Initially this tract will focus more on the rational side; if I gain more experience or insight, it would be excellent to expand more on non-rational.
From the initial state (complete unacquaintance with the problem/no engagement) we would ideally wish to engage using our spreadsheets/one-pagers to most quickly convey the meaningful points. If this fails, we can divide the possible outcomes of further rational argument engagement as follows:
- Weakness (apparently absorbing the information and not disputing the argument but refusing to act accordingly)
- Ignorance (factually not completing the learning, logically not making the necessary connections or having other removable blockers)
- Retardation (mentally incapable of absorbing the information or making the connections for whatever reason)
- Malicious/Misguided (you choose which one, functionally you may not be able to characterize because “realism” and other such arguments wind up leading to the same conclusions or behavior as outright evil)
- A**holes (trolls, spite)
Practically speaking, ignorance is the only state that has economically feasible correction. Characteristics of ignorance as the obstacle:
- Not able to recite or remember key points that are necessary rationally to conclude the correct conclusion (but reminder does produce apparent acknowledgement)
- Acceptance of logic or promise for further consideration when attempts to connect various facts are made
- History of rational engagement on other issues
- Not denying the bulk of presented evidence as such (the significance may be debated)
- Presenting counter points with sane magnitude of significance (not trying to inflate minor considerations into major ones)
Weakness characteristics:
- Acknowledging the strength of the case
- Not advancing persuasive/relatively weighty counter-arguments
- Ducking the question or trying to change the topic
- Surprisingly common: acknowledging the difference in personal and public positions
Retardation characteristics:
- Not able to consider the major points of an argument simultaneously
- Inability to believe what is seen with the eyes
Malicious/Misguided characteristics:
- In addition to refusing to acknowledge direct evidence, presenting weaker alternative evidence instead (acknowledging both is ignorance/working through the problem)
- Attacking the messenger when the evidence does not rely on a single messenger (e.g. can be demonstrated or personally inspected)
- Repeatedly bringing up whataboutism as a means of refusing the conclusion (vs. an appeal to consistent treatment which can be valid, or as a means of pointing out a flawed logical approach)
- Bringing up clearly irrelevant items, or items of grossly smaller significance
- Sustaining incoherent claims even when the incoherence has been pointed out
A**holes tend to mimic other types (especially M type) so it likely is not possible functionally to distinguish, other than the frequency/sustainment of such approach.
Thoughts on conventional attribution and when you can rule out certain elements of IRMA:
- If a situation has persisted across multiple different leaders, you can rule out retardation.
- If a situation is notorious, you can rule out ignorance.
- If a situation requires repeated re-authorization, you can rule out ignorance (but not necessarily retardation).