Arguing for Mutual Benefit
August 23, 2005
It turns out I’m argumentative. For those who know me personally, that is a blindingly obvious statement. As far as I can remember, I’ve always been this way. The important thing to know, and keep in mind, is I do not have negative intentions with any argument I engage in. Which is to say, any I’ve so far encountered.
Here’s the thing. In both second and third grade I had a teacher, Mary Maxfield, who used to say to always tell us to “stick to your guns.” She seemed to feel strongly that you should support your viewpoint until someone proposed and proved an alternate point of view. In fact she would often question students who raised their hands and answered questions in class. She would badger them with incorrect information trying to get them to switch viewpoints. Later in school teachers and professor’s would refer to this as “playing devil’s advocate.” I always loved this. I’m sure now that my early start on it is why I so adamantly continue to involve myself in arguments.
OK, so what’s my point?
I think I have a fundamentally different approach to arguing. I hadn’t really realized this until recently, but the fact that all my friends haven’t disowned me testifies to this. Also, as a quick side note, I don’t believe there is any difference between an argument, a debate, a discussion, a disagreement or any other euphemism people get excited about using for this stuff.
I believe an argument has five possible outcomes, not the conventional two. I also believe that every argument can end positive, there is not a guaranteed negative to argument.
Here are my outcomes in order of preference:
1) You lose the argument, realizing the error in your position. This one is best because if you can accept being wrong, you walk away from the argument with a new outlook on something. You learned and in turn someone else feels good about themselves. You must admit to the other person you were wrong or this instance does not apply.
2) You win, the other person adopts your position. This is second because you don’t necessarily learn anything on the topic, but someone else did. You do gain someone with a similar outlook and agreement on the subject, good for self-esteem.
3) Stalemate. This happens when neither of you can come to agreement. Reason’s may include lack of solid fact on both sides, or potentially a difference in an underlying belief. If both parties can do independent or joint research to come to a decision and then agree on it, this can still be a positive. It can lead to both parties learning and positive feelings on both sides. If it is instead a stalemate based on belief, it can never be resolved without discussion of the belief, and even then you may find the best you can do is agree to disagree. At that point it is necessary to accurately address what it is you are disagreeing about. This is the area most hot political issues live in (abortion, government intervention, welfare, separation of church and state, etc.).
Now we get into the area that give arguing a bad name. If either of these conditions is hit, the entire argument has failed, for both sides.
4) You win the argument based on overpowering, tricking, or outmaneuvering the other person. The only reason this isn’t last is because at least you get a self esteem boost. Otherwise, the other person feels bad about the experience and no one learned anything. Examples of this would be knowingly using false information in the argument, reframing the argument, making grammatical criticisms, bringing unrelated topics into the mix, or berating the other person. There are times when I have been guilty of some of this, I’m not proud of it.
5) You lose and walk away feeling you were right or knowing you were wrong without admitting it. This is never any good. If you felt you were right and somehow fell victim to #4, do some research and re-engage the argument. Admitting defeat but actually knowing you are right leaves someone else with a false sense of knowledge and you thinking they are ignorant. Maybe they are, but put it to the test and give them more opportunities to experience #1. The other half of this where you refuse to admit you are wrong, is a situation where they are left feeling you are ignorant or unreasonable, and you suffering with the knowledge they are right.
The reason I have felt I need to write this up is primarily so my friends and coworkers understand my perspective on all this, and have an opportunity to see the “rules of engagement” I’m operating under. As a whole, the people I like interacting with are the ones where I can turn the majority of situations into 1’s and 2’s.
Today it was sparked by a disagreement I had with Cliff, turns out he was right. I was glad (and a bit surprised) to find him strongly supporting his side of an argument we were having. He even felt strongly enough that he went and did some research on the back history of this and challenged me with it. I did my own research independently, and he was absolutely right. This isn’t the first time Cliff has found himself successfully destroying one of my arguments. Recently we argued about whether blogging is journalism, I said no, he said yes. Eventually, it turns out, he’s right. (I’ll be blogging that whole explanation soon). My point here is that I’m happily willing to be wrong.
Sometimes I’ll even find myself arguing an idea I’m not yet certain about, or a side of an argument I don’t entirely agree with. In these cases I’m looking to the other person to either succeed or fail in building their own opposing side. This can then help me to solidify my feelings. I recently employed this technique in trying to figure out my opinions on single sign out. I argued against doing it at all. I then walked away and did my research finding that all I needed was to learn that single sign out is not the whole story, I needed to be talking about session management.
In conclusion, what I’m saying is that you do not have to be on the winning side of an argument to be successful. This is sort of the heart of the NoSheep! site name. Stand up. Take a position. Always question what you are being told. Argue your position, but be ready to admit when you are proven wrong.
If I think you are wrong, I promise I’ll tell you. I expect the same from you, students, coworkers, friends, and family. Argument does not have to have a negative connotation.
Tags: argue, argument theory, debate, discussion
Comments
4 Responses to “Arguing for Mutual Benefit”
Got something to say?
[...] However, if you want to continue through and look over things you disagree with, I am happy to accept comments. There is no moderation and I will discuss any criticisms or open discussions. Please read my article Arguing for Mutual Benefit, as these are the rules I assume we are opporating under here. [...]
I’m fine with that.
Cheers
Peter
Hi. I’ve made a serious debt and I really need to do something about that. I think I should apply for a new credit card now, when my credit rating is so bad but I do not see any other way out except killing off my credit card debt with a new credit card. I believe it is possible to do if I pay all my bills duly in full.
0 % apr 1 year
I’m a housewife and looking for credit cards with rewards. My nephew recommended a credit web site, I’m afraid it’s unsafe. Is there anybody who knows about
credit cards 720 score