Arguing With Others
The science post got me thinking about an observation I had when talking with my friend Flesh. I was talking to him about the critique of civilization and the beneficence of nature-based ways of life, and I realized that he was a rapt audience. Often, I have to temper my words and choose them carefully when discussing crazy ideas with new people, in an effort to have each point I make be thoroughly verifiable and supported by substantial evidence. I did that for a while with him, but realized that he wasn't scanning my words looking for cracks to deny the spirit of what I was saying. And it was then that I realized there are at least two broadly dissimilar ways of making a convincing case for something.
The first is the more scientific way, mentioned above, where you use your words as weapons and chose them carefully, so as to force your audience to accept them or deny logic or the truth of your premises. It's implied that they are looking to criticize whatever they can and poke holes in your argument. In any event, that's how you conduct yourself.
The second is arguing on the assumption that your listener wants to believe you, and you just have to provide a reason to. That person is looking to make sense of your words and you don't need to be nearly as defensive.
I think both ways can bring forth strong argumentation, but for different reasons. In the first, rational way, it's because you don't want to be made a fool of and seem wrong. In the second, it's because you want your beliefs to make as much sense to your listener as to you, and present as clearly as you can why you think what you do.
I much prefer the second way.
The first is the more scientific way, mentioned above, where you use your words as weapons and chose them carefully, so as to force your audience to accept them or deny logic or the truth of your premises. It's implied that they are looking to criticize whatever they can and poke holes in your argument. In any event, that's how you conduct yourself.
The second is arguing on the assumption that your listener wants to believe you, and you just have to provide a reason to. That person is looking to make sense of your words and you don't need to be nearly as defensive.
I think both ways can bring forth strong argumentation, but for different reasons. In the first, rational way, it's because you don't want to be made a fool of and seem wrong. In the second, it's because you want your beliefs to make as much sense to your listener as to you, and present as clearly as you can why you think what you do.
I much prefer the second way.
posted by Archangel at 8:02 PM
5 Comments:
I find that with nearly every debate I have with someone, it's personalities and associations clashing more than anything. It's really hard to actually discuss something with someone! People associate their ideas too heavily with themselves, and that's why you usually end up arguing in a non-relaxed manner, because you have ego's battling away. You really need to tread carefully if you want to get a good point across, that's what I find. Nice n slowly does it.
hey dan,
yeah, i think you're right- it's so often a clash of personalities. i really want to cultivate not being invested in my ideas so much. i find that people who aren't so invested (and sometimes precisely because they're fairly confident in them), tend to put me at ease and make me less defensive too.
Haha, well, I retract my IshCon recommendation. A lot of people hold their ideas really tightly there. Lots of abstraction going on, it's one of my biggest frustrations.
I find that I can hold ideas loosely, but I can't hold my person loosely. To the extent I identify with a particular idea, it's very difficult for me to discuss those ideas. I don't hold my views of civilization and the collapse very tightly, but I find that my perspectives on false dichotomies, paradox, and systems thinking I cling to very tightly -- likely because I have a very rare viewpoint that I want to be sure is communicated as clearly as possible. It's how I see the world, and I think my desire to share how I see things with others often gets in the way of easy communication.
Ultimately I'm looking for people who I can be comfortable around, who communicate with an attitude of open, curious exploration, rather than closed, preachy declaration. I find myself closing up bigtime when I'm communicating with someone who takes the latter attitude. Also, any hint of judgment/scorn/patronizing from another person and I close off immediately.
- Devin
Hey dude,
Agreed- judgment and patronizing shuts me down as well.
I'm curious about what your particular distinctive perspective is, especially with regard to false dichotomies, paradox and systems thinking, and look forward to learning more.
I have no familiarity with systems thinking, or at least not very much- what can you tell me about it?
I hold my ideas so tightly that I think of western culture as immoral. I wish my ancestors had stopped the white eyes when they still had the chance.
I think of monotheism as the cancer of this planet. The idea that man has dominion, and that the planet is some dead thing here for his use...is the cancer that has killed our planet.
And now it's soon to metastasized...omg, is there water on Mars?
Post a Comment
<< Home