Povert

I’m often more interested in how we argue than what we argue about. By “interested”, I mean “endlessly frustrated”.

Here’s a big gripe of mine: People don’t seem to understand that when arguing with someone, the hypocrisy (perceived or actual) of an opponent’s argument does not justify their own.

Let’s say that you are staunchly pro-life and I take you to task for it. Suppose that you are pro-death penalty and you have supported the various wars your country has initiated or been involved in. Let’s also say that I am pro-choice and anti-death penalty.

(I know, none of that is controversial, right?)

If make an argument that you cannot rationally be both pro-life and pro-death penalty, you cannot justify your position by claiming that I’m being a hypocrite. You may be correct — I may not be able to rationally be pro-choice and anti-death penalty. But that doesn’t justify your inconsistencies.

The worst part is that by using my inconsistencies or hypocrisy to justify your own, you are legitimizing mine.

This is where too many conversations go. People use all sorts of tactics, intentionally or otherwise, to avoid confronting their own inconsistent beliefs. Do you want to discuss my inconsistent beliefs? That’s fine, but one thing at a time. Let’s examine yours, then we’ll examine mine. Why in that order? It’s somewhat arbitrary — I brought it up first. Deal with it.

Or maybe you’re not interested at learning something new or having your mind changed. Congratulations, you’re part of a large group.

Apparently mass shooters tend to externalize their problems. Most people who externalize their problems don’t become mass shooters, of course.

People with that trait, however, are very frustrating people. I know I can be frustrating, as I do the opposite. I tend to blame myself for anything bad that happens to me, even when it’s clearly not my fault. Still, the most tedious people I’ve met are the ones who constantly blame others.

I knew a guy in high school. I actually don’t remember his name, so I’ll call him Jack. I had a Spanish class with Jack. I think we were part of a study group, or maybe we were on a team for a class project. Either way, I remember Jack constantly complaining that the teacher was out to get him, that the teacher was plotting for him to fail. He was struggling with Spanish (as was I — I was consistently mediocre at foreign languages through high school and college). I argued with him for at length that the teacher wasn’t trying to bring about his failure, but he was having none of it.

Later, I had another friend who on occasion exhibited similar behavior. One particularly vivid memory involves me picking him up to take him to work as a favor. He was getting a ride from me, smoking my cigarettes, complaining about how he would “give and give and give” but that everyone else would just “take and take and take” from him. He was apparently oblivious to the irony.

Now neither of these individuals, to my knowledge anyway, have engaged in any anti-social behavior. As I said, many, many people have this quality and don’t do anything wrong. But a couple things stand out. First, by virtue of externalizing their problems they are unable to recognize their own negative, corrosive traits. Their beliefs are reinforced when they alienate others, because others distance themselves from them.

I don’t encounter these people very much anymore. My wild guess is that people like that might tend to have a hard time getting through college and ending up in industries like the one I’m in. Or maybe people get better at managing it as they get older.

It does worry me, though. If you don’t believe yourself to have any problem, you’re unlikely to seek help. And as I said, most people like this don’t end up shooting up schools. So how do you identify the people who are likely to do that, considering they likely aren’t going to end up in counseling or therapy prior to a shooting?

What is the point of conversation and argument? I mean “argument” somewhat in the spirit of the logical and philosophical sense of the word, summarized on wikipedia as:

In philosophy and logic, an argument is an attempt to persuade someone of something, by giving reasons or evidence for accepting a particular conclusion. The general structure of an argument in a natural language is that of premises (typically in the form of propositions, statements or sentences) in support of a claim: the conclusion.

(Edited to remove footnotes)

A conversation can be made up of one or more arguments. While the point of an argument is to persuade, that’s not necessarily the point of a conversation.

Very few people actually make arguments as defined above. What most people do is assert opinions. That may be fine, but those aren’t arguments, and they don’t always make for very good conversation.

What I’m trying to get at is that I tend to irritate people, and vise-versa. I don’t really approach a discussion adversarially. If you want to “win”, that’s what debate is for. Yet this is exactly how many people approach conversations, especially when politics are involved. That, in fact, is the raison d’être of talking points. How cynical are talking points? They are employed to steel individuals for contrary beliefs and opinions, not to encourage an enriching, belief-challenging conversation. The very concept is irrational and depressing.

Note that I’m not implying that people need to be persuaded or concede anything. If they genuinely question the soundness of an argument, and as long as they are being intellectually honest, a conversation need not conclude with one participant conceding defeat. In fact, the vast majority of political discussions end this way, with no consensus. In the best of these cases, people find themselves unable to agree on a point that is difficult to prove one way or another. If they can acknowledge that, they at least have isolated a core point of dispute. In the worst cases, the conversation ends irrationally with name calling or (much worse) violence. In between are the sort of conversations we usually have, especially with people of a different political or philosophical persuasion.

I always try to have the best kind of disagreements. It’s very, very hard to have those conversations with most people. I’m frequently accused of being mercilessly (or foolishly) logical. There’s some truth to that. I am quick to find inconsistencies in peoples’ thoughts. Please note that I’m not bragging here — I know many people who are much brighter and better than I am. There are plenty of people who can absolutely destroy me in an argument. But because for me the conversation itself is the reward (not “winning”), I’m more likely than not to enjoy having my argument eviscerated. It’s not about proving yourself right, it’s about finding out what’s wrong and narrowing down what’s right.

There are a handful of things that will truly ruin a conversation for me. The first (and foremost) is irrationality. You can’t “just know” something. Supernatural revelations are likewise useless in a conversation, or at least only as useful as a statements like “Yesterday, blue was my favorite color”, or “I know in my bones that the president is a socialist”. This tells me something about how you think or see things, but it doesn’t tell me anything else. Related to this are appeals to common sense. Common sense is an attempt to assert something without providing any support, the implication often being that only an idiot would question it.

Speaking of idiots, another thing that ruins a conversation for me is if one participant really does believe that anyone who disagrees with them is an idiot (or is evil). If that person is also adept at rhetoric, odious in their treatment of others and prone to dismissing counter-arguments as meaningless or nit-picking, I won’t even give that person the time of day. A conversation should be respectful and should adhere to the rules of logic.

So when I get into a meta-conversation, I find myself in the awkward position of trying to defend the way I argue, because it irritates people. But defending myself is itself an argument.

The point of a conversation, for me, is to challenge beliefs — my own and others’. It’s to root out what we believe without sound basis. It is, in short, to learn. Sometimes, when making an argument I’ve never articulated before (or articulated well), I’ll go about disproving myself. That’s always an interesting, exciting moment, and it sadly doesn’t happen often enough.

I hope I don’t sound sanctimonious. I’m being sincere — after all, I got my B.A. in Philosophy and English. You have to love discourse to study that. When getting my degree, I was surrounded by many people who approached conversation the same way. Not all, but many. Maybe that spoiled me. Regardless, it also gave me hope that others could come around to this approach.

When was the last time you approached a conversation with the intention of learning something rather than proving someone wrong?

I really, really dislike this blog’s appearance. I hate the layout, the fonts, the titles, everything. There are a few things standing in the way of me changing it:

• Not worth the trouble: almost no one reads it, and there isn’t much reason for anyone other than some friends and family to read it. There are a few posts that get regular hits, but it’s a very small number.
• I have no taste. Or, to be charitable, I’ve not developed my taste beyond realizing that this looks hideous.
• A new design will have to accommodate old posts. Image alignment, lists, maybe other things.
• No time. What little free time I have I’m spending with my kid and wife, or sometimes on video games. Also, I try to read, so I can arrest or at least slow my descent into mental mediocrity (it’s not working).
• I would be too ambitious. It would have to work in every browser in the history of the multiverse. It would be responsive. Et cetera.

Maybe I’ll buy a template? I don’t know.