The Reasoning/Deciding Engine
A comment brings forth clarity
"This [argument technique of yours] is dialectic. It can't settle anything because it has no ground, and you can't squeeze a ground out of it."
We can, because it's part of a two stroke engine.
Upstroke:
We refurbish Argument by adding a simple path to shared facts.
"We agree THAT we disagree what the relevant facts are. How is that even possible? That's a big shared problem. Shall we solve it together?"
Downstroke:
We power up our newly refurbished Argument, point it straight at human decision-making, refurbish that too, and then integrate them both into a unified framework.
BRIEF BACKGROUND:
Dualities ruled in pre-internet days, yes?
"Habit + Reason + Limited Attention" clearly marked the rational side of human decision-making, and "Emotion + Instinct + Identity" clearly marked the nonrational side. We classified people as one or the other, depending on their behavior in the moment.
That worked then, but not now! Today’s internet laughs at such dualities, swarming over and around rational/nonrational boundaries with disruptive ease.
That's why everything has seemingly gone nuts:
We don't understand each other's decisions anymore, because the old load-bearing "rational/nonrational" duality has collapsed under the new internet conditions.
Now would be a good time to replace the duality with a universal, integrated model.
My HIRE model of decision-making (below) is designed to do just that.
It re-organizes the six rational/nonrational elements, as follows:
The core of humanity’s decision-making architecture, Habit-Instinct-Reason-Emotion (HIRE), is simultaneously flooded by Identity (not pictured) AND surfed by Limited Attention (lamp).
HIRE is a universal model. It DOES NOT VARY from person to person. It is integrated, unchanging, and verifiable; perhaps even (dare I say it) duality-proof!
And that makes it useful.
Argument as upstroke,
decision-making as downstroke.
We argue to change people’s decisions.
Knowing how helps us decide to argue.
Outputs:
Okay then, so what are the engine's practical outputs? What real-world outcomes are these so-called “model updates” of yours designed to achieve?
Replaces “unwinnable us/them dualities” with “politics as universal flow”
Argues specific, testable descriptions and predictions on that basis
Problem-solves "where should we go from here, and how to help each other get there"
Generates specific, actionable techniques that persuade, even across partisan divides
Not exactly small stuff!
We’re talking massive real-world improvement here.
But to get there, we have to build the engine first.
(which means we must start by refurbishing argument)
(which means I have to convince you, via argument, that we can refurbish it)
(which means I first need to capture and hold your attention…)
My goal is to USE a dialectic method in order to discover a local "ground" upon which to BUILD things that work. We seek to discover (not create, discover) a mutually acceptable ground that permits the joint solving of whatever the problem at hand might be.
My world model is an infinite layercake, where layers of messy, intractable complexity alternate with layers of clear, emergent simplicity, but with no clear top or bottom.
Like going from "simple" gas atoms to "complex" gas interactions to the "simple" ideal gas law.
Doing a thing well at one layer often requires anchoring it one or more layers below (like the deep keel that stabilizes a tall oceangoing ship). So, my dialectic interest is in being able to dig down enough layers that we can discover a (local-consensus) reference point that is sufficiently stable to support whatever higher level operations we have in mind.
The anchor point I am using is not the HIRE decision-making model I referenced in the post. That isn't nearly deep enough! HIRE is just one of several emergent layers of clear simplicity along the way.
Three or four dialectical layers down from there, deep down where only the broadest, vaguest definitions lurk, I discovered these three statements:
Instinct handles the basics of human life
Conscious attention has limits
Intelligence uses patterns and mental habits as workarounds
That is the common "ground" I have discovered.
Universal, self-evident, consensus-driven, and invariant (or as near as one can get with words!). That is the depth at which I have chosen to nail these three statements as my epistemological floorboards across the infinite rabbithole.
Having done that, we can then layer-cake our way upward from there.