Being the bigger Wo/Man

[Cognisant]

Why doesn't this come naturally?

I guess what I'm asking is why do people take non-personal things personally?

Wouldn't the world be a nicer place if we could all just do that all the time, I mean have you ever been in a long passionate debate that ended with "Touché" damn that's a great word, and sure using it means you lose the debate but you lose gracefully and everybody feels good, the difference of opinion is put aside and everyone respects each other a little more.

It has occurred to me that enjoying "winning" a debate is a petty sentiment, one I think we all know I've been guilty of, so what is the proper mindset if there is such a thing. In much the same way satisfaction with the successful result of any kind of conflict is petty... Or is it? What makes it appropriate to celebrate, you wouldn't hold it against someone if they celebrated winning the at the olympics, certainly a degree of composure is expected, rubbing victory in the faces of those who lost isn't appropriate, but isn't celebrating at all doing that to some extent?

What is this all based on?

 

[Da Blob]

William James once observed that the sum of a person's identity is contained in what he or she claims as "Mine!". Some people choose to be offended, thinking they are opposing illegitimate 'claim jumpers', when perhaps it is their own claim that is illegitimate.

It is human nature to seek to enlarge one's self by adding to the list of things on the "Mine!" list. Few realize that the easiest method of doing this is by sharing, whereby both one's and others' become "Ours". This sharing can include commune - ication.

There seems to be a lack of knowledge/skill of the conversion of mere argument into real dialogue, but perhaps my signature offers a clue?

Touche?

 

[DetachedRetina]

I have to consciously ask myself what I want out of an argument/debate and whether it's worth having. Often I just want to examine, with as much scrutiny as I would my own, somebody else's views. Sometimes I want something tangible. It's tricky.

If you just want to have a mental olympics than it can be fine to celebrate.

I often find that I discover what my own views are through debate too. This can be useful. But once I see an impasse approaching I have to remind myself to back down.

 

[snafupants]

I have intellectually stimulating talks with my dad that are almost exclusively theoretical. We share many of the same thought processes and cognitive functions and the whole shebang is relatively egoless. About an hour ago we talked about alternative energy, the ethicality and failed safeguards of capitalism (specifically as it relates to Adam Smith's vision) and the underuse and subsequent economic repercussions of deportation laws in the United States. The conversation always shifts, and this facet of our talks almost precludes someone pantingly declaring themselves the victor. The entire tenor is non-adversarial though; our talks keep the mind nimble but also alert either party to wonky ideas or half-baked theories. It's basically intellectual batting practice.

 

[Darby]

As shown on the forums, I'm not very articulate, and my vocabulary is severely lacking. Because of these downsides I tend to keep my mouth shut on most topics and just listen. Only speaking up where I feel something has been left out of the discussion, or where there is a clear impasse between two people's understanding of each others points.

Basically I simply try to stimulate and clarify discussion while working on my own theories based on what has been discussed by others.

I think part of the issue which we were supposed to be discussing has more to do with accepting that our prior form of thinking may be wrong. Not everyone is very good at this. Why would anyone want to be wrong?

I go into most things seeking to learn, and if conflict arises THEN debate forms, but I prefer to listen before speaking on most subjects. I don't have the confidence in what I know to be able to argue or debate, so I listen instead, and let those who wish to speak, speak. If more people were like me, I think the world wouldn't get very far. So I don't find those more assertive people to be unwanted or aggressive.

 

[pernoctator]

Truly winning a debate involves making the opponent understand his mistake. Educating people is satisfying, and succeeding at any task is even more satisfying when it's difficult, so feeling good about coming out on top after a long debate is pretty natural and not necessarily petty. I guess to test yourself for pettiness you need to compare your reactions to losing and winning -- in both cases there should be a similar pleasure in the fact that someone has learned something.

 

[Dragonmythos]

Unsolved psychological problems that's what it is.

Personally, I detest losing. I prefer being on top. It makes me satisfied.

 

[ObliviousGenius]

^ I also hate to lose at anything, and won't try if I know there's a bigger chance that I'll lose than win. However the satisfaction of winning is not as extreme as my loathing of losing. That being said I never aim to "win" the debate. I only try to provide understanding for both parties. If I lose, it's because I didn't understand some point of the debate. This causes me to feel incompetent and subsequently, bitter (depending on how stupid I felt).

Personally, I never truly own up to being wrong I just make excuses, but if I'm right which is a great majority of the time, I'm calm. I'm not the kind of person to say "I told you so" and I never will be. I get no satisfaction whatsoever from being right, if anything, relief. I feel like that's what I was supposed to do in the first place.

 

[snafupants]

Truly winning a debate involves making the opponent understand his mistake. Educating people is satisfying, and succeeding at any task is even more satisfying when it's difficult, so feeling good about coming out on top after a long debate is pretty natural and not necessarily petty. I guess to test yourself for pettiness you need to compare your reactions to losing and winning -- in both cases there should be a similar pleasure in the fact that someone has learned something.

That's also known, in popular parlance, as being a dick. Let me defer to Thomas Jefferson here: "In stating rules for our government, I must not omit the important one of never entering into argument with another. I never saw an instance of disputants convincing each other by argument." Thanks Thomas. Your fee? It's in the mail.

 

[pernoctator]

That's also known, in popular parlance, as being a dick. Let me defer to Thomas Jefferson here: "In stating rules for our government, I must not omit the important one of never entering into argument with another. I never saw an instance of disputants convincing each other by argument." Thanks Thomas. Your fee? It's in the mail.

Whatever man. I'm unconvinced.

 

[snafupants]

Whatever man. I'm unconvinced.

Nope, I'm unconvinced!

 

[Minuend]

I used to be more mature and patient when I was younger, actually. Now I just care less. I was thinking I should revert to my old self, though.

I don't really see debates as debates. And I don't really consider an argument lost or won. It's just the exchange of ideas and opinions. Mostly I consider it useless due to all biases and emotions humans tend to have. What I do consider worthwhile is reading two or more put forth arguments when they are clearly both knowledgeable and has insight on the matter.

We are raised in an environment of competition. To be the most intelligent, pretty etc. We learn to put pride in such traits and how to defend them with all our might. To lose is to be a lesser person, to lose worth. Even those who consider themselves intelligent will put humans, who they consider to be dumber than themselves, underneath. There is no room for those who can't excel, those are to be shunned so that we can consider ourselves superior and continue living in an illusion where being the best secure our worth.

There are some tendencies where humans turn inward to exclusion rather than outward to acceptance. I believe the first one hamper intellectual growth and even self-acceptance. We put more focus on being something, that just existing make us feel inferior. And a sense of inferiority makes us turn on those we can push beneath us to make us feel worth again. A vicious cycle.

Or something like that....

 

[Darby]

I don't really see debates as debates. And I don't really consider an argument lost or won. It's just the exchange of ideas and opinions. Mostly I consider it useless due to all biases and emotions humans tend to have. What I do consider worthwhile is reading two or more put forth arguments when they are clearly both knowledgeable and has insight on the matter.

This is why when debates crop up in threads on here I try to keep my mouth shut. I enjoy reading knowledgeable and insightful thoughts more than spewing out useless unverified garbage.

There are some tendencies where humans turn inward to exclusion rather than outward to acceptance. I believe the first one hamper intellectual growth and even self-acceptance. We put more focus on being something, that just existing make us feel inferior. And a sense of inferiority makes us turn on those we can push beneath us to make us feel worth again. A vicious cycle.

Or something like that....

That, and this. I often feel inferior for just existing, I feel like I need a plan, or some way to be better than what I am now. I only feel this when I'm unhappy though, when I'm happy, I don't feel the need to change anything, and then become the very thing which I then feel the need to change once my mood shifts. I don't like pushing those beneath me down, I simply try to figure out what it was in the first place that made me proud to be me.

 

[Yet]

cognisant

what is this all based on?

I think very deeply insecure people blow themselves up into proportions they will have to match, for their own feelings sake. It makes you vulnerable if you have this big idea about how clever, strong, witty, whatever, ... you are. Can you deliver in your own eyes?

I think it is not joy of winning but a relief of not losing. It is a bit sad really.

I prefer to talk and work with people who concentrate on the subject and sharing in forming new insights in stead of concentrating of positioning themselves in the eyes of others. That is rare though. For a lot of people their opinion is more like an ingrown toenail and they scream if someone else tries to touch it.

 

[Da Blob]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

The Mathematics of Dialogue

Most conversations amongst humans do not change anything - either there is a one-way transfer of information (re: Freire), participants simply speak that which they wish to hear, providing their own positive feedback loop or conversation is a social game (re: Berne). Dialogue, is perhaps, the one type of conversation that can be an Agent of Change, for dialogue is synergy, that is, the result of collaboration, which can be seen as something new, something greater – a combined effort with an element of Gestalt, the whole of a dialogue exceeds the sum of the individual contributions. One would hope that the mathematics of dialogue would reflect a Fibonacci sequence, a pattern of growth.

The status quo of dialogue is difficult to analyze for it can be seen to encompass a spectrum of ideas, ranging from philosophies to research in Artificial Intelligence...

https://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150842324609179

Argumentation and Dialogue in Artificial Intelligence

http://www.csc.liv.ac.uk/~comma/IJCAI_05_Tutorial.pdf

1. Introduction and Overview Distinguishing the notions of “proof” and “argument”; practical reasoning examples; concepts of argument status; argument frameworks.
2. Modelling Sets of Arguments Formal definition of “Argument System”; arguments and attacks; concept of “acceptable argument”; defining “admissible” sets of arguments; overview of assumption based argumentation frameworks.
3. Strengths of Arguments and Audiences Refining the concept of “successful attack”; Preference-based argument frameworks; Value-based argument frameworks.
4. Dialogue Based on Argumentation Frameworks Introduction to dialogue in argumentation; dialogue types and proto- cols; two-party immediate response disputes (tpi) and properties.
5. Structure of Arguments Argument Schema and their motivation; Toulmin’s argument schema and developments of this; problems with argument schema.
6. Example Studies

In Artificial Intelligence reasoning is often modelled on the presentation of a proof. In some domains and for some topics this is entirely appropriate, but if we look at the justifications of reasoning offered in practice, they often fall short of the standards required by proof.
Whereas a proof compels us to accept the conclusion if we accept the premises, natural language justifications tend to be open to objections: they may persuade, but they rarely compel. Such justifications are always defeasible: they succeed if the objections that are made are met, but the process of objection is complete only when the party to whom the justification is presented is content. Such defeasible justifications may be termed arguments.