — you INVESTIGATE THAT PROPOSITION. And THAT PROPOSITION ALONE

You investigate evidence, you investigate the chain of reasoning

 

This is why “criticise ideas — not people” matters

But of course it’s easier said than done

I already said that usually all you need to know is who the person making that brilliant statement is — to disregard it

That is efficient

It’s not rigorous, obviously. But it is a heuristic, it is efficient

The problem is only INABILITY to apply the right approach at the right time

 

As a rule: I do try to critique the idea, critique the statement, and not the person

It is a good exercise

If I decide I don’t have time for it — I just move on

If necessary, if I can’t unravel the whole of my suspicion that their idea, their statement, their set of beliefs is wrong — I WILL generalise

Generalisation about them as a person shall be my last resort, but it’s not off the table

For instance I may first generalise about their set of beliefs, as a whole,

or set of observations that led to those conclusions,

or maybe particular pattern of reasoning,

I may do it, or I may not

And if the truth of something is truly imperative — I will investigate, naturally, the direct evidence and logic which supports it

Knowing that this is the more difficult undertaking

 

Finally,

Someone’s “SET OF ATTRIBUTES that engenders their beliefs” is, well, also an idea, to criticise

So even when you’re generalising — you may perhaps avoid making it personal

Listing their attributes and beliefs, as a hypothetical, and demonstrating how they result in certain set of beliefs and attributes — can be done without ever invoking them, as a variable

It could be made very clean and impersonal

some would argue nothing is personal anyway — since we’re all merely sets of attributes, in a constant flux

 

…but of course, the way we experience our dear believes, convictions, preferences, ATTRIBUTES — is that they MERGE with WHO WE ARE

and how could we not? we really are our attributes

Therefore the magical impersonal method may just not work

They will take it personally anyway

 

…and since they will take it personally anyway — might as well get over our coyness and just be real

tell them you don’t believe they are even capable of agreeing with you, let alone convincing you

You can actually make it extra personal, sometimes

It’s not like there was any better way of getting through to them

 

To conclude:

-Epistemically — it can only ever be about ideas, beliefs — and the facts and logic which support them

-Practically — it is personal, it is interpersonal and tribal, it is practical and expedient — and one must be aware of it

Move readily between the two, but understanding the two paradigms are separate, and adversarial even