Avoid the Counterargument Collapse

post by marknm · 2025-03-26T03:19:58.655Z · LW · GW · 3 comments

Contents

3 comments

Selective listening is a real problem. It’s really hard to listen to someone when you think you already know what they’re going to say; the words get filtered through our biases and expectations, and sometimes those filters remove the important bits. I want to talk about a specific way I've seen this happen. I don't know if there's a name for it already, so I'm going to call it the counterargument collapse until someone suggests a better term.

The pattern I’m talking about is three levels of progression through an argument, followed by a misunderstanding that collapses the discussion in an unpleasant way.

Level 1: A naive but widely accepted statement (“Eat less fat if you want to lose weight”.)

Level 2: A more sophisticated counterargument (“That’s a myth, fat doesn’t actually make you fat, it’s eating too many calories that makes you gain weight”.)

Level 3: A counter-counterargument. (“Actually, fatty foods tend to be more calorie-dense, so avoiding them can be beneficial if you’re trying to diet”.)

Collapse: If someone didn’t follow the whole reasoning chain, then they’ll often confuse Level 3 with Level 1 and think you’re dumb.  If you’re not paying attention, then the third argument sounds a lot like “fat is bad”, so people lump it in with outdated diet myths and judge you for believing something so clearly false.

Here are a couple more examples:

Again, it can be really hard to listen to the other person if you think you already know what they’re saying. Yes, sometimes the counter-counterargument is just a weak justification for not changing your behavior, but a good conversation partner will still take the arguments seriously instead of just dismissing them. Ideally, the conversation might instead continue like this:

This type of synthesis is what we should be aiming for in our conversations, because it’s where we actually learn and grow and arrive at a more nuanced understanding of the world. To get there, you actually have to listen to what the other person is saying instead of assuming you already know. Ideally, they will also reciprocate, but I’ve noticed that, unless you have a really good conversation partner, that doesn’t always happen. I would be interested to hear if anyone has found a good way to help your conversation partner lower their filters and actually listen to what you’re saying. The best I’ve found so far is some of the discussion around the double crux [LW · GW] technique.

Another thing that can happen (which is equally important to watch out for) is falling for the counterargument collapse during a later step of the argument. Say your partner gives a Level 4 argument, but you’re distracted and confuse it with the Level 2 argument they gave before. Because you think they are just reiterating their previous argument, you become concerned that they might not have understood your Level 3 argument, and so you reiterate your point to make sure it came across clearly. This can stall the discussion and potentially make the other person feel like you aren’t arguing in good faith. What’s the best way to get the discussion back on track after this kind of misunderstanding? The only advice I have right now is that if you notice that the discussion has stalled, it’s often a good time to paraphrase the other person’s argument back to them, to double check that you’ve actually understood them.

Maybe it’s inevitable that there will be misunderstandings of the counterargument collapse type, but I hope that recognizing that the pattern exists can help us avoid it.

3 comments

Comments sorted by top scores.

comment by silentbob · 2025-03-27T07:06:16.030Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

I guess a related pattern is the symmetric case where people talk past each other because both sides are afraid their arguments won't get heard, so they both focus on repeating their arguments and nobody really listens (or maybe they do, but not in a way that convinces the other person they really got their argument). So there, too, I agree with your advice - taking a step back and repeating the other person's viewpoint seems like the best way out of this.

comment by dkl9 · 2025-04-04T05:46:09.680Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

So the collapse is mistaking the one on the right for the one on the left. (This was an internet meme of some years ago, which happens to seem very relevant by how I understand the OP) midwit

comment by danielechlin · 2025-03-27T16:52:17.494Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

This is cool. It comes up with meta-contrarianism. There's another concept I might write up that goes something like, "you don't always have to name the concept you're defending."

For example, I wanted to do a meetup on why gen z men are more religious in celebration of International Men's Day.

Just think of how the two topics in that sentence interact. It's more likely I'm going to have a meetup on "whether it's okay to have a meetup about International Men's Day" than anything. And if I wanted to promote men in any broad sense, it seems like doing the topic without mentioning International Men's Day is an entirely acceptable and useful idea. So it's a "choose your battles" thing. If I think having a big argument about International Men's Day is a good payout, then I can do that, but it's definitely not, so don't.

I've found this on reddit... sometimes it's easier to defend capitalism by just explaining capitalism at least as I understand it without actually saying capitalism. That last battle where I get them to understand that they just agreed with a capitalist analysis nips in the bud some open mindedness we had just worked to create.