Re: devil's advocate

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>]

> From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
> Cc: tom@logand.com, larsi@gnus.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2021 15:38:20 -0500
> 
> I think we are talking about two different practices.
> 
> As I explain in the article, people who are "playing devil's advocate"
> are not trying to help you make a good decision; they are imitating
> someone who is trying to fight you, to see what you would do under
> attack.

Such an imitation, if it's a good one, can be a valuable tool for
looking at my positions and decisions from a different perspective,
and for making my positions and ideas more clear and correct.

> They don't look for valid arguments; rather, they will say what they
> they imagine your worst enemies would say.

My worst enemies don't necessarily bring up only invalid arguments.
When they do, it is my job to detect the invalid arguments and
disregard them.

> That typically includes fallacies, mistaken assumptions, and
> distorted goals -- because your worst enemies would surely use
> those.

The art of discerning between truth and fallacies is an important
one.  How do I know that every one of my arguments and assumptions
is valid and isn't based on a fallacy?  Confronting those with the
ones provided by an opponent helps me make this distinction, and find
fallacies in my own opinions and ideas.

> You're talking about people who sincerely want to help, and argue for
> a different course of action using valid arguments, based on our real
> goals.  That's not playing devil's advocate, they are honestly
> disagreeing.

I'm not interested in "honesty"; that is almost immaterial.  If the
arguments are good and valid, the honesty of their proponents is
irrelevant.

> To find such arguments, they need to start with a sincere helpful
> attitude.

Opponents and adversaries normally don't want to help me, they want to
convince me that they are right and I'm wrong, or cause me to fail in
achieving my goals.  All I'm interested in is to hear those arguments
and take the useful parts out of them.  And there are always useful
parts, in many cases a lot of them, IME.

> That's totally different from playing devil's advocate.

I will be the one who decides whether it helps me or not.  The intent
of the opponent is not important, only what he/she says is important,
and how I use what he/she says for my purposes.

>   > in many rational organizations, the decision-making process requires
>   > the participation of the so-called "red team", which plays the role of
>   > an adversary ("devil") with the purpose of making the decisions sound
>   > and sustainable.
> 
> I have never seen this in use.  Is the "red team" charged to look only
> for valid and pertinent arguments for changing the plan?  Or is it
> supposed to treat the question as a real fight, trying to defeat the
> plan by hook or by crook

They need to play the adversary, and do it well.  Whether that
includes "by hook or by crook" depends on the domain; for example, in
Cyber warfare it's entirely expected.  The red team is also supposed
to cast doubt on every single assumption that my decisions or plans
are based on, and ask the "what if" questions that perhaps I didn't
ask myself.

> and cheer if the plan is stopped?

That is entirely irrelevant.  Their job is done when they succeed in
pointing out problematic assumptions and weak points in my decisions
or plans, which cause me to modify the plan, prepare plan B, etc.