The depth of an argument is limited by the shallowest person in the argument. Which means arguments are futile if there is no decisive conclusion reachable at a shallower level. If the proof takes calculus and your opponent only knows algebra your only real option is to arrange an empirical demonstration that will seem like magic to them.

Blogger at ribbonfarm.com, running summerofprotocols.com, host of /gloom ☀️

Making up magic tricks just to persuade someone you know something they’re incapable of learning is almost never worth it.

Correct. That’s why they get captured by people doing cheap magic tricks.

This would mean that democratic elections won't work unless you maintain or increase the "depth" of the electorate

Governance Public Utilities for @zksync at @thezknation

Doesn’t work that way. Persuading you has to be worth the effort. It’s mostly not convincing either idiots or people pretending to be idiots.

Are you saying it pays to be (pretend) the most shallow person so other people invest time doing magic for you

Ok wow, you just gave me a new mental model. Thank you.

downshift

it’s very hard to argue effectively about nuanced concepts

and so i often don’t

https://warpcast.com/downshift.eth/0x57c149d4

Now wondering if this is how I "win" arguments by refusing to dive deep.... I don't think so, but new insecurity unlocked