What are you expecting to find, and what would it mean if you were wrong?
I’ve been playing with an idea for a small time now. I’m not sure where the idea came from — it’s possible I accidentally stole it from someone else and thought it mine. We’ll never know the answer to that question, and you shouldn’t go try to figure it out. Don’t Claudine Gay me. Don’t you do it!
Regardless of whether I did or did not commit plagiarism, whether I should or should not lose my job over it, and — hell — whether or not I’m significantly more attractive than the person I allegedly stole it from, one thing is true: I’m probably not the first person to think of it. It’s not that complicated of an idea, and I don’t know why you keep insisting that I have to cite the original thinker-upper of this whole thing.
The idea is as follows: when, during the course of an argument, a disagreement over verifiable fact1 arises, both parties should state A) what they expect the fact to be, B) why the fact being as such is important to their argument, and C) what it would mean for their argument if they are wrong about the fact.
Let’s look at some examples. We’ll watch as Bamanda and Steophanie, long-time friends, engage in the same argument in a poorly-constructed A/B test, with an unwisely-chosen polarizing topic that could’ve just as easily been, I don’t know, jetpack crashes.
None of the facts that follow are true. You probably shouldn’t try to interpret these characters as embodying my actual opinion on anything.
Gun Control: Gisastrous Consequences
Steophanie: “I just think that nobody should own an assault weapon. There’s too much death and deostruction inflicted at the hands of AR-15s!”
Bamanda: “Steophanie, AR-15s don’t have hands. Strike one! More importantly, AR-15s are barely used to kill anyone. Nobody uses them for crime! Just like nobody wants to be your friend, lib.”
S: “I’m pretty sure that AR-15s are used in, if not a majority, then a plurality of crimes. Bam, I don’t know why you’d say that to me; we’ve been friends since seoventh grade, and you were my maid of honor. This doesn’t have to get nasty. I love you.”
B: “Fine, I’ll look it up. Try not to get destroyed by the facts and logic I’m about to show you.”
Bamanda pulls out her phone — an Android, probably — and Googles ‘ar15 crime rate liberal hoax liberal tears trigger the libs how to trigger libs tiktok’. She lands on the FBI’s crime statistics website.
Bamanda is silent. She tries to hide her screen from Steophanie. She fails.
S: “Look — AR-15s are used in seven-hundred percent of all crimes! I was right! Actually, it’s way worse than I thought it was in the first place. Clearly, these weapons should be banned!”
B: “So what?! It doesn’t even matter. I’d kidnap a thousand children before I let this company die much rather have AR-15 crime sprees, in my neighborhood, every day, than run the risk of being subjected to a violent crime with no way to fight back! I need my AR-15, Steoph. You know why. You know what I’ve been through; what I’ve seen. Don’t make me repeat it.”
S: “I would never. You’re my best friend in the whole world, Balambam. I know… I know that you just want what’s best. Let’s just drop the whole thing. It doesn’t matter. Our friendship is more important than some cultural divide that, if we’re being honest, probably won’t ever be satisfactorily resolved due to the massive impasse our country is locked in. What matters is that I have you, and you have me.”
B: “I love you too, Steoph. I’m sorry I called you a lib. I’m sorry for eoveorything.”
Bamanda and Steophanie’s friendship is stronger than ever, but at what cost? Steophanie was right, and she proved it, too! Bamanda’s refusal to commit to an argument and see it through to the end — no matter where the facts lead — meant that she was wrong and got away with it anyways. This story is a tragedy. If only there were a solution.
Gun Control 2: Electric Boogaloo; or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Question Posed by Josh’s Blog Post’s Title
Steophanie: “Bamanda, it’s obvious. Assault weapons are a blight on this world, and they — and everyone who has ever laid eyes on them — must be systematically destroyed, no matter the cost. They fire nuke-tipped bullets, Bamanda. I don’t expect a MAGA fascist like yourself to care about people being torn apart by miniature nuclear detonations, but I do.”
Bamanda: “I don’t really think that’s true, Steoph. I mean, any of it. Nuke tips aren’t real. Do you know that? I need to know that you know that. I don’t really think we should be having this conversation if your understanding of guns is this warped.”
S: “I don’t need to know every tiny little detail about guns to care that they kill people, Bamanda. I know you have a hard time feeling empathy. Maybe if you went to col—”
B: “We graduated from the same college! Also, I don’t need to have gone to college to have the right to an opinion.”
S: “Well, whatever. What’s important is that AR-15s are slaughtering people left, right, and center.”
B: “AR-15s are barely used in crime! Like, at all! Even if you’re in favor of gun control, they’re the wrong thing to focus on.”
S: “Oh, yeah? Let’s look it up right now!”
Steophanie pulls out her phone, and begins to Google ‘how to prove to my idiot bigot friend who probably voted for Trump that ar 15s kill thousands of babies every second’. Suddenly, from nowhere and everywhere at once, a great voice booms from above. As if from the almighty himself, this voice’s very essence demands respect. It also demands that you subscribe to this blog.
Great Voice: “Steophanie! Bamanda! Hear me now, at the most pivotal of moments, this great crossroads in your collective lives. Before you lies a choice. You can continue as you are: petty, vindictive, intellectually dishonest sophists who argue not to find the truth but to dominate and impose. Or, my darling children, you can choose the path less traveled, yet filled with rich reward in this life and the next: you can read my blog post, and incorporate its argumentative strategy. I started a blog, you know. It’s been going pretty well. I can send you a link to it if you want; my best post is probably about my high school experience, which you might find interesting. You don’t have to read it, but maybe it’d provide some insight into my life and who I am. The choice is yours!”
The voice disappears as it arrived: ill-conceived. The two women, aware yet unaware of themselves, respond as one:
“Okay.”
They read the post. It’s a good post. They particularly like the author’s comedic usage of footnotes. They subscribe to the blog.
Steophanie: “Alright, fine. Let’s try this then. Our argument hinges on how often AR-15s are used in crime. I expect to find that the answer is high; at least 30 percent of crimes involving guns will use an AR-15. This would demonstrate that AR-15s are uniquely harmful to our society, and that getting rid of them would benefit us. If the number is significantly lower, I guess it would show that AR-15s might not be worth banning.”
Bamanda: “And I expect the number to be very low. Probably around 1 percent. This would show that AR-15s are a red herring, and we should at least refocus the conversation to other kinds of guns, which we also shouldn’t ban. If it’s closer to 30 percent, that’d probably mean that AR-15s are worth talking about in terms of gun crime, but I still wouldn’t think we should ban them. Also, I love you.”
Steophanie pretends not to notice Bamanda’s advance. She doesn’t have time for love; not since last Christmas. She will never forget last Christmas. She wishes last Christmas could forget her.
Also they look up the relevant stats.
Bamanda: “Ha! See? Do you see?! Right there! ‘AR-15: zero-point-one percent’! I win, you bitch! I was right!”
Steophanie: “I have no choice but to admit defeat. I guess maybe we shouldn’t ban AR-15s. I’ve learned two important lessons today. The first is that I have a bad habit of being whipped into a panic by the media over silly things. The second is that you are, honestly, a terrible person. You may have been right; I’ll concede that. But I’m also conceding our friendship. This is over. I don’t love you back, Bamanda. I never have and I never will. You’re going to die alone, and you have nobody but yourself to blame.”
The two exchange yet more double-dipped venomous words. They part ways; this is the last they will ever see each other, and they know it. Neither looks back.
The quest for Truth prevails.
I don’t think I should be a fiction writer.
I spoke about this with Erin maybe a month ago, and she raised an interesting point: you’d probably only want to use this argumentative tactic if you’re arguing with someone who is not engaging in good faith; however, the strategy requires good-faith cooperation between both parties in order to work. A bad-faith interlocutor would either not engage with this approach, or would find ways to avoid being beholden to it if it doesn’t work out for them. A good-faith interlocutor would, most likely, engage in an argument in such a way that this approach isn’t even necessary in the first place.
Additionally, someone has to deploy the strategy. Someone has to be the one to ask, “What are you expecting to find, and what would it mean if you were wrong?” There exists a large incentive to only initiate this strategy if you already know for certain the fact in question, and are simply trying to trap someone else — which doesn’t seem sportsmanlike. The few times I’ve remembered this idea and tried to employ it were times I knew exactly what we would find.
Still, I think it’s worth playing around with. It’s an interesting idea, and I don’t think these faults are fully damning — just words of caution. Not all bad-faith interactions involve someone who is, holistically, a bad-faith actor. We all succumb to biases and fallacies from time to time; we all can try to “win” arguments when we know we should be trying to settle them. This strategy may well have value between two good-faith actors; serving to affirm and reaffirm their commitment to finding the truth together. It might make it just that much harder for one to enter into that dishonest mode of operation, which sounds quite nice to me.
Erin felt strongly that the point of dispute might not have to be a “verifiable” fact. I disagree for the most part. I think it has to be verifiable, because you need to remove the ability for two people to look at the discovered answer and each think it proves them right.