Open-minded, closed for debate

I think I'm done debating most important things.

It doesn't mean that debate in itself is bad. But it requires a lot of conditions to come off effectively, and expectations have to be managed.

Generally, I'll only really want to engage in discourse if these conditions are met:

(1) Each of us can clearly articulate our assumptions, going as fundamental as necessary (but only if necessary); 

(2) Each of us can set up a reasonably sound logical chain that leads to some conclusion that is contentious or otherwise interesting;

(3) Each person is willing and able to start from alternative assumptions and work forward in a logical manner, ideally to gain insight into the other perspective, but minimally, in order to test the logical structure of the other argument;

(4) Each has time and temperament to make sure the discourse is civil;

and, for expectations,

(5) No one expects to either change their view, or change the other person's.

*(6) If evidence is presented that shows one's opinion is wrong, they will admit it.

*This was added by Alex, and as a meta-example, I edited the list to include it.

Needless to say, these conditions are met rarely, though I'd like to think, happily, they are met more frequently by my circle of friends than could be expected elsewhere.

It seems like a lot of conditions, but they seem to all be required for the process to make any sense and have any value, and not devolve into a shouting match.

I realize, belatedly, what Professor Hal Barron at Harvey Mudd College was talking about at the height of the cross-burning/Kerri Dunn car vandalism bait-and-switch madness in 2004. He called for civility in the discussions we were having on the 5-C about race and social equity issues. But the emotional tenor of that particular meeting was just too damn high -- we had a professor cry on stage, and plenty of us cried too (including me, who, to my lasting shame, gave a rambling rant about more worldliness in our tech campus). The then-diversity coordinator gave an angry speech about her own experiences, which probably did not help reduce the temperature.

All of this is prologue to say that yes, I think I understand what it means to have a meaningful discussion with someone of opposing views. But I'm tired, and relatively content with where I am when it comes to political philosophy and general policy platform. I'll revisit and update that view, hopefully, as new data (or new to me) comes to the fore. But in general, I'm not sure I see any value in continuing to seek out opportunities to engage people with different political views.

This sounds closed-minded. And, despite the title of this post, it might be. But I'm still willing to read, and have my views challenged. In the last few months, I can remember three things I thought were "true" challenged. 

As it turns out, the increase in federal debt is driven mostly by a fall in revenues, and not a rise in spending--even I had believed the Fox narrative, though as a Keynesian, I took a positive view of that false narrative. 

I also started to appreciate that there is some statistical evidence indicating the deterrent value for crimes like burglary of having a publicly-known firearm in the house. (I haven't tracked down the specific study from Nashville, but I trust the reports referencing it.) I have to accept that, at least for a certain class of crimes, guns actually do behave as a deterrent, and that some actors, at some levels, are rationally deterred. I don't think this has changed my stance on guns tremendously, as the self-contradictory statements from gun advocates indicate. (In this case, gun advocates believe in its deterrent value, yet claimed that the publication of gun owner residences make it more likely for them to be targets for robbery. This, despite the statistical evidence to the contrary that, if they could be self-consistent, would actually make a case for gun ownership.)

Finally, regarding the Prop 38 37 GMO initiative, I eventually got convinced through some running dialogues (often involving dozens of highly intelligent people on FB) that while I still opposed the proposition on its execution, I did get a reframed perspective. I had approached the issue in terms of a referendum on the safety of GMOs (which I believe evidence supports), but my good friend clarified that I should approach it as a consumer choice problem. Even if I believe that GMOs are safe to eat and generally a good thing in our world, not everyone may agree, and it may be worth a small price to pay for labeling such that those who choose to, can opt out. My views on this are still evolving, but that's the point -- they are evolving thanks to an actual dialogue (or, more accurately, an heptadecalogue).

I should note that only the last is an example of an actual debate leading to changing views. The first two were prompted by questions raised by friends, which spurred me to research the questions on my own.

Look, I've debated American politics, gay marriage, American foreign policy, America's relationship with Israel, the death penalty, Benghazi, healthcare, gun ownership, Biblical literalism, libertarian philosophy, and a number of other things with intelligent people who happen to believe differently than I do.

Sometimes it was fun. Sometimes it was exhausting and frustrating, and changed my overall regard for the other person negatively. Sometimes one or both of us would duck out, just because it didn't seem to accomplish anything or one or the other just seemed extremely underprepared to have a real discussion about something.

At this point, however, I think that, even if it hasn't always been a waste of time in the past, it will be a waste of time going forward. My views are pretty well-formed, and I'm largely comfortable with them. They probably will evolve, perhaps radically, perhaps due to personal tragedy or more positive events (my view on taxes might change if I start making over $1 million a year). But I'm somewhat, cautiously confident in my ability to adapt given those changes, or new information, without subjecting myself to the torment of engaging for the sake of engaging.

Note: I don't have anyone in mind when I say all this. It's just a general conclusion I've reached over the last few months. Those of you who believe differently, and with whom I've had many conversations over the years, I love you. And we'll still talk about many, many things. And I can't say you're wrong for you. But I've concluded what you believe in would be wrong for me. And I need energy that would go toward honing debating points elsewhere right now.