The other night I attended a talk by Tara Smith, a philosopher from the University of Texas who has written a number of good books, such as this one. Her talk was at a private event so I am not going to relate the exact details of what was said, but one thing that struck me during the Q&A session was when a guy in the audience, who clearly disagreed violently with Prof. Smith’s views, began to state that she “did not get” certain ideas (which he presumably agreed with).
I really dislike this verbal tactic, although I occasionally find myself lapsing into it, and I should not. When we say that someone does not “get” something, such as not “getting” rock music, or clothes fashions, or a political creed, or whatnot, what they really are trying to say is that “X does not like or agree with this because he or she is an idiot or is blind to the wonderfulness of it.” I remember, back in the days when he was cheerleading for George W. Bush, Andrew Sullivan was a particularly bad offender, writing about how X or Y did not “get” the threat posed by Saddam/etc and so forth. Even if Sullivan was right at the time, this tactic smacked of saying that smart, clever people like him understood what was going on but those who did not were in some ways deficient in their reasoning.
Jamie Whyte, about whom I have written before, has a great book debunking these lazy ways of thinking and arguing. Well worth the read.
Similarly, phrases like ‘that seems strange’ or ‘that doesn’t make any sense’ can often be used as refusals to consider the matter further (out of the fear of looking like a plonka, perhaps) as opposed to asking questions when one genuinely doesn’t understand.
There is a Pink Floyd song (forget the name) in which the opening minute features a chap relating his experiences in a mental asylum by saying something along the lines of “you had to explain why you were mad, even if you were not mad.”
I expect this will continue to be par for the course for anyone trying to make a free-market argument in a popular forum for years and years to come…
Saying in an argument that your opponent does not ‘get’ your point of view is actually an admission of defeat. The reason that someone does not ‘get’ it is usually because you either haven’t argued your point coherently enough. It is your job, when arguing for a certain point of view to present all the facts (as you see them) about said view in such a manner as to convince your opponent to concede the point. If they don’t ‘get’ the point, then you have failed.
There are many ways of dealing with argument by intimidation, here’s one of my faves …
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ez-NpFVwQw
@Johnathan Pearce: I am pleased to see that you have apparently been reading Jamie Whyte’s books.
It really is possible, Johnathan, for a person to be in a position to see that someone else is grappling with a problem ineffectually due to bad or incomplete data, etc. Without a formal study to present to you, I’ll just go out on a limb from everyday common-sense observation of the world and say that it is not a fact that every instance of the assertion is an argument from intimidation. It is very often true that people don’t know what they’re talking about.
Your example appears more to be an argument from authority (“Authority A believe that P is true; therefore P is true”) rather than an agument by intimidation (“If you don’t agree that P is true, I’m going to hurt you”).
“Your example appears more to be an argument from authority (“Authority A believe that P is true; therefore P is true”) rather than an agument by intimidation (“If you don’t agree that P is true, I’m going to hurt you”)”
I think he was refering to Rand’s idea of the agument by (moral) intimidation which takes the form,
If A then B
All people who do not beleve A are mean, nasty and unrightious.
Therefore B
Well I don’t really see much difference. When a person asserts that folk who don’t “get” his point of view are dumb, silly or evil, it usually makes me switch off if they have not made any effort to provide supporting evidence.
For what it is worth, the person who ranted at Pr. Smith the other night accused this lady, who has been a lecturer in philosophy for many years and written books and scholarly articles, of being totally ignorant of her subject, while the person concerned was not, as far as I know, anything other than a heckler in cardigan. The arrogance and rudeness of this character was breathtaking.
Well, Johnathan, this is a perfect illustration of Ayn Rand’s problem with John Hospers.
Hospers’ supports the ideas of Sigmund Freud, logical positivism, extrasensory perception, determinism, interventionism, distributivism, Platonism, etc., etc.,and when Ayn Rand protests, Hospers replies ‘Oh, but you don’t understand logical positivism etc..’
When Ayn Rand says that she has read logical positivism and quotes Otto Neurath(Link) and explains the false premises at the heart of logical positivism, Hospers then replies ‘Oh but you don’t get my logical positivism [determinism etc.] My logical positivism is different from everyone else’s!’
The problem is, of course, that Ayn Rand’s critics do not fully grasp her basic premises and therefore they cannot grasp her method. Their epistemological agnosticism creates a blank-out so severe that debate on a philosophical level becomes extremely frustrating.
The only answer to this problem that I can suggest is to focus on the basic premises.
It is inevitable that objectivists will have many disagreements with non-objectivists on perfectly reasonable technical issues, linguistic and semantic differences for example, but the main focus has to be on the basic premises.
When Ayn Rand cautioned her opponents to check their premises she wasn’t wasn’t trying to be smart or patronising.
She was being very helpful and very sincere.
The use of the “don’t get it” tactic is an oblique reference to the “false consciousness” claim of the collectivists, who assert that anyone who doesn’t agree with them are being mislead by their incorrectly conditioned mentality.
What the questioner at the event you describe was feeling was the gnostic superiority of the initiate who has had his consciousness raised, and therefore sees the hidden meanings and truths that the uninitiated and unraised cannot.
This is also the source of the response to challenges that goes, “If you can’t just see it for yourself than I can’t explain.”
We are hearing endless variations on this theme in the US as the health care takeover attempt meets rising opposition.
On another site today, one of the regular bloggers wrote that a commenter had said, in response to a post against nationalized health care, “Well, I guess you think those 47 million uninsured people should just die then.”
As if there are only two possible alternatives, national health, or millions dying in the street unattended. And, of course, anyone who opposes nationalized health is cruel and mean enough to choose the latter.
In another context, this sort of gimmick is called the “false choice method”. It has long been one of the favorite debate tactics of the collective because it shifts the focus from the actual proposal to the alleged meanness of the opposition.
This, among many other reasons, is why I don’t bother to pretend that it is possible to have a rational debate with someone shrouded in the collectivist mindset.
They don’t live in the same universe that I do.
In the words of Homer Simpson, “just because I don’t care doesn’t mean that I don’t understand!”
If I ever said “I do not get….” what I would mean is “I do not understand what you are saying” – it would be a confession of stupidity on my part.
I would then ask the person I was debating with to explain in more simple terms (or fuller – and with examples) – so that I could understand.
Then I would either say “I understand what you are saying now – and I agree with you”, or “I understand what you are saying – but I do not agree with you”.
Of course it is possible that I still would not understand what they were saying.
Of course if someone says “that does not make sense” they mean mean (as I would) “that is not a logical argument – it violates the rules of reasoning”.
For example, if someone wrote (as pro Obama commentors have in response to the Economist’s “Obama Cult” article) one hundred and fifty years ago Obama would have been a slave, therefore we should support him now. I would indeed hold that “that does not make sense” – i.e. that it is not a valid argument at all.
It is not that I do not “get” their argument – it is that their “argument” is not an argument.
That is what Tara Smith may mean – but then the lady should say so, and say why.
For example (to take the pro Obama “argument” above). Obama was not around 150 years ago, his white anncestors were not slaves anyway, and his black ones in East Africa were not slaves either.
Even if someone is a slave does not mean he would be a fit and proper person to be President anyway (as some bad people have been slaves as well as some good people) and so on and so on.
This is an argument from intimidation:
A (an individualist) explains why it is correct for men to live according to their own self-interest, and that this is why freedom and capitalism are part of the only system capable of advancing human progress and happiness, and that the environment should not be considered as a separate, more important system, through which one might justify the stifling and impoverishment of man, for no good objective reason.
B (socialist environmentalist) replies: “Oh well, if what counts is “as long as I’m all right, Jack…””
I don’t agree. Johnathan, you’ve used two different meanings of the phrase “to get” and confused them together. When we talk about “getting” rap music or fashion, then yes one is basically asserting an objectively superior aesthetic taste. But the other meaning of “get” is understanding, which is a different thing.
Most people will have experienced “getting” something; the point when understanding (of economics, or some science, etc) “clicks into place”. It’s a quite distinct sensation. It seems to me to be describing that moment when the brain in some way develops a functional predictive model of the thing it is trying to understand- it has stepped beyond simply storing and regurgitating factoids. In fact I experienced this very recently and was discussing it just yesterday evening with my father. He’s an excellent musician- I sadly am not- but after all these years I’d finally “got” why there are different types of temperament in musical scales and specifically I’d “got” why the Equal Temperament is a compromise that makes it impossible to perfectly tune a guitar or piano. I had known this a fact for many years- simply as a fact I could state by “rote”- but never “got my head around” the mathematical why of this is the case.
It would not have been arrogance for somebody else who did “get” it to point out that I didn’t get it, just a statement of fact. I didn’t have a functional, predictive mental model of the underlying mechanics of the subject. I could not engage with it in a functional manner.
This is true in many fields. Those we argue against- the majority- do not “get” how the free market works. I suspect many people on the “right”, even those who espouse free markets, don’t actually “get” how the market works- you can tell this becuase they cannot engage meaningfully in discussions of e.g. where value comes from and instead use generalised observations about bureaucrats being inefficient etc. One litmus test to me seems to be whether or not the person “gets” the famous “I, Pencil” essay. Most people also believe in intrinsic value. It is basically no use trying to discuss economics with people who don’t understand what value is. They are certain to subscribe to numerous fundamental errors.
Mandrill above asserts that to claim that another person doesn’t understand is one’s own failure, because one has not explained properly. But the fact is that it is more than likely that the person you are debating with clings to their false assumptions for emotional or self-serving reasons. They don’t want the truth. They can’t handle the truth. They may be incapable of understanding the truth (perhaps permanently, or just at the moment due to lack of other knowledge and understanding).
Saying “you don’t get it” isn’t intimidation. It’s usually just a cry of frustration. Try reading anything by Richard Murphy for instance and the understanding that he doesn’t “get” pretty much anything about economics will hit you about ten seconds into the experience.
There is an objective reality out there, with objective truths. If you hold to any position with certainty, you are intrinsically claiming that your opponents don’t get it. That’s nothing to be ashamed of.
Thanks Ian, you managed to articulate my general gut response to all this. I have a couple of remarks, though:
Aesthetic perception also depends on rational (albeit not necessarily fully conscious) understanding, in this case of the frame of reference*. As they say, tastes can be acquired, and the word ‘taste’ in this case really stands for such understanding.
In rational debates, yes: ‘you don’t get it’ is an expression of frustration. As such it is by definition a failure of rationality, and it is indeed very often a failure on the part of the party that ‘doesn’t get it’ (as you say, very often they don’t want to get it for all kinds of subjective reasons). The expression itself though is not conducive to the possibility of a rational exchange of ideas from there on, because it is emotional in nature. It shuts down the debate, and in the longer term everyone loses. It is much more constructive to expose those subjective reasons that make one’s opponent unable or unwilling to understand by asking questions that will lead them to commit logical fallacies, or to simply point to the logical fallacies they have already committed, as is often the case. They may be unlikely to admit to those out-loud, and may even dig themselves in even deeper just to “win” the argument, but the seed of doubt would be planted in their psyche. Although what happens to that seed from there on may well be beyond our direct control, because the above mentioned subjective reasons are very often beyond our control.
*In my mind ‘metacontext’ is another word for a frame of reference.
Ian B, not quite. If what a person means by “not getting” is “not understanding”, then it is surely better to use the latter term. In the case of a character like Richard Murphy, I find it difficult to decide whether he is being actively dishonest or is genuinely, terminally thick.
On the John Hospers versus Ayn Rand thing:
If a person says to me “I am a logicial positivist” I would assume that he shared the basic principles (the basic stuff – there was a lot of argument over details) of the Vienna Circle – as popularized in the English language by Freddie Ayer.
If the person then said “no, no Paul, I agree that such stuff was refuted by CEM Joad (“A Critique of Logical Postivism” London, 1950) and many others – my principles are totally different”. My first reply would be “then do not call yourself a logical positivist” and then I would ask the person to explain his ideas.
Anyone can play this (silly) game. For example, I could say “I am a man with a full head of hair – I just define what the words “full head of hair” mean differently from everyone else”.
I am bald – I am not a redefined full head of hair person.
If a person rejects the basic principles of logical positivism he is not a logical positivist.
And so on.
Ayn Rand must have had the patience of a saint.
From The Letters of Ayn Rand, ed. M.Berliner.
“You [Hospers] say: `”So when I hear people condemn logical positivism’ as if it were ONE doctrine, without separating out SPECIFICALLY the various views that may fall under this head. I just sigh and conclude that they don’t know what they’re talking about.”
John, isn’t it time to drop this sort of remark, if you do not intend to be offensive? I do not wish to have to remind you of it in every letter. Please stop asserting our ignorance of any subject on which you happen to disagree with us. I do not care to argue in such terms nor by such means nor on such level.
To answer your remark on a philosophical level. I will say that there are over three hundred sects of Christianity, all of which interpret the Bible differently and all of which claim to he the only true version of Christianity. Since I reject the basic premises of the Bible and of Christianity as untenable, I do not consider it incumbent upon me to discuss or refute (or even to study) the particular interpretation of every one of the three-hundredsome sects. And if I were to discuss the issue with a philosophically-minded Christian, it is the basic premises that I would discuss.”
Ayn Rand must have had the patience of a saint.
From The Letters of Ayn Rand, ed. M.Berliner.
“You [Hospers] say: `”So when I hear people condemn logical positivism’ as if it were ONE doctrine, without separating out SPECIFICALLY the various views that may fall under this head. I just sigh and conclude that they don’t know what they’re talking about.”
John, isn’t it time to drop this sort of remark, if you do not intend to be offensive? I do not wish to have to remind you of it in every letter. Please stop asserting our ignorance of any subject on which you happen to disagree with us. I do not care to argue in such terms nor by such means nor on such level.
To answer your remark on a philosophical level. I will say that there are over three hundred sects of Christianity, all of which interpret the Bible differently and all of which claim to he the only true version of Christianity. Since I reject the basic premises of the Bible and of Christianity as untenable, I do not consider it incumbent upon me to discuss or refute (or even to study) the particular interpretation of every one of the three-hundredsome sects. And if I were to discuss the issue with a philosophically-minded Christian, it is the basic premises that I would discuss.”
Quite so John W.
If one rejects the basic principles of a doctrine, one rejects that doctrine. One does not need to go into all the various interpretations of the doctrine.
Joad (back in 1950) made exactly the same point – saying that one did not need to refute all the various sects of Christianity to reject Christianity, just as one does not need to refute all the various sects of logical positivism (“no this is the latest thing – so and so is old hat”) to reject Christianity. And one is not being “ignorant” by not going into the details of each sect.
Rand was not stealing from Joad – it is obvious point that comes from thinking about the matter.
For example, I am a Christian – but if it were proved to me that Jesus never existed (forgot whether he was God or not – let us say it was proved to me that he never existed at all) I would have to accept that Christianity had been refuted.
It would not be correct for me to say “oh you have not explored the differences between the Roman Catholic church and the Anglican church – so what you say about this Jesus character is not relevant, indeed just shows that you do not know what you are talking about”.
There are such things as basic principles – both of Christianity and of Logical Positivism.
If the basic principles are wrong the details do not matter.