{"id":669,"date":"2019-05-20T10:00:57","date_gmt":"2019-05-20T09:00:57","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/?p=669"},"modified":"2019-05-20T15:12:51","modified_gmt":"2019-05-20T14:12:51","slug":"good-conversation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/good-conversation\/","title":{"rendered":"Good Conversation"},"content":{"rendered":"\r\n

On the first of march 2018, Jack Dorsey published a manifesto setting out Twitter\u2019s plans for improving the site.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

\"\"<\/figure>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

At the centre of this thread are worries that incivility, disagreement, and closed-mindedness undermine healthy collective conversation (see also Dorsey\u2019s testimony to the United States Committee on Energy and Commerce https:\/\/docs.house.gov\/meetings\/IF\/IF00\/20180905\/108642\/HHRG-115-IF00-Wstate-DorseyJ-20180905.pdf<\/a>)<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

Dorsey sets out four metrics for conversational health, taken from cortico (a non-profit based at the MiT Media Lab).<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

    \r\n
  1. Shared Attention: Is there overlap in what we are talking about?<\/li>\r\n
  2. Shared Reality: Are we using the same facts?<\/li>\r\n
  3. Variety: Are we exposed to different opinions grounded in shared reality?<\/li>\r\n
  4. Receptivity: Are we open, civil, and listening to different opinions?<\/li>\r\n<\/ol>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

    In this post, I want to raise some worries about the way that Twitter and others are framing questions about the quality of discourse on social media sites, focusing on the idea of conversational health, <\/em>how to think about the quality of conversations, and the extent to which we should care about good conversations.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

    Let\u2019s start with the health metaphor. As Rachel Fraser<\/a> persuasively argues, metaphors are not epistemically innocent. A metaphorical statement can activate a network of inferential connections and ideological commitments from the source domain and project them onto the target domain. Using health metaphors to talk about conversation sneaks in a number of ideas we might find troublesome. First, worrying about the health of a given chunk of discourse encourages us to look for some disease<\/em> that is the underlying cause of our problems. It is not too hard to see terms like \u2018fake news\u2019, \u2018polarisation\u2019, and \u2018echo chambers\u2019 as picking out diseases of discourse. We often find environmental metaphors playing similar roles: it is common to talk about information pollution, which encourages us to look for polluters. Secondly, talking health encourages an individualist mindset, according to which the quality of a discourse is the responsibility of the participants in that discourse. When heard as public advice \u2018stop eating fast food!\u2019 and \u2018Stop sharing fake news!\u2019 play related roles, transforming complex public problems into issues of individual responsibility. In light of these considerations, I suggest that we\u2019d be better off sticking with talking about the quality of conversation, keeping a clean sheet of associations.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

    In order to think about the quality of conversation it is helpful to start by asking what a conversation is. Linguists and philosophers of language have together produced a large body of theory that addresses this question. There\u2019s a lot of relevant work here, but I\u2019ll focus on the account of conversation and its aims offered by Robert Stalnaker<\/a> and Craige Roberts<\/a>.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

    The Stalnaker-Roberts model of conversation starts from the insight that conversation is a kind of co-operative activity: the activity of answering a question together. We typically start a conversation by asking a question which fixes what the conversation is about: what Roberts calls the question under discussion<\/em>. We can think of this question as a set of possible answers, and of the goal of conversation as being to reach the correct answer. Progress through a conversation then involves attempts to answer the question under discussion, either by asserting relevant facts, or proposing other relevant questions. We do not start from scratch: we can usually assume that our interlocutors are taking certain propositions for granted. The set of propositions which all speakers taken for granted make up what Stalnaker calls the common ground <\/em>of the conversation.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

    Exercising a degree of charity, we might think that metrics of shared attention and shared reality are getting at these features of conversation. It is a precondition of having a conversation that there is a shared question under discussion (shared attention<\/em>), and that there is a fairly rich common ground of accepted claims (shared reality<\/em>). When we fail to co-ordinate on either count, conversation breaks down, and we wind up talking at cross-purposes, or being unable to understand one another.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

    Although the Stalnaker-Roberts model is intended as a descriptive account, we could turn these features of conversations into metrics for conversational quality. One could measure the degree of agreement between two speakers by counting the number of propositions in their common ground, and one could measure cross-talking by considering the differences between the questions which speakers are addressing. Implementing these ideas would take a considerable amount of work, but it might provide us with measures of conversational quality that are based in an independently plausibly account of conversation.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

    A couple of observations about this idea.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

    The degree of agreement and co-ordination we will find will depend on what size of discourse we are looking at. If we were to look at repeated Twitter interactions between two agents, we would expect a rich conversational background and shared questions. If we were to take a sample of tweets by several hundred users, we would expect to find people talking about different things, and taking very different claims for granted. Some people want to talk about politics, but others are quite happy talking about Dr Who trivia, or ultra-running. This doesn\u2019t impugn the quality of their collective discourse.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

    The common ground and questions under discussion in a conversation cannot be simply read off from what speakers say. To understand what speakers are taking for granted we need to understand presupposition triggers, relevant facts about the speakers, and their previous conversations.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

    Most importantly, it isn\u2019t obvious that good conversations are always the kinds of things we should be aiming for. A good conversation is one that fulfils the constitutive standards of conversation, which I\u2019ve suggested includes having co-ordination of a question under discussion and common ground. But there might good reasons to flout the constitutive norms of an activity. Moving a bishop diagonally is a constitutive norm of chess, but there might be good reasons to let a child flout this rule to forestall a tantrum. The constitutive values of conversation can also come into conflict with our other commitments. Having a good conversation with a white supremacist might require taking on a substantive number of her commitments. This would lead to a good conversation, but would be all things considered a bad thing to do.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

    Bad conversations might be a good thing for intellectual progress. Jos\u00e9 Medina argues that discussions between people with different theoretical backgrounds can lead to beneficial epistemic friction<\/em>, helping both sides of the conversation to question their background assumptions, and understand the gaps in their perspectives. This kind of productive disagreement seems to be what cortico\u2019s principles variety <\/em>and receptivity <\/em>are getting at.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

    In closing I want to note a puzzle. It looks like the desire for good conversations (understood along the lines above), and the desire for productive disagreements pull in different directions. We can either have good conversations with interlocutors that have shared background, or bad but productive conversations with interlocutors who do not have a shared background. I would suggest that cortico\u2019s metrics of shared attention <\/em>and shared reality <\/em>will score highly in the first kind of case, but low in the second case, and vice versa for variety <\/em>and receptivity.<\/em> We can have good conversations, and we can have productive conversations, but plausibly not at the same time.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

    Camille Pissarro, Conversation (Google Art Project<\/a>)<\/p>\r\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"On the first of march 2018, Jack Dorsey published a manifesto setting out Twitter\u2019s plans for improving the site. At the centre of this thread are worries that incivility, disagreement, […]","protected":false},"author":1319,"featured_media":672,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"Good Conversation by @impractknow on Open for Debate. Hope it sparks from productive discussions","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[19],"tags":[33,182,181,86,45],"custom_author":[179],"class_list":["post-669","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-open-for-debate","tag-communication","tag-conversation","tag-internet","tag-questions","tag-twitter","custom_author-habdgood-coote-josh"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p8KPlM-aN","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":698,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/the-human-ingredient-needed-for-productive-disagreement\/","url_meta":{"origin":669,"position":0},"title":"The Human Ingredient Needed for Productive Disagreement","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"July 1, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"My last post argued that engaging in disagreement outside of one\u2019s own group works as an antidote to beliefs that are oversimplified and therefore inaccurate. But disagreement cannot do this alone. By itself, it can even prompt us to be less receptive to refinements to our view \u2013 especially on\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/06\/shadows.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/06\/shadows.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/06\/shadows.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/06\/shadows.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":1588,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/context-needed\/","url_meta":{"origin":669,"position":1},"title":"Context Needed","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"December 26, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"It may be hard for us to admit, but many of us are two-faced. That is to say, we act differently depending on who we\u2019re with. We might be polite and affectionate with parents, playful with friends, and calm and composed with colleagues. And that\u2019s no bad thing; adjusting how\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2022\/12\/hugh-han-5pkYWUDDthQ-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2022\/12\/hugh-han-5pkYWUDDthQ-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2022\/12\/hugh-han-5pkYWUDDthQ-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2022\/12\/hugh-han-5pkYWUDDthQ-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2022\/12\/hugh-han-5pkYWUDDthQ-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2022\/12\/hugh-han-5pkYWUDDthQ-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=1400%2C800&ssl=1 4x"},"classes":[]},{"id":1756,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/i-hate-cyclists\/","url_meta":{"origin":669,"position":2},"title":"\u201cI hate cyclists!\u201d","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"August 21, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"True story: a friend who works for the NHS had to attend mandatory RESPECT training. The workshop convenor started the day with ice breakers, everyone was invited to say what they liked and disliked. He received answers like teapots, cheese and so on before confessing, \u201cI hate cyclists!\u201d He elaborated\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2023\/08\/cyclists.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2023\/08\/cyclists.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2023\/08\/cyclists.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2023\/08\/cyclists.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":2089,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/gatekeeping-in-science\/","url_meta":{"origin":669,"position":3},"title":"Gatekeeping in Science","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"September 16, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"It\u2019s common in public discourse to see worries about pseudoscience. This is understandable, for the stakes are high. Although science surely can\u2019t tell us about everything, it is our best way to learn about many important things \u2013 not least viruses, climate change, or the health risks of tobacco. Its\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2024\/09\/Gate-scaled.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2024\/09\/Gate-scaled.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2024\/09\/Gate-scaled.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2024\/09\/Gate-scaled.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2024\/09\/Gate-scaled.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2024\/09\/Gate-scaled.jpg?resize=1400%2C800&ssl=1 4x"},"classes":[]},{"id":1005,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/why-are-we-so-polarized-and-how-can-we-move-forward-a-perspective-from-social-epistemology\/","url_meta":{"origin":669,"position":4},"title":"Why are we so polarized, and how can we move forward? A perspective from social epistemology.","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"September 7, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Contemporary academic philosophy has recently taken a \u201csocial turn\u201d regarding the way it thinks about knowledge and related issues.\u00a0 Put differently, philosophy has turned away from the traditional ideal of a self-sufficient inquirer, doing his or her best to figure out what is reasonable to believe, in favor of a\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2020\/09\/canstockphoto48175967-scaled.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2020\/09\/canstockphoto48175967-scaled.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2020\/09\/canstockphoto48175967-scaled.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2020\/09\/canstockphoto48175967-scaled.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2020\/09\/canstockphoto48175967-scaled.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2020\/09\/canstockphoto48175967-scaled.jpg?resize=1400%2C800&ssl=1 4x"},"classes":[]},{"id":249,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/good-democracy-needs-good-questions\/","url_meta":{"origin":669,"position":5},"title":"Good Democracy Needs Good Questions","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"September 25, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cIf you were president, what would you do about Syria and the humanitarian crisis in Aleppo?\u201d This question was asked to both candidates at the second U.S. presidential debate, during the run-up to the 2016 presidential election. As per the \u2018town-hall\u2019 format of the debate, the question was asked by\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Changing Attitudes"","block_context":{"text":"Changing Attitudes","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/changing-attitudes\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/09\/questions.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/09\/questions.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/09\/questions.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x"},"classes":[]}],"meta_box":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/05\/Pissarro.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/669","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1319"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=669"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/669\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":677,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/669\/revisions\/677"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/672"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=669"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=669"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=669"},{"taxonomy":"custom_author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/custom_author?post=669"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}