New Essay on The Zompist: 'On Arguing'

[nemorathwald]

Is there a lull in flamewars, or am I just not on the right forums anymore? Summer time, and the living is easy. So I choose now to post this. There's very little point in pointing out essays like this to anyone who is currently hunkered down in a fortress of defensiveness. They'd just feel you're making up rules to impose; and will promptly ask who died and made you king.

There is a new essay by Mark Rosenfelder on The Zompist, "On Arguing." Even if you're conflict-averse, you will see arguing in your life. If it turns ugly, "On Arguing" will help you judge the appropriate levels of social consequences to mete out for what you had to sit through.

Sample: "It’s the exaggeration and the malice that distinguish a real straw man from an honest misunderstanding."

Another useful essay on this topic is "How to Disagree" by Paul Graham.

Comments

Nice

[fiat-knox.livejournal.com]

Intriguing essays, to be sure.

However, I would cavil at citing the example statements given in the essay on disagreement; statements predicated on the viewpoint that, somehow, Intelligent Design carries scientific weight, such as:-

I can't believe the author dismisses intelligent design in such a
cavalier fashion. Intelligent design is a legitimate scientific theory.

I am more likely to look at a book promoting intelligent design or some such semantic shill game trickery and disagree with its flawed core premises with this statement:-

I can't believe the author dismisses evolution in such a
cavalier fashion. Evolution is a legitimate scientific theory.

and I would say so confidently, based on my current understanding that evolution through natural selection is a scientifically valid theory, based on the overwhelming amount of evidence uncovered to date.

Re: Nice

[matt-arnold.livejournal.com]

The word "cavalierly" makes it a response to tone, not content. The use of the phrase "legitimate scientific theory" is about defending bruised dignity, not factuality. If it were about the evidences that show evolution to be a fact, it would cite them instead. That's why he included that quote as an example of what not to do. Your statement about evolution is making the same mistake.

[atdt1991.livejournal.com]

Funny you mention this, we seem to be on the same wavelength today.

[atdt1991.livejournal.com]

"People hate non-recognition more than they object to disagreement. They want to feel that their point is understood and acknowledged. "

I like and believe in that statement pretty strongly. When I think of people whose disagreements turn into bitter arguing, it is from those who don't allow for that.

[atdt1991.livejournal.com]

BTW, my favorite part is this:

Wearing either hat, I think it’d be pathetic to blame users or readers for having difficulty with my work. It’s my job to make myself understood.

Instead of whining about “misreading”, take responsibility for your words. You were unclear.

[http://users.livejournal.com/jer_/]

That is not always the case. Sometimes it quite simply *IS* the fault of the reader. Readers bring their own mindset to the conversation, so their comprehension can skew even the most impeccably crafted sentence. I can think of dozens of online discussions that I have read or been a part of in which one party has clearly not read the stuff that the other party has written.

That said, *MOST* of the time, the author failed to make him or her self clear. That does not mean that all communications faults are caused by unclear message...sometimes the receiver needs work.

[atdt1991.livejournal.com]

I would definitely agree that it is not always the case. If you have restated your idea twenty different ways and someone still does not understand the idea itself (regardless of whether they agree with it or not), the problem may exist elsewhere.

As a rule (subject to any of those generalization problems), though, I think it is fair to say that step one is to presume initially (for the benefit of the conversation, if not for utter honesty) that the problem is on your end.

Looking back on what I just wrote, I wonder why people say I'm too verbose ...

[http://users.livejournal.com/jer_/]

Lol. Rephrased as such, I agree entirely. The first step shouldn't be "you are dense" or "you don't get it" but "hrmm, let me rephrase".

I would say I do that about half the time. Unfortunately, the other half of the time, I let loose with invective that would sour milk.

[matt-arnold.livejournal.com]

Yeah. There is weight to be pulled by both speaker and listener. Either one of them can unfairly carry all of it. When the only way to continue is to carry a disproportionate amount of the weight as an interpreter or clarifier, I ask myself how much I care about the outcome. Possibly I can carry on as if the entire section of the conversation is a wash.

Now, if they are more than just not carrying their weight, and are actively dragging in the other direction through hostile interpretation or slippery language, and I can't seem to get them out of it, I would only continue for masochistic purposes. It's like the Special Olympics: every time I have won, I was still retarded.

Case in point. I should tell stories some time about the home bible study I used to attend, which was an outreach for non-religious people. I got them to admit that in order for their supernatural premises to be true as they defined them, they would need to question each other's existence, their own existences, and whether reality exists. So as a last-ditch effort, they started considering that. I felt my work there was done.

[(Anonymous)]

Meh. People give so little effort to understanding that when you are misunderstood the best response may be to forget about it.

I've found that, even in a professional environment where the recipient is supposed to take it seriously, if I ask two questions I'll get an answer to one of them. If I make two points, only one of them will get noticed. Best case.

So, with so little effort going into understanding, even when it's important, how can you possibly expect argumentative discourse to be fully understood?

I was unclear? Maybe. But it's not unlikely that being exhaustively clear would be pointless. Legal precision in an internet argument? Not from me.

In my old age I've adopted a new internet arguing tactic. I make my point once, spending only as much time as is appropriate being precise. I accept there will be some who won't understand, and there will be sociopaths that will intentionally distort what I said because it's easier to argue against words they put in my mouth rather than the words that actually came from my mouth. But the strategy is to not care enough to waste my time. Some people simply *must* be right, and I've never seen an argument "won".

Have you ever seen an internet argument end with, "Oh, I guess you're right!"?

I'm not waiting for it.

[atdt1991.livejournal.com]

I have seen people say that, yes. It's even come out of my own fingers. *grin*

I suppose I have more patience in those circumstances. I care more about being clearly understood, when possible, than in agreement. I'm pretty cool with having an argument where I don't expect to change minds, but perhaps that's because I enjoy debate more than the average person.

[http://users.livejournal.com/jer_/]

Have you ever seen an internet argument end with, "Oh, I guess you're right!"?

No, but I've seen several that ended with "I stand corrected" or some version of "you make a good point, but I still disagree"

[matt-arnold.livejournal.com]

What? I don't understand you. I wasn't listening.

How To Fight

[(Anonymous)]

Michael Crichton wrote a similar article, on fighting (arguing) within a romantic relationship:
http://www.michaelcrichton.net/essay-playboy-howtofight.html

[http://users.livejournal.com/jer_/]

I like it. I suffer from snap-judgement syndrome, though. I make a decision fairly early in the conversation as to whether or not another person in the discussion is interested in "discussion" or in "fighting", and that is the filter through which the remainder of my communication on that topic is run. It's a flaw, I'm sure. It's probably even one I should fix.

Hrmm...things to ponder.