Why do we argue? This isn’t a rhetorical question or a call for people to stop with all the fighting. I just want people to think about what they’re trying to accomplish. Arguing can be incredibly beneficial, we’ve just been doing it wrong.
Why should we argue?
Just so there’s no confusion, this is a pro-argument piece. Let’s argue, is what I’m saying. But, let’s do a better job of it. We can do a better job of arguing by switching up our goals.
Typically we argue in an attempt to change our opponent’s mind. You think A and I think B so I’m going to yell at you until you think B. This isn’t a fruitful use of time. Arguing, in general, has a horrendous track record of fulfilling this duty.
Instead of arguing in the hopes of changing someone’s mind, we need to start arguing in hopes of learning.
“WTF is he talking about?”- You
Everyone you know knows something you don’t.
Pretend you’re in an argument with someone about whether a free and open market or implementing universal basic income would be a better way to eradicate poverty.
Most of us decide what side of an issue we’re on and then we dig in our heels and try to ‘win’ the argument. The problem with this approach is it doesn’t take long before the game switches from let’s see which side is right to let’s see who can be more stubborn.
Not super helpful.
As an overarching theme to discussing ideas, instead of picking sides on an issue, and then arguing from there, we should be approaching issues from the standpoint of learning as much as we can about both sides.
Instead of being married to one side or the other, we should try our best to be impartial. This is easier said than done as we naturally tend to come down on a certain side of a debate, pretty much right out of the chutes.
Arguing in Good Faith
In order to combat our own confirmation bias, and show ourselves to be someone who can discuss ideas in good faith, we need to practice steel-manning our opponent’s arguments.
Talk about the parts of your opponent’s view that you really resonate with and also admit the worst parts of your own argument. If you’re defending the idea of universal basic income talk about how problematic paying for it is or the concern that people will just opt to not contribute to society if they’re getting government money for free.
It might look like this…
Doing this accomplishes three things
- It kind of takes the legs out from any argument your opponent would have. If you address the biggest downsides to your argument it doesn’t leave your opponent with much ammunition to use against you.
- It shows your opponent that you’re willing to have a good-faith argument. Every idea has some positive aspects and some downsides. You’re simply acknowledging the fact that there is some good in their view and some downsides to your own view.
- If your opponent is just looking for a fight it will really throw them off.
Most likely if you approached an argument in this way your opponent would be more receptive to hearing why, despite the drawbacks, you still feel universal basic income is a good idea. Also, you might find that there are simply too many holes in the idea of universal basic income and you can no longer justify holding on to that view.
It’s important to do your best to admit the real disadvantages of your argument as well as the real advantages of your opponent’s argument. You’re not agreeing with them in order to placate them or trick them into a false sense of confidence. You’re really trying to see if there’s a compelling case for believing what they believe.
“What? I’m not doing that. I’d lose the argument.”- Everyone reading this
Yes! Yes. You’ll lose the argument. Exactly! Which brings us back to the original question. Why are we arguing? If you’re arguing to win, you’ve already lost. We should be arguing to learn. We should be arguing to find the most nuanced truth we can.
Most people go into arguments with their guard already up. The first step to having a fruitful conversation is disarming them. Show them that you’re not interested in winning, you’re interested in learning.
Maybe your opponent returns the favor and admits some of the positive aspects of your view and some of the negative aspects of their own argument. If that happens then you can start having a meaningful and productive discussion.
Maybe they refuse to engage in this new form of arguing and instead claim victory and call you an idiot.
If someone takes this approach they really were never going to be a very fruitful discussion partner anyway. So, at least you saved a bunch of time.
But maybe they’ll respond with something like this, instead.
If that happens, weehoo, buckle up. You’ve just found someone worth discussing ideas with.
A couple of ways to argue with like-minded folks.
Okay, so let’s say you found someone who will engage with you in the type of argument where the goal is learning as opposed to winning. There are a couple of fun parameters you can set.
The first one is to argue for each other’s side.
If you’re in the UBI camp, do your best to argue for a free and open market. Have your argument friend argue for the UBI model and against a free and open market.
You risk nothing by spending a little time in your opponent’s shoes. Do your best to honestly argue FOR whatever idea you’re naturally against. The best idea won’t be defeated just because you decided to play for the other team for a few minutes.
Team-Arguing
Another option is to argue as a team. Take a few minutes at a wack and brainstorm together all the reasons you can think of why the UBI model won’t work and how you could potentially solve that issue.
View it from the standpoint that UBI is happening, how do we make it work?
This will only work with someone who cares more about learning than winning. We can all see that implementing universal basic income will have an enormous price tag, approximately 2.5 trillion dollars per year. Brainstorm ways to pay for it and go down the rabbit hole of where that would lead. But, do it with the intention of cooperation, not you vs. them.
Our world has become so divided because people aren’t arguing in good faith. They aren’t arguing in a way that honestly searches for truth. Everyone is just trying to win and the fallout from that is we all lose.
I don’t know if small-government or big-government is better. Is one better in every circumstance or just most? Let’s talk about it. Hop on my side and we’ll both argue for a small-government then we’ll go on your side and both argue for a big-government.
Losing an argument shouldn’t be a bad thing.
Maybe your idea is right and you just need to address a few issues. Maybe your idea is just wrong. By arguing with the general goal of learning rather than winning it completely flips the script. It doesn’t matter who wins the debate. As long as you leave the conversation with a fuller picture, the experience is net-positive.
To recap…
- Change the goal from winning to learning.
- Find someone worth arguing with. If they aren’t willing to switch from a win/lose argument style to a learning argument style then they aren’t worth discussing complex ideas with.
- Practice arguing from their point of view. Try to see the world through their lens.
- Spend time arguing WITH your opponent in a cooperative manner.
Alright. I’ve painted a very magical world where we can argue without emotion or attachment to our ideas. Great. Let’s all go out and find someone to argue with.
If you enjoyed this article please share it with your friends and enemies.
Confirmation Bias- How to be Stupid and Proud of It
How to Participate in the American Election Without Being a Bad Guy
How to be Willfully Ignorant and DESTROY Your Opponents
Did you know? Sharing this will make you happy!
