Critical Thinking - type C and type M arguments

An article on Critical Thinking:

An Open Letter to Paul Krugman
By Arnold Kling
10/07/2003

You might remember me from graduate school at MIT. I would like to ask you a question about what constitutes a reasonable argument.

For example, suppose I were to say, "We should abolish the minimum wage. That would increase employment and enable more people to climb out of poverty."

There are two types of arguments you might make in response. I call these Type C and Type M.

A hypothetical example of a Type C argument would be, "Well, Arnold, studies actually show that the minimum wage does not cost jobs. If you read the work of Krueger and Card, you would see that the minimum wage probably reduces poverty."

A hypothetical example of a Type M argument would be, "People who want to get rid of the minimum wage are just trying to help the corporate plutocrats."

Paul, my question for you is this: Do you see any differences between those two types of arguments?

-------------------------------------

Wise comments from the friend of mine who put me on to this:

I have done a lot of thinking about this article.

One my discoveries is that Karl Popper, not a household name unfortunately, anticipated this argument in Open Societies and Its Enemies Volume 2, Chapter 24- Oracular Philosophy and the Revolt Against Reason. In this passage, he comments on what he calls the "Rationalist Attitude": "The fact that the rationalist attitude considers the argument rather than the person arguing is of far reaching importance. It leads to the view that we must recognize everybody with whom we communicate as a potential source of argument and of reasonable information..."

I believe Popper's "rationalist attitude" to be the same as the Type M argument referred to in the above link. This has been a Rosetta Stone for me in unlocking the unending trouble I have in communicate with so many people about politics and current events. Some examples:

Type C: I comment that the Kyoto Treaty is flawed in that even if one accepts the science, it will not lead to any noticeable reduction in global warming.
Type M: I am met with the response that the U.S government is controlled by Big Business that only cares about profits and not about the well.being of humanity.

Type C: I say that the Iraq War defeated Saddam's intent to acquire WMD and that sanctions were breaking down.
Type M: I am met with the response that the Iraq war was all about oil and enriching Dicky Cheny's corporate friends.

Type C: I argue that German "labor-protection" laws actually increase unemployment and work to protect those with jobs against those without jobs
Type M: The response is that I am a neo-liberal who only wants to defend the U.S model

In each case, I am making an argument about the consequences of policies where as the response is based on an attack on either the motivations of the policy-makers or on myself and my objectivity. The actual argument is therefore ignored and the discussion transformed into a debate about moral goodness.

I believe that the Type M arguments appeal to the human inclination to discern threat and identify "enemies" and to reduce complexity to manageable simplicity whereas Type C arguments are the product of disciplined tthinking which must be trained overtime to think thorough the logical consequences of actions.

The entire Popper chapter on this should be read. For me, I will never approach political discussion the same way again. The moment I get a Type M response, I will try to immediately stop and attempt to point out the issue to whomeever I am speaking with.

-------------------------------------

Follow-up article

Why People Hate Economics
By Arnold Kling
11/21/2005