1/ There are two main archetypes for reasoning in popular awareness. I wan't to make a case for a third.

2/ The first archetype is the Scientist. The archetypal scientist engages in argumentation in order to find more accurate models of the world.

3/ The second archetype is the Lawyer. And the archetypal lawyer engages in argumentation in order to win people over to her position.

4/ These two modes are not incompatible. Every scientist has a little lawyer inside, and every lawyer has a little scientist inside.

5/ Sometimes the best way to win people over is to find a more accurate model of the world. And sometimes the best way to converge on a more accurate model of the world is for two scientists to argue and try to win the other over to her side.

6/ But the core selective pressure on the cultural evolution of the two styles of reasoning were "accurate modeling" and "winning people over" respectively.

7/ The third archetype is that of the Diplomat. And the archetypal diplomat engages in argumentation in order to coordinate attitudes.

8/ The primary aim of the diplomat is to use argumentation to expand common ground and reduce the importance of the remaining areas of disagreement.

9/ Reasonable dialectic is an incredibly useful tool for this purpose for a variety of reasons. I'll spell some of those out at some point, but will simply offer a promissory note for now.

10/ Just as the goals of the scientist and the lawyer are not incompatible, neither's goal is incompatible with the goal of the diplomat.

11/ But the core selective pressures on the cultural evolution of the scientific, legal, and diplomatic styles of reasoning are "accurate modeling", "winning people over" and "coordinating attitudes", respectively.

12/ We need more diplomacy in political arguments on social media. Far too many people are undiplomatic in the name of truth/accurate modeling. And far too many are undiplomatic in the name of winning people over.

13/ We can make a lot of social progress, even if our reasoning falls short of accurate models and winning people over. Expanding common ground and driving differences down the ladder of abstraction (and importance) is a form of progress in its own right.

14/ And here's the key: you don't have to sacrifice truth or winning to be diplomatic.

15/ I don't think every individual needs to embody all three archetypes to equal degrees or even all the time. But our society will be better if all three archetypes play a prominent role in our most pressing political arguments.

16/ (end)