This document outlines different types of believers and how conversations with them can devolve. It discusses the psychology of argument and defines various believer types based on their openness, confidence, and sincerity. It suggests that the ideal conversation seeks mutual understanding rather than persuasion. However, conversations often spiral downward when there is a lack of common ground or one party engages in obfuscation, obviation, or obstinacy. It raises questions about when it may be appropriate to publicly humiliate or "pwn" another's beliefs.

1. To pwn a believer? An investigation into the vicissitudes of conversation

2. Definition: What is “to pwn”? Slang from “to own” To appropriate or conquer; to gain ownership From gamer culture Implies domination or humiliation of a rival Used in YouTube “Pwnage Olympics”

3. Outline Who are our interlocutors? Psychology of argument Different personality types of believers The purpose of conversation Power or Truth? Ways conversation can devolve The varieties of bad faith Examples of pwnage Questions for discussion

4. Who are our interlocutors? How our psychology affects the way we argue

5. Kinds of believers Bouquet of believers Examples Private believer, easily offended Insecure, but public believer Insincere, public believer Sincere, but insecure believer

6. Openness Private Believer Regard beliefs as “personal” Doubt their beliefs affect others Eschew evangelism Public Believer Consider beliefs societal Confident beliefs can affect the world Tend to proselytize

7. Confidence Insecure Believer Unsure about reasons for beliefs Offended by criticism Incendiary or standoffish Secure Believer Ready with justification for beliefs Welcomes scrutiny Calm in deliberation

8. Earnestness Insincere Believer Belief not motivated by rational warrant Tradition Family Friends Uncommitted to any particular belief Bad faith Regards beliefs as conditioned by circumstances or conventions Evade responsibility Sincere Believer Beliefs formed on reflection Takes beliefs as motivating action Lives as though their beliefs were true Good faith Acts in accordance with states beliefs Accountable to beliefs

9. Believers we want to engage

10. Purpose of Conversation Our aim in engaged dialogue

11. History of Dialectic Will to Power Purpose to publicly overcome opponent Endorsed by Callicles, ancient Greek rhetorician In Gorgias, Socratic Dialogue Expanded upon by Nietzsche Socratic ideal Investigate truth in dialogue Spark of truth emerges from clashing ideas

12. Suggested Ideal Mutual exchange of ideas Seeking two-way understanding Empathy is the underlying motive Critical examination as a way to articulate beliefs, values Not persuasion-oriented No expectation except to understand

13. Cost? Benefit: No attachment to result Mutually non-threatening Con: Susceptible to being taken advantage of by insincere interlocutor Time investment when conversation devolves

14. Ways conversation Devolves The downward spiral of argument

15. Lack of Common Ground Common ground Facts Descriptions of the world Values Ways we want the world to be Logic Explanations and implications we see fitting Too few shared values, facts or logic No room to reason, despite sincere interlocutors

16. Three O’s of Devolution Obfuscation Purposefully make the discussion obscure Confusing the issue Changing the topic Conflating distinct terms Obviation Attempting to sidestep conversation Pascal’s Wager Feigning offence “Privacy fallacy” Waxing Obstinate Refusing to budge despite reason Dogmatic assertion Ignoring arguments

17. Examples of Pwnage When it becomes appropriate to humiliate

18. Pwnage Examples Richard Dawkins, What if you’re wrong? Sam Harris, Stem Cells and Morality Christopher Hitches, Free Speech

19. Questions At what point do we give up on conversation? Not making progress Bad faith When is it alright to humiliate? To shame heinous rhetoric To expose bad faith or insincerity Doublespeak Dishonesty When the belief is just wildly wrong? Does pwninghave public value? Making a show of wrong beliefs Discouraging insincerity