People sometimes try to win a debate by playing “trump cards” that allegedly overturn any other argument, instead of practicing reasoned arguments based on logic, common sense, and evidence.
One attempted “trump card” is that an “authentic” member of group X is in favor of a certain policy towards group X. The hidden assumption is that any “authentic” member of group X can speak for all other members of group X, and knows what is best for group X. When these hidden assumptions are clearly stated, they are clearly silly. I was authentically born in West Virginia, but I would not dare claim to know what’s best for Appalachian poverty based on my accident of birth (or speak for my fellow “Appalachians.”)
A recent use of this “trump card” was UNHCR’s statement defending its “Refugee Run” at Davos, which we debated on this blog last week: “The exhibit received a seal of approval from a genuine refugee, Raphael Mwandu from the Democratic Republic of the Congo.” I have every respect for Mr. Mwandu’s opinion, but I don’t approve of UNHCR’s using him as a trump card. What did it mean that one refugee was “genuine” – did they disqualify some other refugees that were not “genuine”?
Another example of this was the article this weekend in the Financial Times about Zambian economist Dambisa Moyo and her new book Dead Aid. Again, there seemed to be the idea that Dr. Moyo should win the argument because she was born in Zambia. This is unfair to Dr. Moyo and unfair to other African intellectuals. It also seemed very unnecessary because Dr. Moyo’s opinions are fascinating on their own merits. About celebrities working on African policy, she says “Americans would be put out if Amy Winehouse went to tell them how to end the housing crisis. I don’t see why Africans shouldn’t be perturbed for the same reasons.”
The FT article continues, “Moyo says it is easy for the western media to paint a doomsday scenario – one which depicts Africans as helpless – to justify the delivery of yet more aid.” I can’t wait to read her new book (it comes out February 5 in the UK and March 17 in the US).
Another very popular “trump card” is to dismiss your debate opponent as being “ideological” (variants on this trump card are to attack the research financing or think tank affiliation of your opponent). This has shown up quite a bit in comments on this blog. Now it is certainly true that some people make arguments based only on ideology and not on legitimate grounds like logic, common sense, or evidence. How can we tell who is being ideological? By doing what we should have done in the first place: debate the argument using logic, common sense, and evidence.
“Trump cards” are out, reason is in.
22 Comments
You might as well just out yourself as a Marxist
perhaps a new term is needed for this, although I hesitate to add yet another “ism” to the world of debate. The phenomonae of blindly ascribing special insight or validity due to genetic, ethnic or geographic background is alive and well. Token positive bias ascription is just as dangerous as negative ascription.
About Moyo’s book, check out the article at the Times here but also look at the ONE reader comment they have deigned to publish!
“Why is it so hard to say that Africans may be constitutionally not capable of not stealing from each other?
Fred Kite, Tunbridge Wells, UK”
Let’s perhaps talk about the trump card of ongoing western paternalism? Bonus marks for mentioning the number of thumbs you will need in order to count all the World Bank presidents not born & bred in the USA.
“Trump cards” are out, reason is in.
Thank you for your eloquence in defense of reasoned debate and ideas.
All of us have biases that have been shaped by our experiences both intellectual and experiential. Part of the way that we as humans learn is through using simplified models to tease out the nature of complex structures and subjects. One should recognize that a model or theory is only a tool with limitations as Shakespeare’s words remind us:
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
There is no individual, political ideology or grand theory of the universe that answers all questions and applies in all situations. Analysis, synthesis, logic and reason allow us to subject ideas to critical thinking rather evaluating them based on “whose idea was it”.
The science of probability supports the theoretical possibility that anyone can have a good idea or get the right answer whether they share our “values” or not.
Of course everyone thinks they’re using evidence, common sense, and logic and that their opponents are not. But rather than proclaiming oneself free of bias it might be better to accept that economics (like other social sciences) is often not very good at establishing facts or causation, and that most of us carry around beliefs or ideologies of some kind or another. The weight Prof Easterly puts on his distinction between ‘Planners’ and ‘Searchers’ strikes me as more ideology than science, for example, but that’s an argument for another day. The pervasiveness of bias and of differing beliefs and values should teach us to make our arguments with a certain amount of humility. I’m often terrible at adhering to this myself, but I am trying.
Sorry, one more thing. It seems perfectly reasonable to me to argue that the views or actions of some commentators may be influenced by those who pay them, for example one or other of the many think-tanks out there which have explicitly ideological objectives. Isn’t this kind of criticism also often levelled against aid agencies? In both cases it should of course be backed up by analysis of the argument or actions in question, but surely an economist would argue that we should always examine the incentives at work.
Unfortunately psychological research has shown that the ability (willingness, desire) to use reasoned argument is not uniform across the ideological spectrum.
It turns out that “liberals” are more willing to debate and consider all sides of an argument than are “conservatives”.
When “liberals”, especially in academia, are told that their opponents aren’t playing by the same rules they have a hard time believing it.
There are some extensive studies on this, but the easiest to read (and get to) is the free, online book by psychologist Robert Altemeyer who has studied what he dubbed the “right wing authoritarian” personality type, for 40+ years.
You can read (or download) his book at his web site:
TheAuthoritarians.com
RWA’s are inflexible and believe in a hierarchical social arrangement. They are the followers in the movement. The leaders have been dubbed as having a “social dominant orientation”. Wikipedia has articles on both terms.
For SDO’s think Cheney or Rumsfeld, for RWA’s think of Limbaugh’s dittoheads.
So it makes a difference if one is debating someone from CATO or the Hudson Institute. These people don’t just work there because their ideas fit with those that the financial backers want to promote, but because they do not operate by the same standards of evidence. If they did they wouldn’t be able to hold down their jobs for long.
Perhaps you think I’m being harsh, but the evidence of their intellectual shortcomings is available for anyone who wants to take the time to go through it.
Prof. Easterly,
Very much enjoy your website but I notice that sometimes comments are posting with blank lines or the upper or lower half of text is visible making it impossible to read the comment in full. Not sure if this is a compatibility issue with Internet Explorer 6.0 (the newer version does not work with my online banking program). Is anyone else having problems?
The use of one person to extrapolate as representative of an entire demographic is equivalent statistically to using a sample size of 1. Statistically, the sample size is a key factor in determining the reliability of the data and evaluating the conclusions of any study.
Television and printed media often present stories of families or individuals to highlight important issues or to make the problem real to us. Such stories help to communicate the privations in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina for example. Again, we need to remember that such information is limited in scope and tends to communicate on an emotional level rather than providing comprehensive decision-making information.
Such trump cards often appear to be the last line of defence for a staggeringly bad idea, or justification for an obnoxiously patronising approach to “people who need our help”.
We should perhaps listen, however, when the trump card is played by someone who actually knows what they’re talking about – like Andrew Rugasira, founder of Good African Coffee: “The perception is that Africans somehow must go around with a begging basket asking and seeking a handout. That does not define me, begging does not define the farmers I work with, and that doesn’t define my peers across the continent.” (Unlocking Africa DVD, Legatum Pioneers of Prosperity Africa Prize 2007)
As this new post is aimed primarily toward debating technique it may be well to comment in kind. It is certainly an interesting study.
Easterly states that we should all be “practicing reasoned arguments based on logic, common sense, and evidence”. It is fine to remind us all of a debating truism, however, it becomes ludicrously ironic when used as a “trump card” disguised as valid engagement in the debate.
There is no “evidence” to suggest that the UNHCR released the news story Easterly references in order to rebut his emotive allegation that the people involved in that simulation were insensitive, dehumanizing, pornography peddlers etc. So the UNHCR’s article perhaps falls outside the scope of an “attempted ‘trump card’” for the purposes of the refugee run debate.
There is little “common sense” being employed when framing the rhetorical question…
What did it mean that one refugee was “genuine” – did they disqualify some other refugees that were not “genuine”?
Surely a trivial application of common sense highlights that the distinction is between those who were merely “acting” as refugees for the purposes of the simulation and those who had at one time been exiles who fled for safety in “real life”. Given the absence of any material contribution to the debate, this question strikes me as reaching for ways to mask inaccuracy with insult.
It appears that Mr Mwundu’s comments were focussed on the relative realism of the simulation. Some commentators took exception to the Refugee Run on the basis that it may have been poorly executed (rich people jogging around Davos etc.) and Mr Mwundu’s comments could perhaps “logically” speak to that aspect of the debate.
It would perhaps be “reasonable” for Mr Easterly to take exception if UNHCR laid claim to Mr Mwundu’s refugee status in order to silence all dissent with regards to their simulation. Given that this was not the case, however, Easterly should perhaps not deliver his contribution to this lively debate by pointing at one refugee opening his mouth and crying “trump card foul!”.
“Trump cards” are out, reason is in?
Where?
I also read about Dambisa Moyo’s book with interest and did find myself wondering if her African “credibility” would mean that her book would be better received than White Man’s Burden, for example.
However, I then (perhaps cynically) thought how can she claim to be representative of Africa with her Harvard, Oxford and Goldman Sachs pedigree?
My “authenticity alarm” always goes off when people have to refer to their grandparents. Without this it would be fairly easy to portray her as some kind of elite, silver spoon type which I hasten to add is not necessarily the case.
robertdfeinman:
Have a link to that psychological research? I’m pretty sure cognitive dissonance is displayed by both sides of the political spectrum. Consider many liberals approach to religious issues, for example, in the vein of the Dawkin’s movement. Also, the left’s portrayal of anyone who does economics as raging capitalist evil. Henry Farrell has got some research showing slightly lower levels of polarisation amongst liberal blog readers here, but I’m not sure it’s enough.
Also, Paul Collier seems to have resorted to the she’s African argument, though I’m not sure a comparison to Ayaan Hirsi Ali is particularly helpful (especially if your audience is UK Independent readers). I for one would be dissapointed if Moyo landed a cushy job at the AEI.
Of course direct ‘logic, common sense, and evidence’ ought to trump everything else – but paying attention to the oppinions of an intellectual authority is a sort of indirect evidence. Such ‘bias’ is inevitable in such a complex world.
A refugee will probably know more about certain aspects of being a refugee then the rest of us.
So the problem is perhaps folks exploiting this adaptation when direct evidence is just as readily presentable. Or trusting one authority and ignoring the rest when there is no where near a consensus.
Naadir Jeewa:
I cited a link in my remarks, perhaps you didn’t notice it:
http://TheAuthoritarians.com
Robert Altemeyer’s work only used Canadian and American subjects, so he draws no conclusions about other countries.
He’s always stated he would like to see some of his surveys adapted to other cultures.
The effects that he has identified go beyond just cognitive dissonance.
I tend to think he has identified several universal personality types, but how they correlate with local political views is not clear.
Robert,
In the field of psychology, there are numerous models of personality types. Myers Briggs, Type A vs. Type B personality, Hedgehogs vs. Foxes, etc. The least controversial of these models is the introvert-extrovert continuum and even this model is not without its critics for the very reason that it is a limited tool. Results are usually distributed across a Bell curve rather than being at polar opposites.
Human beings do not come in 2 flavors. Even ice cream comes in more flavors than that.
Robert,
Have you actually read this book or do you imagine that no one else will? Here is a passage from Bob Altemeyer’s The Authoritarians:
“So a right-wing authoritarian follower doesn’t necessarily have conservative views. Instead he’s someone who readily submits to the established authorities in a society, attacks others in their name, and is highly conventional. It’s an aspect of his personality not a description of his politics.”
Straw man alert.
The argument that a given “authentic” member of X group knows what is best for all people of X group is really a version of the argument from authority — an old rhetorical fallacy (or useful tool, depending on your tastes). In this case, it’s just jazzed up with the identity politics of our era.
It comes in part, I think, from our [upper First World] collective, near-obscene pursuit of Exposure to Authenticity[tm]. But the image of authenticity is much easier to obtain than the messy facts. It’s a lazy kind of noblesse oblige.
Hello,
Is it possible to get the talk on podcast? although I was not able to be there in person, I am interested in the talk. Thanks, Jennifer
Gute Arbeit hier! Gute Inhalte.
(Translation: Good work here! Good content. -Ed.)
Interessante Informationen.
This is a very interesting Topic.
Many greetings from Germany
“Trump cards” are out, reason is in.