SamuelS Posted July 5, 2014 Posted July 5, 2014 I found myself drawn into an absolutely insane argument tonight...there was no winning, and I knew it before I even typed the first word...I've argued w/ the same people before and could predict their sophistic tricks...but that didn't do me any good, it was the same thing as the last argument with these people...the main person I was arguing with is a really intelligent guy that has the intellectual honesty of a horseradish, well, that's probably insulting to a horseradish...I think y'all know what I mean.Anyhow, I got into this argument that I can't win...and I kept it up, and it made me quite uncomfortable, and I don't know why I didn't just "walk away" sooner...I had the argument all wrapped up, the counters weren't even legitimate, but of course I just had to point out why they weren't, and keep pushing my point home... I read (listened to the audio of) RTR, and I wonder if this is some sort of Simon the Boxer -- managing anxiety -- thing, but that doesn't seem to add up since it only seems to increase the anxiety...I find myself grinding my teeth when I talk w/ this group of statists...Intellectually, what I tell myself, what's keeping me in the conversation is a desire to be understood and to point out contradictions in the arguments of the other person, the desire to pin them down to a principle, and of course, that never works...the more I clarify, the more I'm misunderstood, I'm asked to defend misquotes or out-of-context quotes, etc....and, of course -- this is a statist I'm arguing with, after all -- the goalposts never seem to sit still...I've met a few really awesome anarchists in the group I'm having these arguments in...I don't know if that's the "carrot", or what...it sure doesn't seem to be doing much for anxiety management in the moment, but maybe it's bringing it to the surface to deal with now so I can move on?To be clear, I joined this group with the specific intention of arguing w/ statists as a way to introduce them to the ideas while improving on my argumentation/debate skills. I do not, intellectually, believe that either of these goals is best achieved within that group...but I went back tonight, and I'm quite perplexed as to why.Any thoughts? 1
MysterionMuffles Posted July 5, 2014 Posted July 5, 2014 How was difference of opinion handled in your childhood?
Alin Posted July 5, 2014 Posted July 5, 2014 If you argue with one of them, you've argued with pretty much all of them. The photocopier never stops 2
SamuelS Posted July 5, 2014 Author Posted July 5, 2014 If you argue with one of them, you've argued with pretty much all of them. The photocopier never stops that's for sure... How was difference of opinion handled in your childhood? oh, about the same way it's handled w/ these other morons...if I didn't shut up after the initial "you're wrong" and made a strong case I was attacked as being crazy...I remember one time in particular, I was talking to my mother, trying to explain why socialized healthcare would be a problem...this was during the Clinton administration...when I pointed out the logical outcome of the system she said "that's what Hitler did, you can't say that!", when I retorted with something like "exactly! and you support it!?" I was told I'm crazy, we can't talk about these things, and I shouldn't talk about these things with other people either. 3
Pepin Posted July 5, 2014 Posted July 5, 2014 Just an idea. I put it in strong language so I don't have to qualify every statement with "it may be the case, but I am not sure". It is because there are irrational parts within your personality, and a method of dealing with them is to debate others. For instance, people often project their parental alter onto someone as a means of resolving some sort of issue. In the listener show, this occurs quite often, with Stefan being the child and the listener being the parent. The act of bullying is often an attempt to recreate experiences and to resolve it through others. In this case, there is a conflicting internal dialog in your head, and you are using others to resolve it. You are unable to stop conversing with these people because: the part(s) of you that believe this; they need a voice, as they likely have little chance of being heard internally; people external to you have little chance of providing resolution to an irrational viewpoint.
SamuelS Posted July 5, 2014 Author Posted July 5, 2014 so...maybe I'm arguing with these people because my "inner mom" has a sock stuffed in her mouth because I was sick of hearing her craziness...but for some reason I want to battle the crazy?something that I think is reversed in your example is the projector -- maybe I'm projecting too, but I'm definitely the target of other people projecting *their* crazy in these arguments, I'm literally quoted out-of-context in such a way as to reverse the meaning (like "don't think X" becomes "think X")...so, I'm not following how it's me trying to resolve the irrational viewpoint...maybe you're right, but I'm not seeing it.or...maybe mom needs a voice, so I argue w/ other crazies so as to act that out? it's actually been pretty easy for the last couple months to ignore the discussions entirely, it's when I do enter the fray that I find myself wanting to walk away but knowing if I do my opponent will continue to burn strawmen with my likeness...which is dumb, I know, if I made a good case I don't have to keep restating it when it's misrepresented...but I do... 1
TheAuger Posted July 5, 2014 Posted July 5, 2014 Was it an argument or a debate? The point of a debate isn't to win, SamuelS, as you put it (I got into an argument I can't win), but to discover the truth.
SamuelS Posted July 5, 2014 Author Posted July 5, 2014 good point...it was a debate, in which I made several arguments, none of which were honestly countered or examined in any meaningful way by my opponent...truth was surely uncovered, if nothing else that my opponent is neither intellectually honest, nor consistent in the application of any proposed principles...a friend in the group was really curious about my positions and we discussed it a bit in a "side bar" conversation which went pretty well... the thing is...and I've since blocked this fellow...I already knew my opponent and his tactics from previous encounters, but I still engaged, and stayed engaged well past what seems prudent. 1
MysterionMuffles Posted July 5, 2014 Posted July 5, 2014 I think you should read My Theory on the Keyboard Warrior. Tell me if it rings to you or not. 1
SamuelS Posted July 5, 2014 Author Posted July 5, 2014 thanks RJ...I'd say it both does, and does not ring true to me...the "warrior" thing makes me feel "yucky", maybe it's just that specific word, I'd like to be a teacher, a guide, not a warrior..."...belief that we can become keyboard warriors in order to convince online strangers to share our views. Why? I don't know..."this idea, minus whatever connotations I'm putting on "keyboard warrior", is quite helpful, and, I think I have a possible answer -- I'm convinced by rational arguments, so I could be projecting that skill/ability/honesty/whatever onto others...in this particular case, I'm not projecting it onto my opponent so much as the audience.I just felt a wave of calm pass through me, I didn't realize I was still clenching my teeth, geez...I think we may be on to something here...
MFK Posted July 6, 2014 Posted July 6, 2014 Always when I felt myself trap in the abyss of the emotional stuff (and the using axioms and definitions as self-defence) - I remember one the "Seven habits of highly successful people": "Seek First to Understand, Then to be Understood" Which means: "Use empathic listening to be genuinely influenced by a person, which compels them to reciprocate the listening and take an open mind to being influenced by you. This creates an atmosphere of caring, and positive problem solving". If something gone wrong during the conversation, most of the time it is the result of the fact that someone's needs haven't been assessed or satisfied - and because an oral dialogue is really vivid, swift and implying that you're physically confronting your interlocutor, to feel ignored or dismissed, although it can seems momentarily "irrational", "over-sensitive" - it really something that frustrate a lot. Now, there's very interesting topics into the field of psychoanalysis where they links the adult's saneness or maturity with the ability to cope with frustration. As a baby, all your needs were immediately satisfied (it is the "primary narcissism" phase, frustration-free) ; then you grew up, and the first frustration happened when you were weaned from mother's womb, discovering that your mother was distinct you, also prone to frustration. The importing thing here is that this processus is often sabotaged by the fact that parents will splits into two delusional, dysfunctional categories: the lousy provider, and the narcissistic miser. For sure there can be any variants in-between this dichotomy, but the damages incurred remains the same: it refrains you to develop a sane understanding of human relationships and of an objective relation to the world, which results inevitably in: frustration. You'll have to work on your self-knowledge and lean how to identify this over-loaded frustration when it comes up, and quarantine it. For example, when your feels that you become non-objective or agressive in a discussion, use introspection and tells to yourself: "Dude, relax ! It is not because this discussion doesn't fit your anticipated expectations (or "X", which causes you intern, psycho-emotional pain) - that it's all bullshit ! All the contrary ! it may be a great, joyful chance to learn about something new, discover an interesting viewpoint, test your own standards, etc." At that point you can also turns yourself into an astute Socrates (my preferred strategy) and starts to giving birth to the minds of your opponents ! It could be very useful to assessed empathically the internal state or perceptions of your friend - which was the purpose of the habit quoted above: if you're not the one responsible for the slippages, you're only way to evaluate it is by mastering these two tools: introspection AND extrospection. There's also another conversational adjustment that is a bit more tricky or exhausting: your can simply mimic the incoherent attitude of your adversary, mirrors is eccentricity or the mere fallacies he's using in order to trick you. But it means that by acting like that you abandon the logic and the methodology to switch into a more psycho-emotional, either humorous or therapeutic conversational framework. The key is that you should be absolutely conscious of every of their different modulating states, switches, etc. - starting with your own frustration, which is the sane red light, the whistleblower warning you that there's something going wrong in the course of the conversation. OMFG - the call-in show is just beginning ! I should let you on this few tips, hoping it will be useful to you ! Ciao, dude !
Pepin Posted July 6, 2014 Posted July 6, 2014 something that I think is reversed in your example is the projector -- maybe I'm projecting too, but I'm definitely the target of other people projecting *their* crazy in these arguments, I'm literally quoted out-of-context in such a way as to reverse the meaning (like "don't think X" becomes "think X")...so, I'm not following how it's me trying to resolve the irrational viewpoint...maybe you're right, but I'm not seeing it. or...maybe mom needs a voice, so I argue w/ other crazies so as to act that out? To nitpick a bit, it doesn't seem valid to talk about this in terms of choosing to argue with these people. As the phrasing in your OP and title suggests, you are "drawn into" the argument, as opposed to deciding consciously. If my perception of this is correct, this is one of those things you just find yourself doing. It is like when I used to go onto certain sites, I would say to myself "I'm not going to spend four hours making arguments and providing resources nobody will read", but would all of a sudden find a wall of text in front of me. In these circumstances, like you said: the other person is certainly projecting and is completely irrational, but the benefit you get out of is a way to deal with the completely irrational within you. If your childhood is anything like mine, it consists of many instances of trying to convince authority figures of something being true, and not having your needs met because they would not listen to reason. Personally, I would go on for quite some time trying to convince my mother of the reasons to do something, and she wouldn't listen and eventually would yell at me to stop. Because of this, I often found myself in pointless and endless debates that occurred with irrational people later in life, and it was simply a recreation of this dynamic, as in attempting to get my needs met through debating an irrational person who is not willing to listen. Though I refer to this in terms of parts, it may not be conscious parts exactly, and rather just coping strategies. For instance, I have had large issues of not managing my emotions internally, and would often manage them externally through others. This strategy lends itself to people who manage are attempting to manage their emotions, but can only do so through others. The relation is really symbiotic and seems to create a codependence. Debating with irrational people is a similar relationship. The rationalist is dealing with their internal irrational thoughts externally, as a means of dealing with them internally; while the irrationalist is dealing with their irrational thoughts internally, through external means. It is tempting to say that both parties are the same in that they are both dealing with the internal through the external, but the difference is that the rationalist is avoiding as a means to not be the subject, while the irrationalist is confronting to be the subject. I hope the difference is clear because I don't know if the words I choose are conveying it too well. To provide some clarification, I don't mean to say that debating with any irrational person, or just helping a friend out, are all instances of this. Rather that when a pattern repeats that results in a continual waste of time, it is more likely that there is some sort of recreation and/or part projection occurring. As argued in this post, having parts that model irrational people is quite beneficial when you have to deal with irrational people. Though I consider myself quite rational, as in quite in line with reality, I have far too many irrational thoughts to count. Though I used to just shoot these thoughts down and deny having them, now I attempt to inquire into them and to find a resolution. To be meta, I hope this isn't projection on my part, but I don't believe it is. I also hope that this was helpful and wasn't completely gibberish. I haven't exactly had much practice at transferring these ideas into words, so it may come across as a bit confusing.
SamuelS Posted July 6, 2014 Author Posted July 6, 2014 MFK -- thanks, that's all rather interesting...but, do you think those strategies would work on an irrational person? first thought is -- How would Socrates deal with somebody that wouldn't answer his simple questions? To nitpick a bit, it doesn't seem valid to talk about this in terms of choosing to argue with these people. As the phrasing in your OP and title suggests, you are "drawn into" the argument, as opposed to deciding consciously. If my perception of this is correct, this is one of those things you just find yourself doing. It is like when I used to go onto certain sites, I would say to myself "I'm not going to spend four hours making arguments and providing resources nobody will read", but would all of a sudden find a wall of text in front of me. exactly...my conscious decision was to drop a truth bomb and exit, stage left...the reality is, "the bully" showed up and I found myself running the photocopier for the next couple of hours. ...the benefit you get out of is a way to deal with the completely irrational within you. If your childhood is anything like mine, it consists of many instances of trying to convince authority figures of something being true, and not having your needs met because they would not listen to reason. ...Because of this, I often found myself in pointless and endless debates that occurred with irrational people later in life, and it was simply a recreation of this dynamic, as in attempting to get my needs met through debating an irrational person who is not willing to listen. this all rings true...but, how is this beneficial -- to externalize the irrational? I think some part of me must think it is beneficial...if that's an irrational part of me, and it seems to be, I shouldn't be letting it run the show... As argued in this post, having parts that model irrational people is quite beneficial when you have to deal with irrational people. Though I consider myself quite rational, I have far too many irrational thoughts to count. Though I used to just shoot these thoughts down and deny having them, now I attempt to inquire into them and to find a resolution. the post you linked is great, you're presenting ideas quite eloquently, IMO and this is all quite helpful...yes, I too can have an entire debate w/ a crazy person inside my head in about a nanosecond, I've always found that really interesting, but "nobody" talks about that stuff...it's actually a heck of a lot easier to deal with internally than externally too, or at least quicker....I'm left wondering though, what does a resolution look like? Also, if it's a coping mechanism, I'm confused, since it seems to create problems (anxiety) rather than solve them....after reading that post, I think RainbowJamz may have been more onto it than I wanted to admit w/ the keyboard warrior thing...it's not that I'm trying to be some "internet tough guy", rather that I know damn well I could be assaulted for arguing w/ similar people in-person, it wouldn't be the first time.
MFK Posted July 6, 2014 Posted July 6, 2014 The rationalist is dealing are with their internal irrational thoughts externally, as a means of dealing with them internally; while the irrationalist is dealing with their irrational internally through external means. It is tempting to say that both parties are the same in that they are both dealing with the internal through the external, but the difference is that the rationalist is avoiding as a means to not be the subject, while the irrationalist is confronting to be the subject. This Hegelian-framed reflexion is quite astounding ! I mean, seriously: I had to re-read it many times in order to extract all the juice ! Only to be the troublemaker a little bit - I would say that there's nothing "irrational" per se, which means: the most common cases invoked when we're using that bogging term are usually highlighting a mind-fuck about something unknown; not identified nor assumed emotions, frustration, misinterpretation, etc.; a logical's default in the course of the conversation, but symbolically transformed into a perceived type of psychological agression; it can also be the expedient of self-closure, a psycho-rigid mind unable to allow the flow to go on and let a diversity of worldview to be established - this one pertaining mostly to the "rational kind", which is more than often "so sure" of its premises that he acts like godlike bulldozer. Here I'm certainly not transgressing the fundamentals of rationality: voluntarism, argumentation, self-knowledge, etc. - but the fact is that, in some "Hegelian fashion" (sorry with that it's like a pet subject for me), "irrationality" is logically caused by the predominance of a rational current. Never you'll see the irrational the calling or evaluating himself that way up: certainly he will be more inefficient on the long run, but at least he isn't troubled in the present the type of foggy inner dialog who's mainly paralyzing the course of the rational individual. What I love the most in the concept of "objectivity" originated from Ayn Rand is that it is clearly stated that everything, absolutely everything is objective, which means: there's nothing supernatural or non-conceivable, nothing "unnatural" or inherently meaningless - all events or thoughts means something, once put into their original context. But the fact is that she fucked up her own great and genuine concept by "choosing" to maintain the use of binary notions as: right/wrong, good/evil, rational/irrational, producer/looter, etc., - as if the "shameful" sides of these false dichotomy would be somehow excluded for the realm of reality. It's why I see the work of Stefan as a blessed expansion of Objectivism - since he's replacing things in their context: the childhood's history, mostly. All that to feel you this, SamuelS: your "irrational" debater is only an ordinary human being plagued with some phylogenetical deficiencies - and probably the best thing you can do is to put aside your own needs and expectations for a moment (if it's an available option for you), and try to size the troubling allegations of the person in her own, context/specific frame of reference. As I see it, rationality is an ordinal value - corresponding to the vertical bar, so being measured by progressing degrees of intensity, self-knowledge and awareness: all the way-long you're still a "rational" person, only situated at a different level of understanding and proactivity. This is the true meaning of the fundamental concept of objectivity: you cannot feign or faint it, nor escape it in any way whatsoever - so "being irrational" is being objective, only at a low-level of awareness. 1
Pepin Posted July 6, 2014 Posted July 6, 2014 This Hegelian-framed reflexion is quite astounding ! I mean, seriously: I had to re-read it many times in order to extract all the juice! Ah right, good catch. I hope you did not have to re-read it so many times due to the strange grammatical mistakes . I only seem to notice these sorts of mistakes hours after.
MFK Posted July 6, 2014 Posted July 6, 2014 Ah right, good catch. I hope you did not have to re-read it so many times due to the strange grammatical mistakes . I only seem to notice these sorts of mistakes hours after. Same here ! And I'm pretty sure that I'm worse than you - in fact, I'm wicked to the point that I prefer publicize my stuff and, like if I was Achilles in the race against the tortoise - re-reading swiftly in order to clean up this mess before someone would notice that I was simply to much enthusiastic and wanted to post without any revision. Probably that the real reason is that I'm very highly gifted intellectually, since a recent study prove that geniuses are normally prone to procrastination ! NOT! But, for sure - I have to say that I can't stand this absolutely boring job to submit gently to the Grammar's goddess (which is like a tiny Frau professor with big boobs in a catholic elementary school): what is fun in writing is to experience the mind in action, to assist amazed to the birth of your own, always partially unconscious thoughts ("And when you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss also gazes into you" - which is very erotic, very exciting stuff) ! BTW - it is obviously the two reasons why I urgently need a secretary: the first is to handle the boring stuff; the second, to abuse of my tyrannical artist's fantaisies on her tight ass ! OMFG ! Just kidding. 1
Pepin Posted July 6, 2014 Posted July 6, 2014 this all rings true...but, how is this beneficial -- to externalize the irrational? I think some part of me must think it is beneficial...if that's an irrational part of me, and it seems to be, I shouldn't be letting it run the show... Ideally you should be in cooperation with your parts. Being a mental dictator will only drive these parts into acting out. Even if you are an expert in repression as I was, the amount of stress it puts on your central nervous system has detrimental effects. As Stefan says, be your own stateless society. the post you linked is great, you're presenting ideas quite eloquently, IMO and this is all quite helpful...yes, I too can have an entire debate w/ a crazy person inside my head in about a nanosecond, I've always found that really interesting, but "nobody" talks about that stuff...it's actually a heck of a lot easier to deal with internally than externally too, or at least quicker.... Thank you for that. I really want people to talk a lot more about subjective experience and what happens in our head. Honestly, my self-knowledge is very good as far as an understanding of the mechanics of my thoughts and emotions, but less so in terms of the more abstract ways people talk about it. Most people seem to be unaware of their own experience, or don't like to discuss it in fear of feeling crazy. I'm left wondering though, what does a resolution look like? Also, if it's a coping mechanism, I'm confused, since it seems to create problems (anxiety) rather than solve them... Like in the post I linked, it is a method which intends to provide a resolution, but doesn't. Like with an internal bully, the bully likely will not go away until the bully is dealt with externally. This may not entail confronting the bully, but simply might mean breaking contact with them. As far as irrational thoughts that do not conform to reality, I would suggest taking off the mental filter. Provided the argument I am making is true, being aware of all of your thoughts is the first step. This can be a bit frightening, especially if you encounter racist thoughts. An IFS style dialog might be helpful. What I tend to do when I find part of me that has a belief that isn't correlated with reality, I do a ton of research on the topic. I think a lot about the subject, and talk to myself when I am driving. It often turns into a back and forth, and can be seen as reasoning with my parts. My psyche overall is very reason and evidence based, so this seems to be the best method to convert most of my parts. I am not saying that this is a good method for everyone, but I've found it has worked for me. Discovering and really feeling the scar tissue of the past really helps if it is that sort of issue. 1
Tony Crowe Posted July 6, 2014 Posted July 6, 2014 SamuelIS, What is your definition of argument or ideally what would you like to get out of an argument? Is what you're doing in accordance with the definition? If so, how? If not, why not? -Tony
SamuelS Posted July 6, 2014 Author Posted July 6, 2014 What I tend to do when I find part of me that has a belief that isn't correlated with reality, I do a ton of research on the topic. I think a lot about the subject, and talk to myself when I am driving. It often turns into a back and forth, and can be seen as reasoning with my parts. My psyche overall is very reason and evidence based, so this seems to be the best method to convert most of my parts. I am not saying that this is a good method for everyone, but I've found it has worked for me. Discovering and really feeling the scar tissue of the past really helps if it is that sort of issue. I notice myself doing the same thing! Driving and showering are activities that seem to really bring it up "on its own", probably since it's a mindless task and there's not exactly a lot of mental distraction....when you say "convert...my parts", I'm thoroughly confused...if I remove the defining characteristic of the thing, it ceases to be the thing in any meaningful way...does that make any sense? I tried writing it a few ways and that was the best I could come up with. SamuelIS, What is your definition of argument or ideally what would you like to get out of an argument? Is what you're doing in accordance with the definition? If so, how? If not, why not? -Tony that's the million dollar question...I suppose in it's barest form an argument is just a statement with some supporting reasoning...what would I like to get from that? an understanding of the truth, perhaps I'd also like both another perspective to challenge my reasoning and validation of sound reasoning.
Pepin Posted July 6, 2014 Posted July 6, 2014 when you say "convert...my parts", I'm thoroughly confused...if I remove the defining characteristic of the thing, it ceases to be the thing in any meaningful way...does that make any sense? I tried writing it a few ways and that was the best I could come up with. I do believe that I get what you mean about defining characteristics. It is like if we have a circle, and then remove the line that comprises the circle, then there is no more circle. If a theist is someone who believes in god, and later in life the theist loses faith, they can then not be considered a theist as the defining characteristic is now absent. In what I've read, most people tend to associate a part with its personality, so its interesting you associate it with its belief. But if we are focusing on a part from your psyche, it's defining characteristic is not its belief, rather it is its consciousness. A part is converted to a position more in line with reality when enough reason and evidence is used to convince it, though often it may not need arguments, and rather just need to be listened to. It is just the same as a theist "converting" to atheism. Honestly, convert might not be the best word.
SamuelS Posted July 6, 2014 Author Posted July 6, 2014 In what I've read, most people tend to associate a part with its personality, so its interesting you associate it with its belief. I suppose we could call it "mom", but I associate the crazy guy in my head w/ a lot of people -- mom, most of my teachers, every thiest I ever debated growing up -- the all have a couple things in common: immunity to rational arguments, inconsistency, violent tendencies.to analogize a bit closer to the point: after realizing I'm surrounded by violent people, I got an aluminum baseball bat for protection (the internal part), and locked myself in my home (didn't engage.)RJ's keyboard warrior thing could have a lot to do with this...I learned quite a long time ago that engaging these people to this level in-person could provoke violence, and I stopped...engaging online removes this risk in reality, but I wonder if subconsciously I don't understand that, therefore it provokes anxiety...this brings me back to the original question, why would I be doing that...if somebody punched me in the face every time they saw me, I wouldn't hang around if I saw them first...
Tony Crowe Posted July 6, 2014 Posted July 6, 2014 SamuelIS, This is the definition of argument you gave: an understanding of the truth, perhaps I'd also like both another perspective to challenge my reasoning and validation of sound reasoning Personally I like it but I would probably want to be more clear about it with myself. Are you satisfied with that definition? Next, would you like to answer if you think you are doing that? Lastly, does the other person know what the goal is? (like explicitly) -Tony
SamuelS Posted July 6, 2014 Author Posted July 6, 2014 fwiw, I do have distinct "inner people", my brother, my dad, Stef's managed to start a show in there too (but I think he's still always in the car), close friends, etc...far as I can remember, other people didn't make much sense to me. nobody ever explained much to me growing up either, I always felt like I was lost and trying to play catch up with a bunch of people that somehow knew all the rules like I'd missed being-human orientation class or something...which was really confusing, because here I'm surrounded by people that can't reason there way out of a paper bag, but they conform to expectations that I never felt were conveyed to me. SamuelIS, This is the definition of argument you gave: Personally I like it but I would probably want to be more clear about it with myself. Are you satisfied with that definition? Next, would you like to answer if you think you are doing that? Lastly, does the other person know what the goal is? (like explicitly) -Tony that was the goal, not the definition. the definition was "a statement with some supporting reasoning".I actually did state in the conversation that truth was my goal...I was too busy playing whack-a-mole with my strawmen to give much thought to seeking out an honest perspective...thing is, this wasn't some random encounter, it was a known/assumed no-win situation from the start, buried in bullshit I had little time to do anything but refuse ownership of strawmen...
Tony Crowe Posted July 6, 2014 Posted July 6, 2014 *whispers* I know. I'm asking that to find out if the word you used "argument" accurately describes the interaction. I don't think it does. Do you?
SamuelS Posted July 6, 2014 Author Posted July 6, 2014 well, there were arguments made, but the majority of the interaction -- the part that caused me anxiety, the part I don't want to repeat -- was my defending against unjust attacks...only to be further attacked, with no acknowledgement of the prior "misunderstandings."
Tony Crowe Posted July 6, 2014 Posted July 6, 2014 Yeah, that does sound painful and frustrating. I admire your openness about the subject and also how you don't want to repeat it. I don't want to be in those situations either. Where do you think we can go to explore this further and would you be interested in doing that? I have some thoughts I could share. Would you be interested to know?
SamuelS Posted July 6, 2014 Author Posted July 6, 2014 you're welcome to share them here, but I'll jump into the chat if you're aiming for a more conversational flow/pace.
Tony Crowe Posted July 7, 2014 Posted July 7, 2014 These are the definitions from a dictionary I have: 1. an exchange of diverging or opposite views, typically a heated or angry one 2. a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong I would like to be able to have a conversation with someone where the ideas are diverging but I wonder if getting heated or angry would trigger fight or flight in me or the other person. If a powerful emotional response is triggered then I would question the ability for that person to think in the moment. #2 is also interesting. What if my idea is wrong and I'm trying to persuade others that it is right? However being able to discuss right or wrong might be helpful. Do you have any comments about my review of the definitions? Are #1 and #2 what you want out of your conversations? Are there any other standard definitions we should consider? 1
SamuelS Posted July 7, 2014 Author Posted July 7, 2014 Thanks, Tony...I'd say #1 fits more what I'm looking for, though I'm not specifically looking for it to get "heated" (not that there's anything wrong w/ that, long as people are honest)....I'm perfectly alright with an argument doing nothing more than illuminating the views of those involved -- I'd rather understand somebody is a Nazi than not, that way I can avoid them in the future -- the thing I got drawn into though, was certainly heated on my end, but not because I was being disagreed with, but because my views were being totally misinterpreted, casting me into what I feel was a rather unjust light.
Tony Crowe Posted July 7, 2014 Posted July 7, 2014 Thank you too. I recently went through my motives for getting into arguments in my journal. I came up with some descriptions for my ideal for conversations and some stuff about arguments like we are talking about here. Here's a list of possible motives I put down for why I might be getting into arguments. Seeking attention Being seen and heard Testing the friendship Evaluating their fitness to think and to be my friend Evaluating my own fitness Reality check / Truth seeking Seeking dominance If you get really honest with yourself can you come up with a list? You don't have to share it here. I was motivated to share it here in case my experience helps. If you want to share some others that could help me too! 1
Tony Crowe Posted July 7, 2014 Posted July 7, 2014 I meant to include that those are also some ways which I deviate from my ideal.
bootoo Posted July 7, 2014 Posted July 7, 2014 I have had this problem - seeing the 'crazy' in people triggers the crazy in me and makes me want to fix it - however one day i was getting a hair cut and the lady was telling me about how we needed to elect mit romney because he was going to 'deal with the chinese' who are ruining everything...then she started talking about economics but was COMPLETELY backwards about everything - this happens to be my profession so i corrected her on her misunderstandings then asked again about her premise...she stopped talking.... I regretted that, i realized i had no reason to set this lady straight and it wasnt any fun at all, what WOULD have been fun would be to see how deep that well of crazy goes in the lady and probed her to keep spilling So now i make an effort to not correct anyones crazy - just listen and understand - also if you stay quiet long enough or allow someone to talk to you long enough you will see everyones crazy 1
SamuelS Posted July 7, 2014 Author Posted July 7, 2014 I meant to include that those are also some ways which I deviate from my ideal. that makes sense...I'm still pondering, but I'll be sure to share what I come up with...the "being seen and heard" is resonating for sure, since that's exactly what I felt like wasn't happening...I know I'm not the best communicator, but to think I said the opposite of what I said is pretty nutty. telling me about how we needed to elect mit romney because he was going to 'deal with the chinese' who are ruining everything...then she started talking about economics but was COMPLETELY backwards about everything I got a kick out of that, I'm still chuckling a couple minutes later...you've got a good point, sometimes it's best to just kick back and watch.
cynicist Posted July 8, 2014 Posted July 8, 2014 Anyhow, I got into this argument that I can't win...and I kept it up, and it made me quite uncomfortable, and I don't know why I didn't just "walk away" sooner...I had the argument all wrapped up, the counters weren't even legitimate, but of course I just had to point out why they weren't, and keep pushing my point home... I have a theory, based on a similar impulse that I used to act on in these forums as well as on youtube. (I've long since dropped the group of 'friends' I used to debate with) What happens if you walk away?
SamuelS Posted July 8, 2014 Author Posted July 8, 2014 I have a theory, based on a similar impulse that I used to act on in these forums as well as on youtube. (I've long since dropped the group of 'friends' I used to debate with) What happens if you walk away? Thanks for taking the time, Robert...I'm not sure if you're asking "what actually happens (including internally)" or "what crazy story are you making up that you're trying to avoid by staying engaged"...I think it's probably the first, so I'll go w/ that one, if that's not it I can try again.At first I run through the arguments in my head, sometimes I'll even re-read the whole thing if it's an online thing...I suppose I self-attack, I wonder if I could've done better at pleading my case or just disengaged sooner...but I usually move on and find something else to do in fairly short order, if I'm having a particularly hard time getting it out of my head I'll often watch some stand-up comedy.
Recommended Posts