Yes, reasoning is about winning arguments, but it is also about logic! For our logic, and rules of reasoning, themselves organize our discourse into war games.
Our antagonistic rules of logic (where ideas, perspectives, etc., have to compete with each other for truth, and where logical might makes right), do not serve us when the goal is clear, differentiated, complex, high quality thinking.
Traditionally competitive, antagonistic reasoning introduces an extraneous motivation (to win) that diverts cognitive capacities/resources from the actual task of thinking or reasoning, and is detrimental to high-quality complex, differentiated, as well as to courageously explorative, reasoning/thinking. (In an emotional-relational climate of mutual attack—built into our logic and rules of argument—we produce polarized knee-jerk opinions or resort to “safe” easily fortifiable/defendable positions). (See Kohn, A. [1992] No Contest. The case against competition. Why we lose in our race to win.)
What generates the highest quality thinking, and is most inspiring and motivating to those participating, is what Kohn has called “cooperative conflict” (in contrast to both antagonistic, oppositional conflict and to simple consent). That is, a framework of cooperation, whithin which contrasting (or “contradicting”) ideas, theories, views, opinions, arguments, etc. are cooperatively explored, as a shared project or challenge, to come to a more differentiated view together.
Yes, reasoning is about winning arguments, but it is also about logic! For our logic, and rules of reasoning, themselves organize our discourse into war games.
Our antagonistic rules of logic (where ideas, perspectives, etc., have to compete with each other for truth, and where logical might makes right), do not serve us when the goal is clear, differentiated, complex, high quality thinking. Traditionally competitive, antagonistic reasoning introduces an extraneous motivation (to win) that diverts cognitive capacities/resources from the actual task of thinking or reasoning, and is detrimental to high-quality complex, differentiated, as well as to courageously explorative, reasoning/thinking. (In an emotional-relational climate of mutual attack—built into our logic and rules of argument—we produce polarized knee-jerk opinions or resort to “safe” easily fortifiable/defendable positions). (See Kohn, A. [1992] No Contest. The case against competition. Why we lose in our race to win.)
What generates the highest quality thinking, and is most inspiring and motivating to those participating, is what Kohn has called “cooperative conflict” (in contrast to both antagonistic, oppositional conflict and to simple consent). That is, a framework of cooperation, whithin which contrasting (or “contradicting”) ideas, theories, views, opinions, arguments, etc. are cooperatively explored, as a shared project or challenge, to come to a more differentiated view together.