# Motte/bailey doctrine is often a byproduct of distributed argumentation

confidence: I think I'm on to something

(I'm posting this publicly because I'd like it to get passed around for corrections, both nitpicky (typos, thinkos) and important (glaring errors in logic). I need to whip up a better title for it, too. **Corrections appreciated**.)

Prior reading:

- Scott Alexander’s [All in all, another brick in the motte][brick]
- Nicholas Shackel’s [Motte and bailey doctrines][shack]


[shack]: http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2014/09/motte-and-bailey-doctrines/
[brick]: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/03/all-in-all-another-brick-in-the-motte/

It bothers me when other people use a troll’s truism in a discussion. It probably bothers you, too. A person uses a troll’s truism when he claims something bold and, when his audience rejects his claim, reformulates his claim into something innocuous and asserts that the reformulation is a restatement of the initial, rejected assertion.

Now, when someone deploys troll’s truisms out of unthinking habit or tactical choice, this is referred to as motte-and-bailey doctrine. Someone adheres to motte-and-bailey doctrine when he regularly puts forward an expansive claim (the bailey), and, if the expansive claim isn’t accepted, retreats to a more defensible position (the motte).

At the end of the post, Alexander points out one of the problems inherent in debating a broad-ranging idea (in this case, feminism). Finally, he has a good suggestion to help avoid motte-and-bailey switches in the middle of a conversation:

> So what is the _real_ feminism we should be debating? _Why would you even ask that question?_ What is this, some kind of dumb high school debate club? Who the heck thinks it would be a good idea to say “Here’s a vague poorly-defined concept that mind-kills everyone who touches it — quick, should you associate it with positive affect or negative affect?!”
> 
> [Taboo][] your words, then [replace the symbol with the substance][replace]. If you have an _actual thing_ you’re trying to debate, then it should be obvious when somebody’s changing the topic. If working out who’s using motte-and-bailey (or weak man) is remotely difficult, it means your discussion went wrong several steps earlier and you probably have no idea what you’re even arguing about.

[taboo]: https://www.readthesequences.com/Taboo-Your-Words
[replace]: https://www.readthesequences.com/Replace-The-Symbol-With-The-Substance

Unfortunately, this only works when there are a small number of people involved — no more than two or three. If the discussion is happening at your (anti)favorite social-networking site, you might have an argument structure like the following:

- A, B, and C all believe and argue for bailey β
- D, E, F, and G all believe and argue for motte µ
- H, J, and K all believe and argue for bailey β′,  
which is close to, but not quite the same as, β
- L and M both believe and argue for µ′,  
which is close to, but not quite the same as, µ

In a situation like this, you can’t press the caps-lock key and shout “STOP EQUIVOCATING BETWEEN β AND µ!” You’re dealing with a bunch of different people who’ve formed their own opinions at least somewhat independently of each other. You’re being motte-and-baileyed, but not _necessarily_ because this is a deliberate strategy[^1] being employed by A, B, C, H, J, or K.

If you’re anything like me, you’d like a solution to the problem of being subject to a distributed troll’s truism attack. Unfortunately, I don’t have one. One cannot make A, B, and C all agree with either D, E, F, and G. For that matter, you can’t make them agree with H, J, and K.


[^1]: Extra-credit assignment: Design a bailey/motte pair to advance your favorite cause. See to it that some people will believe the entire bailey, while others will find the mere motte most persuasive. Ensure that bailey-believers and motte-believers congregate in the same spaces.