Bracketing the target

[jack]

If 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'"

Comments

[seryn]

A) It's often that there is a perspective shift from what would otherwise be ridiculous. Getting people to think about things differently can really unstick a jam.

B) Explanations have to be tailored to the audience. Sure. Anyone who has tried to teach something knows this. But your idea of giving a span of things is interesting.

That would be a good way to get around Sapir-Whorf. I remember when someone was explaining what an "emcee" was. I'd never seen a variety show (at that age) or something where you'd need one. There wasn't going to be any comprehension from, "This is the guy who introduces the people who do the small performances in a larger show when it's not all one thing. Also used for awards ceremonies." I was told it was short for Master of Ceremonies. So I asked what that was. If someone could have said, "It's showbusiness for someone who is something between a ringmaster and a pastor." I'd have understood they took the focal attention of the audience but weren't the whole show.

____

One of my beliefs is similar to this.

When you want the middle ground as a compromise, send someone on the opposite extreme to argue against the extremists.

The problem with sending moderates to find a compromise with extremists is that everyone sits down at the table, the moderates offer some minor concessions, the extremists say thanks and leave. Then this happens again. Eventually things have slid a measurable distance toward what the extremists had wanted without them having to move even incrementally toward the middle.

American politics have been pushed toward the Conservative (which isn't about conserving anything tangible) using this method. And your point C is why it's been difficult to find counter-extremists to keep things moderate. The counter-extremists often sound completely crackpotted if not criminal.