Rules of Intellectual Conversation

Intellectual Engagement Standards

One of my greatest joys in life is rigorous intellectual dialogue. Experience has shown that very few people are capable of playing this sport well, and I choose to only play with those people. 50% of humans think they are capable of playing at a high level, though I think only a small fraction are trained in critical thinking, avid non-fiction book-readers, and have an engineering-type brain that searches for truth while guarding against biases. I choose to only have intellectual conversations with people who choose to think critically.

I have discovered that some relationships ought to stick to what they are. Sometimes we ought to simply be vendors, kinfolk, employees, neighbors, biking friends or otherwise be of mutual benefit to each other without engaging in intellectual conversations.

If I have declined to have an intellectual conversation with you, or if you decline to dialogue with me, please know that it is not necessarily a “bad” thing, and we can still have an awesome relationship!

I have developed a set of subjective preferences, standards and rules of intellectual conversation, and if you will agree to them, let’s dialogue!

Be intellectual. Nature has provided varying aptitudes for this, and if you lack the specific temperament for high-level abstraction, there are many awesome things we can do to enjoy each other’s company, but I decline to spend my time on intellectual pursuits with those better suited for other activities. I got lucky in the brain department, and unlucky in the athletic, musical, painting and charisma departments. If you don’t have the inclination to play on a high-level intellectual field, please don’t. I promise not to sing or ask to be on your sportsball team. Some people have the capacity for high-level thought but choose to be ignorant, obtuse or dogmatic. No thanks.

• Adhere to the rules of reason and logic. These are not synonymous with “common sense” or “what everybody knows.” As with many topics in life, less than 10 hours of self-directed study can place a focused person in the top 20% of the most knowledgeable people in this subject matter. One need not be able to name and define 30 logical fallacies, however we ought to be able to recognize fallacious arguments.
• Agree to define words and concepts and to remain intellectually honest and consistent. For example, if you say that “Taxation is robbery” be prepared for me to challenge you on the definition of robbery versus extortion, fraud or burglary.
• Agree to seek truth. Be willing to accept that your previously held beliefs might be wrong. Do not be dogmatic and stick with the status quo without reexamining it. We both should be happy when our conversation partners help us shed bad ideas and add new high-quality observations. I am not interested in being preached at, especially with simplistic ideas repeated from media outlets.
• Scientific method. While many people who have the label “scientist” do not follow this methodology, it is the one I most trust. When it applies to a conversation, we will use it.
• Agree to start at the foundation. Many amateur thinkers only want to argue about micro aspects rather than the macro. If we don’t first hash out the fundamental morality of an action, we cannot smartly discuss the specific implementation of it.
• Of mutual interest. There are many things that I don’t care about. I am not opposed to them; they are simply not on my list of interests. I think it is great that people who are interested in those things chat about them elsewhere.
• Be civil unless you have a good reason not to be. I am okay with you making points by saying things that are a bit rude but add nuanced or witty value to our conversation. Just avoid low-signal, repetitive ad hominem attacks.

These are my subjective preferences and boundaries. They are not objective rules I expect all of humanity to obey, but they are the standards I require for my own time and energy. I trust you will also be forthright and sometimes say, “Thanks but no thanks.”

The Debate Space: Agreements to Participate

Be concise, genuine, and focused on finding truth.

• No name calling or labeling of positions.
• No trolling. Engage earnestly without “tit for tat” behavior.
• Speak or type and break for replies; avoid “spaghettifying” the chat.
• Do not interrupt, filibuster, or drone on. Make your point and hand it off.
• Winning is finding truth, not being right.
• Logical fallacies have no place here.

Definitions and Premises

The following are the basic presumptions for discussions with me. These are considered settled:

• Truth: That which is logically consistent and congruent with reality.
• Logic: Objective and consistent rules derived from the consistency of reality.
• Valid/Accurate/True: Positions must conform to both logic and reality.
• A = A: Reality is objective and consistent.