Article: The Gospel According to Dixon #8: Let's Argue!
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
|
|
|
| |
A contest between adversaries |
A collaboration of people who may disagree
|
| |
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 |
| |
Closed-minded and competitive |
Open-minded and cooperative |
| |
|
Considering each others’ evidence and challenges |
| |
Superiority, smugness, self-righteousness, contempt, anxiety about winning/losing, often hostility |
Curiosity, respect, appreciation, passion for reason/truth, excitement of discovery |
| |
“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
Re: Article: The Gospel According to Dixon: Let's Argue!
But, Dixon, you always think you're right!
Re: The Gospel According to Dixon: Let's Argue!
This is the kind of language that bothers people, because this is the kind of language that is only used by those who are truly Creative People, which may be resented, but there are no wrong doings here, and so it cannot be resisted, just because it really does contain some very real new ideas, which these consumers have been taught to avoid, like the plague, even when those new ideas can change everything, since they have not been prepared, to serve and to honor, as the givers, and as the guardians of the natural world, as in Kai-Tiaki-Tanga, through personal sacrifice.
What they have been taught by Consumer Culture, was only to gut this planet and run, as the takers, and mass the exploiters of chaos, as we can see in England right now, who have no planetary allegiances, and they have no tribal allegiances of any kind, as that would require loyalty, and courage, and Truth.
Why would any of these renegades from Consumer Culture, want to do all the work involved in building a Real Relationship, with This Community, or to have a strong and lasting tribal allegiance, unless it was to their advantage, first and foremost? And so that is what we have to be prepared for, and we do have a plan, as you might have guessed.
The Plan is that when you form a real relationship, with the Community, it is to be done solely through one way contributions, towards the whole, like putting our personal resources, into a commonly held piece of land, that no one can sell us all out on.
This is the new technology, which is so badly needed right now, to Save the Earth.
What happens when we have to deal with some of these Renegades from Consumer Culture, is that the Community is sized up, to be victimized, by these howling wolves, right out of the darkness of the past, who will always try to whine, and complain as if they were the victims, any time we show them what they must do for what they want, such as to become British overnight, as they are only looking to move in for the kill, and to exploit the chaos, because all they really care about, is how much meat they can get out of it, which in this case is about how a lot of people plan to use any relationship, with a weaker minded person, for instance, one who can easily be exploited, like the Earth, by pushing her pity buttons, and getting the sympathy payoff.
They see the Community, and the EcoSystem, and the Whole Web of Life, as things they can exploit. I just thought I would make it clear that there is no chance of that ego thing being set aside ever happening around here.
The same thing applies to what may be seen as a weaker minded community, which is only seen as being a weaker minded community, in their eyes, which in their minds means it is going to be dominated, by the most exploitable consumers on Earth, and the ethics of consumer culture will then prevail, which is built on an old permissive code that is riddled with holes in it, which can all be exploited. That is why I have begun to lay the foundations, for the Building of the Bridge, using the Truth Code, which is based on what people have, and not what they want to argue about.
Why? Many things can be built, with what people have, but nothing can be built, with what people need. Many can be fed, with what people have, but nobody can be fed, with what people need.
Need is like a Portal, which leaves people wide open to exploitation and invasion. I know that has been up for many years now, but now it has been taken down. Can the other people accept this change in their worlds? The Need Card cannot be played, as a wild card, anywhere on Earth. It cannot be cashed like a bad check, to exploit the system, as that is dis-allow-able, because the system is the EcoSystem.
It is the EcoSystem, and it is the Earth, that gets exploited, when we allow people, from consumer culture, to gain admission to high places of power, where they can only be expected, to violate this Universal Law, to their own advantage, which must be honored at all times, by those who would like to be able to get up the courage to Walk in Truth, with Honor, and Grace, and live among us in Eden, which is a dawning light upon the world.
This is something new which I have humbly put before my peers, right here in this group, in order to stand corrected, and this has been received, with zero complaints of any substance. Do you know what that means?
Truth is the Universal, Unifying Force, behind all the great Religions, and that is not only the common denominator, but it is the core principle, at the bottom of it all.
That the Truth is the Highest God, is something we can work with, and that means that you have to earn it, before you can burn it.
The Old Gods, of Need and Greed, are now Dead.
How do you think that makes some of the people from consumer culture feel, when they have had no say in the execution? Humiliated, and put to Shame. Why? Because they were left out.
It would have been fine if they were counted in, as an included part of some angry mob, and got to express their rage against the machine, but to have this done, by one of the Tribal Elders, of the Leadership Council, with Death Panel like accuracy, while they were left out of the picture, is just completely unbearable, and so there has been a lot of low level resistance, which is completely irrational, to say the least, and so even if their heart is bleeding and they want to pretend that they really care, it is only about their own sense of loss of status and control, as being someone who they are not, which is another one of the Old Gods, who then goes down for the count, as one of the Dead Gods, and so the Truth is very powerful, and using it does have consequences.
Most people only know how to follow the crowd, and to try to fit in, and they do not want to have to try to understand anything else, but only to join in with the violence, of mindless destruction, as can be seen in England, right now.
What I have done is a carefully executed execution, as it would be on one of those Death Panels, which are such a fright to these normal consumers, who really care mostly about themselves first and foremost, and they do not care about the Earth, not enough to give up their God like powers of consumer control, which is killing the Earth, even though they may think they are Earth Friendly enough, and so they don't want to learn, and that may be why they are not yet ready this community, I will admit, which is about learning, and building, not fighting, and burning.
My name is T. Welcome to the Crazy World of Truth, which really does go somewhere. Let us know who you are, and what you think, as a loosely held bunch of things. And I will help you to put them in their proper places, within our workable new system, which is the EcoSystem, but the big surprise might be that, by the same token, most of the fixed old ideologies, from competing old systems of thought, will most definitely not be welcomed. - T
https://edenvillage.net
Re: Article: The Gospel According to Dixon: Let's Argue!
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by meherc:
But, Dixon, you always think you're right!
Of course I do; everyone thinks they're right about everything they believe or they wouldn't believe it! Or do you have some beliefs about which you think you're wrong? Of course not; that would make no sense.
The distinction I'm making is not between people who believe they're right and those (nonexistent) people who believe their positions are wrong. It's between being willing and able to admit we were mistaken about some belief and change our belief when confronted with a compelling argument we can't refute, versus being closed-minded. It's called being reasonable.
Like everyone, regarding any particular belief I have, I believe it's right or I wouldn't harbor that belief. But I've also radically changed my worldview at least a couple of times in my life, deciding that some of my most basic beliefs were wrong. My assumption is that we're all fallible, which means that some of what I believe is probably wrong but I just haven't been corrected yet. One reason I try to engage in argument (hopefully in the good sense) with those who disagree is to give them a crack at correcting me.
If, Marilyn, your intention is to convey that I'm closed-minded, well, ironically I'm open to that possibility. But your mere assertion of my closed-mindedness isn't very useful. In order to take your feedback in and benefit from it, I need some reason to believe it's true rather than just some sort of defense mechanism on your part. So could you point out at least one instance in which someone has given me a compelling argument which I have neither refuted nor accepted? Or some sort of evidence of my closed-mindedness?
Re: Article: The Gospel According to Dixon: Let's Argue!
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by meherc:
But, Dixon, you always think you're right!
How can you tell?
Re: Article: The Gospel According to Dixon: Let's Argue!
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:
Of course I do; everyone thinks they're right about everything they believe or they wouldn't believe it! Or do you have some beliefs about which you think you're wrong? Of course not; that would make no sense.
The distinction I'm making is not between people who believe they're right and those (nonexistent) people who believe their positions are wrong. It's between being willing and able to admit we were mistaken about some belief and change our belief when confronted with a compelling argument we can't refute, versus being closed-minded. It's called being reasonable.
Like everyone, regarding any particular belief I have, I believe it's right or I wouldn't harbor that belief. But I've also radically changed my worldview at least a couple of times in my life, deciding that some of my most basic beliefs were wrong. My assumption is that we're all fallible, which means that some of what I believe is probably wrong but I just haven't been corrected yet. One reason I try to engage in argument (hopefully in the good sense) with those who disagree is to give them a crack at correcting me.
If, Marilyn, your intention is to convey that I'm closed-minded, well, ironically I'm open to that possibility. But your mere assertion of my closed-mindedness isn't very useful. In order to take your feedback in and benefit from it, I need some reason to believe it's true rather than just some sort of defense mechanism on your part. So could you point out at least one instance in which someone has given me a compelling argument which I have neither refuted nor accepted? Or some sort of evidence of my closed-mindedness?
If I'm asked "What should I do?" I usually answer with "Look at your options, and do what feel right for you."
Although something may be "right" for me, many times it's not "right" for others. As with so many things,
there is no "one fits all right".
Imagine if we stopped naming things "right" or "wrong"...."bad or good" and instead chose to speak for ourselves
as "desirable or undesirable". Part of the problem lies in the fact that we're not usually judging our own actions,
but someone else's.
Many times throughout our lives, we make decisions that we believe are "right" for us, and down the road, we
discover that some of those decisions turned out to have devastating consequences. I think we can all relate
to that. But all we can do is choose in the present moment with the information we have at hand, along with
our emotional attachments to the result (in the moment).
Time and experience can change our beliefs more than anything else.
Re: Article: The Gospel According to Dixon: Let's Argue!
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Shandi:
Imagine if we stopped naming things "right" or "wrong"...."bad or good" and instead chose to speak for ourselves as "desirable or undesirable". Part of the problem lies in the fact that we're not usually judging our own actions, but someone else's.
I would argue that, in order for a society to run smoothly and more or less fairly, we must make judgments about behaviors being right or wrong and enforce them on others. For instance, a civilized society judges rape, theft and murder as wrong and quite reasonably seeks to prevent these things, such as by deterring them through punishment and separating perpetrators from prospective victims by putting them behind bars. Surely, Shandi, you wouldn't say that we shouldn't make such judgments about others' behavior. Should we stop judging people and let all the murderers and rapists out of prison, back onto the streets?
Quote:
Time and experience can change our beliefs more than anything else.
Yeah, but if we want to maximize the chance that our beliefs will change in a positive way (i.e., away from delusion and toward truth), we need to learn critical thinking so we can infer the right conclusions from our experience, and it'll also help to engage in collaborative argument with those who disagree with us.
Re: Article: The Gospel According to Dixon: Let's Argue!
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:
Of course I do; everyone thinks they're right about everything they believe or they wouldn't believe it! Or do you have some beliefs about which you think you're wrong? Of course not; that would make no sense.
there's room for semantic argument here. Leave out the "believe" part to simplify. Then I'd say there's room for more levels of confidence than being right or wrong. There's a lot of grey in the world (for many of us, anyway - I see evidence that this isn't universally accepted!) and that means that an individual may hold many opinions with a low level of commitment to them, while others are virtually unassailable.
I'm kinda nitpicking your wording here, because I suspect you're in agreement.
Re: Article: The Gospel According to Dixon: Let's Argue!
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by podfish:
there's room for semantic argument here. Leave out the "believe" part to simplify. Then I'd say there's room for more levels of confidence than being right or wrong. There's a lot of grey in the world (for many of us, anyway - I see evidence that this isn't universally accepted!) and that means that an individual may hold many opinions with a low level of commitment to them, while others are virtually unassailable.
I'm kinda nitpicking your wording here, because I suspect you're in agreement.
Yup! We are in agreement, Podster. I just didn't want to belabor the details in my brief response to Marilyn. In fact, I don't believe in absolute certainty at all, although it is possible to be appropriately almost certain about some things. One of these months I'll devote a column to the issue of certainty. For now, suffice it to say that we appropriately hold various beliefs with different, often changing, levels of certainty, depending upon how good the evidence is.
