Elizabeth Barrette (ysabetwordsmith) wrote,
Elizabeth Barrette
ysabetwordsmith
  • Mood: busy

Kafkatrapping

Here is a deeply complicated and troublesome essay that explicitly frames some serious social malfunctions, creating the very useful term "Kafkatrapping."  It covers multiple variations of argument that classify everyone as guilty.  

By my book, a scenario that allows no correct or safe answer, but always places blame, is inherently corrupt and should be rejected.  However, that doesn't mean there is no real problem going on, just that the person attempting to discuss a topic has framed it poorly.  Some problems are obscure, complex, and easily overlooked or misread.  They still need attention.  But starting out with any version of "everyone is wrong and bad" cripples discussion and problem-solving.  I prefer approaches with a higher chance of success, such as logic.

Rule #1 of logic: You must be specific.
Rule #2 of logic: You must be able to back your claims with evidence.
Rule #3 of logic: You must avoid logical fallacies in framing your argument.

These rules of logic hold whether you are discussing an individual issue or seeking to establish a broad pattern which connects many separate events.  

It is difficult or impossible to solve problems without a clear understanding of what has gone wrong.  Consider the facts, because they remain true whether anyone knows or believes them or not.  Also consider emotions so that you don't very logically paint yourself into a corner where you will be miserable.  Remember that everyone is human, and within a human context we cannot make everything perfect, but we can and should strive to do the best that we can.
Tags: discussion, networking
Subscribe

  • Managed Retreat

    I'm pleased to see someone else admitting that not all cities can stay where they are. This article gives several examples of how cities could adapt…

  • Conformity

    Here's an article about conformity and evil. Now, we know that most humans are contextual and that evil spreads readily. But it leaves out…

  • Killer Asteroids

    There are a lot of them, and without advance preparation, Earth is defenseless. We need to get the Umbrella up.

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    switch
    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
    Help
  • 4 comments
_dw

_dw

July 15 2013, 20:47:22 UTC 7 years ago

This seems closely related to what I call "logical rudeness", after Suber's article of the same name.

Basically, logical rudeness is a response that attempts to explain the opposition to a theory in terms of the theory itself, and by so doing, insulate the person who is being rude against having to consider that objection.

Like logically fallacious reasoning, a logically rude argument does not need to be wrong, but again like logically fallacious reasoning, it's impossible to know once it's been employed, because it shields the argument to a point where the argument can't be tested any more.

And, as is hinted by the name, logical rudeness often feels, well, rude. It feels like the person doing it is somehow not playing by the same rules. I think the reason is that it feels like the arguer "gets something for free": namely, that the theory is accepted by default so that he may use it to shield his argument by applying it to objections.
ysabetwordsmith

Well...

ysabetwordsmith

July 15 2013, 20:58:00 UTC 7 years ago

>>it's impossible to know once it's been employed, because it shields the argument to a point where the argument can't be tested any more.<<

If it cannot be tested, then it need not be entertained, and may be rejected on those grounds while the speaker is advised to come back with a properly framed argument.

A related rule: Christopher Hitchens - "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."
siege

siege

July 16 2013, 00:09:52 UTC 7 years ago

And of course there's gaslighting, where the subject's environment or arguments are manipulated to produce a false impression or to cause them to question or deny their own facts, observations, and beliefs.

"Are you sure that's the truth? Because this keeps happening (because I keep making it happen)."
ysabetwordsmith

Well...

ysabetwordsmith

July 16 2013, 00:25:29 UTC 7 years ago

"There never was a sun. There never was a lion."

I tend to be the marsh-wiggle stomping on the magic incense in that argument.