The question to start with is whether the argument is worth having. Irrespective of whether you disagree with a person's outlook, their opinion is likely inconsequential and yields no relevant outcomes, and to argue is ultimately a time-killing indulgence.
It might be a blow to the ego, particularly since it diminishes the messaging that is marketed to us from various sources, exemplifying our importance and the need to purchase what they're selling to support that importance, but the reality is that most people are on the sidelines of any given subject, and their outlook doesn't serve any ends besides a momentary distraction (as a fan's opinion of football doesn't impact the outcome of any given game).
> The question to start with is whether the argument is worth having.
The answer is almost always no. Not like 9 out 10 times, but 9,999 out of 10,000 times. Arguments don't persuade people, they're just a team sport to begin with, continuing with your analogy.
I tell my design students that the only truly portable skill they will learn at university is the power to argue, which I frame as a 'super power'. From the article:
> "An argument should be a collaboration between two people to find the truth."
Well yes, it can certainly take that form. But I don't think that there is any shame to admitting that it can also be a way to get your own way. An argument can be an act of seduction, the aim of which is to seed novel ideas into the ether.
> That's more performative arguing then constructive arguing, no?
That's a nice distinction. But from a practioners point if view, I see little difference. Who would argue without the implicit desire to convince/convert?
Agreed... It is a good list. The recommendation to argue in person and not via media is very pertinent.
One thing the list misses is the importance and power of facts. Indeed, the English philosopher Hume positioned facts as the atomic indivisible of philosophical discorse. Of course, facts can be twistered... But ultimately there is no such thing as 'your facts' and 'my facts'. Anyone with the facts at their disposal has the power of god in an argument. Like him or loath him, this acounts for the ability of Chriopher Hitchinns to completely destroy his opononets (Aka the famous Hitchslap).
> Who would argue without the implicit desire to convince/convert?
Me? I'm an engineer, when I 'argue' with my co-workers, it is with the goal of finding the best solution. I don't care whose solution it is. I want to find consensus on what is the best solution.
There’s a tendency for this to result in more work for the people in a conversation, so I think it’s also important to lower the stakes:
* Nobody in a casual conversation is required to do homework. It’s great if you do, but you don’t have to.
* Discussing something very serious happening in the news doesn’t make an Internet conversation important. Terrible things are always happening and we can talk about them, but that doesn’t make a casual chat between two strangers on the Internet high-stakes.
* Ignorance is the default. We start out not understanding what’s going on, and sometimes that’s where we end up.
* A casual conversation is worthwhile when the people in it are learning things and/or enjoying themselves. If nobody’s having a good time, it’s not working.
> Nobody in a casual conversation is required to do homework. It’s great if you do, but you don’t have to.
There was a heated discussion here a week or two ago: someone made an analogy, and someone else challenged them to show their work proving that the analogy was relevant. No matter how many people pointed out that this wasn’t a scientific paper or a deep technical discussion, they wouldn’t back down in their insistence that the original comment required scientific evidence.
Right. If it’s something that you, yourself are interested in investigating further then you take it upon yourself to do so, but the burden of proof can’t be placed upon you by someone else.
Arguments should be based on reasonable logical constructions. The best online guide I've come across to what constitutes a reasonable logical construction is Nizkor's Fallacies:
> "Description of Special Pleading: Special Pleading is a fallacy in which a person applies standards, principles, rules, etc. to others while taking herself (or those she has a special interest in) to be exempt, without providing adequate justification for the exemption. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:
Person A accepts standard(s) S and applies them to others in circumtance(s) C.
Person A is in circumstance(s) C.
Therefore A is exempt from S.
People committing Special Pleading are claiming that they are exempt from certain principles or standards yet they provide no good reason for their exemption."
E.g. Russia was widely condemned for civilian casualties in their war in Ukraine by US government representatives but Israel is not condemned for civilian casualties in their war on Gaza by US government representatives.
> An argument should be a collaboration between two people to find the truth.
I would argue (heh) that the best person to argue with is yourself. That removes the dueling ego aspect of argumentation, since there's only one ego.
If you're not willing and able to correct yourself, in your own mind, then it's unlikely that anyone else will be able to correct you either.
In my relatively long life, I've rarely seen constructive arguing between people. It almost always ends up as a test of will and rhetoric, a vote, or "agree to disagree". You don't actually need to argue with another person. I think it's more useful to read another person's writing and then "argue" with them by yourself, in the privacy of your own home and mind.
Moreover, if you're seeking the truth, why would you bother talking/arguing with "ordinary" people rather than with the top experts in the world? Your family, your friends, your coworkers, or internet randos are not likely to have much more access to and knowledge of the truth than you do, unless you happen to keep very special company.
All things are shaped by the forces they oppose. As I get older, I find the most compassionate explanations tend to be the closest to the truth, (and not the most empathetic, objective, or evidence/fact supported), and the best possible outcome of a disagreement is measured by how little time one spends on it.
The ability to collaborate in discovery, reason about hypotheticals and counterfactuals, generalize into abstractions, and apprehend analogies is not evenly distributed. Humour establishes that fairly quickly, and it is one of the best filters. While it does manage to offend a surprising number of people, I don't end up in a lot of time consuming arguments either. Just be funny, and accept that the failure mode of funny is often "asshole," but if your sense of humour is an exercise of your compassion, it should net out. Good luck.
If you’re not open to the idea of having your own mind changed, if there is literally nothing - no data, no evidence, no viewpoint, nothing hypothetical even - that might change your mind, you’re not arguing, you’re preaching.
(Is it possible to meaningfully debate with a closed mind?)
Something I learned from one of my professors back in university is that two people can construct entirely logical arguments, but if they stem from different sets of axioms, they might still find themselves in disagreement.
In a discussion, if our axioms significantly diverge, it might not be worthwhile to engage in a debate.
>While these are certainly preferable to conflict, settling for cooperation means that neither party actually has a chance to update their prior beliefs to get them closer to the truth.....Did either side actually learn anything?
It's a great article, but I think it's focus on reaching a definitive conclusion is not always appropriate. I think the answer to this can be yes, there are several things we can learn and benefit from short of persuading, or being persuaded. We can learn more about why people have the opposing view, which aspects of your own argument they find more or less credible, and vice versa. Just practicing respectful debate is a win.
>Debates on twitter and other forms of social media are almost guaranteed to never rise above the lower dotted line, as these platform don't allow for more nuanced debate. Everything above the higher dotted line is our gold standard: two intelligent, charitable, and versed debaters can successfully maintain a debate at this level until some form of resolution.
I would pay money to filter out these garbage debates. A great job for AI would be to toggle them off, so we only see the 'good' ones.
I've found that arguing constructively and respectfully can at least turn around an obnoxious and aggressive 'opponent' to calming down. It's not the default outcome, and it doesn't mean they were dissuaded of their opinion, but I think even an occasional de-escalation and reversion to a respectful exchange of views is a worthwhile outcome.
Seriously, there's also destructive arguments where you know you're not changing the other arguer's viewpoint, but instead aiming to change onlookers's views.
There's also other types of destructive arguments to maintain standing in a community. For example, if someone comes in on a liberal area and starts talking terrible of trans people. The 'argument' is in part a required demonstration to show everyone else you're serious about maintaining the status quo. The argument will never fix the person, but that wasn't the goal either. It's more of a filibuster with aim to make the other person to leave.
Abortion is one such. Gun rights, another. Socialized medicine as well. Taxation.
I've never been too sure the effectiveness of the destructive argument, but that form really took hold on pre-musk Twitter.
Destructive arguments can also have the benefit of strengthening the arguer, like sparring in a gym makes me more confident in a dive bar. I wrote my first book after months of habitually arguing on a mongolian basket weaving forum and deciding to put that energy towards a project. I'd never have started the project without building the habit of passionately writing at a certain time of day.
It might be a blow to the ego, particularly since it diminishes the messaging that is marketed to us from various sources, exemplifying our importance and the need to purchase what they're selling to support that importance, but the reality is that most people are on the sidelines of any given subject, and their outlook doesn't serve any ends besides a momentary distraction (as a fan's opinion of football doesn't impact the outcome of any given game).