Fair warning: This only works if the other party, or the people watching the argument care. If the other party is just arguing in bad faith, don’t expect to have a productive conversation. If the people watching the argument don’t care and just want to see a spectacle, logic ain’t gonna work.
Even then it might not work. If you use this “guide” for arguing with your SO, you are in for a bad time.
People don’t want to be refuted, they want to be heard.
Is it an argument in the first place then? It seems to be a different scenario that needs to be recognized as different.
In some contexts arguing is synonymous with conflict.
Covid conspiracy nuts taught me that what wasn’t originally reasoned in can’t be reasoned out. These people don’t play by the rules of logical arguments, so don’t expect your logic to work with them. What they need is therapy, and possibly even some stabilizing medication.
What does a “COVID conspiracy nut” believe? I’m just curious.
Play to your audience, not your opponent. Occasionally they’re the same person.
And they will only care if you also show you care.
I would say even higher than “refuting the central point” is “extracting the central truth from both sides and finding enlightenment”.
Note: this is only useful if the opponent has some redeeming quality in his argument.
If you have a bad faith actor, just find the quickest and cleanest way to exit. If clean isn’t possible, prioritize quickness.
deleted by creator
And why is it you, instead of them, that went aaaaall the way to the bottom :/
deleted by creator
As with many things, it can be contextual. For instance, it might be pertinent to know that the person with whom you’re discussing climate change is a flat Earther.
Which is true, and their note agrees with that. You won’t always be talking to someone who cares. Or even normally, arguing on the toilet with bored strangers on the internet, where one or both people is usually dismissed entirely the moment they don’t wholesale agree.
Which is not how a conversation is supposed to work. But it’s almost never about convincing anyone, is it? It’s about yelling at whichever people it’s socially acceptable to yell at for points, and encouraging people to listen to each other garners insults. From often the same people who complain nothing is getting fixed and people are so mean these days.
Their main point — that there are three sides to an argument: yours, theirs, and the truth — is still salient if you want anyone in any situation to hear anything you’re saying who didn’t already agree with you anyway. If you’re talking past each other, you might as well just shut up and go look at memes.
Especially irl. There was another commentor here that said everyone just wants to be heard. This is 101 in defusing an (honest) argument, and nothing is moving anywhere until they feel like they’re being taken seriously. Go to any type of counseling, and the first thing they’re going to do is make you sit there, fingernails digging into the upholstery, and listen to each other without interrupting.
The onus is not always on you. There are millions of people that just have to see it for themselves before they’ll admit anything you say is actually happening or indeed important. Maybe not even then.
But the snarky name-calling dismissal the internet approaches every argument with doesn’t even include room for a maybe, and getting to the bottom of what the problem someone is having actually IS, even if you think it’s a stupid problem, can only be a benefit to solving it and making the stupid thing go away.
That user isn’t actually the “what if the nazi has some points” kind of centrist that they got called. They’ve just been to therapy before, or had parents and spouses who cared how they felt, and now they care how others feel.
Also, a general prerequisite: you need to know yourself well enough to be able to identify, and admit to yourself, when you’re no longer rational and are controlled by emotion. Imo this pyramid is based on this fact alone, and most people are naturally capable of seeing through the facade of others once they’re able to face their own shortcomings (wear it like armor).
From the bottom up…
Whatever you say asshole.
A moron like you has no idea on how arguments should work.
Your self righteous infographic is just arrogant.
I know how to argue far better than you do.
I get in many arguments and I almost always win them.
You talk about disagreement, but your pyramid only works when both people are arguing in good faith.
You say that attacking the central point of an argument is the most effective, but often the stated central point is not the central point at all, especially with emotion based positions. For example, a more conservative person arguing against liberal changes will state specific objections to these changes, but arguing those objections is futile if the real underlying objection is simple fear of change.
Jokes aside-this pyramid is right on the money.
You missed one
I guess the pyramid did too, 'cause I can’t see whataboutism fitting in anywhere. So what about that OP!
Missed a line break but the text was there. Check now?
No, I ALMOST WIN THEM ALL!
Nice
Ok pissbaby, but you’re bad and wrong.
Refuting the central point: no u
Counterpoint: Your mom’s a ho.
deleted by creator
I… I don’t have a truck.
According to this the very base of all argument is name calling.
Cockmonger.
“Cockmonger” (noun) :
- Someone who’s milkshake brings all the boys to the yard and then sells them on for profit.
did I ask you to define my words titgoblin?
“Titgoblin” :
-
(noun) : infant, any being that derives sustenance from suckling.
-
(verb) : sex act. Note: linguists despair over the “verbification” of nouns, and warn that if current trends continue, language will run out of nouns some time in the 2040’s. Use with caution.
-
Nothing will work when the other side is acting in bad faith. They will just lie, use half truths, manipulate information and all kinds of tricks to get to where they want.
Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon — it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory. The pro-creationist reviewers of this book clearly demonstrate this to be true.
Unfortunately arguing only works if the other party is open to it.
There must be a desire on both sides to get to the truth. If one of the sides already believes he knows what is truth, then its pointless. It becomes a situation where that person’s objective is not to get to the bottom of things, but to convince you he/she is right. Unconsciously I do this sometimes with some of my beliefs, and its hard not to do it. It requires some level of maturity, not getting attached to beliefs, and rather adhere to an uncertainty principle.
Another situation is acting in bad faith. Someone who gives zero shits about truth and its only desire is to advance his position/power.
The 1st example it might still be possible to bring the other around by hard facts, sometimes. The 2nd its hopeless because there is no desire for truth.
When I argue in a public forum my goal is directed more to third parties than to an individual who may not be acting in good faith.
So you’re saying the other wide argues by contradicting, responding to tone, using ad hominem attacks, and name-calling? 🤓
Yes, but also that those tactics are clearly convincing for many.
And that’s not to mention the fact that arguing the facts is repeatedly shown to be ineffective in changing people’s minds.
I certainly feel this is the case if I try to argue with someone, particularly in a group with one person convinced of a falsehood and others in varying positions of certainty. And god help you if you concede any point due to lack of info or doubt, which just makes you look weak rather than thoughtful.
From a logical point of view, I tend to mostly agree. The issue is, however, that many people only really change their opinion when they figure something out by themselves. While, in an argument, they won’t be able to come back with anything, they’ll often still hold on to their original opinion. If your goal is to change somebody’s opinion, it can often be more effective to drop subtle hints over time and make them come to their own conclusion.
What I was taught was try to take their conclusion and see how hard it is to maintain it. For example if someone were to argue with me about the truth of their particular branch of Christianity I should do is show how many assumptions I need to make to get to it. I.e. there is a god, this God is personal, this God favors human life, this God choose one particular tribe, this God waited all that time to send his son down…
In my experience acting curious and asking questions is the best way to change someone’s opinion. Make them think about the subject and realize by themselves why they might be wrong.
“Acting” implies you’re pretending. Actually be curious. Ask questions to understand the other party’s position. Maybe you’ll get to learn more about what life is like in this other person’s shoes. Maybe you’ll find that there’s actually no way that this person can verify that what you’re arguing is true and the only way there is to trust someone who has repeatedly broken their trust. Maybe you’ll actually learn that you’re the one who’s wrong.
When I’m in an argument I don’t go in trying to prove my point. Instead I ask questions to figure out what our common ground is and then build logically from there. Like we agree with these things so this other this makes sense too right? It doesn’t end with agreement but it does always end with us understanding each other and them feeling like I’m being reasonable.
I think that approach does what you’re saying because it builds on top of things they already agree with
put this on the pile of pyramid charts that have nothing to do with pyramids and would have been better expressed in a different format.
like yes, the point conveyed here is not wrong, and i’m not trying to pull a “responding to tone” and discredit it for being a pyramid, but entirely without challenging the point made about arguments here, i find it so fucking stupid to put everything in pyramids. apparently people who like to think they have business smarts absolutely love a structure with few on top and many on the bottom, especially if it comes with a tidy little guide on how to hopefully reach the top. and that shows a worrying mindset, if you think about it for a bit.
Don’t you know? Name calling is the foundation of all good arguments. Don’t even think about ad hominems until you get that part down.
So… I read this like the food pyramid right? Meaning I should use a lot of name calling and ad-hominem, and use refuting the point sparingly? 🤔
Yeah, I usually start at the bottom because it’s typically me telling some idiot they’re an idiot.
Yep my grandpa always said never argue with an idiot as they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
Why is this a pyramid?
Because you need to eat more Name-Calling each day than any other type of argument, followed by Ad-Hominem, etc. You only need a little bit of Refuting the Central Point to reach your daily nutritional needs.
[the illuminati would like to know your location]
You can only go as high on that scale as your opponent did. For example, you can’t refute the central point of an insult or an attempt at shaming without missing the point that it is simply meant to make you angry or meant to make others completely disregard you. Similarly, if the “argument” is incoherent babbling, you don’t refute it so much as point out that it’s nonsensical.
True, but seeing it laid out like this can at least help you to realise why you’re not able to have a reasonable debate with someone in a particular topic. and even be able to call them out on it. Whether they listen or not, it can at least save you some time and cut the conversation off shorter than you may otherwise do
Long article - awkward beginning - very worth reading through. Thanks.
Non Violent Communication (NVC) might be effective in some of those situations. Basically reflecting back the needs behind the chosen words or way they are said.
Name calling is the biggest part, got it 👍
For a healthy diet make sure to only eat reasoned rebuttals sparingly. You should get most of your nutrition from name calling. /s
Each level of argument has a purpose. Know your audience and use whatever is most effective. You’re not going to get anywhere calling a doctor a poopyhead just as you won’t accomplish anything by presenting facts to a conspiracy theorist.
Your audience will be most effectively convinced by logic, emotion, or authority. It should be pretty simple to figure out which one to use.
Calling a conspiracy theorist a poopyhead won’t help either (they thrive on perceived persecution). The only thing I think Might help (and it’s a longshot) is along the lines of Socratic Method.
Or even just avoidance of trigger topics and only talk to them about normal everyday stuff. That’s what I try to do with my mom, even if I’m not changing her mind on anything, at least I’m not actively pushing her farther down the pit and away from me/society.
Nobody in the real world cares about this though. The only context in which this pyramid has has any veracity is in the extremely rare case where you have a group of people who are interested in useful outcome.
Generally, people argue for the appearance of having won, so will resort to any and all measures regardless of their argumentative quality. In fact, the lower below the belt you can go, the more you will resonate with the layman.
This pyramid does present good advice, that diverting further away from the core of the argument not only makes your point less convincing, but encourages the other party to take it more personally.
However, this also relies on the assumption both parties are arguing in good faith, which on the internet at least, is becoming increasingly uncommon, with arguments becoming less of a discussion between two people and more a contest to be won at any cost.
Even I must admit I’ve been drawn into that competitive mindset before. Something about the way Reddit (and modern social media) works encourages people to be very volatile towards one another.
Yeah I find myself often drawn into these arguments that in retrospect feel more like dick swinging contests than genuine arguments. It seems more difficult in the moment to realise when you’re too busy trying to craft the perfect retort
A more useful guideline would be something like: how to steer a conversation to be constructive for both parties.
I couldn’t get chatgpt to make this into a spectrum like in the pyramid but if you invert the order of the negative impact section and concatenate it after the positive liste you get the text for that pyramid. It does make sense though
Positive Impact:
- Collaborative problem-solving
- Active listening and empathy
- Finding common ground
- Constructive feedback
- Open-ended questions
- Positive tone and inclusive language
- Clarifying and paraphrasing
- “I” statements
- Avoiding defensiveness and judgment
- Seeking solutions together
Negative Impact:
- Interrupting or talking over the other person
- Dismissing or invalidating the other person’s perspective
- Using aggressive or confrontational language
- Making personal attacks or insults
- Ignoring or belittling the other person’s feelings
- Dominating the conversation and not allowing equal participation
- Stonewalling or refusing to engage in discussion
- Manipulating or twisting the other person’s words
- Engaging in passive-aggressive behavior
- Refusing to consider alternative viewpoints
You’re a chiken headed poopoohead!
no u
