|
|
Пишет Journal de Chaource (![[info]](http://lj.rossia.org/img/syndicated.gif){kind=small} lj_chaource)@ 2019-03-06 22:48:00 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
Skin in the argument
A comical argument between King Arthur and the Black Knight goes like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmInkxbv
https://genius.com/Monty-python-monty-py
K.A. and B.K. fight; K.A. cuts off the left arm of B.K.
K.A.: Now stand beside, worthy adversary!
B.K.: 'Tis but a scratch!
K.A.: A scratch? Your arm’s off!
B.K.: No it isn’t.
K.A.: (points out the cut-off arm lying on the ground) Well what’s that then?
B.K.: I’ve had worse.
...
---
The comic effect is in Black Knight denying what is plainly to be seen: that eventually both his arms and legs are cut off and he is powerless to fight any more. However, suppose we could not look at them but only hear what they say. It would then appear that King Arthur is groveling before an invincible opponent. King Arthur calls the opponent a "worthy adversary" and a "brave knight", and graciously declares the fight a "draw" (even though he obviously won and destroyed his opponent). But, according to the Black Knight's words, King Arthur is a weakling and a liar who claims to have won the battle just as he cowardly runs away from an invincible opponent.
The exchange is hilarious because, as everyone knows, no real Black Knight would ever behave in this way. But why not argue like the Black Knight, isn't it at least advantageous to win the verbal side of the fight? My explanation is that a real Black Knight would have his skin in the argument. The purpose of the verbal fight with "skin in the argument" is to assess the opponent's true non-verbal strength (that is, to ascertain the real facts). Once it is clear that the opponent is overwhelmingly strong, the verbal fight is usually over.
In fact, the Black Knight would have likely kept his other arm and both legs had he conceded the fight after the King Arthur's first devastating blow. However, the point of the episode is that the Black Knight apparently inhabits a delusional world of "alternative facts", a world where even cutting off both his arms and legs either is not real or doesn't really matter; what matters to him is who appears to be more self-assured and whose words are last. In other words, the Black Knight argues in words as if he has no "skin in the argument".
Examples from recent politics are some French communist party spokespeople who proposed either a 100% tax https://money.cnn.com/2017/04/18/news/ec
Another example of fact-free politics unfolded in 2015-2016 in San Francisco, where politicians keep imposing an ever-higher minimum wage, intended to help small-wage earners, but the results are that there are fewer jobs for precisely those earners.
https://abc7news.com/business/sf-booksto
https://www.forbes.com/sites/edrensi/201
With minimum wage hikes, the businesses most affected are cheap restaurants, cheap book stores, and other shops serving mostly the lower classes. Politicians are not affected by the closures of these businesses and so have no "skin in the argument". Minimum wage hikes are planned to continue unabated, even though they demonstrably make the job market worse for the poor.
https://sfmayor.org/minimum-wage
https://www.bna.com/san-francisco-contra
Why do these politicians ignore reality? Because, I'd say, they are arguing without any skin in the argument, just like the Black Knight who claimed that his arms and legs were still with him. If, as the result of the politicians' proposed measures, the tax revenue is diminished and the unemployment rises - the politicians will not suffer in any way. It's the ordinary people who will then suffer - although people would usually not understand why.
Having "skin in the argument" means to be affected by the real facts underlying the argument. If I have skin in the argument, my real purpose in arguing is not to show that my opinion is correct, but to discover the relevant facts that affect my decision-making. Perhaps, it would be good to stop arguing with people, except in that case.
A comical argument between King Arthur and the Black Knight goes like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmInkxbv
https://genius.com/Monty-python-monty-py
K.A. and B.K. fight; K.A. cuts off the left arm of B.K.
K.A.: Now stand beside, worthy adversary!
B.K.: 'Tis but a scratch!
K.A.: A scratch? Your arm’s off!
B.K.: No it isn’t.
K.A.: (points out the cut-off arm lying on the ground) Well what’s that then?
B.K.: I’ve had worse.
...
---
The comic effect is in Black Knight denying what is plainly to be seen: that eventually both his arms and legs are cut off and he is powerless to fight any more. However, suppose we could not look at them but only hear what they say. It would then appear that King Arthur is groveling before an invincible opponent. King Arthur calls the opponent a "worthy adversary" and a "brave knight", and graciously declares the fight a "draw" (even though he obviously won and destroyed his opponent). But, according to the Black Knight's words, King Arthur is a weakling and a liar who claims to have won the battle just as he cowardly runs away from an invincible opponent.
The exchange is hilarious because, as everyone knows, no real Black Knight would ever behave in this way. But why not argue like the Black Knight, isn't it at least advantageous to win the verbal side of the fight? My explanation is that a real Black Knight would have his skin in the argument. The purpose of the verbal fight with "skin in the argument" is to assess the opponent's true non-verbal strength (that is, to ascertain the real facts). Once it is clear that the opponent is overwhelmingly strong, the verbal fight is usually over.
In fact, the Black Knight would have likely kept his other arm and both legs had he conceded the fight after the King Arthur's first devastating blow. However, the point of the episode is that the Black Knight apparently inhabits a delusional world of "alternative facts", a world where even cutting off both his arms and legs either is not real or doesn't really matter; what matters to him is who appears to be more self-assured and whose words are last. In other words, the Black Knight argues in words as if he has no "skin in the argument".
Examples from recent politics are some French communist party spokespeople who proposed either a 100% tax https://money.cnn.com/2017/04/18/news/ec
Another example of fact-free politics unfolded in 2015-2016 in San Francisco, where politicians keep imposing an ever-higher minimum wage, intended to help small-wage earners, but the results are that there are fewer jobs for precisely those earners.
https://abc7news.com/business/sf-booksto
https://www.forbes.com/sites/edrensi/201
With minimum wage hikes, the businesses most affected are cheap restaurants, cheap book stores, and other shops serving mostly the lower classes. Politicians are not affected by the closures of these businesses and so have no "skin in the argument". Minimum wage hikes are planned to continue unabated, even though they demonstrably make the job market worse for the poor.
https://sfmayor.org/minimum-wage
https://www.bna.com/san-francisco-contra
Why do these politicians ignore reality? Because, I'd say, they are arguing without any skin in the argument, just like the Black Knight who claimed that his arms and legs were still with him. If, as the result of the politicians' proposed measures, the tax revenue is diminished and the unemployment rises - the politicians will not suffer in any way. It's the ordinary people who will then suffer - although people would usually not understand why.
Having "skin in the argument" means to be affected by the real facts underlying the argument. If I have skin in the argument, my real purpose in arguing is not to show that my opinion is correct, but to discover the relevant facts that affect my decision-making. Perhaps, it would be good to stop arguing with people, except in that case.
