Bracketing the target
Jan. 9th, 2011 12:25 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jackIf you're firing a howitzer, get two shells on either side of the target, and then you can quickly home in on it using a simple (often trivial) binary chop. This may actually be better than two shells very very close but on the same side.
The same often applies to arguments: a totally crazy but totally different idea may be more useful than a cautious but unassailable refinement of the previous suggestion if the best answer is contained somewhere between. For instance:
(a) This is what people mean (or should mean) but "there are no stupid suggestions" -- even a ridiculous suggestion can contain a nugget of an undeveloped good idea or useful constraint. (Not always, but often.)
(b) If you're trying to get someone to grok something, you may say "it's a bit like [this film] and a bit like [this film]" or "it's a bit like a wave and a bit like a particle" or "it's a bit like a religion and a bit like a culture" then even if both examples are totally and utterly false, they may well give people a good intuitive idea of the domain of answers within which the correct one lies.
(c) if you come up with a long, complex philosophical argument, spend five minutes saying "would this be convincing to an intelligent person who doesn't know anything about philosophy, or would they say 'well, I can't tell you exactly where the flaw is, but I'm pretty sure it's false because here's a counterexample'"
The same often applies to arguments: a totally crazy but totally different idea may be more useful than a cautious but unassailable refinement of the previous suggestion if the best answer is contained somewhere between. For instance:
(a) This is what people mean (or should mean) but "there are no stupid suggestions" -- even a ridiculous suggestion can contain a nugget of an undeveloped good idea or useful constraint. (Not always, but often.)
(b) If you're trying to get someone to grok something, you may say "it's a bit like [this film] and a bit like [this film]" or "it's a bit like a wave and a bit like a particle" or "it's a bit like a religion and a bit like a culture" then even if both examples are totally and utterly false, they may well give people a good intuitive idea of the domain of answers within which the correct one lies.
(c) if you come up with a long, complex philosophical argument, spend five minutes saying "would this be convincing to an intelligent person who doesn't know anything about philosophy, or would they say 'well, I can't tell you exactly where the flaw is, but I'm pretty sure it's false because here's a counterexample'"
no subject
Date: 2011-01-10 02:27 pm (UTC)Ah, I see. I think the difference is, I would just have accepted it at face value, that if someone said there was a guy inbetween acts, then that's what there was: I hadn't thought enough about any sort of show to have any idea what would be normal or necessary :)
every compromise brings the overall situation more negative.
And I still agree it's an awful problem, but still am uncomfortable deliberately exaggerating what I think if it goes so far I don't agree with it, even if it's politically expedient. Of course come to think of it, in most situations, there is a more extreme position I actually WOULD be mostly happy with, and think having it aired does have some useful benefits. (Eg. I'm very uncomfortable having PETA running around doing atrocious things I can't countenance, but I admit having someone yelling "animals have rights" at least gets people to NOTICE the viewpoint.)
Of course, in contemporary American politics, you don't need to be very "left" at all to be seen as a "left" extremist. Views I've seen denounced as "left extremist" would include such things that -- to me -- are utterly fundamental, like "we should enforce the first amendment" and "people should not be trapped in exploitative jobs due to lack of healthcare" and "preventative medicine costs less" and "unregulated markets are no more free than government-controlled ones"...
no subject
Date: 2011-01-10 09:52 pm (UTC)American politics do feel that way. That most of us are moderates and some people who are way way out there in wingnut land have skewed things their way because no one stands up for what's in the best interests of the country. But it's hard to take a firm stance on the squishy middle ground of compromise and not get tugged by the tug-o'-war rope.
A lot of it is cemented by pseudo-journalism (where they're just looking for the conflict) and the preference for the false dichotomy. So as long as the journalists are saying "every issue has two sides", I would just like to have the people hammering out the agreements to be compromising at the moderate position. I just can't think of another way than seeking out equally wing-nutty people going the other way.