Rules of engagement: Improving social media discourse
It can hardly have escaped the reader’s attention that social media debate and argument are often punctuated by vitriol and ad hominem attacks. What can we as individuals do, to make sure that we don’t contribute to the epidemic of social media bitterness? Well we can follow Rapoport’s rules.
Rapoport’s rules of argument
In an ideal world, members of social media would recognise the distinction between fighting and argument. Arguments themselves are nothing but premises and subsequent conclusions which are based upon those premises. But an unusual thing happens when a belief is taken into the heart and identity of an individual, it is at these times when emotive feeling takes over and all too often respect and good taste are left behind.
Referring to the game theorist Anatol Rapoport and the late philosopher Daniel Dennett, Rapoport’s rules help not only in encouraging critical debate but also to help your opponent recognise you not as a hostile but as an individual like them trying to reach the truth of a position.
So what are these rules:
1. You should attempt to re-express your opponent’s position so clearly and fairly that your target expressed admiration and even gratitude for stating it so vividly
2. You should list any points of agreement
3. You should mention anything you have learned from your target
4. Only then should you mention points of rebuttal or criticism
The benefits
You should notice that the very first item prevents a certain type of logical fallacy called the ‘straw man’ fallacy in which an opponent deliberately mischaracterises a position so that the new restatement presents an easier target for attack. This first point prevents both a deliberate but also accidental straw man fallacy.
The second point lists not only common assumptions upon which new assumptions can take place, but also builds key rapport between the participants. Debate is never easy, but is made harder when there exists little to no rapport.
The third item again builds valuable rapport and allows your target to feel not only validated but valued as a debating partner. Too often, social media is looking for the ultimate ‘mic drop’ and the chance to make your opponent feel stupid rather than as a valued thinking individual gifted with their own thoughts and beliefs. One need only look at Youtube and the sort of titles that come up about ‘crushing’ a debate partner rather than a respectful and interesting title that captures the topic under discussion.
The fourth point finally enables you to discuss those points of diversion. But by the time you do this step, both you and your opponent are in a whole different head space than is usual for social media.
Another useful tip to remember is that you don’t have to respond immediately or even at all to an issue. Giving yourself time and breathing space can ensure that you give yourself time to metabolise what’s been said but also time to formulate a clear and reasoned response.
Conclusion
It’s difficult to follow these rules, especially if your conversational partner is unwilling to follow these guidelines. However, by holding oneself to these guidelines, it may facilitate a more sustainable and encouraging brand of social media discourse and a space where each individual feels valued and there is less chance for a toxic partisanship.
