The Fruitlessness of Arguments

[Mole]

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.

Sure, the breakdown of communication is often due to human frailty.

And a particular form will protect us from particular frailties but not others.

So we design a form of discourse to give us particular protections and opportunities.

However a new form of discourse has to be learnt and practised.

Active Listening is different form of discourse.

And Active Listening can be two partners, turn and turn about - first one listens, then the other.

So that Active Listening becomes a mutual activity.

Quite different from the competitive activity of argument.

 

[TickTock]

Sure, the breakdown of communication is often due to human frailty.

And a particular form will protect us from particular frailties but not others.

So we design a form of discourse to give us particular protections and opportunities.

However a new form of discourse has to be learnt and practised.

Active Listening is different form of discourse.

And Active Listening can be two partners, turn and turn about - first one listens, then the other.

So that Active Listening becomes a mutual activity.

Quite different from the competitive activity of argument.

I agree. In theory it works well, but you can't be sure the other person will take that form.

 

[Mole]

I agree. In theory it works well, but you can't be sure the other person will take that form.

Well what I would do is make an agreement with my partner.

We agree to meet a particular time and place over six weeks.

We start off in the most simple and formal way - in other words, we start off in a highly structured way until we get the feel of active listening, turn and turn about.

And once having learnt the basics, we can start to elaborate.

But most of all, we practise and practise and practise until mutual active listening becomes second nature.

 

[ajblaise]

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.

"Bad argument" matters little when you factor in the fruits of good argument. Even participants in bad argument can learn something.

 

[reason]

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 agree, arguments need more apples and oranges.

 

[Jack Flak]

I agree, arguments need more apples and oranges.

I don't know, comparing arguments to fruit is kinda like...I don't know, they just don't seem to correlate.