how to disagree

[daratheresa]

i've noticed that some people here seem to really enjoy posting an opinion about the latest hot-button issues. which is good, it is good to discuss current events and know what is going on in the world. but they seem to be issues that are known to have knee-jerk reactions from any side of the issues, and i see a lot of people yelling over each other instead of talking to each other. i see a lot of people waiting for their turn to speak rather than listening to what is being said.

i'd like to share a story.

once upon a time i pretended to be a hot-shot college student. i was going to school on a dual english/philosophy major, and man, i thought i knew it all. i read too much nietzsche, rand, and des cartes, i wrote painfully long and drawn out essays on my anti-war opinions (that i no longer have) and my hippie society opinions (which are no longer valid), the usual smart-ass kid. then i signed up for this philosophy class, and damn did i learn from it. the person teaching this class was a younger guy, late 30's maybe. he was a black belt in karate. he was a devout roman catholic. member of the knights of colombus. gun rights advocate. he wrote his master's thesis on the concept of "just war", and it was a good thesis. essentially he was my polar opposite at the time. his class was at 8am and attendance was not mandatory, did not affect your grade at all, yet there was seldom an empty seat because it was such an engaging class.

we often split the class in to two groups and held debates. this class is where i truly learned how to organize an argument, how to form solid concepts with other people that as a group we could stand behind. and then one day, this guy has the balls to say "okay, today we are going to debate on the issue of abortion"... he told us that for the sake of this debate we couldn't remain neutral on the issue, we had to choose one side or the other. it took a good long while for everyone to choose a side and stand on one side of the room or the other. there were maybe 20 or so people in each group, it was a pretty even split. we organized, we chose our spokeperson, we got out our 3x5 index cards and were about to start fleshing out our arguments and counterpoints, we were about to start when he sprung the trap...

"oh yeah. by the way. as a learning exercise we will have the pro-choice people arguing for the pro-life point of view, and vice-versa."

the room went dead silent.

but you know what? we all learned so very much. how to see things from the other point of view. how to truly understand what your opponent is trying to say. how to have empathy for the other side, even if you don't agree with them. how to really listen to someone else instead of ignoring them while you formulate your own thoughts for when it's your turn to speak again. i learned that just because someone's opinion doesn't mesh with my own that it does not mean that one of us has to be wrong, that there are so many shades of grey in between.

so has anyone else had an experience like this? does anyone else have a defining moment where they really learned something important, or really figured out how to listen? is anyone still waiting for that golden moment while they're locked in to their own rigid concepts of what is right or wrong?

as an aside, i recently found this guy again on facebook, and we still have almost as little as common as we did then. but we were both pretty glad to run in to each other again, nonetheless.

and as a disclaimer, this is not a thread about the abortion issue. i only included that aspect of the story to illustrate what a hot-button issue it was, to show it was something that a lot of people have strong opinions about. like war or foreigners.

[Simon of the Playa]

+1313

[geospyder]

+1313

Ditto!

[The CO]

I recall that someone here was asking what ad hominem was.
Here then is a handy list. We all find ourselves using some of these. Hopefully, one can be smart enough to realize it and modify the argument & debate.

Excerpted from Carl Sagans book "The Demon Haunted World: Science as a candle in the dark".

----

Common fallacies of logic and rhetoric

Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument.

Argument from "authority".

Argument from adverse consequences (putting pressure on the decision maker by pointing out dire consequences of an "unfavourable" decision).

Appeal to ignorance (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence).

Special pleading (typically referring to god's will).

Begging the question (assuming an answer in the way the question is phrased).

Observational selection (counting the hits and forgetting the misses).

Statistics of small numbers (such as drawing conclusions from inadequate sample sizes).

Misunderstanding the nature of statistics (President Eisenhower expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have below average intelligence!)

Inconsistency (e.g. military expenditures based on worst case scenarios but scientific projections on environmental dangers thriftily ignored because they are not "proved").

Non sequitur - "it does not follow" - the logic falls down.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc - "it happened after so it was caused by" - confusion of cause and effect.

Meaningless question ("what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?).

Excluded middle - considering only the two extremes in a range of possibilities (making the "other side" look worse than it really is).

Short-term v. long-term - a subset of excluded middle ("why pursue fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?").

Slippery slope - a subset of excluded middle - unwarranted extrapolation of the effects (give an inch and they will take a mile).

Confusion of correlation and causation.

Straw man - caricaturing (or stereotyping) a position to make it easier to attack..

Suppressed evidence or half-truths.

Weasel words - for example, use of euphemisms for war such as "police action" to get around limitations on Presidential powers. "An important art of politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the public"

[ygmir]

well said, well done.

[thisisthatwhichis]

Yes, it's too bad this method isn't taught more in school. It's kind of essential, if you want to carry on an intellegent argument.


But, those that need the skill on this board are not likely to get it anyway, so I suggest falling back to what works........ Just show us your tits!!.... then they will listen........

[FIGJAM]

Yes, I practice active listening!

[H.G.Crosby]

did someone say "Tits"?

[daratheresa]

so I suggest falling back to what works........ Just show us your tits!!.... then they will listen........

(o)(o)

[ygmir]

[youtube][/youtube]

[The CO]

(o)(o)

Nice rack.

[daratheresa]

(o)(o)

Nice rack.

why thank you.

[Trishntek]

You all mean to tell me they do not teach debate in school anymore?

[Elderberry]

daratheresa and The Co: good posts, enjoyed reading them both.

JK

[thisisthatwhichis]

You all mean to tell me they do not teach debate in school anymore?

Only the nerds go to drama class.... jeeez...... It truly is one (of the several) life skills not mandatory in school.

Sorry for high-jacking the thread, Dara..... Your thoughts are exactly on......... I'm in a funny, jolly mood.... It's New Years!!!!

[The CO]

Why thank you JK. It would be nice if people could have reasonable discussion without "LOOK AT ME, I'M RIGHT, YOU ALL KNOW NOTHING" showing up in nearly every thread.

I post things of this nature in an effort to help. Whether or not it does, at least it's there.

[daratheresa]

You all mean to tell me they do not teach debate in school anymore?

Only the nerds go to drama class.... jeeez...... It truly is one (of the several) life skills not mandatory in school.

Sorry for high-jacking the thread, Dara..... Your thoughts are exactly on......... I'm in a funny, jolly mood.... It's New Years!!!!

no, they don't teach much in school these days that can't be answered via multiple choice bubble in #2 pencil.

no hi-jacks. this is a good, fun, thread so far. just enough joking so that people don't take themselves too seriously.

[ygmir]

Why thank you JK. It would be nice if people could have reasonable discussion without "LOOK AT ME, I'M RIGHT, YOU ALL KNOW NOTHING" showing up in nearly every thread.

I post things of this nature in an effort to help. Whether or not it does, at least it's there.

so true.

[The CO]

Yes, excellent thread so far. What variation of Godwins Law is it that insures it will be ruined by blathering ninehammers?

FigJam mentioned active listening. A personal peeve of mine is people that cannot let you finish a sentence (face-to-face, obviously) without jumping in to prove their point. Active listening aside, it's just plain rude.

I wish debate was required starting around middle school. When teens are hitting that point when they think they know everything & want to tell you, that seems like a great time to teach them the skills of being able to argue/debate well.

Edited to avoid the 1-2 post.

[Simon of the Playa]

it's somewhat my fault....i tend to fight fire with gasoline.


but sometimes it takes 25 to 30 whacks with the two by four before the pitbull will let go...

mixing my metaphors again.

i apologize to the board for my recent flame war, it is indeed ridiculous to argue with those who have no purpose other than to disrupt.

selah.

[daratheresa]

it's somewhat my fault....i tend to fight fire with gasoline.

there's another way besides this? enlighten me...

[thisisthatwhichis]

Yea, Simon, but we know how you can carry on an intellegent debate when called for, so no reason to appologize.

The gasoline fires are hella funny..... burn it!!... don't put it out.......

[Eric]

Excellent post. The idealist in me wants it to be followed, the realist knows it's The Internet and people like to hide behind their monitors and spew.

Which is why I love Simon and his flamethrower.

[JStep]

FigJam mentioned active listening. A personal peeve of mine is people that cannot let you finish a sentence (face-to-face, obviously) without jumping in to prove their point. Active listening aside, it's just plain rude.

Hear hear! Interruption while I'm speaking is a huge pet peeve of mine, and it's exactly why I'm MUCH more likely to debate an issue online rather than in person. Besides the fact that you have much more time to break down arguments point by point, no one can interrupt you while you're typing!

In real life when people say things I'd otherwise debate, unless I know them well enough to know they are capable of a thoughtful conversation, I just skip it. 9 out of 10 people cannot let you get a word in edgewise and try to rattle of 15 points they think prove their argument before you can address the 1st one.

[motskyroonmatick]

Simon and his flamethrower.

I'm a fan too. In fact there is no one I like to see argue a point more than the many faces of SOTP.

[FIGJAM]

What I ment by active listening is the way I learned it in interpersonal communications class.

Listen carfully to the person speaking, then repeat back what you understood them to say, then voice your responce.

I've never had a conversation with anybody patient enough to do this.

[ygmir]

Simon and his flamethrower.

I'm a fan too. In fact there is no one I like to see argue a point more than the many faces of SOTP.

He is my Andy Taylor

[daratheresa]

What I ment by active listening is the way I learned it in interpersonal communications class.

Listen carfully to the person speaking, then repeat back what you understood them to say, then voice your responce.

I've never had a conversation with anybody patient enough to do this.

oh, that sounds awesome. i can do it!

[theCryptofishist]

A Series of Points in No Particular Order:

• Get me at the right angle, and I am surprisingly brittle. That sends me into defensive mode.
  I try to be willing to apologize and often do.
  I'm trying the "discretion is the better part of valor" thing.
  Often someone is spouting pernicious nonsense that they oughtn't be allowed to get away with, and I used to rise to the bait full on. Now I am finding that other people will pick those up and declare them to be filled with the shit they are shoveling--without my having to do a thing.
  Sometimes, I even try and suggest that they put it in a more civil manner, but it doesn't seem to work.

[Box Burner]

I had to borrow these because mine aren't real attention getters.






learned to do this with a freind with whom I spent much time walking the railroad tracks and discussinf/debating many issues. We would always swithc sides and advocate for the opposing view. Irregardless of hiow we felt about an issue we always had a greatier understanding of it.