“Just one more thing” on LARPing

Last updated on: October 7, 2012 at 4:18 pm by Leah Libresco

“Just one more thing” on LARPing 2012-10-07T16:18:06-04:00 Leah Libresco

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Via statistician Andrew Gelman’s blog, this description of Columbo’s method seemed like a nice example about how something like the LARPing exercise can return a negative result.

Here’s what Columbo does. He hears the killer’s story and he takes it very seriously (it’s murder, and Columbo never jokes about murder), examines all its implications, and finds where it doesn’t fit the data. Then Columbo carefully examines the discrepancies, tries some model expansion, and eventually concludes that he’s proved there’s a problem.

OK, now you’re saying: Yeah, yeah, sure, but how does that differ from any other fictional detective? The difference, I think, is that the tradition is for the detective to find clues and use these to come up with hypotheses, or to trap the killer via internal contradictions in his or her statement. I see Columbo is different—and more in keeping with chapter 6 of Bayesian Data Analysis—in that he is taking the killer’s story seriously and exploring all its implications. That’s the essence of predictive model checking: you take advantage of the fact that you’re working with a generative model, and you generate anything and everything you can.

I came up with the LARPing excercise in the context of Bob Seidensticker’s participation in the atheist prayer experiment, so I was recommending it as a way to make it easier to notice when you’re wrong. It lowers your emotional resistance to possibly having to admit error and gives you a way to think deeply and curiously about the implications of a rival theory. Like Columbo, you may find your way from the inside to a contradiction, and then have more reason to think you’ve done your due diligence to be able to write it off.

I think the kind of model expansion that Gelman is talking about is also relevant to another problem Bob’s been talking about: how to convince someone to come over to your side. You can present the arguments that convinced you, but if your interlocutor doesn’t share enough of your first principles, they may be unmoved. (Bob and I have been talking off-site about whether morality is objective, which is the linchpin of my conversion and isn’t a premise that he grants).

If the truth is out there, then LARPing as your opponent might give you a chance to see which parts of their worldview are the source of their predictions that some metaphysical point in your argument is false. Then you can tinker, expand, and see if that bit makes other more obviously false predictions that might cause your opponent to strike it from their model. You can try to slot it into your own worldview to try to see which gears it jams and how you know that those gears are necessary. Working from both ends, you start trying to build a chain of logic from your opponent’s position to yours.

If Bob wants to try any devotions to a saint while the prayer experiment is running, I think he might like Blessed Raymond Llull. I happen to like him a lot because he discovered the Condorcet method of voting before Condorcet. But Bob might be more interested in Llull’s Ars generalis ultima. Llull was trying to write an exhaustive apologetic, such that, wherever you started metaphysically, he would be able to lead you to Christianity. This is the task Bob set for converts, so maybe, in his two minutes of prayer a day, he can ask Llull to give us a hand!

Debate Tactics

Previous Post

October 6, 2012

Get in the Game

Next Post

October 8, 2012 Stop, Drop, and Catch Fire

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category 7 Quick Takes Apologetics Atheism Book Conversion Debate Tactics Debates Epistemology/Philosophy Housekeeping Ideological Turing Test Marriage Morality in Practice Parsing Catholicism Possibly Heretical Radio Reviews/Recommendations Sequence Index Spiritual Practice Uncategorized

Select a Month April 2017 March 2017 January 2017 December 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Ecclesiastes 3:1 says, "To everything there is a ______."

Select your answer to see how you score.

Time limit Season Purpose Blessing