Were you the winner in that argument?
An observation about our mental view of arguments, and who is the winner and who is the loser.
I do believe during this day that the majority of people view arguments as bad things. They also view an argument as having a winner and a loser. They view one side as being right and the other wrong. This pervades our concept of argument. It is actually a false dichotomy. Those are possibilities, but in reality there are far more outcomes than that and those are actually the worst possible outcomes.
If you ever take a critical thinking class, or an argument and conflict resolution class/course then what you might realize is that arguments do not have to be viewed as negative things. They are simply the means where two people (or more) meet with an attempt to find common ground.
That can be one side being completely right, and the other being completely incorrect/wrong. That is often not the case at all. It more often is a matter of perspective. Each person may have completely valid ideas based upon their own experiences and thoughts. The argument is more about finding a common ground to bridge between those two perspectives. This leads you to the understanding there are more than two outcomes to arguing.
- One side is right and the other is wrong
- Both sides are right, they simply needed to get their perspectives in alignment
- Both sides are wrong and they realize this in the process of their argument/discussion
- Both sides are partially right and partially wrong. There is an exchange of knowledge.
- They realize that they don't know if they are right or wrong, because they realize they both are confused or lacking some information.
So this comes down to the WINNER and LOSER idea.
If an argument is designed to do what is intended then are there really winners and losers? If a person is wrong and they learn something new could they not be considered a winner? They gained new knowledge. Likewise the person that was right might be considered a loser, as they didn't actually gain any new knowledge from the exchange. If their goal was to feed their ego and feel superior they might benefit from being right for that reason. Yet if their goal was to actually learn then if truly nothing their debate/discussion/argument opponent had to offer had value then it could be perceived as them losing as they did not truly benefit from the exchange.
It is possible for both sides of the argument to subjectively be winners. If they both learn something from the exchange then they could both be considered winners. This is actually probably the ideal form of this exchange.
In reality as you think about this you likely will eventually realize that the greatest potential from learning new things comes from civil discussion with people who disagree with you. In those exchanges the potential for the both being winners situation is very high.
Speaking to people that already agree with you is likely your least likely avenue for learning new things.
Part of the problem here is with the word ARGUMENT. In the past Debate, Argument, and Discussion meant the same thing. They were not viewed as negatives. That has changed over the years. Now days argument is often about yelling and being stubborn and unwilling to be WRONG.
This form of argument is indeed bad. Yet I do think there is some value in knowing that is not how it has always been, and this can be turned to a positive.
One thing that I think is vastly skewed and does us as a species a disservice is the idea of WINNER vs LOSER in these situations and steadfast belief of "I am right", and "you are wrong". Even if that ends up being true, it is you acting on an assumption without offering up a chance. That assumption is also you choosing perhaps the least beneficial outcome as opposed seeking to make it the most beneficial outcome.
Steem On!
Hello @dwinblood,
Congratulations! Your post has been chosen by the communities of SteemTrail as one of our top picks today.
Also, as a selection for being a top pick today, you have been awarded a TRAIL token for your participation on our innovative platform...STEEM.
Please visit SteemTrail to get instructions on how to claim your TRAIL token today.
If do not wish to be promoted by SteemTrail, please reply with "Stop" to opt out.
Happy TRAIL!
"the greatest potential from learning new things comes from civil discussion with people who disagree with you" - a concept of such enormous value! We have two ears and one mouth - that ratio should be adopted in debate!
Great post @dwinblood, always a good read!
It is very interesting how words change meaning over time. There are many factors that influence this of course but understanding the etymology gives a peek into how and why the change has happened.
Yeah it's been awhile but I wrote three different articles on WORD HIJACKING. The last one was Word Hijacking 4.0. Though Word Hijacking is something I refer to when I believe it is likely the change was done deliberately and with foresight.
There is plenty of calculated hijacking going on lately. It crosses many fields but often seems to be pointing in the same direction. I will put my two cents in on the subject also in time.
It would be lovely if people would recognise an argument or debate as an opportunity to learn, but too many become very emotional and it prevents them from absorbing any information-- even if that information may be helpful.
Whether factual or erroneous, most tend to defend their own perspective while dismissing the other's passionately.
I think that we need to overcome this communication barrier soon, as things seem to be getting worse as time goes on.
This has been a motivation for most of my posts the past few days.
Yes, I have been trying to do my part as well. With the social media algorithm article that trended, and the flat earth one that I feel was a terrible disaster. Lol.
I still intend to respond to your comments on there by the way. But, I have a couple of fiction pieces that I'm working on against a deadline, so I will respond once those are finished and I have some extra time on my hands.
No worry on the flat earth. We could go forever there. :) I don't think it failed, you illicited conversation. Success need not be measured by the amount of people that agree with you. It seems the conversation was civil and a lot of thought into it so I wouldn't consider it a failure of any kind.
I would consider civil conversation to have been a success. I don't need people to agree with me, but to understand each other's perspectives would be ideal.
I felt that the majority of messages on that post were incredibly hostile. I even had one that was repeatedly calling me a coward for being religious, which shows they didn't even read the post because I am not religious at all.
I feel there was a lot of ignorance in the comments, when the goal of the post was to share my perspective of where flat Earthers are coming from, and why they believe what they believe. I hoped it would help anyone who read it to be more tolerant of differing belief structures, but it seemed evident to me from the comments that it was far from successful.
I didn't see that one, but I did not go back and read all of them. At the time I responded initially it seemed like the posts were not that hostile.
Also, honestly if I had written the same thing as you I would have expected some of that. The people that were calling you religious were actually being a bit hypocritical, as the stance of KILL THE BLASPHEMER is a distinctly religious approach to attacking people. That is essentially what you were encountering.
Most people are arguing from an emotional position instead of a logical one to begin with.
if they "lose" the argument, they feel as if they themselves have been invalidated.
is based upon that.
http://www.owl232.net/irrationality.htm
Good video by the way. I shared it like a thought germ with some friends. :)
Yep, I know. Which is why I wrote the post. In a slim hope of being able to get some people to think about it differently and perhaps stop always viewing it as winner vs loser.
Good post. Many word have dual applicability of meaning. There is the argument as an argument to argue and fight that most people indeed don't like, and rightly so. Then there is simply an argument, where a point is argued by providing a reasoned argument. Both can each revolve a dual notion to "being" right" as well. The latter has the false notion of "being right" even if you're wrong, with no actual care to determine what is right. The former is where "being right is about getting to what is right through a desire to be right and not be wrong, to find out what is right so we are not wrong.
This post has been ranked within the top 80 most undervalued posts in the second half of Feb 10. We estimate that this post is undervalued by $6.76 as compared to a scenario in which every voter had an equal say.
See the full rankings and details in The Daily Tribune: Feb 10 - Part II. You can also read about some of our methodology, data analysis and technical details in our initial post.
If you are the author and would prefer not to receive these comments, simply reply "Stop" to this comment.
I Just Upvoted Your Post! No reason, just showing steemit Love. Have an epic Day/Afternoon/Evening! :D
Know the truth about blogging on steemit:
https://steemit.com/abuse/@iloveupvotes/permanent-compilation-common-knowledge-base-worksheet-it-stays-because-i-said-so-iloveupvotes