April 06, 2004

World

Blood Type C

A few months ago, Arnold Kling wrote this article at Tech Central Station discussing the difference between what he calls Type C and Type M arguments.

Briefly put, Type C arguments discuss the consequences of an action: X is a bad idea, because if you do that, Y will happen. Type M arguments, on the other hand, relate to the motives behind the action: X is a bad thing because you're only doing it to get Z.

It's a very useful categorisation. It's a good article, too. Go read.

There's a further discussion here. The Lefties in the comments just don't get it. To them, it's just the Right beating them up again.

And it's that sort of nonsense from the Left that has pushed me hard into the center, and it's why I treasure more than ever any rational voice from that sector of Polispace. Roger Simon, Michael Totten, Jennifer and other such luminaries. Their voices are sadly few.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 03:52 AM | Comments (25) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

1 As a person who got their economics degree (Even if the usefulness of it has yet to show itself to me.) from professors who sought to give me a way of observing and analysing the world, I agree whole heartedly. In fact, I know Paul Krugman could make Type C arguments because I read some of his works for my courses, and they struck me as very logical and definitive (Even if we are on the opposite side of the spectrum.). To see my field get dragged into the mud because of Krugman's indulgence in stone-throwing...Well, let us just say economists have enough problems with too many people being ignorant of economics. We certainly do not need more.
C.T.
(How's that for a mix? Economics degree holder - not an economist yet - and anime fan.)

Posted by: C.T. at April 06, 2004 04:19 AM (MwU1x)

2 You want argument tools?
Don't waste too much time with these watered down PlaySkool lessons in logical discourse.
Use the Real Deal:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/index.html#index

Posted by: geekWithA.45 at April 06, 2004 05:45 AM (B+5tj)

3 Thanks GWA.45, that's a good list. I still think that Type C vs. Type M is a useful distinction though.
Now, am I going insane or is this thing tossing my cookies?

Posted by: Pixy Misa at April 06, 2004 11:55 AM (+S1Ft)

4 I must be insane.
Well, let's see how this goes then.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at April 06, 2004 12:00 PM (+S1Ft)

5 Okay, that was about 14 seconds. Now let's try doing it properly...

Posted by: Pixy Misa at April 06, 2004 12:02 PM (+S1Ft)

6 Ah, 4 seconds! Yay me!

Posted by: Pixy Misa at April 06, 2004 12:02 PM (+S1Ft)

7 Yay me! 4 seconds!
(Sorry, just basking in the not-too-appalling-slowness.)

Posted by: Pixy Misa at April 06, 2004 12:10 PM (+S1Ft)

8 Darn, that was slow. Let's try again...

Posted by: Pixy Misa at April 06, 2004 12:12 PM (+S1Ft)

9 Yes, much better.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at April 06, 2004 12:20 PM (+S1Ft)

10 Heh. Arnold Kling argues for the type-C/type-M distinction using type-C arguments.
In the further discussion Pixy links to, those who try to rebutt Kling's distinction use type-M arguments.
But then, as a believer in free markets, I probably have dark motives for pointing this out, don't I?

Posted by: Tom at April 07, 2004 12:48 AM (xAW+U)

11 You're one of those evil people who promote individual responsibility! Begone!!

Posted by: Pixy Misa at April 07, 2004 01:17 AM (+S1Ft)

12 Very interesting article. Also, sad to note you had to dig all the way down to me to find a third "luminary" but I digress.

Posted by: Jennifer at April 07, 2004 03:31 AM (DdBLw)

13 Not so far to dig.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at April 07, 2004 03:40 AM (+S1Ft)

14 Are all type-C arguments right and type-M wrong?
Dirty Old Man: "Hey kid, come over here I'm going to give you candy."
Kid C: "No, because its bad for my teeth."
Kid M: "No, because your really going to try to pull me into your car."

Posted by: Ken at April 07, 2004 07:09 AM (I9WXg)

15 Ken, that's not quite right.
What the Type M argument says is that if the D.O.M. does in fact give you candy, that act is bad because of his motives.
Or, to choose another example, removing a brutal dictator is wrong if you do it with the ultimate aim of stealing a country's oil.
In a Type C argument, this would be separated into two distinct actions: Removing the dictator (good) and stealing the oil (not good). Even if the two are linked by a common motive, this does not make the first action bad.
Now, this does not mean you can't judge someone by their motives, it just says that you should judge an action by the consequences of that action.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at April 07, 2004 05:16 PM (kOqZ6)

Hide Comments | Add Comment






Processing 0.0, elapsed 0.005 seconds.
16 queries taking 0.0026 seconds, 37 records returned.
Page size 14 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.