Daemon

How to Have Better Arguments

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Daemon said:

from the article, #4 is a phenomena that to me explains how the left is complicit in creating the Trump monster.  That the extreme negativity pushed people with an inclination toward conservatism and Republican party further than they'd have gone if the criticism had been less emotional and toned down.  

 

from article "..4Trying to convince. Paradoxically, the worst way to convince someone of anything they don’t already believe is to make a confident argument for it. Instead of communicating I want you to understand or I want you to see what’s best for you, it actually communicates I want to push you over. The other person stops listening because they feel threatened, and they push back with whatever weapons are at hand - irrationality, aggression, silence. They do anything except concede they’re wrong. Psychologists call this “reactance”. Reactance is generated when the persuader hasn’t made the other side feel that they are being treated as an equal - only then will people lay down their arms and listen.

 

course how do you not 'try to convince'?  I suppose you look at the specific instance and discuss how it could better handled.  Honestly listen, give and take.  Not grand philosophies but keep it specific, don't be a zealot.  See where you agree, keep the discussion less emotional without dogma.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this proposed model for discourse meets the requirements --

 

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spoiler
26 minutes ago, thelerner said:

from the article, #4 is a phenomena that to me explains how the left is complicit in creating the Trump monster.  That the extreme negativity pushed people with an inclination toward conservatism and Republican party further than they'd have gone if the criticism had been less emotional and toned down.  

 

from article "..4Trying to convince. Paradoxically, the worst way to convince someone of anything they don’t already believe is to make a confident argument for it. Instead of communicating I want you to understand or I want you to see what’s best for you, it actually communicates I want to push you over. The other person stops listening because they feel threatened, and they push back with whatever weapons are at hand - irrationality, aggression, silence. They do anything except concede they’re wrong. Psychologists call this “reactance”. Reactance is generated when the persuader hasn’t made the other side feel that they are being treated as an equal - only then will people lay down their arms and listen.

 

course how do you not 'try to convince'?  I suppose you look at the specific instance and discuss how it could better handled.  Honestly listen, give and take.  Not grand philosophies but keep it specific, don't be a zealot.  See where you agree, keep the discussion less emotional without dogma.  

 

 

I'm glad that you also seem to have found something of interest or value in these articles @thelerner

 

 

Edited by Daemon
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pertinent article by Teresa Bejan, the Associate Professor of Political Theory at Oxford. Author of Mere Civility: Disagreement and the Limits of Toleration.


https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/12/two-concepts-of-freedom-of-speech/546791/


TLDR

 

Quote

In contexts where the Constitution does not apply, like a private university, this opposition to arbitrariness is a matter of culture, not law, but it is no less pressing and important for that. As the evangelicals, protesters, and provocateurs who founded America’s parrhesiastic tradition knew well: When the rights of all become the privilege of a few, neither liberty nor equality can last.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites