Is this less a problem of agreeing about tactics and more a problem for anyone who thinks there's one way to be pro-life and we all must hop on board? I have to admit I skimmed the article and I got a little lost in the poker reference. Is there a particular tactic that you're addressing?
This is one of the least skimmable posts I've ever written. Focus on the poker reference and make sure you're following that before you continue, you'll just be lost otherwise. I'm not targeting any particular tactic or group. I'm targeting a reasoning error made by defenders of all kinds of tactics.
Sorry, that's just where I'm at. Need to skim. I was thinking more macro -- the need for all pro-life tactics such as pregnancy care centers, legislation, sidewalk counselors, debates and apologetics. But what you're addressing is tactics within debating/apologetics, right?
What I'm addressing applies to any discussion of any tactic. Some ways of sidewalk counseling are more effective than others, as are some PRCs, arguments, etc. I'm attempting to point out a common mistake people make when they are arguing for a tactic that they are in favor of.
I appreciate what you're trying to say, and I agree with most of this post. But I think criticizing "results-oriented reasoning" is a bit confusing. Pro-lifers absolutely should care about results! Results mean saving babies from abortion and convincing non-pro-life people that abortion on demand is an unacceptable policy. Going with the poker analogy the whole reason why not calling is the better option is that on average, in the long run, a player that doesn't call will get better results than one who does. Perhaps a better subheading would be "The Problem with Making Decisions Based on Only One Result". Likewise if you have a very small sample of pro-choice students (say, five per pro-life apologist) and a higher proportion of the ones that talk to Timothy change their minds on the spot than those that talk to Rachel (avec ou sans dinosaur costume), we can't confidently conclude that Timothy is the better pro-life apologist since (as you pointed out) Rachel could simply have been unlucky and gotten a "bad" sample. But if we increase that number to, say, five hundred pro-choice students and Timothy still had significantly better results we would be a lot more confident in that conclusion. It's still possible that Rachel keeps drawing bad samples, but only in the sense that it's possible to lose a fair coin toss 50 times in a row (possible, but it's not ever going to happen to you). For a slightly more technical overview, this article may be helpful. https://www.dummies.com/education/math/statistics/how-to-compare-two-population-proportions/ I think the pro-life movement would do well to be more data-oriented. Personally, I would be interested in a survey that identifies people who are pro-life but used to be pro-choice and asking them what ultimately caused them to change their minds. This could provide some insight into which strategies would be most worth investing in.
You said you agree with most of the post, and I agree with most of your comment. I have found in the last couple of years that discussion on this topic can really struggle in that last few percent. I don't think the whole reason you shouldn't call in the poker analogy comes down to the fact that you'll get better results in the long run, but the disagreement is almost semantical. It comes down to the fact that it's statistically wise in a way that is actually independent of what the results are. The thing that makes this confusing is that wisdom has to be directed towards an end, and the end is positive results. I don't think that makes it good to be results-oriented. Since my team started discussing this issue, we've attempted to explain the idea in a variety of different ways. With the writing of this blog post came some elements we didn't have two years ago. It's plausible that in a year I'll think the way you're articulating it will appeal to me more. My desire in bringing this up is kind of analogous to my piece on virtue-signaling: for people to more intentionally discuss an important but ignored topic. I don't think my piece on virtue-signaling is a comprehensive treatment of what it is and what it isn't, but I think it's a fine place to start. I feel similarly about this post, and I'd imagine we agree on the value of the pro-life movement thinking more clearly about results. I would desperately like to see the pro-life movement become more data-oriented too.
This is a pretty facile and misleading post. Being 'results oriented' isn't inherently negative or positive because it doesn't require that someone only focus on short term objectives. Most people aren't exclusively 'results-oriented' either. They tend to be a mix of process, goal, and results orientation. It's really through the interaction and individual prioritization of these orientations what we identify sound strategy. But how do you identify sound strategy if you've been trained to mistrust specific orientations rather than to think critically about them?
This is a bit of philosophical punditry that discounts experience and real-world wisdom. Of course tactics and methods may have to change over time, but those who make a continuing deep impact due so through hard earned knowledge. Their personal experiences DO predict future successes and EVERYONE lives that way. Are previous experiences wrong some times? Of course. But are the correct more often than random thrashes in the dark. Absolutely.
I'm not targeting any particular tactic or group. I'm targeting a reasoning error made by defenders of all kinds of tactics.
I was thinking more macro -- the need for all pro-life tactics such as pregnancy care centers, legislation, sidewalk counselors, debates and apologetics. But what you're addressing is tactics within debating/apologetics, right?
Likewise if you have a very small sample of pro-choice students (say, five per pro-life apologist) and a higher proportion of the ones that talk to Timothy change their minds on the spot than those that talk to Rachel (avec ou sans dinosaur costume), we can't confidently conclude that Timothy is the better pro-life apologist since (as you pointed out) Rachel could simply have been unlucky and gotten a "bad" sample. But if we increase that number to, say, five hundred pro-choice students and Timothy still had significantly better results we would be a lot more confident in that conclusion. It's still possible that Rachel keeps drawing bad samples, but only in the sense that it's possible to lose a fair coin toss 50 times in a row (possible, but it's not ever going to happen to you). For a slightly more technical overview, this article may be helpful.
https://www.dummies.com/education/math/statistics/how-to-compare-two-population-proportions/
I think the pro-life movement would do well to be more data-oriented. Personally, I would be interested in a survey that identifies people who are pro-life but used to be pro-choice and asking them what ultimately caused them to change their minds. This could provide some insight into which strategies would be most worth investing in.
I don't think the whole reason you shouldn't call in the poker analogy comes down to the fact that you'll get better results in the long run, but the disagreement is almost semantical. It comes down to the fact that it's statistically wise in a way that is actually independent of what the results are. The thing that makes this confusing is that wisdom has to be directed towards an end, and the end is positive results. I don't think that makes it good to be results-oriented.
Since my team started discussing this issue, we've attempted to explain the idea in a variety of different ways. With the writing of this blog post came some elements we didn't have two years ago. It's plausible that in a year I'll think the way you're articulating it will appeal to me more. My desire in bringing this up is kind of analogous to my piece on virtue-signaling: for people to more intentionally discuss an important but ignored topic. I don't think my piece on virtue-signaling is a comprehensive treatment of what it is and what it isn't, but I think it's a fine place to start. I feel similarly about this post, and I'd imagine we agree on the value of the pro-life movement thinking more clearly about results.
I would desperately like to see the pro-life movement become more data-oriented too.
Being 'results oriented' isn't inherently negative or positive because it doesn't require that someone only focus on short term objectives. Most people aren't exclusively 'results-oriented' either. They tend to be a mix of process, goal, and results orientation. It's really through the interaction and individual prioritization of these orientations what we identify sound strategy.
But how do you identify sound strategy if you've been trained to mistrust specific orientations rather than to think critically about them?