Show Posts
16
Spin Zone / How to Argue
« on: May 10, 2021, 06:45:26 AM »
I saw this on Quora and thought it interesting enough to share here:
It drives me mad how irrational and fallacious most people are during arguments. I feel like I don't fit in, and see connections others don't. And when I try to explain them I am "dogmatic" and "arrogant" even though I always concede when wrong?
It may be a rather common misunderstanding that if we present our thoughts to others, we will be liked or appreciated. It follows logically that we operate with misunderstanding if we acknowledge the arguments of others that we will like others and appreciate them. The difficulty with these underlying assumptions, is that arguments are not about people at all. Thus, we fail to recognize the limitation of argument itself. Arguments do only one thing, which is to make the distinction between what is true or false. Arguments have little to do with “persons”. This is the dilemma we face when we begin to study ideas and share our own.
There are several common misunderstandings about arguments. An argument has no association with “friendliness” or “making friends”. We may all have an interest in ideas, but it is often the case that people enter into arguments because they think that their original ideas can somehow force other people to admit something. This is a huge obstacle with people. People are 100% mistaken if they expect others to simply hang their head down and say; “Yes yes, you are quite right, and I admit my ideas were offered in error.”
At best, all an argument can do is to allow one person to show their thoughts, and to allow another person to share theirs. This exchange of information can be used for further study and for comparison to still other ideas. After study of many ideas, some understanding of the better reasons used will be found. It is also often the case that the people who find the better reasons are the observers. Those who read what has been argued or listen to a recording of an argument, are usually the persons who are changed in their thinking.
This is difficult for people to understand. At its simplest level, no argument should be intended as something which shames people or hurts people or humiliates people. At its most advanced level, an argument is designed to show people information which will help them to distinguish the difference between what is true and what is false.
This is why, in the study of Argumentation Theory, we learn to express ourselves in neutral language, which is never intended to “hurt people”.
So when we find that we are accused of being “dogmatic” or “arrogant,” a specific thing has happened that is common in arguments at the popular level. Some of the people in the argument, have changed the subject from a discussion of ideas, to a discussion of our person.
Many times, when this happens, we immediately become “defensive” and we forget our discipline in argument. So when there are accusations about our person, we should recognize that there has been a change in the topic. The Standing Points are no longer about an idea, but the Standing Points have been changed to a discussion of our “person”.
Obviously we feel these things, but we should move beyond our feelings, and focus upon the subject. Obviously, it feels “unfair” for people to Accuse—Our—Person in an argument, especially if we have focused upon an idea, and made no comment about the other “person”; but you see, this is what distinguishes the disciplined logician from the amateur. The disciplined logician never loses focus and confuses the discussion of a “person” with the discussion of an “idea”. What you can do is make a brief mention that the discussion has changed from our original subject to a discussion of our person. This is something that requires only brief mention and then we should move on to our discussion of the original idea.
Bruce R. Bain
It drives me mad how irrational and fallacious most people are during arguments. I feel like I don't fit in, and see connections others don't. And when I try to explain them I am "dogmatic" and "arrogant" even though I always concede when wrong?
It may be a rather common misunderstanding that if we present our thoughts to others, we will be liked or appreciated. It follows logically that we operate with misunderstanding if we acknowledge the arguments of others that we will like others and appreciate them. The difficulty with these underlying assumptions, is that arguments are not about people at all. Thus, we fail to recognize the limitation of argument itself. Arguments do only one thing, which is to make the distinction between what is true or false. Arguments have little to do with “persons”. This is the dilemma we face when we begin to study ideas and share our own.
There are several common misunderstandings about arguments. An argument has no association with “friendliness” or “making friends”. We may all have an interest in ideas, but it is often the case that people enter into arguments because they think that their original ideas can somehow force other people to admit something. This is a huge obstacle with people. People are 100% mistaken if they expect others to simply hang their head down and say; “Yes yes, you are quite right, and I admit my ideas were offered in error.”
At best, all an argument can do is to allow one person to show their thoughts, and to allow another person to share theirs. This exchange of information can be used for further study and for comparison to still other ideas. After study of many ideas, some understanding of the better reasons used will be found. It is also often the case that the people who find the better reasons are the observers. Those who read what has been argued or listen to a recording of an argument, are usually the persons who are changed in their thinking.
This is difficult for people to understand. At its simplest level, no argument should be intended as something which shames people or hurts people or humiliates people. At its most advanced level, an argument is designed to show people information which will help them to distinguish the difference between what is true and what is false.
This is why, in the study of Argumentation Theory, we learn to express ourselves in neutral language, which is never intended to “hurt people”.
So when we find that we are accused of being “dogmatic” or “arrogant,” a specific thing has happened that is common in arguments at the popular level. Some of the people in the argument, have changed the subject from a discussion of ideas, to a discussion of our person.
Many times, when this happens, we immediately become “defensive” and we forget our discipline in argument. So when there are accusations about our person, we should recognize that there has been a change in the topic. The Standing Points are no longer about an idea, but the Standing Points have been changed to a discussion of our “person”.
Obviously we feel these things, but we should move beyond our feelings, and focus upon the subject. Obviously, it feels “unfair” for people to Accuse—Our—Person in an argument, especially if we have focused upon an idea, and made no comment about the other “person”; but you see, this is what distinguishes the disciplined logician from the amateur. The disciplined logician never loses focus and confuses the discussion of a “person” with the discussion of an “idea”. What you can do is make a brief mention that the discussion has changed from our original subject to a discussion of our person. This is something that requires only brief mention and then we should move on to our discussion of the original idea.
Bruce R. Bain
