Word-thought overwriting (WTO) is a pernicious pattern whereby the words you are using to reason something out get stored in place of the original thought, but then when you try to recall the thought you recall the words instead and re-interpret them in a slightly different way. You end up believing that you believed something different just because the words told you so.
For example, it is fairly common knowledge that any time a word has two plausible meanings in a given situation, it is possible that someone might equivocate. That is, they might use the same word to mean two different things, switching between them - intentionally or unintentionally - when it’s convenient for their argument. It is often said, and I agree, that Hoppe’s argumentation ethics employs an equivocation that makes it invalid.
But what is going in the person’s mind when they equivocate? I contend that WTO is the main mechanism by which people engage in unintentional equivocation. Take a look at this snippet of an exchange on tomwoods.com about the extent of presidential war powers authorized by the constitution. Our old friend Retopper clearly equivocates on the word “prohibit,” having all along used it to mean prohibit-1 = “disallow in the legal sense,” but then replying to Mr. Leggett as if he meant prohibit-2 = “make physically impossible.” The choice of the word “fantasy” drives home that he definitely meant “make physically possible” in the second case. He kept using the same word, but the meaning in his mind had clearly shifted from 1 to 2.
If this was intentional, it was arguing just to argue, in the worst kind of way. If Retopper was sincere here, then this was an error that happened in his own mind. It was a WTO that made him conclude he was right even in the face of damning arguments by Woods and others. WTOs like this happened all through the lengthy debate, but I chose this one because it was clearest.
I think the vast majority of the time this is intentional. I think it’s the easiest way for someone who has no real argument to continue arguing (i.e. to have something to say).
I’d like to think most arguers are more sincere than that (I’m almost certain Hoppe is sincere in the A.E.), but I don’t doubt that happens quite a lot because people just want to back talk. But I wonder to what extent they sort of still believe it themselves.
No, people are not aware of it. They actually confuse concepts if they have the same name. They just have no incentive to be specific about definitions, it would not be emotionally satisfying to do so. It would mean admitting that they were wrong and it would mean being out of their comfort zone and having to think critically. Sticking with an equivocation and maintaining ones beliefs is just the easy thing to do. Equivocation is like the main defense of bad memes. It’s protection against being discredited by facts. That’s why prevailing memes rely heavily on equivocation and it’s so hard to argue with anyone because the words have no meanings.
I couldn’t agree more. My experience with people is that most of them prefer the warmth and protection of ambiguous terminology, and any attempt to pull the blanket off by clearly defining terms is met with ill-tempered panic. It’s why so many people dismiss libertarians as kooks and cranks: we insist the words employed in argumentation have specific meaning, and this undermines their ability to cloak arguments in platitudes and rhetoric.
Just this weekend an aquaintance told me that “free market capitalism” had caused the economic crisis. When I pressed him to define what “free market capitalism” was, he initially acted like I was the idiot. When I broke it down further, asking him whether or not government control of interest rates were a feature of “free” financial markets, his confusion quickly turned to anger, a transformation I’ve seen too many times.
If you’re not speaking in vague abstractions and over-generalizations, then you’re simply not speaking their language. Molyneux has an excellent blurb on this.