In the last few days, Jed talked about “how to start an argument,” while Ryan talked about creative ways to end one. They were great posts, so I thought I’d try making it a hat trick with today’s post and delve a bit into why we argue in the first place.
I know people who love to argue and debate. Why this movie was award worthy and that one was drivel. Which leisure activities are constructive and which are utter wastes of time and intellect. What will happen in the afterlife.
Religion. Politics. Sports. Pop culture. Extraterrestrials. As far as I can tell, the topic isn’t important as long as, at the end of the day, someone is wrong and someone is right. Or more right. Or, at the very least, louder.
Each of us has our own perspective on the world, a unique voice. But what are we saying with that voice?
I believe in the power of choice and, within that framework, believe that both happiness – and misery – are choices. My best friend is fond of saying this: “The only prize for being the most miserable is … Congratulations! You’re the Most Miserable!” Similarly, in the context of social or interpersonal debate, I find myself wondering, what is the prize for being right? I’m a firm believer that human beings do virtually nothing without a perceived gain. If that is true, what is the gain in winning an argument?
I am not speaking from some lofty soap box here. In my younger years, I was quite the debater. There were times when I chose to lose sleep in order to continue arguing a point into the wee hours, because I hadn’t quite backed my opponent entirely into the corner yet. And I could back them into the corner given enough time.
Logic. Vocabulary. Verbal ability. I had them in spades. I could ask the most clever questions, trap you in your own words, or even get you to think that you had somehow agreed with me all along. But I’m really trying to remember … why did I care?
I don’t like the answers that surface. They’re ugly.
Power.
Domination.
Superiority.
Control.
Pride.
Some might argue (no surprises there) that it’s no more than harmless entertainment. Or that some people just need strong direction. Or that it’s a necessity in keeping people aware of important issues. Or that arguing and debate are tools for staying mentally sharp. And I can see each of these having validity.
If they were true.
My own observation, however, has been that most people who engage consistently in arguments exhibit signs that such innocuous or altruistic motives may not be forefront. They become stressed. Preoccupied. Obsessed. Angry. Arrogant. Demeaning.
Mean.
Do an honest assessment. When you argue, are these things true of you? And if they are, is it really “harmless”?
Is stress or anger really the best way to keep your brain limber and prevent senility?
And as for changing the views of others regarding important matters, how’s that going for you? Who is the last opponent you converted to your viewpoint? And even if you did manage, by sheer volume of your words, to elicit a concession — did it change the person or their world view for the better? Did it make your relationship with that person better?
So again I ask, what is the gain?
I’m a writer who shares my ideas through books and blogging. Clearly, I believe in exercising a voice in the world. And don’t get me wrong — I believe there is a place for discussion and even respectful disagreement. There’s a lot to be learned through such things. But I wonder if going beyond that, to asserting we are unequivocally right in our thinking, is all that worthy an undertaking. Or is there more value to be found in building tolerance for viewpoints other than my own?
To ask more than I tell.
To listen more than I talk.
To find common ground rather than differences.
To shine the spotlight on others more than myself.
To be kind rather than to be right.
You decide. I won’t argue with you.
What are your thoughts or reactions to this post? Discussion is not arguing. In fact, we learn a great deal through sharing our unique points of view with respect and an open mind. Please join in the discussion by using the Comments section below.
Great post, Erik! I agree that we get into trouble when we care more about “winning” the argument than learning from it. Dialogue comes to English from the Greek words dia + logos — it’s a 2-way exchange of meaning.
Awesome thought there on the etymology, Glenn. It brought to mind that the word “communication” is actually from the same Latin root from which we get “common,” and literally means “to join; to unite; to hold in common.” In this regard, argumentativeness does not even qualify as communication!
Great post, Erik. It sounds like there was a heart change somewhere along the way. It’s a beautiful thing. I agree with Glenn in that we should learn from arguments, instead of trying to win them. As Bob Goff says, “When you think you need to choose between being ‘right’ and being humble … go for humble – you’ll get both.”
Thanks, Adam. Yes, I grew up in a home where punishment was irrational and unpredictable, and so I think verbal argument grew out of a need to try to control things in an environment where “being wrong” for any reason had dire consequences. I wasn’t a bad person, but it was certainly a broken part of me that led to the need to debate and argue about unimportant things. I could feel the freedom as I began to realize how unnecessary and draining of energy it all was, came into a place of healthy thinking – and let it go.
Great insights Erik! Having honest, serious discussions without getting caught up in an argument, and without making the friendship only about the discussion / areas of disagreement is a great skill to have. Great post on choosing to be happy, not getting caught up in an argument and still having honest discussions. It’s possible to become overly focused on not arguing / disagreeing that one only has surface-level conversations. This is not healthy either. Conflict should not be feared. Sometimes it’s helpful. There is a balance. Thanks for the reminder that while getting lost in a back-and-forth argument is not healthy, a good debate can be incredibly helpful and enlightening (when done right of course) 🙂
Absolutely, Jed.
While we’re at it, your comment sparks some additional thoughts. I find the following to be very helpful in constructive exchanges where people don’t see eye to eye:
1. Ask questions rather than make statements. You may be getting at the same thing, but it is received differently. (e.g., “You made me feel like an idiot” becomes “Can you imagine how that might have made me feel?”). This allows the other person to process the truth of the matter internally, rather than just hearing it externally (which often meets with defensiveness). To answer a question requires that the truth come through a person’s own soul and out of their own mouth.
2. Start with “softeners,” such as “It seems to me …” or “I tend to think that …” or “It may also be possible that …” rather than making dogmatic statements that you are right and the other person is wrong.
3. Try to find what IS right in what the other person is saying, or acknowledge an understanding of how they may have come to that conclusion (e.g., “I see how that seemed to you” or “You’re absolutely right about …”). This makes sure you are meeting people where they are, not just pushing your own points or agenda.