10 Signs of Intellectual Honesty, page 1

When it comes to just about any topic, it seems as if the public discourse on the internet is dominated by rhetoric and propaganda. People are either selling products or ideology. In fact, just because someone may come across as calm and knowledgeable does not mean you should let your guard down and trust what they say. What you need to look for is a track record of intellectual honesty. Let me therefore propose 10 signs of intellectual honesty.

1. Do not overstate the power of your argument. One’s sense of conviction should be in proportion to the level of clear evidence assessable by most. If someone portrays their opponents as being either stupid or dishonest for disagreeing, intellectual dishonesty is probably in play. Intellectual honesty is most often associated with humility, not arrogance.

2. Show a willingness to publicly acknowledge that reasonable alternative viewpoints exist. The alternative views do not have to be treated as equally valid or powerful, but rarely is it the case that one and only one viewpoint has a complete monopoly on reason and evidence.

3. Be willing to publicly acknowledge and question one’s own assumptions and biases. All of us rely on assumptions when applying our world view to make sense of the data about the world. And all of us bring various biases to the table.

4. Be willing to publicly acknowledge where your argument is weak. Almost all arguments have weak spots, but those who are trying to sell an ideology will have great difficulty with this point and would rather obscure or downplay any weak points.

5. Be willing to publicly acknowledge when you are wrong. Those selling an ideology likewise have great difficulty admitting to being wrong, as this undercuts the rhetoric and image that is being sold. You get small points for admitting to being wrong on trivial matters and big points for admitting to being wrong on substantive points. You lose big points for failing to admit being wrong on something trivial.

6. Demonstrate consistency. A clear sign of intellectual dishonesty is when someone extensively relies on double standards. Typically, an excessively high standard is applied to the perceived opponent(s), while a very low standard is applied to the ideologues’ allies.

7. Address the argument instead of attacking the person making the argument. Ad hominem arguments are a clear sign of intellectual dishonesty. However, often times, the dishonesty is more subtle. For example, someone might make a token effort at debunking an argument and then turn significant attention to the person making the argument, relying on stereotypes, guilt-by-association, and innocent-sounding gotcha questions.

8. When addressing an argument, do not misrepresent it. A common tactic of the intellectually dishonest is to portray their opponent’s argument in straw man terms. In politics, this is called spin. Typically, such tactics eschew quoting the person in context, but instead rely heavily on out-of-context quotes, paraphrasing and impression. When addressing an argument, one should shows signs of having made a serious effort to first understand the argument and then accurately represent it in its strongest form.

9. Show a commitment to critical thinking. 'Nuff said.

10. Be willing to publicly acknowledge when a point or criticism is good. If someone is unable or unwilling to admit when their opponent raises a good point or makes a good criticism, it demonstrates an unwillingness to participate in the give-and-take that characterizes an honest exchange.

While no one is perfect, and even those who strive for intellectual honesty can have a bad day, simply be on the look out for how many and how often these criteria apply to someone. In the arena of public discourse, it is not intelligence or knowledge that matters most – it is whether you can trust the intelligence or knowledge of another. After all, intelligence and knowledge can sometimes be the best tools of an intellectually dishonest approach.

www.thedesignmatrix.com...

Left or right, up or down, in or out...
it's important to keep in mind these "10 Signs of Intellectual Honesty".

If we'd all make an asserted effort to fight/play fair and follow some simple rules of respect and common decency, many more of our discussions would deliver more understanding for all involved in the mix and bystanders alike.

[edit on 26-10-2008 by The All Seeing I]

reply to post by The All Seeing I

---

Stars and flag! For this post, great thread, we all can learn something here.

reply to post by The All Seeing I

---

Excellent post, should be reading material you have to read before posting here.

reply to post by The All Seeing I

---

awesome post.
I am guilty of not following all of these "rules" all the time.
I slip .. occasionaly even though the intent is there.

I must make a new consious effort to do so 100%.
Hopefully others do as well.



[edit on 27-10-2008 by gormly]

reply to post by The All Seeing I

---

Thanks for sharing this.

I think, however, the op misses one paradigm which is embedded within the notion of 'intellectual honesty'.

Namely: Objective (or motive)

Such behaviors as is espoused in the op are necessarily what we might call 'factors of honorable intent' in any exchange where the objective is a reasoned or reasonable outcome.

But as Ian pointed out, these precepts fall by the wayside when the objective has nothing to do with a reasonable outcome, but everything to do with misdirection and disinformation.

Needless to say, everyone is correct that we should always conduct ourselves as closely as possible to these guidelines of discourse. But somehow, I feel that the list falls short of 'completeness' by avoiding the possibility that discourse is not always intended by 'both' parties to reach a point of fact or truth.

Just sayin'.

Starred and Flagged.

[edit on 27-10-2008 by Maxmars]

reply to post by The All Seeing I

---

Well said.

Your list reads like a recipe for SO's response to any criticism of the (overly-enthusiastic?) censorship that takes place on ATS.

reply to post by Ian McLean

---

I once heard somebody quote "never argue with an idiot, people won't know the difference".... And, even though this statement sounds elitist, when you consider how mass media, news pundits and politics works, it relies on the principle that a substantial number of people "won't know the difference" and therefore those who are the center of mass attention knowingly argue like "idiots", which is to say, they will rely to all mens of intellectual dishonesty that can impress an uncritical audience.

In general, most people can be easily swayed by an argument that "rhymes", sounds catchy, or has popular approval. Short but "cool" usually trumps substantial and honest, yet complicated and hard to follow. If it takes mental energy to understand, it looses points.

The very hard challenge is to manage to sum up an honest, fact checked viewpoint in a short, catchy phrase so that it has the leverage of communicating to an audience that is less than critical, without compromising the substance of the argument.

Facts and numbers are boring to most, but soundbites are easily remembered. Sadly.

-rrr

Main Stream Media Taking It To Far!!
  Posted 16 days ago with 22 member flags

Georgia Courts and The President - Live Feed today 9am, letter from attorney Jan 25th
  Posted 15 days ago with 21 member flags

Iranian Aircraft Carriers in the Gulf of Mexico
  Posted 10 days ago with 10 member flags

A few questions for those of you who hate the Confederate flag
  Posted 11 days ago with 9 member flags

Why Do You Insist On Doing This?
  Posted 3 days ago with 9 member flags

COMRADES! LET us CENSOR ATS! Here are the APPROVED MEDIA OUTLETS! ALL other will be deleted!
  Posted 5 days ago with 8 member flags

Getting off of oil.
  Posted 12 days ago with 7 member flags

***Overwhelming Debt? Here Are A Few Steps To Help!!***
  Posted 3 days ago with 7 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: