Posts Tagged ‘arguing’

January 4 2009

Crichton on how to have a domestic argument

by Hang

I just ran across an article by the now departed Michael Crichton on an excellent example of a skill you didn’t know you needed.

Here’s what I don’t understand. If you were going to spend your life in physical battles—bar fights, or boxing matches, or whatever—you would almost certainly get some instruction. You might hire a coach, do a little training. At the very least you would learn the fundamentals: how to punch, and so on. Such instruction would make sense to you.
But the same people who feel the need for instruction in boxing will instantly join in a verbal domestic argument without a moment’s thought about what they are doing, let alone any real training.
Yet verbal fighting, like physical fighting, is a skill. Domestic fighting can be learned. One can become very good at it—although almost nobody is, because almost nobody thinks it’s necessary to learn this skill. Many men don’t bother because they erroneously believe that women are more verbally skilled and emotionally nimble than they are. But whatever the reason, most men just jump into a domestic fight, adopting the fighting style of their fathers, or various people they’ve seen on television.

How to fight

Oct 31st (day 19): The easy problem

by Hang

This is a concept which I’m currently struggling to come up with a better name for but it’s about responses to an argument. A crucial part of argumentation is actually understanding the claims and assertions that the other person is making. In order to do this, one can either solve the easy problem or the hard problem.

The difference between the easy problem and the hard problem is one of recognition vs recall. When confronted by an argument, the easy problem is to scan through your list of pre-canned responses to arguments. It’s a matching between arguments and replies. Is reply 1 close enough to fit? No. Is reply 2 close enough to fit? Yes. Stop, you’re done, spit out response 2.

The easy problem is seductive because it’s well, easy. But it’s more than that as well, it’s gratifying to the ego. You come up with a substantive response and it’s clever so you feel like you’re doing real work. Moreover, you spend your time compiling a larger database of pre-compiled responses and the larger your database is, the closer and more encompassing your matches become so you feel like you’re making progress. But when you solve the easy problem, you stop at the FIRST match which is sufficiently close. If the difference between the actual question and what you perceive the question is suffciently close, then you completely ignore the difference.

Solving the hard problem is taking the opposite approach. Instead of figuring out what response matches the question, you instead look at the structure of the question and reason out a response free from any pre-concieved biases. You conciously don’t try and recognize the question and place it into a particular category. Solving the hard problem can be valuable because it occasionally leads to genuine surprise. Solving the easy problem will never tell you something you could not be convinced of but solving the hard problem occasionally leads you down a difficult path.

The hard problem is more intellectually pure, with less chances of making a mistake. But it’s well, hard, and quite often doesn’t seem neccesary. So many of the questions we are asked every day seem like the sort that can be answered with a pre-cached answer and so we feel comfortable solving them with the easy problem. The problem is, it’s impossible to tell whether a problem is indeed something solvable or not with the easy problem because once you’ve determined that, you’ve already solved the hard problem.

This is especially true of internet comments and conversations. Once you mention certain key words in a posting, people will come in and post based on what happened to match that filter. This makes it very hard to present an argument which is very similar to a common argument because most people will match for the common argument.

So how do you get around this? I think the only way is to gain the respect of a core group of readers and have them get to the point where they assume that you’re not stupid and that it’s worth trying to solve the hard problem when you present them with an idea.

Oct 25th (day 13): “If Republicans were convinced by facts, they would be Democrats”

by Hang

I made a seemingly flippant comment the other day in response to some Republican glurge:

“If Republicans were convinced by facts, they would be Democrats”

For people who operate via reason and argumentation, it can sometimes be frustrating and immensely counterproductive to be arguing someone who is unreasonable. So much time and effort is spent arguing in the only way a reasonable person knows how: through dilligent research and arraying a formidable array of facts for one’s side. However, so few reasonable people seem to every ask why reason has been such a poor strategey historically in changing people’s minds.

Imagine that you had a friend who literally had a hypnotic voice. When he speaks to you, he could convince you that up was down or bats were bird or that bacon was not delicious. He’s your friend and you know that he cares for you and would never do anything actively to harm you but at the same time, wouldn’t the most prudent form of action be to block your ears every time he comes by and to listen to none of what he is saying?

For those who are adept at reason and believe they can hold their own in an argument, reason is a value free tool, neither good nor evil. But for a large bulk of society, reason is not a tool but a weapon. It’s the hypnotic ray that the privledged elite use to mind control an entire country. And what’s more, reason is outside of their grasp and they know it. If you were part of the disengfranchised majority, wouldn’t you decide that shutting your brain off is the only reasonable defense?

Copyright ©2009 BumblebeeLabs — Theme designed by Michael Amini