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.
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.
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).
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).