The Dark Arts – LessWrong(lesswrong.com)
lesswrong.com
The Dark Arts – LessWrong
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/djWftXndJ7iMPsjrp/the-dark-arts
17 comments
Worth noting that this sort of thing is actually taught at the kind of universities that produce politicians. What matters is winning the argument (irrespective of merit) for whichever side will give the best reward.
For example, from [0]:-
"Consider the rules of debate: two sides are randomly assigned to argue for and against a topic – say, that we should abolish student debt. Each speaker has equal time to speak before an impartial adjudicator, who awards the more persuasive team."
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2022/sep/03/the-art...
For example, from [0]:-
"Consider the rules of debate: two sides are randomly assigned to argue for and against a topic – say, that we should abolish student debt. Each speaker has equal time to speak before an impartial adjudicator, who awards the more persuasive team."
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2022/sep/03/the-art...
It's not a new observation https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7132775-the-key-to-success-... :
> “The key to success is sincerity. If you can fake that you've got it made.”
Using bullshit to overwhelm facts is so well known it has it's own "law", Brandolini's law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law There are famous practitioners of it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop
I didn't see much (any?) original thought in what he said. What's more I think there are better explanations for why he won than the one he gave.
Given two arguments, one that is a stream of bullshit and one that aligns with at least some facts the audience might know, how can it be that the audience chooses to believe the bullshit? The answer he gave, which is essentially "bullshit is more believable" doesn't ring true to me.
What does ring true is that key quote of yours, so the question is how does he establish credibility. He didn't say, but if you want a plausible answer try reading this: https://theconversation.com/d-218742
> “The key to success is sincerity. If you can fake that you've got it made.”
Using bullshit to overwhelm facts is so well known it has it's own "law", Brandolini's law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law There are famous practitioners of it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop
I didn't see much (any?) original thought in what he said. What's more I think there are better explanations for why he won than the one he gave.
Given two arguments, one that is a stream of bullshit and one that aligns with at least some facts the audience might know, how can it be that the audience chooses to believe the bullshit? The answer he gave, which is essentially "bullshit is more believable" doesn't ring true to me.
What does ring true is that key quote of yours, so the question is how does he establish credibility. He didn't say, but if you want a plausible answer try reading this: https://theconversation.com/d-218742
I'm not sure what "public forum" is (he doesn't like and one minute of googling turned up empty), but if we treat debate like a sport then one team winning absolutely does not mean they are right about the topic at hand. Judges must know this or votes would be predetermined by any existing biases. And if they don't have any existing biases then they have no/very-little knowledge of the topic, so of course they'd be vulnerable to stuff like this.
This whole piece was kinda weird because he says "I said X but that was obviously dumb and wrong" without further explanation. Which if you bring that up, presumably it opens the door to pure insult. "Oh you actually believe that BS I said? You dumb, no further discussion". Or maybe that's why it's a blog post with his own fake dialogue, so he doesn't have to answer questions he doesn't want to.
If we're talking about actual facts, there's no substitute for reality, during conversation that means credibility. I recall hearing a climate change denier saying that it was impossible because CO2 was transparent at all relevant wavelengths. This is false, but we didn't have a book handy and nobody felt like pulling out their smartphones. If you actually care about being right (rather than having a rebuttal ready during a debate), that's why epistemic learned helpless exists [0]. And if something is really important you write down what they said, fact-check it, start looking at other arguments and counter-arguments). Which isn't how structured debate works.
[0] https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/06/03/repost-epistemic-learn...
This whole piece was kinda weird because he says "I said X but that was obviously dumb and wrong" without further explanation. Which if you bring that up, presumably it opens the door to pure insult. "Oh you actually believe that BS I said? You dumb, no further discussion". Or maybe that's why it's a blog post with his own fake dialogue, so he doesn't have to answer questions he doesn't want to.
If we're talking about actual facts, there's no substitute for reality, during conversation that means credibility. I recall hearing a climate change denier saying that it was impossible because CO2 was transparent at all relevant wavelengths. This is false, but we didn't have a book handy and nobody felt like pulling out their smartphones. If you actually care about being right (rather than having a rebuttal ready during a debate), that's why epistemic learned helpless exists [0]. And if something is really important you write down what they said, fact-check it, start looking at other arguments and counter-arguments). Which isn't how structured debate works.
[0] https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/06/03/repost-epistemic-learn...
I have seen an entire book written in this style and the strategy works and I am honestly disgusted that there are people out there who genuinely believe the bullshit in that book and actively fight to spread obvious misinformation e.g. on Wikipedia. Like, every source I have found contradicts what is written there and the source that is supposedly backing up the claim is literally just a mistranslation of an english text.
which book?
Mr. Frakfurt would be proud.
Who is that? Google isn't turning anything up.
He is quite famous:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38779901
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38779901
To use a poker analogy, note that Lyrongolem says Ultra-BS only works up until someone calls.
This explains why rhetors are fond of enthymemes, and suggests that one defense against the dark arts is to avoid endless reraising rounds.
cf https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38794297
> Calculemus! -GWL
This explains why rhetors are fond of enthymemes, and suggests that one defense against the dark arts is to avoid endless reraising rounds.
cf https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38794297
> Calculemus! -GWL
Omitting information from your arguments has more to do with letting the audience fill it in in their own way, than precluding attack.
The master of this technique today has to be Trump -- who speaks in the tiniest droplets of information possible to make out a position.
This is a genius (sales, etc.) technique -- it means that moderates who hear him fill-in a moderate background, and radicals likewise.
It enables this meta motte-and-bailey defence of him too: "take trump seriously, but not literally" -- oh, except in this case, where it is literal.
In this way, the art of (mass) persuasion is saying as little as possible to be effective; quite the opposite of the dark arts outlined in OP.
The master of this technique today has to be Trump -- who speaks in the tiniest droplets of information possible to make out a position.
This is a genius (sales, etc.) technique -- it means that moderates who hear him fill-in a moderate background, and radicals likewise.
It enables this meta motte-and-bailey defence of him too: "take trump seriously, but not literally" -- oh, except in this case, where it is literal.
In this way, the art of (mass) persuasion is saying as little as possible to be effective; quite the opposite of the dark arts outlined in OP.
When different auditors can fill in wildly different claims, that's not staking a position, it's gesturing in the general direction of a wavefunction.
I consider that exactly the same underlying mechanism as the dark arts from OP, because they both rely on maliciously using their speaking time to make evaluation of the underlying argument (if any) more difficult, rather than simpler.
(I am hoping that AI, by making waffling cheap and ubiquitous, will mean that people will start to demand crisper public statements. But this is probably much too optimistic?)
Tangent: I love the way the two other major Dutch right-wing parties have (thus far) told Geert Wilders that if he really wants to be PM, he'll state which of his too-far-right-even-for-them campaign planks he is renouncing. They've called.
I consider that exactly the same underlying mechanism as the dark arts from OP, because they both rely on maliciously using their speaking time to make evaluation of the underlying argument (if any) more difficult, rather than simpler.
(I am hoping that AI, by making waffling cheap and ubiquitous, will mean that people will start to demand crisper public statements. But this is probably much too optimistic?)
Tangent: I love the way the two other major Dutch right-wing parties have (thus far) told Geert Wilders that if he really wants to be PM, he'll state which of his too-far-right-even-for-them campaign planks he is renouncing. They've called.
> my opponents didn’t study so I won
What’s the point of this ?
What’s the point of this ?
What's the point in anything? What's the Meaning of Life?
https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=38803347
https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=38803347
To find God before you die.
This was extremely difficult to read. The takeaway seems to be: Push enough non-factual arguments in a coherent whole, and your position becomes perfectly defensible?
I wouldn’t call it “perfectly defensible” but rather an argument which is seemingly convincing but takes a lot of effort to unpack and properly respond to. The aforementioned technique causes onlookers to think that the debate has been won by the party presenting the faulty argument, as their counterpart has no simple and immediate rebuttal.
In other circles this is often called a Gish gallop[1], I have no idea why they wouldn’t use more standard terms to describe it, FWIW.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop
In other circles this is often called a Gish gallop[1], I have no idea why they wouldn’t use more standard terms to describe it, FWIW.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop
> your ultimate goal is to establish the credibility of your side so strongly that others' trust in you is not affected by whether what you say is actually true. Establishing credibility is the ultimate Dark Art.