Occasionally I wonder at how insulated and feeling-safe has the West become.
Your advice is excellent advice for the situation where the disagreement doesn’t matter. An amicable disagreement between gentlemen about which wine goes best with roast partridge. At worst everyone will just order his own bottle.
That is not always the case. Sometimes when you lose a dispute—especially a political dispute—consequences can be very dire. People with guns might come to kill you and your family.
You are confusing a dispute with an argument. By this, let’s suppose I’m hanging out in Russia in 1917⁄18. I’m a little unhappy with all these communists who are getting into power and would like them to maybe have less political power. If I lose this dispute me and my family may well be killed as traitors!
That still doesn’t mean my best method of argument is to start disagreeing with every communist I bump into! Even if my arguments are sound and I’m very persuasive, I’m probably going to only sway a few, and have made a name for myself as trouble. In addition, even if I think this is the best path, I’ll need to pick my battles. I and a communist probably disagree on quite a lot, but if I want them to stop that Lenin fellow I’d be better off on focusing on our common ground and bringing them into my circle.
The common mistake I think a lot of people make is that you can change people’s minds by arguing with them about that very thing in a clear, logical, and rational manner. But this probably isn’t true. This can sometimes work, if the other person is sympathetic to your views to begin with, which is key! So the best way to get someone to change their minds is to try and make them like you, feel like you are part of their community. Then, when they think about capitalism, which is an evil vice, they’ll think “but Bob says he’s a capitalist, and he always buys me a round of drinks!” and then maybe you’ll have a boozy chat one evening and find common ground, and maybe even tease out some contradictions in their world view, until one day Jerry the communist is Jerry the moderate and Lenin wants to point a gun at Bob but Jerry knows Bob is his friend and gives him warning.
but Jerry knows Bob is his friend and gives him warning.
The actual empirical experience of Russia is that Jerry writes a denunciation letter accusing Bob of being an imperialist lapdog, after which Bob with his family leave for a Siberian labour camp and Jerry moves into Bob’s old flat.
Um. I’m not sure you and I use empirical the same way.
More importantly, what on earth is your point here? My point was that a non confrontational argumentative style might have benefits outside of simply getting along with fellow human beings, but it might even save your skin in a totalitarian regime. Is your point of view that the way to save your skin in a totalitarian regime to be aggressively argumentative? I suspect if Jerry is going to denounce good ol’ Bob then he’ll definitely denounce firebrand Bob. The answer might be for Bob to leave the country, but we are literally talking about how to talk to other human beings here.
For the average LW reader, I would imagine that this is in general true
If that is true, there are implications. Why would people engage in arguments where nothing serious is at stake (other than posturing and social grooming) and wouldn’t it be better for them do something useful instead?
Why would people engage in arguments where nothing serious is at stake (other than posturing and social grooming) and wouldn’t it be better for them do something useful instead?
Why would people watch movies and wouldn’t it be better for them do something useful instead?
Why would people read novels and wouldn’t it be better for them do something useful instead?
Could… could you evidence the claim that the non confrontational arguers in Russia all died while the confrontational arguers didn’t?
[ I appreciate that I haven’t presented evidence that my narrative of what might occur is more likely than yours, but I’m not the one using the phrase “empirical”.]
Could… could you evidence the claim that the non confrontational arguers in Russia all died while the confrontational arguers didn’t?
Could you please quote me where I said anything remotely like that? I’m particularly curious about “all” and about “the confrontational arguers didn’t”.
OK. So what point are you making? That when stakes matter, no argumentative style is effective? Yes, “all” was hyperbolic, but I’m actually trying to get at what exactly you are trying to see. You seem to have a strong disagreement with this article, and I’d love to get to the heart of it.
Right, so to try to get to the end of this exhausting thread, your contention is that the confrontational arguers would do better in revolutionary Russia (say) than non confrontational arguers? So, if so, where is your evidence that this is the case? To be clear, I do not have evidence to the contrary, and would be happy to know where your confident claims are originating from.
I think your critique of this being only for disagreements that don’t matter is too strong, and your examples miss the context of the article.
This is not a suggested resolution procedure for all humans in all states of disagreement; this is a set of techniques for when you already have and want to maintain some level of cooperative relationship with a person, but find yourself in a disagreement over something. Suggestion 5 above is specifically about disengaging from disagreements that “don’t matter”, and the rest are potentially useful even if it’s a disagreement over something important.
I don’t know what you mean, but I think I see a lot of people “being polite” but failing at one of these when it would be really useful for them.
For example, you can be polite while internally becoming more suspicious and angry at the other person (#3 and #4) which starts coming out in body language and the direction of conversation. Eventually you politely end the conversation in a bad mood and thinking the other person is a jerk, when you could’ve accomplished a lot more with a different internal response.
Maybe the other person is a jerk and is on an obnoxious power trip at your expense. If you don’t get suspicious and (internally) angry you’re just setting yourself up as a victim.
Generic advice doesn’t apply everywhere. A default “nod and slowly back away” response isn’t bad but is not always useful.
Optimally, you’d be have an understanding of the options available, how you work internally, and how other people respond so you could choose the appropriate level of anger, etc. Thus it’s better to explore suggestions and see how they work than to naively apply them in all situations.
I think it may come from the opposite of feeling safe. Losing a political dispute doesn’t matter because the people actually in power don’t give half a shit about what that (at best) 5% of the population who can understand a reasoned argument thinks. Arguing esp. online gives intellectuals an illusion of voice/power. Someone asks “Should we legalize drugs?” on Reddit and ten thousand people jump in the debate. But “we” have almost no say in whether drugs will ever get legalized or not. It is an illusion, it is a pretend-play at being democratic, a Toy Parliament. It is the people in power who decide and “we” have far less power to influence the public opinion than they do. Even if the public opinion is against it, that does not matter too much. In most countries we have either two large parties or two large coalition of smaller parties. Maybe three or four coalitions at best. What the public can do is to choose one over the other. They game is rigged so that newcomer parties have not much chance, it is established elites. So if they all agree they will legalize or not legalize drugs, they will not lose votes relative to each other. And even if they don’t all agree e.g. in the UK Greens would legalize and others not, voting is a package deal anyway, every voter must decide to buy the whole package of Greens, economic policy, immigration policy, everything, so one or two issue does not matter so much.
So the main reason it does not matter is that we are more or less powerless. It is playing at a Toy Parliament, pretending to be a force to be reckoned with in a Toy Democracy.
Nota bene, I am not even that much bitter about it, even though it may sound like so. I am probably fucked in the mind enough to not find monarchy or aristocracy automatically bad systems, and this kind of “democracy” is more or less a somewhat competitive aristocracy. The same kind of people are always in power, but the people get to choose if a given group of elites are in power say 30% of the time or 70% of the time. This is not necessarily a horrible system, arguably Rome worked on a worse ones for long.
But “we” have almost no say in whether drugs will ever get legalized or not.
It’s all complicated and certainly not “the voice of the people says let this be so!”, but public pressure is an element in political change. The marijuana legalization in the US is a good example. Even the commentariat can occasionally impact things—I’m thinking of the successful Google-bombing of Santorum :-)
But that’s a long and complicated discussion with little payment of rent involved...
Maybe three or four coalitions at best. What the public can do is to choose one over the other.
That suggest that democracy is just about voting at election day. That’s just not true. Public debate matters for policy changes.
Granted what the New York Times writes is more important than what happens at Reddit, but we don’t live in a world where the parliaments are separated from the rest.
ACTA didn’t go through because we live in a democracy where the internet allows people to politically organize in a way we couldn’t 15 years ago.
Look at things like the proposed EU Constitution and later the replacement, the Treaty of Lisbon. Pretty much about elites deciding what they want and pushing it on the people until they give in and ratify it. First they push the EU Constitution, the people of UK, France, Netherlands reject it via referendum. Fine, they rewrite it is as a Treaty of Lisbon, now the UK government is smarter and doesn’t even hold a referendum, just ratifies in the Parliament. Ireland holds a referendum as it constitutionally must, and the people say no. No problem however, the elites launch a massive advertising campaign and hold another referendum. They’ll just keep asking the question until they get a yes. No other country outside Ireland holds a referendum about it, which suggests a lot about whether the people would have accepted it or not. The message is very clear, the elites want it, and basically push it until they can make it happen.
Pretty much about elites deciding what they want and pushing it on the people until they give in and ratify it. First they push the EU Constitution, the people of UK, France, Netherlands reject it via referendum.
And now the pressure in the UK is strong enough that they get a referendum about leaving the EU.
But more importantly democracy is not only about voting but about public debate. The European idea has a deep intellectual foundation. A lot of those people of the 5% that can understand a reasoned argument are pro-European.
It’s interesting how you use the term “elites” as if it would mean something very different than “intellectuals”. In practice journalists are intellectuals who do form part of the societal elite that influences public policy.
Think Tanks have influence because they can afford to pay intellectuals to do nothing but think about a specific issue.
Occasionally I wonder at how insulated and feeling-safe has the West become.
Your advice is excellent advice for the situation where the disagreement doesn’t matter. An amicable disagreement between gentlemen about which wine goes best with roast partridge. At worst everyone will just order his own bottle.
That is not always the case. Sometimes when you lose a dispute—especially a political dispute—consequences can be very dire. People with guns might come to kill you and your family.
You are confusing a dispute with an argument. By this, let’s suppose I’m hanging out in Russia in 1917⁄18. I’m a little unhappy with all these communists who are getting into power and would like them to maybe have less political power. If I lose this dispute me and my family may well be killed as traitors!
That still doesn’t mean my best method of argument is to start disagreeing with every communist I bump into! Even if my arguments are sound and I’m very persuasive, I’m probably going to only sway a few, and have made a name for myself as trouble. In addition, even if I think this is the best path, I’ll need to pick my battles. I and a communist probably disagree on quite a lot, but if I want them to stop that Lenin fellow I’d be better off on focusing on our common ground and bringing them into my circle.
The common mistake I think a lot of people make is that you can change people’s minds by arguing with them about that very thing in a clear, logical, and rational manner. But this probably isn’t true. This can sometimes work, if the other person is sympathetic to your views to begin with, which is key! So the best way to get someone to change their minds is to try and make them like you, feel like you are part of their community. Then, when they think about capitalism, which is an evil vice, they’ll think “but Bob says he’s a capitalist, and he always buys me a round of drinks!” and then maybe you’ll have a boozy chat one evening and find common ground, and maybe even tease out some contradictions in their world view, until one day Jerry the communist is Jerry the moderate and Lenin wants to point a gun at Bob but Jerry knows Bob is his friend and gives him warning.
The actual empirical experience of Russia is that Jerry writes a denunciation letter accusing Bob of being an imperialist lapdog, after which Bob with his family leave for a Siberian labour camp and Jerry moves into Bob’s old flat.
Um. I’m not sure you and I use empirical the same way.
More importantly, what on earth is your point here? My point was that a non confrontational argumentative style might have benefits outside of simply getting along with fellow human beings, but it might even save your skin in a totalitarian regime. Is your point of view that the way to save your skin in a totalitarian regime to be aggressively argumentative? I suspect if Jerry is going to denounce good ol’ Bob then he’ll definitely denounce firebrand Bob. The answer might be for Bob to leave the country, but we are literally talking about how to talk to other human beings here.
“Empirical” = “Actually observed in reality”
That a non-confrontational style is appropriate when nothing serious is at stake.
For the average LW reader, I would imagine that this is in general true, which would put your original comment under the category of “nitpicking”.
If that is true, there are implications. Why would people engage in arguments where nothing serious is at stake (other than posturing and social grooming) and wouldn’t it be better for them do something useful instead?
Why would people watch movies and wouldn’t it be better for them do something useful instead?
Why would people read novels and wouldn’t it be better for them do something useful instead?
The answer to both questions is “pleasure”.
Do want to say that people argue for the pleasure of arguing?
Yes, they often do.
Could… could you evidence the claim that the non confrontational arguers in Russia all died while the confrontational arguers didn’t?
[ I appreciate that I haven’t presented evidence that my narrative of what might occur is more likely than yours, but I’m not the one using the phrase “empirical”.]
Could you please quote me where I said anything remotely like that? I’m particularly curious about “all” and about “the confrontational arguers didn’t”.
OK. So what point are you making? That when stakes matter, no argumentative style is effective? Yes, “all” was hyperbolic, but I’m actually trying to get at what exactly you are trying to see. You seem to have a strong disagreement with this article, and I’d love to get to the heart of it.
The answer only what, three comments up? To quote myself, “a non-confrontational style is appropriate when nothing serious is at stake”.
Right, so to try to get to the end of this exhausting thread, your contention is that the confrontational arguers would do better in revolutionary Russia (say) than non confrontational arguers? So, if so, where is your evidence that this is the case? To be clear, I do not have evidence to the contrary, and would be happy to know where your confident claims are originating from.
“5. Pick your battles” seems to be especially important advice in political disputes where consequences can be dire.
In political disputes picking your battles is a luxury which is not always available. Especially in situations which involve men with guns.
In a state like North Korea, you don’t argue that the dear leader is wrong or that other people who say the dear leader is right are wrong.
You rather stay silent. You don’t fight most conflicts that you could fight.
I think your critique of this being only for disagreements that don’t matter is too strong, and your examples miss the context of the article.
This is not a suggested resolution procedure for all humans in all states of disagreement; this is a set of techniques for when you already have and want to maintain some level of cooperative relationship with a person, but find yourself in a disagreement over something. Suggestion 5 above is specifically about disengaging from disagreements that “don’t matter”, and the rest are potentially useful even if it’s a disagreement over something important.
So it’s just unrolling the basic “don’t be an asshole, be polite instead” advice?
I don’t know what you mean, but I think I see a lot of people “being polite” but failing at one of these when it would be really useful for them.
For example, you can be polite while internally becoming more suspicious and angry at the other person (#3 and #4) which starts coming out in body language and the direction of conversation. Eventually you politely end the conversation in a bad mood and thinking the other person is a jerk, when you could’ve accomplished a lot more with a different internal response.
Maybe the other person is a jerk and is on an obnoxious power trip at your expense. If you don’t get suspicious and (internally) angry you’re just setting yourself up as a victim.
Generic advice doesn’t apply everywhere. A default “nod and slowly back away” response isn’t bad but is not always useful.
Agreed on the 2nd paragraph.
Optimally, you’d be have an understanding of the options available, how you work internally, and how other people respond so you could choose the appropriate level of anger, etc. Thus it’s better to explore suggestions and see how they work than to naively apply them in all situations.
I think it may come from the opposite of feeling safe. Losing a political dispute doesn’t matter because the people actually in power don’t give half a shit about what that (at best) 5% of the population who can understand a reasoned argument thinks. Arguing esp. online gives intellectuals an illusion of voice/power. Someone asks “Should we legalize drugs?” on Reddit and ten thousand people jump in the debate. But “we” have almost no say in whether drugs will ever get legalized or not. It is an illusion, it is a pretend-play at being democratic, a Toy Parliament. It is the people in power who decide and “we” have far less power to influence the public opinion than they do. Even if the public opinion is against it, that does not matter too much. In most countries we have either two large parties or two large coalition of smaller parties. Maybe three or four coalitions at best. What the public can do is to choose one over the other. They game is rigged so that newcomer parties have not much chance, it is established elites. So if they all agree they will legalize or not legalize drugs, they will not lose votes relative to each other. And even if they don’t all agree e.g. in the UK Greens would legalize and others not, voting is a package deal anyway, every voter must decide to buy the whole package of Greens, economic policy, immigration policy, everything, so one or two issue does not matter so much.
So the main reason it does not matter is that we are more or less powerless. It is playing at a Toy Parliament, pretending to be a force to be reckoned with in a Toy Democracy.
Nota bene, I am not even that much bitter about it, even though it may sound like so. I am probably fucked in the mind enough to not find monarchy or aristocracy automatically bad systems, and this kind of “democracy” is more or less a somewhat competitive aristocracy. The same kind of people are always in power, but the people get to choose if a given group of elites are in power say 30% of the time or 70% of the time. This is not necessarily a horrible system, arguably Rome worked on a worse ones for long.
It’s all complicated and certainly not “the voice of the people says let this be so!”, but public pressure is an element in political change. The marijuana legalization in the US is a good example. Even the commentariat can occasionally impact things—I’m thinking of the successful Google-bombing of Santorum :-)
But that’s a long and complicated discussion with little payment of rent involved...
To the contrary, it can save a lot of people from wasting a lot of their time.
Empirical observations show that no, it can not X-D
That suggest that democracy is just about voting at election day. That’s just not true. Public debate matters for policy changes.
Granted what the New York Times writes is more important than what happens at Reddit, but we don’t live in a world where the parliaments are separated from the rest.
ACTA didn’t go through because we live in a democracy where the internet allows people to politically organize in a way we couldn’t 15 years ago.
Look at things like the proposed EU Constitution and later the replacement, the Treaty of Lisbon. Pretty much about elites deciding what they want and pushing it on the people until they give in and ratify it. First they push the EU Constitution, the people of UK, France, Netherlands reject it via referendum. Fine, they rewrite it is as a Treaty of Lisbon, now the UK government is smarter and doesn’t even hold a referendum, just ratifies in the Parliament. Ireland holds a referendum as it constitutionally must, and the people say no. No problem however, the elites launch a massive advertising campaign and hold another referendum. They’ll just keep asking the question until they get a yes. No other country outside Ireland holds a referendum about it, which suggests a lot about whether the people would have accepted it or not. The message is very clear, the elites want it, and basically push it until they can make it happen.
And now the pressure in the UK is strong enough that they get a referendum about leaving the EU. But more importantly democracy is not only about voting but about public debate. The European idea has a deep intellectual foundation. A lot of those people of the 5% that can understand a reasoned argument are pro-European.
It’s interesting how you use the term “elites” as if it would mean something very different than “intellectuals”. In practice journalists are intellectuals who do form part of the societal elite that influences public policy. Think Tanks have influence because they can afford to pay intellectuals to do nothing but think about a specific issue.
EU is a bit different, it’s widely accepted that it’s not democratic.
As to “can make it happen”, so, how is Greece doing?