The Fruitlessness of Arguments

[SillySapienne]

I hope you find some value in argument of some form.

There is a big difference between "having" an argument, and "making" one. The skills of making valid arguments are indispensable to progress in the world.

It saddens me that so many people take-up such a negative view of debate.

Every scientific, mathematical, or engineering paper comprises an argument.

The debate about definitions, standards, and ground-rules--the meta-debates are also incredibly vital to being correct.

It matters if those papers are right or not. It matters a lot.

A good paper presents strong arguments with a good thesis and good evidence to back up that thesis. The thesis of the paper may be a scientific hypothesis which was proven or dis-proven, a mathematical theorem proven or dis-proven, a novel engineering design proven or dis-proven, or something else.

Most of human progress comes about due to the ability of people to reason.

To reason is to make an argument to oneself.

Nature cares not about our feelings about what is right. But if want stuff to work, we need to get things correct.

Favorite post of the week!!!

You speak sense!!!

 

[ThatGirl]

No they don't.



I think it depends on what your goal is. If you just want to play with ideas and language, then it doesn't matter what you know, because you're not trying to win or learn, just mess around.



FYP

What does FYP mean?

 

[Bella]

Hi ThatGirl! Good to see you back from Deaths Gate.

 

[Totenkindly]

The bien-pensants constantly tell us that debate in our nine Parliaments is childish, rude, insulting and would not be tolerated in a two year old. And the bien-pensants tell us that if we could just move beyond debate, we would be making an evolutionary leap. And it would be, "a wonderful thing", perhaps utopian.

I have to admit, I'm taking an amusing delight in hearing the debacle of politicians debating about how immature it is to debate.

The OP is markedly non-NF.
Their typical stance against arguing is that it creates disharmony and unhappiness, often being unable to see past the ill-concieved notion that everyone wants to be everyone elses friend.
The OP simply, and accurately, for the most part, noticed that in a debate, no one listens long enough to fully understand the opposition, having busied themselves too thoroughly in diagramming their own unenlightemed point.

Yes, very astute.

Avoiding argument just to endorse harmony seems to contribute to "false peace," although perhaps to the right sort of person, such peace is not false to them at all. (It is to me simply because it's based on a weak foundation that will either soon by shaken by further disagreement or by a weakening of the relational bonds since the inherent dissonance was not reduced and thus distance will be inserted into the relationship as a coping mechanism to avoid further anxiety.)

Is the point of discussion to "defeat" the viewpoints of any challengers, or is it to listen, learn, contribute, and construct a more solid viewpoint [i.e., an idea that is "more accurate" or true] with the benefit of multiple contributors?

Sparring takes less brainpower and costs nothing.

 

[Jack Flak]

The OP is markedly non-NF.

I was considering the act of starting the thread as much as the text itself. I've said that which is very similar to the OP, in other context. It's decidedly N, and the concern with "harmony" leans toward F. IMO, of course.

 

[Anja]

And, to complicate matters, I hope no one here assumes that I don't see the value of conflict nor of debate. And, yes, I see them both as methods of communication. All speaking/acting is. I don't automatically fear or avoid conflict because I am an INFP. Conflict is the first opportunity to recognize and hopefully solve a problem.

In the case of conflict the goal, I think, is to work through the existing conflict and come to some logical consensus so that problem can be solved with everyone who can, doing something to accomplish progress. "Winning" consensus on one's POV is not sufficient.

Whether one likes it or not, feelings play a part in conflict and if not addressed will muddy the opportunity to move forward.

In the case of debate, it needs to be made clear to all participants that debate, and not working on consensus, is what is occurring. I see debate as an exercise, rational in the sense of the word that some here are using it. That feelings are to remain unacknowledged, possibly to be squelched.

From what I've observed here a lot of what passes for debate is endless "I'm right!" "No, I'm right!" going on ad infinitum. Quite a few feelings behind that drive, I'd suspect. And not much else goes on. The threads self-destruct with everyone jockeying for position.

So, what I'm saying, just make sure everyone's on the same page before the communication starts. What's the goal? "Who wins?" or "How do we come to a consensus about what's wrong and how do we fix it?"

I see a difference.

 

[ygolo]

And, to complicate matters, I hope no one here assumes that I don't see the value of conflict nor of debate. And, yes, I see them both as methods of communication. All speaking/acting is. I don't automatically fear or avoid conflict because I am an INFP. Conflict is the first opportunity to recognize and hopefully solve a problem.

I didn't mean to imply that you personally believed a particular thing. I was making some general points. I know people who do avoid and detest debate (I used to be one of them).

In a way, I am making counter-points to the thoughts of a younger me that resonated with what you are saying. I hope I did not offend.

In the case of conflict the goal, I think, is to work through the existing conflict and come to some logical consensus so that problem can be solved with everyone who can, doing something to accomplish progress. "Winning" consensus on one's POV is not sufficient.

Whether one likes it or not, feelings play a part in conflict and if not addressed will muddy the opportunity to move forward.

I agree with this much.

In the case of debate, it needs to be made clear to all participants that debate, and not working on consensus, is what is occurring. I see debate as an exercise, rational in the sense of the word that some here are using it. That feelings are to remain unacknowledged, possibly to be squelched.

That is not the way I see debate at all. Feelings are involved.

Decisions about policies, standards and methodology affect the way people work on a day to day basis--people are going to feel strongly about these things.

Coming to some form of decision is often the goal.

Consensus may not be reached, but it is desired.

The importance of making a solid case for:

• Why a person is innocent or guilty of a crime.
• Why a theory does or does not require more attention from the larger community.
• Why our design should include a particular feature.
• Why we should adopt a particular methodology

are all quite heavily laden with emotion.

However, it important is who is right. The person is either innocent of guilty of the crime in question. The theory will reflect reality, and be usable, to varying degrees. A design feature will have varying amounts of utility, as will particular methodologies.

Most people don't want to sentence an innocent person, let a theory with no basis in reality become mainstream, include useless features in their designs, or adopt poor methodologies.

The usual disagreements are on what is true or false--the facts at hand. Unfortunately, truth comes in a singular form.

From what I've observed here a lot of what passes for debate is endless "I'm right!" "No, I'm right!" going on ad infinitum. Quite a few feelings behind that drive, I'd suspect. And not much else goes on. The threads self-destruct with everyone jockeying for position.

Forum debates have a funny dynamic since they tend to not have immediate consequences.

Nevertheless, they are part of larger national and global debates/conversations that do have consequences for a lot of people. Here again, it matters who is correct.

The main reason, I think, technical subjects enjoy reaching conclusions is because the consequences of being right or wrong are forced to become more quickly apparent through clear empirical testing (the more complex the subject, the harder it is to make something clear).

I have direct experience on what happens when the consequences of decisions are distanced from those doing the debating. Even the technical discussions with degenerates into: "I'm right." "No. I'm right." Experience has shown me that if we can show a clear rational argument, backed by empirical results, these issues go away.

Presenting such an argument with data is difficult, and often only happens after people have exerted large amounts of effort. Data-alone becomes like bad data-mining and you will get people supporting whatever they want with their sources. Logic alone is based of subjective selection of models. Getting both needs people to be close to the truth, or out-right frauds. The more scrutiny and debate that happens (and it is quite emotionally laden), the harder it becomes to create a wrong model without resorting to out-right fraud.

So, what I'm saying, just make sure everyone's on the same page before the communication starts. What's the goal? "Who wins?" or "How do we come to a consensus about what's wrong and how do we fix it?

Things can go more smoothly with some early ground-rules. But overly rigid rules, make for a false sense of consensus.

Consensus is difficult. It rarely happens in large groups.

I see a difference.

I see it as a matter of degree. Sometimes the whole point is to work through feelings, sometimes the whole point is to make a good (a.k.a. "correct") decision (and there can be many that are correct).

Usually, it is somewhere in between.

 

[Nocapszy]

I was considering the act of starting the thread as much as the text itself. I've said that which is very similar to the OP, in other context. It's decidedly N, and the concern with "harmony" leans toward F. IMO, of course.

Except that the OP isn't talking about harmony. He's shaming worthless disharmony. Whether or not it puts anyone in discomfort is beside the point.

You display great cooperation in positively demonstrating the OP's point.

 

[kyuuei]

I assume it must be the same for everyone. You come up with the perfect reasoning to support your argument and it is met with what only seems like blind ignorance or irrationality. Of course the other person probably sees it that way to.

I long for the day when in conversation and it becomes a passionate discussion that the other person doesn't give way to stubbornness, egotism or ignorance and suddenly something clicks and they say, "I see yes you're right actually all this time I've been wrong. Thanks for the insight." Of course that will never happen because they have no doubt gotten to the point where they are now basing all meaning in their life on being right and to admit they are wrong would be like admitting that they are a failure. Then what would their life be worth? It's such a shame, because if we were all prepared to see the pointlessness of it there could very well be a leap in human evolution, that might just lead to less violence in the world. But just the gains on the smaller scale would be a wonderful thing.

I DISAGREE!!

 

[Jack Flak]

Except that the OP isn't talking about harmony. He's shaming worthless debate. Whether or not it puts anyone in discomfort is beside the OP's point.

Taken from OP: "Then what would their life be worth? It's such a shame, because if we were all prepared to see the pointlessness of it there could very well be a leap in human evolution, that might just lead to less violence in the world"

 

[Nocapszy]

Taken from my last post:

"You display great cooperation in positively demonstrating the OP's"

 

[Jack Flak]

Taken from my last post:

"You display great cooperation in positively demonstrating the OP's"

This is certainly a fruitful argument if I've ever had one. That's an extremely vague statement, I'm sure so that any specific response could be countered with something to the effect of "No, Stupid, I didn't mean that." I'll pass.

 

[Anja]

Thank you, ygolo, for taking the time to set you and me on the path of understanding. You listened! Sending a gold star

But while you guys sort this potential tangle out I must take time to find a small furry creature which my cat has brought in for my approval. First things first.

 

[Nocapszy]

This is certainly a fruitful argument if I've ever had one. That's an extremely vague statement, I'm sure so that any specific response could be countered with something to the effect of "No, Stupid, I didn't mean that." I'll pass.

No, stupid, that's not what I meant.
I speculate you feel a sense of accomplishment for your work here. Well you should. You've both agreed with, and contrarily demonstrated the original post.

You're more fun than tic-tac-toe y'know that Senor Flak?

 

[Mole]

The purpose of free and open debate is to avoid group think.

In fact it only takes one dissenting voice to break the trance of group think.

A study of the Bay of Pigs disaster shows it was a result of group think.

And group think can happen to anyone even at the highest level, for instance the group think that led to the Bay of Pigs disaster was led by JFK.

So the problem is that group think is an ever present temptation.

And we must keep reminding ourselves that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance.

This is vitally important in a cult like the New Age and MBTI.

Where it is quite natural to see the dissenting voice as bad mannered or rude, or an attention seeker, or as disloyal to the group.

And how natural to pointedly ask the dissenter, "Why are you here?". With the implication that the dissenter has no right to be here and should leave.

And of course attempts are made to shame the dissenter.

Instead we should demonstrate that dissenters are the salt of the earth.

 

[Mole]

Values and Emotional Intelligence

And the problem is that values compete with each other.

So the more you have of one value the less you have of another.

So it is natural to feel that your value is right and the competing value is wrong.

And it is natural to feel strongly about your value.

So a good debater not only has intellectual intelligence but emotional intelligence as well.

 

[TickTock]

Arguments are a good thing, I don't dispute that. They are a good thing when they work well and there have been some good posts highlighting the benefits. 'When they work well' being the key statement. The OP is pivoting on when they don't and the problems that arise in conversation and then it becomes pointless.

 

[Mole]

Arguments are a good thing, I don't dispute that. They are a good thing when they work well and there have been some good posts highlighting the benefits. 'When they work well' being the key statement. The OP is pivoting on when they don't and the problems that arise in conversation and then it becomes pointless.

It is an interesting problem Lithium. And you are quite right - there does come a point where further argument is fruitless.

And you are right it is frustrating to be in a pointless argument. And the frustration leads to anger and the anger leads to insults and insults can lead to blows.

But I am not sure what you want at this point. Do you wish to explore how and where arguments break down? Or do you wish to explore ways of structuring arguments so that they have an outcome? Or do you wish to explore entirely different forms of discourse apart from argument?

I must admit I am rather keen on different forms of discourse.

It seems to me that argument is a tried and true form of discourse that is primarily defensive in nature. In other words argument is a form of socially sanctioned psychological defence.

Argument is a very familiar dance. And who wants to learn new steps?

However it is important to remember that there are other discourses that are quite different from argument.

Perhaps you have asked a very important question here.

 

[Mole]

I assume it must be the same for everyone. You come up with the perfect reasoning to support your argument and it is met with what only seems like blind ignorance or irrationality. Of course the other person probably sees it that way to.

I long for the day when in conversation and it becomes a passionate discussion that the other person doesn't give way to stubbornness, egotism or ignorance and suddenly something clicks and they say, "I see yes you're right actually all this time I've been wrong. Thanks for the insight." Of course that will never happen because they have no doubt gotten to the point where they are now basing all meaning in their life on being right and to admit they are wrong would be like admitting that they are a failure. Then what would their life be worth? It's such a shame, because if we were all prepared to see the pointlessness of it there could very well be a leap in human evolution, that might just lead to less violence in the world. But just the gains on the smaller scale would be a wonderful thing.

Yeah, I am thinking the answer lies in the form. So that as long as we use the form of argument, we will run into, "stubborness, egotism, ignorance and pointlessness".

So to avoid the result we avoid the form.

And the easiest way to avoid the form is to choose another form entirely.

Perhaps you would like to discuss the alternative forms to the form of argument.

Yes?

 

[TickTock]

Yeah, I am thinking the answer lies in the form. So that as long as we use the form of argument, we will run into, "stubborness, egotism, ignorance and pointlessness".

So to avoid the result we avoid the form.

And the easiest way to avoid the form is to choose another form entirely.

Perhaps you would like to discuss the alternative forms to the form of argument.

Yes?

I did not set out to find an alternative the problem often lies in the person with the weaker ability in constructive communication. As you mention it though I would like to gain a better ability in communication that would avoid this breakdown. If it is possible. Addressing the form is a good start, but where to go from there? Often when people reach the point of breakdown, it is like communicating with a wall. The other thing is that it is not always the words themselves that are of importance but an underlying deeper problem. Sometimes it is a desire to be heard, sometimes it is a willingness to feel important, which ultimately comes down to a fear of death. But that is the deepest of meanings, the first surface of deeper meaning is related to the ego and the one that they are using to communicate.