I’m short on time, so this week I’ll just ramble a little bit about a much earlier post. I posted this on Facebook in June 2017: I used to argue with people with opposing ideologies. Christian proselytizers, subjectivists, Randian objectivists, Marxists, positivists, other victims of scientism. Now I generally don’t.
> Of course, it might be that there are very few such people, and my book will only be read by right-wing people who like having their own beliefs reinforced.
This is roughly what I expect will happen. Not because there are no open-minded progressive people, but because those people won't trust you enough to engage with your evidence. I think there are many books purporting to debunk various progressive views by conservatives already, and I expect most of them to have terrible arguments. So people you are trying to convince will just pattern-match your book as that, and ignore it. Perhaps if a current progressive intellectual made such a book, they would convince more people, though they'd also lose a chunk of their audience.
Maybe you can add similar debunkings of right-wing beliefs to your book. That way, it'll only be read by the approximately 3 dogmatic Huemerians in existence :)
I waver in and out of being willing to argue with people, but for the most part I argue a little bit until I realize it is futile and then I give up and yank their chain instead. Once in a while the person I’m talking to is actually open-minded and we have a good conversation so I like to begin with that hope and then shift gears as appropriate.
To whatever small extent people know me here on Substack, they know that I put in a lot of effort to answer all, or nearly all, comments made on my stack. My rule of thumb for one-on-one discussions is that it is not worth the time to try to convince someone (usually of libertarian anarchism, in my case) who is miles and miles away from that view. But if a person seems at least anarcho-curious or better, then it is worth the time.
I'm willing to engage with anybody on progressive views. I find great value in both conservative and liberal views (classical as well as FDR liberals). I'm not sure, since about 1990, what people mean by "progressive" but I'm willing to engage and see if we can get past rigid black and white thinking.
I see from the mention of scientism, I assume that most people here are critics of scientism. I've had significant success in engaging with dogmatic believers in scientism, which perhaps may be due in part to my training as a clinical psychologist.
In any case, let me know what you've tried to get across and let's see if we can have dialog, not diatribe!!
I do like hypotheticals by the way, and I may suggest one or more, in order to avoid getting bogged down in arguments about facts, which I find tiresome and usually leading to confusion and useless disputes.
I argued with people for a long time, at times very aggressively, and I'm finally tired of it too. I think I've heard all the arguments at this point, most are just long recycled convenient sounding dreck people parrot back that generally are dismissive and devoid of nuance. And I've learned you don't actually convince people of much with stats and ideological discussions. I think you more connect and convince them by relating to their tangible world and avoiding political triggers. The concepts tend to get in the way and abstract more than elucidate.
I'll occasionally get a self righteous moment and want to joust with someone but I tend to catch myself now, realizing that I can't shove my views down other people's throats and most of the time when someone starts arguing there's an uncomfortable cognitive dissonance in the mind that one is trying to resolve and needs to argue someone down so that they can feel comfortable in their position again. In most of these debates the truth isn't important, just feeling sufficiently right over the other. Making it a competition instead of an authentic conversation.
It's ego insanity and I've done it myself many many times.
Nice I'm looking forward to the new book. I own two of your books already and both were great. I've had pretty much the same experience with arguing online especially in university. You rarely ever convince the person you are arguing with but you can swing the emotionally uninvested reader. Every now and then people would meet me in real life and comment on my online antics. And it was always positive.
Dr. Huemer, I applaud your attempt to educate individuals at risk of committing to progressive ideology. It's absolutely needed. I have no doubt you'll present fair, compelling arguments (garnished with the plenty of charity). I look forward to reading it. However, half the battle is convincing your target audience to actually open the book in the first place.
The title "Progressive Myths" is unlikely to appeal to fresh initiates of progressivism (or those heavily flirting with it). "Progressive Myths" sounds like the title of a generic conservative polemic. I humbly suggest meeting your audience where they're at emotionally and adopting some general marketing precepts before officially launching.
For example, the title "Why Progressivism?" is less ideologically-coded and more likely to pique the interest of those exploring arguments for and against progressive ideology. And it's not misleading either, provided you steelman progressive arguments before refuting them. To qualify readers further, you could include a tagline like, "What the Right and Left get Wrong About the Social Justice Zeitgeist." This implies you offer insights and critiques absent in hack partisan literature (basically your Unique Value Proposition). Alternatively, something like "A Philosophical Exploration & Critique of the Progressive Zeitgeist" could accomplish something similar (albeit drier).
No, my suggestions don't sound academic and sophisticated, but you're fighting an uphill battle in a highly polarized "attention economy." If you're still not persuaded, imagine a sophisticated critique of libertarianism entitled, "Libertarian Myths." Do you think this would appeal to the average, busy, moderately open-minded reader heavily flirting with libertarian thought? Probably not. I think the reader's first instinct would be to sloppily ascertain the political bias of the author as sort of an unconscious filtering mechanism ("Oh, another liberal/conservative spewing talking points I've heard a thousand times"). In other words, they may assume the author is dogmatic in his approach and look elsewhere for an ostensibly nuanced perspective.
Just some food for thought. Best of luck, and I look forward to buying your book, regardless of its title.
P.S. Aesthetic presentation is also stupidly important. Font type, color scheme, illustrations, etc. Lowbrow stuff, but again, "attention economy."
As an incredibly disagreeable person, I don't find that arguing even the most dug-in ideologs serves no greater benefit. In my experience it has been the case that closed minded people, while they may not walk away from the conversation having changed their views, still recieve a small seed of doubt in their arguments. If they notice this seed they essentially have two options; re-evaluate or further entrench into ideology. While argument itself is - as you identify- probably made to convince those undecided in the audience, it also serves the dual purpose of making a small chink in the interlocutor. Great post!
> Of course, it might be that there are very few such people, and my book will only be read by right-wing people who like having their own beliefs reinforced.
This is roughly what I expect will happen. Not because there are no open-minded progressive people, but because those people won't trust you enough to engage with your evidence. I think there are many books purporting to debunk various progressive views by conservatives already, and I expect most of them to have terrible arguments. So people you are trying to convince will just pattern-match your book as that, and ignore it. Perhaps if a current progressive intellectual made such a book, they would convince more people, though they'd also lose a chunk of their audience.
Maybe you can add similar debunkings of right-wing beliefs to your book. That way, it'll only be read by the approximately 3 dogmatic Huemerians in existence :)
Yes
I waver in and out of being willing to argue with people, but for the most part I argue a little bit until I realize it is futile and then I give up and yank their chain instead. Once in a while the person I’m talking to is actually open-minded and we have a good conversation so I like to begin with that hope and then shift gears as appropriate.
To whatever small extent people know me here on Substack, they know that I put in a lot of effort to answer all, or nearly all, comments made on my stack. My rule of thumb for one-on-one discussions is that it is not worth the time to try to convince someone (usually of libertarian anarchism, in my case) who is miles and miles away from that view. But if a person seems at least anarcho-curious or better, then it is worth the time.
I'm willing to engage with anybody on progressive views. I find great value in both conservative and liberal views (classical as well as FDR liberals). I'm not sure, since about 1990, what people mean by "progressive" but I'm willing to engage and see if we can get past rigid black and white thinking.
I see from the mention of scientism, I assume that most people here are critics of scientism. I've had significant success in engaging with dogmatic believers in scientism, which perhaps may be due in part to my training as a clinical psychologist.
In any case, let me know what you've tried to get across and let's see if we can have dialog, not diatribe!!
I do like hypotheticals by the way, and I may suggest one or more, in order to avoid getting bogged down in arguments about facts, which I find tiresome and usually leading to confusion and useless disputes.
I argued with people for a long time, at times very aggressively, and I'm finally tired of it too. I think I've heard all the arguments at this point, most are just long recycled convenient sounding dreck people parrot back that generally are dismissive and devoid of nuance. And I've learned you don't actually convince people of much with stats and ideological discussions. I think you more connect and convince them by relating to their tangible world and avoiding political triggers. The concepts tend to get in the way and abstract more than elucidate.
I'll occasionally get a self righteous moment and want to joust with someone but I tend to catch myself now, realizing that I can't shove my views down other people's throats and most of the time when someone starts arguing there's an uncomfortable cognitive dissonance in the mind that one is trying to resolve and needs to argue someone down so that they can feel comfortable in their position again. In most of these debates the truth isn't important, just feeling sufficiently right over the other. Making it a competition instead of an authentic conversation.
It's ego insanity and I've done it myself many many times.
Nice I'm looking forward to the new book. I own two of your books already and both were great. I've had pretty much the same experience with arguing online especially in university. You rarely ever convince the person you are arguing with but you can swing the emotionally uninvested reader. Every now and then people would meet me in real life and comment on my online antics. And it was always positive.
Dr. Huemer, I applaud your attempt to educate individuals at risk of committing to progressive ideology. It's absolutely needed. I have no doubt you'll present fair, compelling arguments (garnished with the plenty of charity). I look forward to reading it. However, half the battle is convincing your target audience to actually open the book in the first place.
The title "Progressive Myths" is unlikely to appeal to fresh initiates of progressivism (or those heavily flirting with it). "Progressive Myths" sounds like the title of a generic conservative polemic. I humbly suggest meeting your audience where they're at emotionally and adopting some general marketing precepts before officially launching.
For example, the title "Why Progressivism?" is less ideologically-coded and more likely to pique the interest of those exploring arguments for and against progressive ideology. And it's not misleading either, provided you steelman progressive arguments before refuting them. To qualify readers further, you could include a tagline like, "What the Right and Left get Wrong About the Social Justice Zeitgeist." This implies you offer insights and critiques absent in hack partisan literature (basically your Unique Value Proposition). Alternatively, something like "A Philosophical Exploration & Critique of the Progressive Zeitgeist" could accomplish something similar (albeit drier).
No, my suggestions don't sound academic and sophisticated, but you're fighting an uphill battle in a highly polarized "attention economy." If you're still not persuaded, imagine a sophisticated critique of libertarianism entitled, "Libertarian Myths." Do you think this would appeal to the average, busy, moderately open-minded reader heavily flirting with libertarian thought? Probably not. I think the reader's first instinct would be to sloppily ascertain the political bias of the author as sort of an unconscious filtering mechanism ("Oh, another liberal/conservative spewing talking points I've heard a thousand times"). In other words, they may assume the author is dogmatic in his approach and look elsewhere for an ostensibly nuanced perspective.
Just some food for thought. Best of luck, and I look forward to buying your book, regardless of its title.
P.S. Aesthetic presentation is also stupidly important. Font type, color scheme, illustrations, etc. Lowbrow stuff, but again, "attention economy."
I’m anti-progressive and looking forward to having my own beliefs reinforced.
I've had a similar journey on arguing about ideology.
By the way, does anyone know why "begs the question" means "circular reasoning"? I don't get the idiom.
Which progressive myths will you attack in the book?
As an incredibly disagreeable person, I don't find that arguing even the most dug-in ideologs serves no greater benefit. In my experience it has been the case that closed minded people, while they may not walk away from the conversation having changed their views, still recieve a small seed of doubt in their arguments. If they notice this seed they essentially have two options; re-evaluate or further entrench into ideology. While argument itself is - as you identify- probably made to convince those undecided in the audience, it also serves the dual purpose of making a small chink in the interlocutor. Great post!
https://paulgraham.com/identity.html