On the Not Being a Dick discussion

We touched on this during the Podcast, and, if you want a decent written rendition of the background, you can read it here.

So … is Plait full of it? I don’t think so.  My initial reaction is applause, followed by thinking that those who are protesting doth protest too much — but, then, enough of them are folks I respect that I need to consider that more carefully, too.

The issue is, when, if ever, is it okay to be a dick.  Which Plait defines (or refines) as “when the person belittles their opponent, uses obviously inflammatory language, or overly-aggressively gets in their face.”

(I’d actually scribbled a bunch of disconnected notes on this for the Podcast, though we never got to that point.  Most of the below is from that, which is why it will probably come off as a bit  disjointed):

1. On the one hand, it’s true that Plait isn’t asserting that speaking with passion, with strength, even with anger, isn’t “allowed.”  Nor is he advocating being a passive milquetoast or rhetorical rug.  It doesn’t mean appeasing.  It doesn’t even necessarily mean accommodation (though accommodation is not necessarily a bad thing as an interim tactic; it depends on what the consequences of accommodating are).
2. Nor, though his arguments were directed at the skeptic community, do I think they are limited there.  There are plenty of non-skeptics who behave like dicks, with both good and bad intentions.
3. It seems to me that a lot of what’s involved here is context and purpose.  From a purpose standpoint, what’s the goal of the interaction?  Are you seeking to persuade on a given point?  Are you seeking to lay the groundwork for a more gradual enlightenment (however you might define it)? Are you seeking to confront untruth or deception?  Are you trying to shock someone out of their shell? Are you trying to show others observing a conversation that it’s okay to think for themselves?  Are you trying to show others observing a conversation that you’re a really cool, strong, confident person and the other person is simply a jerk?  Are you “merely” letting loose steam?  All of these will suggest different tactics, depending further on the individuals and history involved.
4. That can also be influenced by factors like the urgency of the discussion, and the consequences of “failure” that you’re willing to live with.
5. The purpose, again, is key.  If you are interested in persuading, leading with a (rhetorical) fist can sometimes be effective, for some values of “effective.”  But it’s an escalation that it’s difficult to back down from.  In my experience, starting a bit softer and ramping up over time is a better longer-term strategy.  If you’re not interested in persuading the person you are confronting, but have reasons to confront anyway, then taking a stronger stand saves  some time (but increases the risk of being, or being perceived as, a dick).
6. That perception part is important, because whether you are trying to persuade another, persuade observers, or even feel confident in your own position, not coming across as a dick is important.  Being dickish tends to weaken one’s argument (IMO); while it can break through a shell of complacency, as often it discredits both in terms of “Why is this person being a dick instead of arguing the point?” and in terms of “Why is this person claiming the moral high ground when they’re being a dick?”
7. “That’s what you were thinking of wearing tonight, honey? Are you insane? Do you have any idea how ridiculous that outfit looks?”  Yes, there is a chance your Significant Other will snap to reality and understand that their fashion logic has been extremely skewed, and enter a new realm of sartorial enlightenment.  On the other hand, it seems far more likely that the consequences to the relationship (and to enlightenment) will be far less positive.
8. Persuasion is about building trust.  That seems ironic, particularly when dealing with questions of skepticism, but we’re not talking trust-as-in-authority.  Most people don’t think strictly with their reason (that may or may not be regrettable, but it is reality), and facts are not always as self-evident as they seem.  To reach them, you need to engage their emotions, too, even if it is simply to point them toward a path and encourage them to explore it on their own. Trust is not engendered by dickishness.  Resentment and anger and closing down are.
9. Being dickish, with good intentions, is sort of like being a Drill Instructor — a lot of yelling and abuse in an arguably good cause, trying to break through barriers and resistance to guide along the right path.  Sometimes that is, in fact, necessary.
10. There are things you can only do with a sledgehammer.  But a screwdriver is more often of use.  (It’s best to have both in your repertoire, but if you only have one, the screwdriver is going to be more handy around the house.)
11. Plait’s definition is filled with what some would call weasel words — “obviously inflammatory,” “overly aggressive.”  That’s because there are no hard and fast rules here, few bright line cases.  It’s a matter of individual judgment, and not necessarily amenable to consensus all the time as to what constitutes dickishness (“I know it when I see it,” to paraphrase Justice Stewart).
12. That also applies to his secondary definition, a sort of Golden Rule of Dickishness: is the behavior I am exhibiting something that, if I were seeing it turned on me, I would consider that person to be a dick?  If so, that’s probably not a good thing — but, good or not, it’s a matter of awareness.  Are my actions and words actually productive (net), or hurtful?  Am I bullying in a good cause, or for my own jollies, or even without being aware of it?  The unexamined life is  not worth living, as Socrates put it; the unexamined dickishness is similarly dubious.
13. That said, accusing someone of being a dick, not because of their behavior but because you’re offended that someone would even question your deeply held (reasoned or unreasoned) beliefs, is a misapplication of the term, it seems to me.  Being offended by someone does not necessarily  mean the other person is a dick.  (Intentionally offending someone arguably does, but even there, as one commenter noted, sometimes good medicine makes you feel worse for a while.)
14. Bear in mind that I am, officially, a Nice Guy, so dickishness does not come naturally to me (and usually involves, when I become aware of it, a cause of shame).  My analysis of this, then, is not likely untainted by my feelings.
15. It seems to me that most people agree, in principle, with the above points — there are times when being a dick (or being perceived as a dick) is necessary, but there are arguably more times when it’s a sub-optimal tactic, and that the key is to engage our brain before operating our mouth.

That’s a bit of a ramble, and I don’t have time to put it into a more coherent form right this moment, but I wanted to get it written down before I lost my notes and train of thought.