I shared the ride down with an infantry Captain, a Leftwich award winner and the Weapons Company commander, and one of my squadronmates, Jim “Jinx” Jenkins. As the junior man, a First Lieutenant, I wasn’t sure how “fun” it would be, although I was good friends with Jinx. Captain “K” (I’ll call him) was way funnier than my experience with infantry officers would have led me to believe. But of all the things he said, one stuck with me and has to this day. He was telling a riotous story about his younger sister, her politics, her boyfriend’s, and Thanksgiving. What struck me as absolutely brilliant was discussion he had with both about some military policy – let’s pretend for argument’s sake (and to make up for my lack of memory) that it was about homosexuality in the military and “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
Evidently, the debate between Captain K and his sister and her beau had reached a rather heated impasse: both sides had their views and neither would be moved. Captain K believed that his sister and her boyfriend were completely ignorant about the topic and that merely “yelling” uninformed opinions wasn’t going to get anywhere, so he proposed what I consider a stroke of genius. He related it thus: “I said, ‘Look, you guys may think I’m wrong, but I think you’re completely uninformed about the issue. My opinion is based upon experience and does not come without much thought and consideration, but to be fair, let’s do this: you give me an article, book, or op-ed piece, or whatever, that you think fairly represents your side of the issue and I’ll read it. In return, I’ll give you the same – an article or two for you to read. We’ll each read the other’s selection, and then next time we get together, we’ll be better informed and have some common ground from which to discuss the issue.’” My mouth hung open. I thought it was pure genius and I said so. Captain K merely pointed out the obvious: “I’m not going to argue with someone who’s ignorant about a subject because it’s pointless.” He had offered a possible solution to what my boss calls “invincible ignorance.” A seeming epidemic of which exists on the internet.
[The punch line to the story is that when they all reconvened for the next family event, the boyfriend broached the subject again. Captain K had read what had been proffered. He was prepared to discuss and rebut some of the premises and conclusions of the piece. Before they began, he asked the boyfriend for his thoughts on the two article K had sent him – the boyfriend waved them away and said he hadn’t bothered to read them. At that point, K refused to participate in the conversation. He said “I told him I couldn’t be bothered to debate a subject with someone who remained intentionally ignorant about what the central arguments were against his position. I walked away. I knew at that point, he didn’t want an honest discussion or to seriously consider alternative views than his own – he just wanted to rail. I can’t be bothered with that shit.” There’s a lesson there.]
Fast forward a year and a few months and I was beginning law school. I never forgot K’s advice. By the time I got out into the work-a-day world of being an attorney and advocate, I was genuinely happy to find that people usually had an understanding of the opposing views to their own, which led to (usually) spirited, but respectful debate, both in the courtroom and at the bar afterward, when we would always continue to talk shop over a few cold ones.
Which leads me to the works of Karl Popper and how to apply these kinds of “tips” into your everyday life. And win a bunch of arguments, or (even more importantly) figure out why you hold the views you do and to test them out with a few simple questions. Karl Popper was a 20th century philosopher who is best known for his doctrine of “falsification” with respect to science, although it is really not his primary contribution to science or philosophy. Essentially, Popper noted that in order for a theory to be considered “scientific” – it needed to be capable of being “falsified.” That is, there needed to be some set of circumstances under which we would know that the theory was false. This was not some kind of back-door nihilism – Popper merely claimed that if a theory was to be taken “seriously” (that’s my paraphrase), it must be possible for us to determine under what circumstances it would be false. Popper’s work has generated a lot of debate and discussion, and criticism, but for my purposes, what’s important is its practical application in daily life.
Frequently, when arguing with people, you reach an impasse. And someone will say “well, agree to disagree” – sometimes, that’s the right call. Many times, that’s a copout, particularly where the issue needs to be resolved. After years of frustration, I’ve realized that people (mostly) have no fucking idea why they believe what they believe. They just “do”. They “feel” like they’re right – but their thinking tends to be pretty muddy on how they arrived at whatever conclusion that they’re arguing about.
So, here’s where the application of falsification can help you out – and save you some time – and tell yo if you’re the one being the jerk. Ask a simple question: “what would it take for you to believe the opposite of what you do now?” Stated another way, “what premise or fact would have to be false or the opposite for you to arrive at the opposite conclusion or just a different conclusion?” This question requires a mental process – a shift in thinking to examine exactly why it is that the person (or you) believe what you believe. Most people, when confronted with this question, will simply stare – blankly. They’ve never even considered that they might be wrong, or bothered to check their assumptions or premises. Don’t be that guy. Ask yourself that same question and the answer may surprise you.
Oh, yeah. At least be willing to read something on the subject, too. Or you’re the problem.