Cooperative vs Competitive vs False Balancing Argumentation

The empty neighborhood in the fog

In a short 2018 Scientific American article and a 2017 research paper published in the journal Cognitive Science, a team of cognitive scientists and psychologists describe their research findings on the effects of modes of engagement on how people perceive political issues and truth itself, including moral truth. Modes of engagement can be thought of as the mindset that a person in disagreement brings to the table when they are in disagreement with others about political issues.

The cooperative mindset

People who engage with a cooperative mindset tend to seek to learn from a person or people they disagree with. In that mode of engagement, people tend to try to learn from people they disagree with. They also tend to be more open to the idea that there is no objective truth about an issue such as abortion. This mode of engagement was found to influence how people view truth, which tends to be seen as mostly subjective and personal. Absolute or objective truth is not what people with this mindset usually see in various issues. The authors comment in their Cognitive Science paper:

“One form of social reasoning consists of a group of people searching together for the solution to a problem. Groups pursuing this strategy reap cognitive gains such as quickly identifying problems (Hill, 1982) and discovering the best solutions (Schwartz, 1995). These characteristics allow the performance of the group to go above and beyond the sum of its individual members (Woolley, Chabris, Pentland, Hashmi, & Malone, 2010). 

However, group reasoning does not always involve finding solutions to problems. Some group reasoning consists instead of argumentation (Walton, 1998). In group reasoning using argumentation, people start out with opposing views on a given question, and each individual proceeds by offering reasons or evidence in favor of his or her own view and against the opposing one.”

The competitive mindset

By contrast, when people are competitive and engage to win arguments, their view of truth tends to be more objective and absolute. It also affects their social behaviors, beliefs about people they disagree with and how truth and the issue at hand is understood. The competitive mindset leads to unfavorable views of, and increased animosity toward, people they disagree with. The researchers associate the rise of political tribalism with increases in competitive engagements relative to past years. This tendency to tribalize and weaponize politics is exacerbated by social media. The researchers comment in the SciAm article:

“At the same time, the rise of social media has revolutionized how information is consumed—news is often personalized to one’s political preferences. Rival perspectives can be completely shut out from one’s self-created media bubble. Making matters worse, outrage-inducing content is more likely to spread on these platforms, creating a breeding ground for clickbait headlines and fake news. This toxic online environment is very likely driving Americans further apart and fostering unproductive exchanges. ..... And although plenty of evidence suggests that contemporary political discourse is becoming more combative and focused on winning, our findings do not elucidate why that change has occurred. Rather they provide an important new piece of information to consider: the mode of argument we engage in actually changes our understanding of the question itself. The more we argue to win, the more we will feel that there is a single objectively correct answer and that all other answers are mistaken. Conversely, the more we argue to learn, the more we will feel that there is no single objective truth and different answers can be equally right. So the next time you are deciding how to enter into an argument on Facebook about the controversial question of the day, remember that you are not just making a choice about how to interact with a person who holds the opposing view. You are also making a decision that will shape the way you—and others—think about whether the question itself has a correct answer.”

As noted here in a recent discussion, political discourse has been weaponized by injecting moral absolutism into politics. Politicians, partisans and special interests have discovered that increasing irrationality and decreasing social trust lies in manipulating the moral framework of politics and fomenting competitive discourse over cooperative discourse. In my opinion, the point of increasing irrationality and decreasing social trust is to deceive and distract members of society, thereby draining both power and wealth from the masses and accumulating it at the top.

False balancing

False balancing is a complicating but important factor in political discourse. This arises when disagreements over a certain topic do not make much sense in view of actual objective knowledge. For example, enough objective knowledge exists to render moot disagreements over whether the Earth is flat, humans are causing climate change or vaccines are safe or effective. The evidence is overwhelming and there is not enough basis for rational debate. Engaging in false balancing debates tends to elevate the status of the contrary evidence and arguments to a level that is not socially or rationally merited. Such debates tend to foment and maintain false beliefs, confusion and distrust. That is much more socially damaging than beneficial.

False balancing and the president

Based on my recent online engagements with various Trump supporters or apologists, I now believe that trying to debate whether the president is a chronic liar, a crook, grossly incompetent, self-centered and maybe also a traitor engages in false balancing. In my opinion, the scant evidence that the president’s supporters sometimes raise does not come close to balancing contrary objective evidence of his character flaws and his bad behavior and failures in office. Of those topics, the allegation that he is a traitor is supported by less direct and circumstantial evidence than the other assertions of truth, which are backed by far more relevant evidence, much of it based on undeniable facts.