Totally thought this was the guy from Duck Dynasty for a moment.
I think one argues when one is uncertain about an idea, rather than when one is certain about it. If one wins an argument, one discovers that the idea is stronger than it might be. In any case, in the process of arguing, one discovers numerous refinements and related ideas.
In any case, itâs worth considering that the way we think is much more closely optimised for persuading others of things that are in our favour, than for finding out the truth. We are more naturally lawyers than scientists.
Yeah but âfactsâ can be disputed and interpreted a zillion different ways. Remember Elon Musk freaking out about the NYT review of the Tesla? Look at the data, and it could support either position⌠neither party had a perfect, correct interpretation of that data, it could easily support both of them.
2 Likes
Some interpretations really are better supported than others. Reserving the right to change your mind when new data becomes available (as science does) doesnât invalidate stating that something is our current best understanding, our most accurate/reliable model, and can be treated as true pending someone finding the counterexample.
On the flip side: Same input, filtered through different preconceptions, may yield different conclusions. And people are often unwilling or unable to bring out the preconceptions for discussion. That seems to be the cause of some of the circular definitions one encounters when trying to reason about untestables.
The sad reality is that usually arguments are not won or lost, they are just argued.
2 Likes
I refuse to concede that this professor is right. I wonât give him the pleasure.
1 Like
Aside from the benefits of winning or losing an individual argument, your beliefs and opinions often come as part of a structure. Depending on how firmly you hold a view which is being challenged, it can take a huge amount of energy to restructure your set of beliefs to allow for the point that youâve just conceded. As well as massaging your ego, it takes a lot less effort just to continually reinforce your own opinions, however wrong they may be. When it comes to something fundamental like faith or politics, your identity or relationships might also be affected by a change in this structure. It probably goes back to the way that humans often determine group allegiance based on acceptance of ideas, to the point that a radically different view is seen as hostile to the group. From an evolutionary point of view, it could be more beneficial to increase your groupâs power than to actually learn something.
One of the basic problems is that the very idea of what constitutes âbetter supportâ is itself often rather fervently debated.
You need to observe less shitty humans. I make a point of extracting myself from an argument once i have can no longer âdefendâ my position*, then i go and think about it, and occasionally, i change my beliefs accordingly.
in this case âbe the changeâ is of great personal benefit - if you can enter an argument with a âwhat can i learn from this personâ mindset, then you have half the battle, dont let your brain trick you into competing.
*Unless im driving trollies. then i just up the hyperbole slowly until the other person leaves or we get to Hitler.
1 Like
Depends if youâve a poker handy.
I think the professor is trying very hard to bolster the case for being willing to lose, and so he paints a rosy picture of it - the loser wins and the winner gets nothing. I donât think that pointing out that the winner also benefits really goes against the main thrust of what he is saying, which is that we should stop thinking of arguments as wars and start listening to those we argue against so we can learn something.
But, you say, âYou guessâ the other guy is right. Doesnât that mean you really arenât sure? Youâve been tagged as the loser. If only you were sure, then you could grab whatever shred of âgainâ there might be from learning. Meanwhile, the other guy won the Schadenfreude of knowing he bested you and that he can rub your nose in it throughout eternity. But, thatâs another argument.
Yeah, see, THIS is why I argue with anonymous trolls. . . Iâm trying to help them gain new cognitive insight!
Arguing can be about winning or losing or presenting cases so that both parties understand the differing perspectives. If the loser of an argument is the winner because they are led to a new idea then the winner of the argument can also be a winner by reasoning through that idea so convincingly. The old adage is that if you really want to learn something, teach it applies here. The winner of the argument is a winner because they have understood the idea well enough to defend it and convince someone else of its validity.
Well, apparently Iâm in a minority again. Go figure.
When someone âwinsâ an argument with me I will usually thank them for correcting my misapprehensions. Any hostility or other bad feelings I may have will be directed towards myself, typically because I recall mistakes Iâve made in the past based on my incorrect ideas, and I try to balance those feelings out by purposefully feeling good about being correct now.
But the vast majority of my arguments are in the category the professor called âarguments of proofâ where thereâs going to be a preponderance of evidence supporting one thesis or another. I work in engineering and technology, and his presentation is very meaningful in that context. You canât treat technical arguments about physical reality as a contest to see who has more testosterone today - that path leads to collapsed bridges, electrocuted workers, crashed planes, etc. Everyone has to be prepared not just to lose the argument, but to assimilate the knowledge of the winner.
And often when engaged in such an argument the âwinnerâ learns nothing, because there is no further self-education available. For example, arguing that âfrozen water floats, therefore your idea is invalidâ is going to teach me nothing, not even rhetorical skills.
1 Like
from a cognitive point of view who was the winner?
The person who just strengthened their neural pathways and elaborated upon their more accurately representative world view by structuring information, tailored to teach an active questioner.
this reminded me Polyanna.
1 Like
One of my relatives is an FBI agent.
The other guys call him âSpecial Agent Pollyannaâ.
I am so proud of him!
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
