HOW TO ARGUE ABOUT COVID

These are difficult times. So many of us are locked down, frustrated, angry and worried. It’s hardly surprising, then, that everyone has an opinion about Covid-19. The airwaves, the newspapers, social media and the parliaments of our nation are filled with debate about what we are doing to combat the virus. There is passionate conviction that the path we are on is the only safe and viable one, and equally passionate conviction that we are destroying the village to save it.

There is nothing wrong with passion, and there is nothing wrong with having an opinion. But if we are going to argue about the virus, let’s at least argue properly.

When it comes to arguing, there are two sets of behaviours that we need to avoid. The first is arguing in bad faith, and the second is cherry-picking evidence.

Let’s start with bad faith.

I am a fan of arguments. You might even say I am a connoisseur of arguments. But I get frustrated when I see examples of people who don’t argue in good faith. They pretend to be arguing about one thing, when they are really arguing about something else. Let me explain.

Every day, I see people arguing passionately that lockdowns are not an effective tool to manage the spread of the virus, when in fact what they really believe is that the virus itself is not real, or is no different to the flu. So of course they oppose lockdowns, because they oppose any measure to control something they don’t believe should be controlled.

Why is this a problem?

It’s a problem because you cannot win an argument that is being conducted in bad faith. No matter how much evidence you present that lockdowns can be an effective tool, you will not convince someone who is not really basing their objection to lockdowns on evidence. They are only pretending to do that, while in reality their objection is based on the conviction that Covid-19 is not much of a problem at all, so NO measures are justified. That’s what you need to be arguing about if you are going to have a proper argument.

Arguing in bad faith is like treating a symptom instead of a disease. It’s as pointless as buying a better looking pair of trousers for a nudist.

The second waste of time and energy is arguing with someone who cherry-picks evidence. It’s the easiest and most comforting thing in the world to only pay attention to the facts that you like and ignore the ones you don’t, but all that does is confirm your own preconceptions and close your mind to the truth. It’s even worse when the ‘facts’ you choose to cherry-pick come from people who don’t even know what they are talking about, and prefer opinions and their own gut feelings over what the data says.

So in the interests of promoting better covid arguments (and isn’t that what we all want?) here are my two rules for everyone to follow.

 1.      Find the common ground.

 Don’t waste your time arguing about the wrong thing. The best way to do this is to start by working out what you agree on. ‘Does Covid exist?’ is a pretty good starting point. If you can’t agree on that, then that’s the argument, not whether lockdowns work. If you both agree it exists, then the next thing to work out is whether you both agree it’s a bigger threat to health than something like the flu. Only once that is settled can you move on to what we should do about it, what works and what doesn’t. By seeking common ground you will focus in on what the real argument is, eliminate bad faith arguments, and save an awful lot of time, anger and frustration.

 2.      Choose the right tools.

 It is always possible you will sway someone else’s opinion by the sheer strength and vehemence of your own opinion. All I can say is good luck. It’s also possible that browbeating someone or heaping them with abuse will achieve the desired result. But if the desired result is for someone to think differently rather than just shutting them up, I wouldn’t count on it.

If you are the kind of person who believes things in spite of all evidence to the contrary, then nothing can help you. But for everyone else, facts matter. They are the tools you need to employ when you argue.

But simply marshalling the facts you like isn’t good enough. Cherry-picking facts is almost as bad as ignoring them altogether. You need to listen to, search for and actively consider all the facts you can find, even the ones you find uncomfortable or threatening. When someone asserts something in argument, ask them how they know and where the information came from. Then check out the information, and see if it is reliable and trustworthy. It is only when you weight up all of the information that you start to see where the weight of evidence lies. If I cross a busy road without getting hit by a car I might conclude that the intersection is safe. If I get hit by a car, I might be convinced it’s dangerous. But if I monitor the intersection over time I might not only get an idea of how safe it is, but come up with ways to make it safer.

 Seek common ground. Be honest and precise about what you are really arguing over. And then follow the weight of evidence. That’s how you have a really decent and satisfying argument. Enjoy.