To pwn a believer?An investigation into

the vicissitudes of conversation

Definition: What is “to pwn”?

• Slang from “to own”– To appropriate or

conquer; to gain ownership

– From gamer culture– Implies domination or

humiliation of a rival

• Used in YouTube “Pwnage Olympics”

Outline

1. Who are our interlocutors?– Psychology of argument– Different personality types of believers

2. The purpose of conversation– Power or Truth?

3. Ways conversation can devolve– The varieties of bad faith

4. Examples of pwnage5. Questions for discussion

WHO ARE OUR INTERLOCUTORS?

How our psychology affects the way we argue

Kinds of believers

• Bouquet of believers• Examples– Private believer, easily

offended– Insecure, but public

believer– Insincere, public believer– Sincere, but insecure

believer

Way of arguing

Societal expectations• Family, friends,

community

Personal hang-ups• Insecurity• Privacy Background

knowledge• Logic• Fact, Value

Openness

Private Believer• Regard beliefs as “personal”• Doubt their beliefs affect

others• Eschew evangelism

Public Believer• Consider beliefs societal• Confident beliefs can affect

the world• Tend to proselytize

Confidence

Insecure Believer• Unsure about reasons for

beliefs• Offended by criticism• Incendiary or standoffish

Secure Believer• Ready with justification for

beliefs• Welcomes scrutiny• Calm in deliberation

Earnestness

Insincere Believer• Belief not motivated by

rational warrant– Tradition– Family– Friends

• Uncommitted to any particular belief

• Bad faith– Regards beliefs as conditioned

by circumstances or conventions– Evade responsibility

Sincere Believer• Beliefs formed on reflection• Takes beliefs as motivating

action– Lives as though their beliefs

were true

• Good faith– Acts in accordance with states

beliefs– Accountable to beliefs

Believers we want to engage

Sincere• Takes beliefs

seriously

Public• Presents

beliefs to others

Secure• Not afraid of

examining beliefs

PURPOSE OF CONVERSATIONOur aim in engaged dialogue

History of Dialectic

• Will to Power– Purpose to publicly overcome opponent– Endorsed by Callicles, ancient Greek rhetorician• In Gorgias, Socratic Dialogue

– Expanded upon by Nietzsche• Socratic ideal– Investigate truth in dialogue– Spark of truth emerges from clashing ideas

Suggested Ideal

• Mutual exchange of ideas– Seeking two-way understanding• Empathy is the underlying motive• Critical examination as a way to articulate beliefs,

values

– Not persuasion-oriented• No expectation except to understand

Cost?

• Benefit:– No attachment to result – Mutually non-threatening

• Con:– Susceptible to being taken advantage of by

insincere interlocutor– Time investment when conversation devolves

WAYS CONVERSATION DEVOLVES

The downward spiral of argument

Lack of Common Ground

• Common ground– Facts• Descriptions of the world

– Values• Ways we want the world to be

– Logic• Explanations and implications we see fitting

• Too few shared values, facts or logic– No room to reason, despite sincere interlocutors

Three O’s of Devolution

• Obfuscation– Purposefully make the discussion obscure

• Confusing the issue• Changing the topic• Conflating distinct terms

• Obviation– Attempting to sidestep conversation

• Pascal’s Wager• Feigning offence• “Privacy fallacy”

• Waxing Obstinate– Refusing to budge despite reason

• Dogmatic assertion• Ignoring arguments

EXAMPLES OF PWNAGEWhen it becomes appropriate to humiliate

Pwnage Examples

• Richard Dawkins, What if you’re wrong?• Sam Harris, Stem Cells and Morality• Christopher Hitches, Free Speech

Questions

• At what point do we give up on conversation?– Not making progress– Bad faith

• When is it alright to humiliate?– To shame heinous rhetoric– To expose bad faith or insincerity

• Doublespeak• Dishonesty

– When the belief is just wildly wrong?• Does pwning have public value?

– Making a show of wrong beliefs– Discouraging insincerity