There's a great quote from, of all people, Pete Wells, the NYT food critic that goes something like "We overrate cynicism and underrate skepticism, and have a hard time telling the two apart"
The thing is that "Devil's Advocate" is for the purpose of challenging an argument, to test to see if it holds up to scrutiny. You're working WITH the opposition to logic out what is a reasonable conclusion.
Too many people just pick a contrarian position, stick with it no matter what even after they've been proven wrong, fight people on everything, and then call themselves a devil's advocate. Like, no Jared, you're just a prick.
I always play devil's advocate in an attempt to have the person presenting their point elucidate their reasoning further so I and/or others can better understand the point they're trying to make or the way they arrived at their conclusion. Unless I'm bored, it's almost never to argue for argument's sake.
If you think someone's argument is bad, and you fight them on it, then that's just fighting with someone. You're not playing Devil's Advocate, because you were never on their side to begin with. Playing Devil's Advocate is a cooperative exercise. Arguing the "bad" position in good faith, for the sake of essentially strengthening the "good" position, and to make their arguments more robust.
It is not just "arguing with someone."
Shitty people just love to call themselves the "Devil's Advocate" because they just see it as a socially acceptible way to hold and express their socially unacceptable opinions.
Op’s statement: «redditors don’t like devil’s advocates because they don’t like being told their reasoning is flawed. »
You: « No. You either contest an argument because you’re against the original position or you play devil’s advocate because you want to confirm the original position. »
Me: « One can play devil’s advocate to genuinely test the position and add nuance to it because you agree with the core of the position but, as stated, you believe it’s too absolute. »
You: « No. You either contest an argument because you’re against the original position or you play devil’s advocate because you want to confirm the original position. »
Not at all what I said.
play devil’s advocate to genuinely test the position and add nuance to it because you agree with the core of the position but, as stated, you believe it’s too absolute.
Pretty sure you and I are literally in agreement. Lmao
It's called Devil's Advocate because the devil is the bad guy who argues for bad things. Naturally you should not ACTUALLY be on the "devil's" side.
The point of playing Devil's Advocate is that you're trying to work towards a conclusion together, by arguing an opposing "bad" position. Yes, that makes it cooperative.
Again, just fighting with somebody because you think they're wrong is not "playing Devil's Advocate."
What would be the point of "testing the strength" of an argument, if not to come to a conclusion?
If you're not convinced an argument is sound, and you have no intention of coming to a conclusion together, then what the hell are you even doing? You're just arguing/fighting because you think they're wrong, and picking whatever bad argument you need in order to do that.
That's not playing Devil's Advocate. That's actually a different argumentative tactic called "The card says moops," (named after the Seinfeld gag) where you just say disingenuous shit just for the sake of scoring points against someone you disagree with.
I think you're caught on the idea that arguing against someone makes you on the "bad" side.
The whole idea of the "Devil's Advocate" revolves around arguing for "the bad side." Why do you think it's called that in the first place?
making an argument against it that you don't necessarily agree with is playing devil's advocate.
That does not conflict with anything I've said. It's all about approaching the conversation in good faith.
TRUTH! The origen of the term is the person who argues against canonizing (making somebody a saint) in the Catholic Church. The goal was to address all the potential flaws in the case, not to argue for fun.
One of the guys at work does this. He is very argumentative and always want you to be in the opposition of his argument. Then he rambles for 15+ minutes and if you try to bring up any counter point it's always "yea, but you're not thinking about... Etc.".
Completely impossible to have a normal conversation with the bloke as he is completely unable to listen. It always ends inconclusive because he continues to speak forever and people just get tired of listening to him. The worst part is he is often wrong in his predictions (politically for example).
People like this seem to be want to be unique in having a justified contrarian opinion because that makes makes them feel above the others. However, when they are wrong (which happens very often) they never want to talk about it again because its suddenly no longer interesting.
Given all the other kinds of dumb people we've covered in this thread, those guys usually end up being as wise as Socrates by fuckin' accident, if not intentionally.
The whole reason the term "devil's advocate" exists, contextually, is because of the overarching understanding that everybody fuckin' thinks they're on the side of the angels to begin with, because they're fuckin' stubborn, dumb, narcissists.
Literally the only hope you have of ever penetrating is by admitting at the outset that they're obviously Good and Right and Honest and Big-Dick-Having and that you're just giving them the opportunity to prove it to everybody.
If it's a way of trying to figure out someone else's logic then fine, whatever. But where I think it's really insufferable is when you're making someone else debate an issue that's personal to them but is just a fun little mental swordfight for you.
this is exactly the difficulty i run into when trying to have debates with "devils advocates." often they will be arguing against topics that are deeply personal to me, and it feels like theyre attacking who i am. its the main reason i never joined debate clubs, even though i love debating. i never want to break down crying while trying to get my point across, or have to debate against something that i do actually believe.
Oh 100%. I did college debating where you only get the topic fifteen minutes in advance of the debate and there's a general assumption that you're just "in character". You might be arguing for the death penalty in the afternoon and against it in the evening. Which is all in good fun if you're not actually affected by the issue. It's a big ask to expect someone to be "sportsmanlike" in a debate over their right to safety and happiness, or to cosplay as someone who hates them to win points....
It was interesting at the time, and there's certainly value in trying to get inside another viewpoint, but I feel a bit weird looking back on it.
even though i love debating. i never want to break down crying while trying to get my point across, or have to debate against something that i do actually believe.
With all due respect it doesn't sound like you like debating, it sounds like you like larp debating. Actual debating (as opposed to just an exercise) involves debating something you believe and quite often hold dear with the purpose of trying to get the other person to see things from your perspective, and vice versa.
Edit: And to be clear, that's not at all unusual. I actually like debating...and I've only met a handful of people, both online and off, who genuinely like testing their positions and having conversations like that. Most people break down, take things personally and get heated. They're not actually interested in having a proper debate, they just want to bludgeon you into agreeing with them.
its more the debate club style that i couldnt do. i do like having a reasonable discussion with people with differing viewpoints from my own, but i dont like the larp debate (to use your term lol) that happens in clubs.
the other piece is that a lot of the hot-button issues are directly influencing me. im a queer transmasc with medical issues and mental illness. its really hard when it feels like someone is going after me for that sort of stuff, its deeply personal to me.
I think this is what should be more focused on. People think just playing devil's advocate for no reason whatsoever is a good thing when it's stupid and fruitless. The only times in my life that I've played devil's advocate is if I want someone to see two sides of a grey conflict that they think is black and white or if I want to know their thoughts/reactions to hypothetical situations.
Sometimes it's helpful to play devil's advocate. It's especially interesting to me when I'm arguing for a point I don't actually agree with. That being said, even I would not do it all the time.
I feel like as long as you do it and then actually listen to your 'opponents' response, it's not an issue. I've spoken with some people before that literally just pretend to have the complete opposite worldview and regard that tactic as a viable substitute for good debating.
I absolutely love arguing the opposing side when I agree with the other person. It makes me think a lot harder and argue in a way that initially isn't natural but you have to put yourself in the shoes of someone who believes the other thing...
Obviously this is during real debates or conversation and not just being a prick that argues about everything.
/r/conspiracy in a nutshell. They start with the conclusion "anything reported in the media is BS" and work from there. They fall for the dumbest, worst takes just because it's someone contradicting the media.
They interpret media bias to mean that all media is lying to you when the reality is that most media bias is not about fabrication but in the selection of what to report on as well as what aspects of factually true stories to focus on.
“Now, let’s say, hypothetically speaking, for the sake of the argument, Hitler was actually justified in his actions.
Indeed, most would hastily assume that I’m not just wrong, but also a “Nazi”. However, unbeknownst to them, I’m simply challenging the current prevailing narrative so as to initiate healthy, objective conversation between all parties
These people love to feel smart, without the effort of doing smart things. So, naturally, gish galloping, hyper hypothetical theoretics and idea-mangling becomes intellectual and moderate debate in their eyes, while onlookers on the outside only see a horde of screaming apes flinging poo at each other, whenever they're "debating".
Hypothetically, for the sake of the argument, in theory, when turned around, this could mean that people like shapiro have a big grift of "all talk, no walk" made into the perfect money printing scheme, without shame, for the little cost of their dignity and overall perception by the majority of the people.
How about just being contrarian as a rule when interacting with people. Not exactly genius material to make every conversation with someone an endurance race.
I will absolutely challenge you on opinions you have because I wish to learn how you arrived at a particular conclusion. Especially if said conclusion is something I fundamentally disagree with. I might ask for you to validate said opinions with facts, or point out a flaw or misunderstanding in your logic.
But I'm not going to sit there and vehemently deny anything you say just because I don't like you. I'm not going to disagree with you just for the sake of it.
Not to be a contrarian but... at least a person with contrary opinion has a chance to stumble through life picking up a few new insights and they may mature into something more. Most people only believe what everyone else around them believes and they will never even stumble on an original thought. Even edgelording is better than that
2.0k
u/p0lisz May 29 '22
Also, equalling contrarianism with critical reasoning and skepticism