When you debate with critical laymen
All my blog posts are about psychology and storytelling, this one included. I always wanted to write a post about debating in social science because I see it go wrong every single day, but I have never sat down and actually done it because it’s largely pointless to even debate people who don’t know anything about the subject at hand. Most hardcore nerds know when a person is breaking logical rules and when to avoid debating any serious topic with these people. Just as most laymen don’t want to study up on a subject most nerds don’t want to study down on a subject. If you mention Big Foot and someone starts talking about video proof it’s kinda clear that it’s probably not an argument that will make you smarter. It’s a waste of time to try to argue about it and the solution is just to mention the science and tell people how to easily access it. Experts have places to be and a world to change.
Unfortunately, you cannot fully avoid having arguments with laymen in your area of expertise. There are times when you sit among laymen in a company setting and state some science that may solve a major problem in the company and then 3 people group up and present anecdotes as evidence of you being wrong. In a social setting power dynamics rule the day, not logical arguments. And unless you know how to structure an argument in this world you will see the whole company fail taking you down with it. Make sure you write down how you expect the ideas to fail and when they end up failing you can point to your claim.
Let’s go over some arguments laymen make and how you can respond to them.
Social science is vague
One typical argument I hear about social science theories is that social science is not a science but largely guesswork. This is mostly a claim used when a theory goes against their worldview. So a theory will hurriedly be dispelled with a “there may be other explanations for it”. This is true, but it doesn’t mean we cannot estimate likely causations. The same way we can estimate that humans cause global warming. There are a ton of variables we are overlooking and a lot of things we are simplifying to an extreme, but we still reach some conclusions at times.
One thing laymen overlook here is how much actual evidence there may be in the field. There may be an extreme amount of evidence for intelligence differences between groups or sex differences that laymen have just not looked into. The argument of “We don’t know this” should be seen as “I don’t know this”. The reply should be mentions of intro books on the topic. That’s it. That’s how you debate laymen.
If they refuse to read the books. Then that’s even more simple. You just state “All social science is pseudoscience”. If they agree with this you can mention a social science pet theory of theirs. They will suddenly start defending it and you mention how it’s similar to your topic. It will be a grave dug so deep that they won’t have anywhere to go. Either all social science is bunk and you can attack their pet theories, or we can know things and they will have to actually read the science to understand it. Everything being The Matrix is fine. Then there is no debate to be had and you can go on with your life while making fun of their pet theory. It’s great fun!
You cannot debate science with a person who doesn’t know about the very basic stuff in the field. Now, the main idea here is that you know something and the other person does not know something. It’s a very simple idea that many overlook. Instead of following this logic and using every single argument to present data and science for everyone listening in on the discussion some nerds will use argument techniques to emotionally and logically convince that one single layman of something. Wasting everyone’s time as you cannot mix logic with emotions and think you will get anywhere.
Basically, if I get to mention a proper scientific psychology book and don’t do anything else or say anything else it’s still a win. You calling someone a jerk and making a 2-page long argument will be read by a few people and none will be fully convinced anyhow. If you get even a single person to read an academic book the knowledge will spread. A book if full of sources, great in-depth arguments, convincing stories and it’s fact-checked. If someone listens in on your answer they will see how to dig deeper into the science while not feeling the direct emotional repulsion against a person telling them they are wrong.
The problem with debating live is that you need to understand what emotional pull you are debating against. If facts can convince a person it’s all simple and direct. Then you just link to the book and get it over with. On the other hand it may be impossible if there are some underlying assumptions about the world that you cannot move or change. And just finding out about these assumptions may take hours. Again, are you getting paid for this? And what are you getting paid for? Go on with your life.
I once had a debate with a person about a social science issue. I was presenting data and studies one-by-one as suddenly the person shut me down with: “I just believe what I believe.” Here it’s clear that the evidence, numbers, data or studies didn’t overpower the sheer lack of motivation to know more about the issue. The person knew that his beliefs were good enough for him to survive and profit in his current life condition. His world was not controlling a big company or leading a country. His life was much more simple and big theories about the world would just confuse him. Him learning about the real numbers could maybe have given him some advantages somewhere in life, but for him it wasn’t a given and not worth the hassle. How often does a regular Joe get asked for advice on the economy of a country or how to lead a company? It just doesn’t happen.
To me the lack on want to know everything about the world sounds completely insane! I just cannot let go of an argument or a question in science. I’d think about a topic for months on end without letting it go. Just imagine how much time I spend on one single logical argument. Sure I get to explore it and get somewhere with it, but it’s obviously not really something that is needed for most people. Me understanding some very complicated idea in social science didn’t bring me any actual resources. I didn’t use it at work or in my day-to-day life. There are people who live perfectly rich lives while thinking the earth is flat. You may hate them for it or think that their lives are small and incomplete without your great knowledge. But for them the important things are not understanding facts. It’s about understanding what problems they actually face and how to solve them: keep the family intact, keep the job, keep friends happy. Your logical argument needs to make one of these 3 things better before they are willing to put any great energy or motivation into looking into it. Think about their point of view. They are already struggling day to day. They have relationships that constantly need attention, things they need to buy, and a job that could be more fulfilling. Their full attention is taken up by struggles in life that seem unsolvable. Another stress in life will do what for them? It’s another problem in life without any promise of profit. It would be like the times I spent months learning everything I could about a topic to then just forget most of it 6 months later because I never actually needed to apply it for any problem-solving in life. Unless you need the knowledge you don’t need it. You may like to have it, but the motivation will be something arbitrary like a weird need for knowledge for the sake of knowledge. Academics and rationalists often want to get to the truth for the sake of it. It’s a good feeling. But it’s a hobby. A profession is how you apply that knowledge.
Conclusion
You can always create an excuse to mention the book that will educate people the most effective way. Calling people names or getting angry most likely won’t get you anywhere productive and may even cause people to dislike you.
Understand what people want before trying to convince them energetically. Make sure they have all the tools they need to educate themselves. If they don’t do that you won’t educate them either. If they don’t read the science it’s because they don’t think it will help them enough compared to the other stuff they do in life. Motivation is education. That’s the goal here! Inspire people to learn something useful that will improve their life. If you can do that they will be ready to take in any extra info.
