Figure Stuff Out Together
We vary in our motives and priorities in thinking. For example, some try to impress, some try to sell others on pre-existing positions, some try to show loyalty and support to teams, and some try to figure stuff out. As we have norms against the other motives, when asked, many of us claim to have this last widely admired motive.
Yet, strikingly, few in public discussions present themselves as trying to figure things out together with their convo partners. Such as by posing problems and questions, reframing these to avoid sloppiness, offering alternative options and answers, noting puzzling or contrary consequences, and admitting when one’s prior convo moves are undermined by new points made.
Yes, presenting a figuring-stuff-out-together convo persona often imposes some costs relative to other possible personas. But the more eager that we are to suppress other possible interpretations of their motives, the more eager we should be to pay such costs, to assert our preferred persona.
I have to conclude that while we usually don’t want to directly admit that we seek to impress, sell, or support, we don’t actually much mind observers inferring such motives in us. Few actually have that much respect for people those who try to figure stuff out together.
Of the other motives you mention, trying to impress is the one we should most want others *not* to attribute to us. Having a pre-existing position is not so bad—maybe we have already figured things out. Being loyal and supporting the team is good—it shows that you can be counted on.
As for trying to figure stuff out: being seen as doing this *on your own* seems disrespectful of others, whom you *could* invite to help you. And even being seen as doing it cooperatively may have an annoying aspect, if others thought the relevant issues were settled (well enough), and regard you as needlessly stirring up trouble.
The famous (apocryphal or not) Adlai Stevenson story would apply in most such discussions. You'd win every thinking person's vote. But that's not enough, if you need a majority.
One example: It's not surprising to me that, of all people, Bernie Sanders is the Senator most seriously engaging with AI risk. He's in a safe seat, and old enough that he really doesn't have to care about what anyone else thinks about him. So he can ask the hard questions and not be embarrassed to explore such ideas. Most people who choose to engage in public discussions regularly are too afraid to step that far outside the norm to do so.