David Pinsof writes: The goal is to subtly punish people for questioning our dogmas or dissing our allies. When we argue about politics, we’re playing The Opinion Game—the secret war over social norms. And the norm we want to establish is: respect our tribe.
Think of the Soviet Union. Everyone secretly hates Stalin, but Stalin and his apparatchiks work very hard to prevent people from becoming aware of that fact. Because if everyone did become aware of their mutual hatred for Stalin, they would rise up to overthrow him. Bad news for Stalin.
So Stalin and his apparatchiks force people to parrot Soviet propaganda as loudly as possible, as publicly as possible, so that no one knows who the anti-Stalinists are, or how many anti-Stalinists there are in their midst. This prevents the anti-Stalinists from coordinating and rallying together. If anyone refuses to parrot the Soviet propaganda, or refuses to parrot it loudly enough—off to the gulags they go. Some version of this strategy is, to my knowledge, used by every authoritarian regime that has ever existed. It’s a very effective strategy for maintaining power…
If people don’t parrot the coalition’s propaganda, or don’t parrot it loudly enough, they get “cancelled.” Getting cancelled isn’t as bad as getting sent to the gulags, but the outcome is the same. The opposition is silenced. The coalition maintains power…
Here are some other dark purposes of arguing:
We want to rally our tribe.
We want to rationalize.
We want to verbally spar.
We want to defend our status.
We want to defend our tribes.
We want to attack others’ status.
We want to cover up the fact that we’re doing all these dark, ugly things…
How can you tell if you’re in a pseudo-argument? Here are some warning signs:
The person is not genuinely listening to what you’re saying and considering its implications.
The person does not ask you any questions and makes no attempt to get clarification on what you mean.
The person is arguing against positions you do not hold—positions that are far dumber and crazier than what you believe.
The person is interpreting what you say in the worst possible light.
The person is unwilling to acknowledge any valid points you make or mention any cases where they agree with you.
The person is angry, offended, or upset.
The argument revolves around issues that are central to the person’s tribal identity or social status.
The person is overconfident, talking about complex issues as if they were simple and alternative views as if they were crazy.
The person engages in whataboutism or deflection, focusing more on the relative status of people or tribes than the truth of propositions.
There is no sense of curiosity or mystery.
There is no sense of collaboration in getting to the truth.
It is unclear what is even being argued about.
The person interrupts you and would rather talk than listen.
The person dodges your questions.
Whenever the person’s views are on the brink of looking dubious, they change the subject.
Here’s my advice. If you find yourself in a pseudo-argument, RUN! Get out of that situation. Nothing good will come from it.
