PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Jaybird180 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 (https://www.quora.com/profile/Bruce-R-Bain)
-
-
That’s excellent. I love Quora, especially since I figured out how to go from link to link without creating an account (right click and select open in new tab or background).
Sometimes you can be an enthusiastic participant and not at all swayed by the opponent but a seed was planted in you that takes root later. That happened to me years ago when I was a vegetarian and followed a very low fat meat free diet. I got in a passionate argument with someone who was promoting Atkins. I was so sure I was right and he was wrong and it was a stalemate. But a tiny seed of doubt was planted and sometime later I started investigating Atkins and other low carb diets. The more I read and learned the more I realized that guy was completely right and I had been wrong!
That’s not the only time that’s happened. Hardly anyone is going to change a strongly held position on the spot in the middle of a debate, but open minded people will take away some scrap of new information from the debate and turn it over in their minds, maybe even on a subconscious level, until curiosity makes them learn a little more about the opposing view and sometimes it leads them to a new understanding of the other side. Not always a complete transformation, but often a modification of their views.
I don’t like to assume people are static and fixed. I know I’m not, but I also know I never change my views without deep consideration, and that usually takes time, longer than the life of one forum thread. I don’t agree with the meme “Nobody ever changed their opinion based on an internet debate,” but I understand why it’s widely believed, because we rarely if ever get to see the ultimate change we might have instigated in another person based on an internet debate. Maybe in real life with those close to us we do.
But the guy that I debated diets with never knew that now I’m practically carnivore, lol! He was a real life coworker, but by the time I changed we were no longer in the same circle.