by Dixon Wragg
WaccoBB.net
There’s a lot of argument about argument. Many argue that we shouldn’t argue, oblivious to their self-contradiction. Others, including myself, insist that argument, done properly, is a path to enlightenment. How can we make sense of this contentious issue?
I’m glad you asked. We can start, as in so many cases, by defining our terms. So much of the argument about argument comes from confusion about what we mean by the term.
To most, “argument” has a negative connotation. It involves two or more ego-trippers closed-mindedly battling with words, each trying to “win” by drubbing the other into submission.
But there’s another meaning of “argument” which is commonly used in the scientific and rationalist communities: It involves dialogue (or multilogue) in which, hopefully, everyone sets ego aside and collaborates in discovering truth by respectfully challenging each other’s positions and considering their reasons.
Those two main meanings correlate nicely with what I call the “Adversarial” and the “Collaborative” styles of arguing.
Two Approaches to Argument
Adversarial Collaborative Argument Defined As A contest between adversaries A collaboration of people who may disagree
Goal To “win” by finding the other wrong and oneself right, and to remain unchanged To figure out what’s likely to be true and allow ourselves to be transformed by new understandings Basic Stance Closed-minded and competitive Open-minded and cooperative Process Attack and defense Considering each others’ evidence and challenges Distinguishing Feelings Superiority, smugness, self-righteousness, contempt, anxiety about winning/losing, often hostility Curiosity, respect, appreciation, passion for reason/truth, excitement of discovery Likely Outcomes “Winner”: ego boost, pride, social dominance
“Loser”: humiliation, shame, resentment, frustration, loss of social standing
Effective problem-solving, mutual enhancement, mental and social stimulation, satisfaction, social bonding
I invite the reader to think about discussions you’ve had in terms of the above descriptions and ponder the ways in which your argument style falls into the Adversarial and/or the Collaborative approach.
Unfortunately, not much of our discourse is Collaborative; most is more Adversarial. There are several reasons for this sad state of affairs.
For one thing, we humans are apes and, as with so many species of animals, a lot of our social interaction is about “Who’s dominating and who’s submitting?”, “Who’s top dog?”, “Who’s first in the pecking order?”, “Who gets the lion’s share?”, “Who gets the most desirable mate (or any mate at all)?”, “Who’s the alpha male/female?”, “Who’s king of the hill?”. Like it or not, this is our animal legacy, hard-wired into us for good evolutionary reasons. Most interactions, however innocent, have this social/emotional subtext. Our posture, volume, pitch, phrasing, gestures, dress, and other factors are fraught with dominance/submission symbolism, usually unconscious. Even those of us who are attempting to reprogram our behavior away from the Adversarial and into the Collaborative will always feel the call of the wild, the pull into “discourse as domination”, and it may manifest in our interactions in spite of our best efforts. It’s a jungle out there—and in here, too!
In the previous two essays in this series (“Truth Seeking and Faith Keeping” and “Are You Open to This?”), I discussed two main attitudes toward our beliefs: Truth-Seeking, which involves open-mindedness and correctibility, and Faith-Keeping, which involves closed-mindedness and resistance to changing beliefs. To the extent that people are faith-keepers—and most of us have had beliefs which we have held in this way—we will gravitate toward the closed-minded, Adversarial stance, or protect our beliefs by avoiding discussing them at all with those who disagree. The open-mindedness of the Collaborative stance is too threatening for faith-keepers.
There are also social, political and even economic factors that push us toward the Adversarial. Powerful, entrenched factions of our society get more money and power from war than from peace, so a general attitude of arrogant bellicosity, especially in international relations, is insidiously conditioned in us through lifelong macho, nationalistic programming. Media corporations spin and distort news stories so as to foment and exaggerate conflict among groups and individuals, because the resulting drama sells more newspapers and attracts more viewers. And since social groups are bonded largely by shared beliefs, even our friends reinforce an Adversarial stance toward those who disagree, and discourage a Collaborative stance which may threaten to break our social bonds by changing our beliefs.
So predictably, most people are hostile toward open-minded, Collaborative discourse, at least around their most cherished beliefs. Attacking heretics, verbally, physically or otherwise, marginalizing, censoring, ostracizing, ridiculing and just ignoring them–anything but engaging open-mindedly with them—are ways in which the tribe of faith-keepers protects its defining illusions from the threat of correction. This is not to say that heretics are always right and the tribe always wrong—far from it—but the socially enforced Adversarial stance pretty much ensures that we’ll never find out which of our cherished beliefs are illusions and which aren’t unless we transcend it.
So what happens when a Collaborative arguer and an Adversarial arguer meet? It’s not often pretty. The Adversarial one experiences any disagreement as threatening, especially if it’s well-argued, while the Collaborative one gets more frustrated as every effort to get through to the other hits a wall of resistance—and sometimes the defense mechanisms are insulting and hurtful. Compounding the misery is the fact that in most human discourse--to our unending detriment--irrationality trumps rationality! We can’t force someone to be reasonable. No argument, no matter how true or how exquisitely expressed, can penetrate the wall of fallacy, distortion, and/or evasion erected by the determinedly closed-minded. Thus the dullest blockhead easily “defeats” the wisest sage. On top of all that, the mounting frustration increases the likelihood that the Collaborative arguer will regress into Adversarial behavior too.
This doesn’t mean that there’s never any benefit to arguing with the unreasonable. A somewhat increased understanding of the other’s position may be achieved in spite of the rancor. At the very least, we can get a sense of how reasonable the other person is capable of being. And if we do well enough at embodying our ideals by modeling reasonable argument, we can plant seeds that may eventually grow into more reasonableness in those we argue with.1
One source of confusion is that Collaborative arguing can often look like Adversarial arguing. It, too, typically involves defending one’s position and attacking that of the other discussant. The difference is that Collaborative arguers admit when their position has been refuted and change instead of engaging in the Adversarial recourse to fallacy and evasion. There are no hard feelings, because unlike the zero-sum game of Adversarial discourse, Collaborative discourse is win-win, and the one who has been corrected is the biggest winner of all.
Except to those who are confident of their arguing abilities and enjoy drubbing others into submission, Adversarial arguments are unpleasant. This is why people who can see no better way to argue tend to avoid argument altogether, surrounding themselves with those who share their beliefs and punishing anything that may engender argument, such as questioning or critique of prevailing dogma, with various social penalties.
But to those who embrace the Collaborative approach, argument is an exciting and beautiful thing. It’s not always done perfectly, and often Adversarial tendencies can creep in, but at its best the process can be like musicians jamming together, each responding to the others’ input in a sort of counterpoint; creating something better than any of us could do alone; keeping each other honest; correcting for each other’s blind spots, fallacies and biases; challenging each other’s assumptions; subordinating ego to the greater good; cross-fertilizing one another’s perspectives; riffing on each other’s themes; even slipping in the occasional joke or playful dig. As long as all discussants are operating from the Collaborative position, argument is a mutually enhancing, productive, enjoyable, often inspiring dance. Even if we don’t reach agreement, we achieve more mutual respect, social bonding, and greater understanding of one another’s perspectives, motives, feelings and values.
Far from being a source of conflict and rancor, argument, practiced properly, is an essential part of science and reason, as well as the best way to dispel illusion and achieve mutual understanding. Expressing our differences in Collaborative argument is more authentic, respectful, intimate and growthful than smiling and politely pretending that we don’t disagree. Solitary reasoning has its value, but only through engaging collaboratively with those who disagree can we make use of our differing perspectives for mutual correction, the better to approach truth and solve our problems.
NOTES
1. “Reasoning with Irrational People” was the most popular of several presentations I used to give at the International Conference on Critical Thinking. Eventually I’ll write a column explicating attitudes and behaviors that will maximize our chances of getting through to unreasonable arguers, so “stay tuned”.
About Dixon: I'm a hopeful monster, committed to laughter, love, and the Golden Rule. I see reason, applied with empathy, as the most important key to making a better world. I'm a lazy slob and a weirdo. I love cats, kids, quilts, fossils, tornadoes, comic books, unusual music, and too much else to mention. I’m a former conservative Christian, then New Ager, now a rationalist, skeptic and atheist. Lately I’m a Contributing Editor at the Omnificent English Dictionary In Limerick Form (That’s right!), and have been getting my humor published in the Washington Post and Fantasy and Science Fiction. I’m job-hunting too, mostly in the Human Services realm. Passions: Too many -- Reading, writing, critical thinking, public speaking, human rights and justice, sex and sensuality, most arts and sciences, nature. Oh, and ladies, I’m single ;^D