Link: "You're Not Being Reasonable"

I once wrote a very similar list, composed of questions to ask yourself when in an argument. I don't remember most of it, but my favorite one was:

"Are you wrong?"

I think a lot of people are happy to spend a long time arguing a point, responding to rebuttals and forming their own, without ever honestly considering whether their point is not correct. It becomes a game of argument and counter-argument rather than an actual exchange of ideas. If you want to play that game, you're certainly allowed to--but be honest with yourself that it's a game, not a conversation (and don't play it with other people without their consent).

A related link: Paul Graham's Disagreement Hierarchy

I like his rules for reasonableness--though there are exceptions to most of them, they are good heuristics overall.

In addition, reasonable people take the time to find out why their arguments are rejected, and in the future either use a different argument or at least address the identified deficiency.

Sometimes the deficiency that needs to identified is the intellectual capability of the people with whom you are arguing. You can be addressed that problem by speaking to different people or choosing a different subject. This isn't 'reasonable' but it is certainly practical and rational. Being reasonable is overrated.

Technical note RE: the linked article:

You don't know it if you can't prove it by empirical, external means.

I don't agree, at least as it applies to a strict definition of 'prove'. Some things are just ridiculously hard to prove and some things are not empirical.

Was this perchance motivated by the unpleasantness that developed in a recent thread? In any case, the point (3) in the article you link to seems highly pertinent in that context, and I would venture to say, the point (5) also.