Facts vs. Principles

You're in a heated argument.  You have your list of facts and principles, and so does your adversary.  Who wins?  Clearly, you believe that you do almost every time.  Of course, your adversary thinks that he or she has won almost every time as well.  So who's right?  Well, it turns out that most people in arguments have already drawn conclusions and will rely on their facts and principles regardless of what the other person says.  Amusingly, when your facts override their principles, you say, "But look at the facts!" and when they have facts that go against your principles, you say, "But that's wrong!"  So what can you do?

Well, if I had a magical answer to this question, the world wouldn't be as polarized as it is.  So you mainly have three options: don't get into the argument in the first place; make your argument and agree to disagree; or devolve into insults about the other person's principles (or lack thereof) and stop speaking to the other person.  The fourth option, convincing the other person, is rarely going to happen unless there's a power dynamic and the other person has to listen to you even if they don't agree.  It is possible, but you do have to be willing to understand the other person's position and ask them to reciprocate.

So what we can answer today is why this works this way and then discuss how you might possibly be able to use that information to have more reasonable debates that avoid the Hanlon's razor conclusion (i.e., "He's an [idiot/ass].").

First of all, what is going on?  Well, everyone draws conclusions based on the facts and their principles.  Let's take a few examples (warning: we'll use contentious ones and take both sides; contentious topics are easier to show how people only care about facts that support their principles and disregards ones that they don't) and show how it works:

Speech Regulation:

• Freedom of Speech: Principle: Because speech does not directly harm someone and the power to suppress it would inevitably be used to silence dissent and control society, there should be no laws against speech unless you are directly threatening or ordering harm.  Facts: Civil rights movements that were protected under freedom of speech would've never happened.  Unions could be suppressed.  Dictators' first changes are often to abolish disagreement with their policies.

• Hate Speech Laws: Principle: Hurting people's feelings is wrong and shouldn't be done.  Facts: Suicide rates among people who are frequently verbally bullied are higher than people who are not.  Protests can turn into mobs, riots, and insurrections.
  

Minimum Wage Laws:

• Minimum Wage: Principle: If you work, you deserve to be able to live on the money you earn.  Facts: Poverty rates.  Power dynamics between employers and employees.  Cost of living data.

• No Minimum Wage: Principle: In basic economics, when you artificially increase the price of something, the demand for it goes down.  With labor, that means unemployment.  Therefore, the government should not be involved in price fixing, as all it will do is cause employers to cut hours, reduce staff, or cut benefits, or go out of business.  Facts: Unemployment rates.  Demographics of people who make minimum wage (i.e., they are overwhelmingly young people who need job experience as a stepping stone to better jobs).  Percentage of employees who cannot get the hours they need.

Abortion:

• Pro-Choice: Principle: You should have a right to do what you want with your own body.  Facts: Rape statistics.  Birth defect rates from incest.  Cost of raising children.  The biology of males not being able to have children.  Crime rates from unwanted children (e.g., the chapter on abortion and crime rates in Freakonomics).  In terms of when abortion should no longer be allowed, the point at which fetuses can feel pain, have a heartbeat, show brain activity, or other possible, objective lines to balance the freedom of a mother with the protection of a child.

• Pro-Life: Principle: Killing people is wrong.  Human life begins at conception.  Therefore, killing unborn children is an abomination.  Facts: Biology (e.g., every organism that exists is "just a clump of cells" and, like the "heap paradox", there is no absolute dividing line between "clump of cells" and "person" and so the only logical one is one where an egg is fertilized and now is a new organism with its own DNA).  Trauma to mothers.  Statistics showing that 51% of women are pro-life.  For the purposes of reducing allowable abortions, evidence showing at which age fetuses begin to feel pain, have a heartbeat, or have brain functioning.
  

If you're still reading, thank you in advance for allowing me to use hot topics.  Note that I'm not an expert debater on the above; I'm just giving some basic arguments.

Okay, so here's why I went through those: you clearly have a position on these topics.  So what happens to your reasoning as you read both the view you agree with and the one that you disagree with?  Well, if you didn't notice (and you might have!), you read the principle of the position that you agree with and say, "Absolutely!" and then read every fact supporting it and go, "See?  There is no other logical conclusion one can draw based on these facts!"  Then, when you read the opposing viewpoint, you immediately say, "Yes, but..." to the principle and retreat to the supporting view's facts and principle and show how that overwhelmingly overrides it.  Specifically, you will emphasize that your viewpoint trumps the other, that their principle doesn't apply or is somehow invalid, and that their facts either don't matter or are trumped by yours.

So let's show how people treat principles and facts using the above examples:

• If you believe in the principle of freedom of speech, then it doesn't matter what the suicide rates of bullying are; the solution is to support the victims and not punish people for speaking.  If you believe in rules against harming people, you don't care about others' freedom if it makes someone feel less safe and don't care about the consequences in terms of risking oppression because you believe that you'll always vote in good people who won't abuse their authority (or vote them out if they do).  Automatically, facts that support your principle matter more than facts that don't.
  
• If you believe that everyone should be able to live off the work that they do regardless of its value to society, then you will dismiss the fact that employment rates will go up—or deny the fact entirely.  In other words, "It's not true...but if it were true, it wouldn't matter.  If it does matter, then it still doesn't matter enough to violate my principles and change my position."  If you believe that people should be free and the government should not be involved in economics (i.e., because it breeds corruption), then no argument about employer-employee power dynamics will change your mind.
  
• Finally, if you believe that all life is sacred and that the only logical starting point of that sacredness is when its DNA is formed at conception, then no argument about rape, incest, or anything will matter.  It should have the same right to life as any other creature.  If you believe that no one should be forced to carry a child that they don't want and that rape, incest, etc. are good reasons for why someone would want to, then no argument about DNA formation will matter to you.
  

Of course, there is a chance that you looked at both arguments, found validity in each, and were thinking about how to strike a balance.  That's completely possible, as many people acknowledge two sides of an argument and take a position that balances the principles and factors in all of the facts.  However, we began this post with the "poles" because a moderate position arguing with a one-sided position will appear to be the opposite side to the person taking the one side.  Unfortunately, when arguing with someone taking a side, the person who has the side will make all of one side's points, so the person in the middle will only need to make the other side's points to balance out the debate, and so they basically represent the other side even if they don't mean to just due to the human desire for brevity in conversation.

So, how can you use this information to foster greater outcomes for yourself in life?  Well, it depends on your goals:

• If you want to avoid conflict and maintain healthy relationships, the best strategy for you might be to avoid the argument altogether.
  
• If you want to change someone's opinion, you have to acknowledge that their principles and facts are valid and try to get them to acknowledge the other principles and facts as valid.  At best, you can move them a little, but you won't be able to change their minds unless you can increase the priority of your principle and decrease the priority of theirs.  For example, you would have to point out the hypocrisy of a "my body, my choice" argument (e.g., "Many of the people who make that argument are also for suicide prevention and vaccine mandates, which means that they only hold that principle when it suits their agenda.") or point out the difficulties of treating unborn children exactly the same way as born children (e.g., "Would women who have miscarriages be subject to murder investigations?").
• If you want to engage in intellectual debates just for the sake of expanding your own mind and making you a better debater, then you might be best off setting some ground rules such as being respectful and always being willing to acknowledge the other person's points.  Or just agree not even to argue but for each side to state their opinion and reasoning, give the other an opportunity to ask questions, and then move on to the next topic.

The important thing to remember here is that for you to live a happy, prosperous life in a free society, not everyone has to agree with you.  If someone likes broccoli and you don't, they can't make you eat it nor necessarily want to make you (unless they're your parents).  Using the above examples, you can find a job that pays you what you want given your skill set regardless of what the law is.  You can associate with people who agree with your opinions on how society should be governed.  Just remember that having people who disagree with you make your conclusions and your arguments better.

The only time these disagreements matter is when one person wants to control another—hence why political topics are the most contentious because our principles are the strongest regarding rules that will affect either our freedom or our safety.

As a final note, be careful of Hanlon's razor, which generally asserts that you assume that your opponent is either ignorant, stupid, or evil (in that order) if they disagree with you.  After all, people with the same information, intelligence, and morals as you must draw the same conclusions.  Hence why people debate over facts (information) and principles (morals): because those are the two things that determine the conclusions you draw about rules to set and how to behave to achieve the best outcome.  The argument itself is a showcase of reasoning (intelligence), which is why people try to get better at it to get others to draw the same conclusions as they did.

If you want to live your best life, you want to have the most/best/right information, the best reasoning, and the right ethics to attain your goals without harming anyone.  The problem is that others will have different information, reasoning, and ethics based on their life experiences, and so you'll have to decide whether theirs are applicable to you, whether yours are applicable to them, and whether it's worth debating the topic.  Some people on some topics—like vegans and animal cruelty, libertarians and freedom, or cross-fit athletes and cross-fit—won't be able to help themselves, and they'll likely lose a lot of friends due to it.  Others keep away from topics but allow others to do things that they don't like.

You have to do what's right for you.  No one can tell you otherwise.  Just remember that, once you've formed an opinion on something, you are exponentially more likely to lean on your facts and principles and dismiss others' facts and principles.  Right or wrong...it just is.  The only way you're changing anyone's mind, though, is if you treat them with respect, so ask yourself whether you want to hear their opinion, change their mind, fight, or have a good time before you open your mouth so you behave optimally toward that outcome.  You should be willing to accept if you don't change their mind, however, or it likely won't end well.