I don't get into many heated arguments. That's just not my style. I learn, sometimes the hard way, who it is I probably shouldn't discuss serious maters with, as they may lose their cool very quickly and there's rarely anything productive that should arise from the conversation. Over time, I've learned whom I can actually discuss serious matters with and these talks result in very civilized discourse where both I and the other party are able to hear viewpoints which differ from our own and we can potentially expand upon the knowledge and opinion we possessed going into the discussion.
Usually, there isn't a definite winner in such "arguments" or discussions. The two people may have different viewpoints, share their opinions, question the other's and at the end of the day admit that while the other made some good points, their beliefs were unswayed, so they'll have to agree to disagree. Perhaps this is why I can irritate people when engaging in such discussions, because I make sure to do my research and usually provide credible source material to back up my claims. This doesn't make me "right" necessarily, but it also forces the other person to do their own bit of research to either back up their belief(s), counter mine or attempt to delegitimize my source. I also tend to utilize all I learned in critical thinking, philosophy and psychology courses to aid me in the debate. This forces the other person to use actual logic when making his or her arguments as opposed to informal fallacies, which can easily be disproved. This, I've found, can frustrate people, because most of the time, people don't force the other out of their comfort zone in order to back up their claims with facts and on top of that, to counter the opposing viewpoint with fact and logic.
While, like I said, there are typically not "winners" and "losers" in such discussions, I have discovered a tell-tale sign that another is feeling defeated and is on the verge of it. This is when the person resorts to a guilt trip or paints intelligence as something that is overrated.
I've experienced this with two people. One such person is a guy I've known for most all my life. He appeared to hold similar political views as myself until the run-up to the 2008 election, when he appeared to turn away from the Democratic Party due to their presidential nominee being Barack Obama. Yes, I think the main reason for this was his race, unfortunately. In any case, he and I had some rather "interesting" discussions regarding politics and the coming election in particular during this time. Each and every time, he'd make his arguments using nothing but hyperbole, rumor and conspiracy and without even having to utter a single word of my own, I was able to discredit his claims through fact-checking sites. When the time came for it, I'd attempt to feed off the sources and in conjunction with logic, make my argument. After a little while, he'd resort to something like this - "Yeah, I know, I'm stupid. You're always right. You've got all the answers. I don't even know why I bother anymore or why I'm even here to begin with." Yeah, hints of depression and even suicidal tendencies were on display at times, along with trying to make me feel bad by laying claim that I was being condescending, close-minded and arrogant. Yeah, when one knows they have a losing hand, this is that final attempt to force the other to feel bad and say something like, "No, no. I didn't mean anything like that. You've made some good points. Let's just put this behind us and talk about something else. Cool?" That way, the person doesn't feel nearly as defeated as before and for future reference, has found the other's soft spot which they can poke at if need be.
I ran into a similar situation just last week, as I wrote about just yesterday, I believe it was. After posting results to a poll which indicated that regular Fox News viewers are more misinformed than any other major news source, this person sent me quite the lovely e-mail before defriending me. In this e-mail, he said either insinuated or outright said that I am close-minded, never take any other viewpoint besides my own seriously, that I live to put others down, that I constantly mock people's beliefs, that I'm not a bastion of intelligence as I allegedly believe myself to be, etc. His sister, whom is a good friend of mine, did tell me one time that "He's intimidated by you and your intelligence." Given that bit of information, I found his words to be even more laughable. Once again, like in the first scenario, he's trying to play down intelligence, making it seem as if research and source credibility are irrelevant when making an argument and that there's basically no such thing as a correct opinion, even though he lays claim that his is.
This is a classic red herring move, because the perpetrator is attempting to remove themselves from an argument which they feel they are losing and instead focus on their opponent as a person and his or her debating tactics as opposed to the actual debate material. If successful, they can then try to convince themselves that they never admitted defeat to the content debate and attempt to claim victory to a debate which was irrelevant to the substance of the first.
It'd be like if Mitt Romney were asked by Newt Gingrich about his Mormon faith and instead of answering the question, shot back at Gingrich by asking him about his failed marriages. Gingrich's marriages have absolutely nothing to do with Romney's faith, which was the topic of discussion. Romney is simply attempting to place the potentially negative focus on his opponent and something seen as unpopular by the majority while simultaneously attempting to sidestep his own such issue.
I hate to generalize and this, of course, is not true in all cases, but it's felt to me as if many prominent Republicans and conservative media figures like to downgrade intelligence. When Barack Obama ran for office in 2008, many on the right-side of the political spectrum cast him off as being "elitist" as opposed to intelligent. Some stated he was too smart, too book smart for the presidency and lacked that gut instinct needed for the high office. I suppose one reason for this is probably because these prominent members of the GOP want the American people to feel as if they're one of them, that they understand and will listen to what they have to say and that Democrats are condescending, feel that they're above the American people and won't take the time to listen to and understand them on their level. Personally, I'd like for the President of the United States to be smarter than most people in the country, yet to also possess a great level of empathy for the middle- and lower-classes. I think most members of Congress on both sides of the aisle possess a great level of intelligence, but it also feels that many times, the left appears to be more empathetic and sympathetic to those less fortunate than them than the right. In any case, like with the two before-mentioned scenarios, the GOP's downplaying of intelligence is a no-win argument.
Usually, there isn't a definite winner in such "arguments" or discussions. The two people may have different viewpoints, share their opinions, question the other's and at the end of the day admit that while the other made some good points, their beliefs were unswayed, so they'll have to agree to disagree. Perhaps this is why I can irritate people when engaging in such discussions, because I make sure to do my research and usually provide credible source material to back up my claims. This doesn't make me "right" necessarily, but it also forces the other person to do their own bit of research to either back up their belief(s), counter mine or attempt to delegitimize my source. I also tend to utilize all I learned in critical thinking, philosophy and psychology courses to aid me in the debate. This forces the other person to use actual logic when making his or her arguments as opposed to informal fallacies, which can easily be disproved. This, I've found, can frustrate people, because most of the time, people don't force the other out of their comfort zone in order to back up their claims with facts and on top of that, to counter the opposing viewpoint with fact and logic.
While, like I said, there are typically not "winners" and "losers" in such discussions, I have discovered a tell-tale sign that another is feeling defeated and is on the verge of it. This is when the person resorts to a guilt trip or paints intelligence as something that is overrated.
I've experienced this with two people. One such person is a guy I've known for most all my life. He appeared to hold similar political views as myself until the run-up to the 2008 election, when he appeared to turn away from the Democratic Party due to their presidential nominee being Barack Obama. Yes, I think the main reason for this was his race, unfortunately. In any case, he and I had some rather "interesting" discussions regarding politics and the coming election in particular during this time. Each and every time, he'd make his arguments using nothing but hyperbole, rumor and conspiracy and without even having to utter a single word of my own, I was able to discredit his claims through fact-checking sites. When the time came for it, I'd attempt to feed off the sources and in conjunction with logic, make my argument. After a little while, he'd resort to something like this - "Yeah, I know, I'm stupid. You're always right. You've got all the answers. I don't even know why I bother anymore or why I'm even here to begin with." Yeah, hints of depression and even suicidal tendencies were on display at times, along with trying to make me feel bad by laying claim that I was being condescending, close-minded and arrogant. Yeah, when one knows they have a losing hand, this is that final attempt to force the other to feel bad and say something like, "No, no. I didn't mean anything like that. You've made some good points. Let's just put this behind us and talk about something else. Cool?" That way, the person doesn't feel nearly as defeated as before and for future reference, has found the other's soft spot which they can poke at if need be.
I ran into a similar situation just last week, as I wrote about just yesterday, I believe it was. After posting results to a poll which indicated that regular Fox News viewers are more misinformed than any other major news source, this person sent me quite the lovely e-mail before defriending me. In this e-mail, he said either insinuated or outright said that I am close-minded, never take any other viewpoint besides my own seriously, that I live to put others down, that I constantly mock people's beliefs, that I'm not a bastion of intelligence as I allegedly believe myself to be, etc. His sister, whom is a good friend of mine, did tell me one time that "He's intimidated by you and your intelligence." Given that bit of information, I found his words to be even more laughable. Once again, like in the first scenario, he's trying to play down intelligence, making it seem as if research and source credibility are irrelevant when making an argument and that there's basically no such thing as a correct opinion, even though he lays claim that his is.
This is a classic red herring move, because the perpetrator is attempting to remove themselves from an argument which they feel they are losing and instead focus on their opponent as a person and his or her debating tactics as opposed to the actual debate material. If successful, they can then try to convince themselves that they never admitted defeat to the content debate and attempt to claim victory to a debate which was irrelevant to the substance of the first.
It'd be like if Mitt Romney were asked by Newt Gingrich about his Mormon faith and instead of answering the question, shot back at Gingrich by asking him about his failed marriages. Gingrich's marriages have absolutely nothing to do with Romney's faith, which was the topic of discussion. Romney is simply attempting to place the potentially negative focus on his opponent and something seen as unpopular by the majority while simultaneously attempting to sidestep his own such issue.
I hate to generalize and this, of course, is not true in all cases, but it's felt to me as if many prominent Republicans and conservative media figures like to downgrade intelligence. When Barack Obama ran for office in 2008, many on the right-side of the political spectrum cast him off as being "elitist" as opposed to intelligent. Some stated he was too smart, too book smart for the presidency and lacked that gut instinct needed for the high office. I suppose one reason for this is probably because these prominent members of the GOP want the American people to feel as if they're one of them, that they understand and will listen to what they have to say and that Democrats are condescending, feel that they're above the American people and won't take the time to listen to and understand them on their level. Personally, I'd like for the President of the United States to be smarter than most people in the country, yet to also possess a great level of empathy for the middle- and lower-classes. I think most members of Congress on both sides of the aisle possess a great level of intelligence, but it also feels that many times, the left appears to be more empathetic and sympathetic to those less fortunate than them than the right. In any case, like with the two before-mentioned scenarios, the GOP's downplaying of intelligence is a no-win argument.
Comments
Post a Comment