Practical answer - how you engage is radically different.
My math prof likened it to the axiomatic frameworks: if a person has bad facts or faulty reasoning, but your core axioms (values) are similar, you are more likely to come to a point of mutual agreement or at least understanding.
If your values (axioms) are radically different, chances are your entire frameworks are different and possibly incompatible. You'll be talking past each other, discussing methods while in fact your goals and assumptions are completely different.
Philosophical answer - depends on your philosophy and how you feel about philosophical zombie - i.e. is it only outward results or internal causes that make a difference to you.
Thanks. I'm also toying with the idea that it means that realizing it's about values could possibly engender greater respect for the other's conclusions. Because at least then the person isn't "wrong".
Although maybe that's only true if you find their values tolerable. Otherwise I suppose the advantage is in knowing you'll have to start strategizing if the conclusions from their values are incompatible with yours.
Either way it does seem valuable to know the other person's complete reasoning, just trying to quantify as many reasons why as possible.
My math prof likened it to the axiomatic frameworks: if a person has bad facts or faulty reasoning, but your core axioms (values) are similar, you are more likely to come to a point of mutual agreement or at least understanding. If your values (axioms) are radically different, chances are your entire frameworks are different and possibly incompatible. You'll be talking past each other, discussing methods while in fact your goals and assumptions are completely different.
Philosophical answer - depends on your philosophy and how you feel about philosophical zombie - i.e. is it only outward results or internal causes that make a difference to you.