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.
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.