Star-Manning and How We See Our Ideological Opponents

[Left Coast]

I recently came across this thought-provoking article on a concept called star-manning:

How to Star-Man | Arguing from Compassion | Center for Inquiry

I've noticed on RF, and elsewhere, that debates on religion and politics are often derailed not merely because of strawmanning or misrepresenting one another's views, but also by demonization of one another. Rather than seeing people with whom we disagree as fellow human beings who have many of the same desires, aspirations, fears, and struggles we do, we see them as a caricatures of themselves: as evil, stupid, selfish, corrupt, "sheep"; even as anti-human.

I think this kind of binary, black and white, we-are-the-good-guys-and-you-are-the-bad-guys thinking is counter-productive to having meaningful, constructive conversations. Rather than change minds, I think it likely serves more to make us feel smart and righteous in our own view rather than to meaningfully engage with others as fellow human beings who want understanding and respect in the same way we want understanding and respect for ourselves. It's also likely to make the other person even more defensive, entrenched, and black and white in their own thinking about us. All of that usually leads to a complete failure to communicate effectively to one another.

As an antidote to this tendency, the author of the article I linked suggests that we try something called star-manning. This goes beyond steel-manning, which means to create the strongest or most charitable version of another person's view, by additionally viewing the other person in as charitable and compassionate a light as possible.

Perhaps by doing this, we can have better conversations with those with whom we disagree, especially on controversial subjects like those we frequently discuss around here.

Thoughts?

 

[Kooky]

How do you judge whether a conversation went "better" or "worse"? Doesn't that depend on the goals and expectations with which we enter such a conversation in the first place?

Not all conversations can be equitable exchanges, and not all are meant to be.

 

[Left Coast]

How do you judge whether a conversation went "better" or "worse"? Doesn't that depend on the goals and expectations with which we enter such a conversation in the first place?

Not all conversations can be equitable exchanges, and not all are meant to be.

To me, a "better" conversation would be one in which all parties feel understood and respected even if they disagree with each other. But you're right that if someone doesn't care about those things, it's tough to have a "better" conversation. I've found most folks do though, when they're being honest/vulnerable.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The title reminded me of steel manning. Or refuting the strongest version of your opponents argument. And I see that the article mentioned it. That is actually a good debating technique. It is child's play to build a strawman and refute that. It is unlikely to convince anyone. But if you can build the strongest argument that your opponent can and refute that it is far more convincing.

 

[John53]

The title reminded me of steel manning. Or refuting the strongest version of your opponents argument. And I see that the article mentioned it. That is actually a good debating technique. It is child's play to build a strawman and refute that. It is unlikely to convince anyone. But if you can build the strongest argument that your opponent can and refute that it is far more convincing.

My brain read it as star mining.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

To me, not demonizing an opponent and assuming they meant the best, is "Going high".

Calling them out is, "Going low".

Going high with a person is usually possible in your first conversations with them, but after awhile, some people just continually reveal themselves to hate trans people, black people, etc, etc. And to not listen and twist their opponent's words even when they make good arguments.
Going high with these people becomes tiring after awhile, and can be pretty pointless. It's like trying to turn the other cheek to and demonstrate patience and love all the time with someone who favors chaos and turmoil. Or constantly giving gifts to someone who doesn't say "thanks" and casts them aside, those gifts being your time, attention and consideration.

 

[Left Coast]

To me, not demonizing an opponent and assuming they meant the best, is "Going high".

Calling them out is, "Going low".

Going high with a person is usually possible in your first conversations with them, but after awhile, some people just continually reveal themselves to hate trans people, black people, etc, etc. And to not listen and twist their opponent's words even when they make good arguments.
Going high with these people becomes tiring after awhile, and can be pretty pointless. It's like trying to turn the other cheek to and demonstrate patience and love all the time with someone who favors chaos and turmoil. Or constantly giving gifts to someone who doesn't say "thanks" and casts them aside, those gifts being your time, attention and consideration.

I do agree that taking the "high road" is emotionally exhausting at times and can seem like a thankless endeavor. Anonymous internet trolls make this doubly difficult because they say things just to get a rise out of people. They are a vocal minority that often suck the oxygen out of a conversation, unfortunately.

However, I'll also say I've met extremely few people in my personal life (and I know quite a few who disagree with me on religion and politics), who, for example, actually "hate black people" or anything so simplistic and extreme. Usually the situation is more complex - they've been given wrong information, or haven't considered negative unintended consequences of the policies they support, etc.

 

[Left Coast]

The title reminded me of steel manning. Or refuting the strongest version of your opponents argument. And I see that the article mentioned it. That is actually a good debating technique. It is child's play to build a strawman and refute that. It is unlikely to convince anyone. But if you can build the strongest argument that your opponent can and refute that it is far more convincing.

I agree. I also think it sometimes reveals to us that actually we can't refute the other person's view when it's framed as strongly as possible and that they may actually have a point.

Also, even if one person doesn't convince the other, what I think starmanning does is build a level of trust and rapport with the other person so that they feel respected and heard. That builds a bridge for constructive future conversations.

 

[PureX]

I think the idea that we can change other people's minds or attitudes is naive. People do change, occasionally, but not by the deliberate machinations of other people. Being polite and understanding is no more effective than being antagonistic.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I think the idea that we can change other people's minds or attitudes is naive. People do change, occasionally, but not by the deliberate machinations of other people. Being polite and understanding is no more effective than being antagonistic.

For the most part, I think this is true.
One thing that would help the world, though, is for us to somehow keep in mind the humanity of those we disagree with...even if we continue to disagree with them.

For some reason we seem more intent than ever to dehumanize groups casually.
(Of course, dehumanizing groups deliberately is nothing new. Because humans.)

Anyone that disagrees with me is clearly a poopyhead, btw.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The title reminded me of steel manning. Or refuting the strongest version of your opponents argument. And I see that the article mentioned it. That is actually a good debating technique. It is child's play to build a strawman and refute that. It is unlikely to convince anyone. But if you can build the strongest argument that your opponent can and refute that it is far more convincing.

If you argue with complete tools, a straw man and a steel man might amount to the same thing!
I have my tongue in my cheek at this point.

 

[Kooky]

To me, a "better" conversation would be one in which all parties feel understood and respected even if they disagree with each other. But you're right that if someone doesn't care about those things, it's tough to have a "better" conversation. I've found most folks do though, when they're being honest/vulnerable.

This assumes that we approach online conversations like we do an intimate one-on-one talk with a trusted acquaintance, but most of our conversations online are going to be with strangers in front of an audience.

These two components, I feel, significantly change the entire dynamic of a conversation; you're not talking to somebody you can trust, but some rando who may or may not have an entirely different motivation for this discussion than you do, and you're not talking to a person, you're performing for an audience of spectators.

I believe that this makes it significantly more difficult to have a conversation of the kind you desire, as I feel that the performative aspect makes it that much harder to produce the kind of reflective, empathetic thinking that your ideal conversation would require.

 

[Kooky]

The title reminded me of steel manning. Or refuting the strongest version of your opponents argument. And I see that the article mentioned it. That is actually a good debating technique. It is child's play to build a strawman and refute that. It is unlikely to convince anyone. But if you can build the strongest argument that your opponent can and refute that it is far more convincing.

But still keeping in mind that you're performing for an audience, and that it is that audience that you seek to convince, not your opponent who is already invested in believing their own beliefs.

 

[Secret Chief]

For the most part, I think this is true.
One thing that would help the world, though, is for us to somehow keep in mind the humanity of those we disagree with...even if we continue to disagree with them.

For some reason we seem more intent than ever to dehumanize groups casually.
(Of course, dehumanizing groups deliberately is nothing new. Because humans.)

Anyone that disagrees with me is clearly a poopyhead, btw.

You Aussies are all the same.

 

[Left Coast]

This assumes that we approach online conversations like we do an intimate one-on-one talk with a trusted acquaintance, but most of our conversations online are going to be with strangers in front of an audience.

These two components, I feel, significantly change the entire dynamic of a conversation; you're not talking to somebody you can trust, but some rando who may or may not have an entirely different motivation for this discussion than you do, and you're not talking to a person, you're performing for an audience of spectators.

I believe that this makes it significantly more difficult to have a conversation of the kind you desire, as I feel that the performative aspect makes it that much harder to produce the kind of reflective, empathetic thinking that your ideal conversation would require.

I see your point here, and you're right, that part of the dynamic does make the conversation more difficult to have. However, since many of us are regulars here, I would hope that in RF we could start to build some of that trust and empathy among us. Many of us post here literally every day and share quite a bit about ourselves and views we care deeply about. Perhaps it's pollyanna, but it's a hope.

 

[Left Coast]

I think the idea that we can change other people's minds or attitudes is naive. People do change, occasionally, but not by the deliberate machinations of other people. Being polite and understanding is no more effective than being antagonistic.

Although I (and the entire professional industries of marketing/PR/political campaigning) disagree with you, I don't think the goal necessarily needs to be changing someone's mind in every conversation. I think a significant step is simply to recognize the common humanity of the other person and think of them in shades of grey rather than the black and white we're often primed for.