Why is it that those who remain calm during a conversation/debate are usually those whom are right/c

[Thurlor]

I'm not sure if this is just a tendency of the people I associate with (in real life and via the internet) or if it is a tendency of humanity in general, but I have noticed that the majority of times I witness a conversation/debate/argument the party who remains calm and doesn't become (overly) emotional is nearly always the party whom is right. A couple of examples that come to mind are the 'gay marriage' debate or any conspiracy theory you can think of.

Why is this so?

Is this just the type of people I associate with?

Is it a result of rational individuals not allowing emotions to dictate their decisions (in the ideal)?

Is it because (overly) emotional people can't come to the right conclusions?

I can't help but feel it is all a bit backwards (either reality or my interpretation of it). Shouldn't those individuals that have a greater emotional attachment to an idea/proposition be more inclined to make sure their ideas are correct and believed by others?

 

[Rook]

Those that have superior knowledge of a subject, can take a rational stance, thereby lessening the need to win a debate with irrational emotional responses.

This is sometimes seen between a physics proffesor and a theologian discussing the nature of the universe, or in the inquisitions made by Dawkins. Also, the less emotional one is, the more one is pre-depositioned towards a rational state of mind (T vs F).

So it is usually the less emotional that are more likely to have satisfactory knowledge of a subject, or rather the ability to hold a rational debate over said subject.

 

[Pyropyro]

There's a reason why appeals to emotion to are called pathetic

I think it's more because being emotional and indirectly invoking emotions on your opponent is an unfair means of persuasion. It's harder to convince someone about the reasons behind fire safety but convincing them by invoking fear (like shouting FIRE!) is quite easy.

Emotional investment are good for motivating debaters to take the extra mile and thoroughly research their field and hold their ground in debates. They might appear rational in debates not because they are unemotional but rather because they are focusing their emotions on other things.

 

[Thurlor]

Since writing this I've spent a bit of time looking at various discussions/debates on youtube and I've almost reached the conclusion that this could be used as a yard-stick to determine to veracity of an argument that you don't know much about.

 

[Puffy]

Since writing this I've spent a bit of time looking at various discussions/debates on youtube and I've almost reached the conclusion that this could be used as a yard-stick to determine to veracity of an argument that you don't know much about.

I'm not sure this is necessarily about the calmer person 'being' correct, more a yard-stick for 'appearing' correct.

A formal debate isn't really a completely objective exchange (note how few people come out of a debate with an altered point of view, they can't concede anything or they lose...) There's still a degree to which it is a performance, emotional is associated with unreliable and collected with more reliable; you're more likely to vote for the person who gives the better performance.

True, those associations must have come from somewhere. I just think your yardstick here could easily be deceived.

 

[Thurlor]

@ Puffy

I wasn't just discussing such behavior as it occurs in formal debates. I've noticed the same tendencies in 'dinner table' discussions and other non formal settings. Even when we look at things like political or religious debates we see the same tendencies.

I just think your yardstick here could easily be deceived.

Sure, any yard-stick or 'rule of thumb' can easily deceive. This is why I said it could be used as a yard-stick rather than an actual rule.

 

[Jennywocky]

I'm not sure this is necessarily about the calmer person 'being' correct, more a yard-stick for 'appearing' correct.

A formal debate isn't really a completely objective exchange (note how few people come out of a debate with an altered point of view, they can't concede anything or they lose...) There's still a degree to which it is a performance, emotional is associated with unreliable and collected with more reliable; you're more likely to vote for the person who gives the better performance.

Indeed. According to the rule posited here, as long as you look less ruffled / more secure than your opponent, regardless of the substance of your argument, you have more chance of being considered correct. People who feel their survival is at stake are more likely to grab for anything useful to that goal.

But I do think people who are more desperate to not lose / be proven wrong will sometimes resort to any method possible to win, rather than simply making a rational case. The priority is no longer providing a correct analysis, the priority is survival -- survival of oneself, one's interests, one's ideas, one's ideals, etc.

 

[Hawkeye]

I haven't found this to be the case. People can get angered by the apparent stupidity of others. I've seen people lose their shit during an argument because the opposition were too blind to see how wrong they were.

It depends on the context of the argument and the types of people arguing. Raging does not mean you're wrong, although it can hamper the chances of people seeing/agreeing with your point.

 

[BigApplePi]

I haven't found this to be the case. People can get angered by the apparent stupidity of others. I've seen people lose their shit during an argument because the opposition were too blind to see how wrong they were.

Here the anger/emotion is not about the debate topic but about the way it's taking place. I don't believe in debates resulting in getting at the truth. Rather they bring out the issues and one has to look at ALL the data, both sides, for getting at the truth afterwards. It's like thesis, anti-thesis without the synthesis.

Anyway emotion is about values. If one is emotional about one side of the debate topic, they are valuing one side. One must look at both sides to get at truth and that will compromise emotions.

Now that I'm all upset about this, I'm going to have to leave this message here before it reaches its proper end which further upsets me ...

 

[Deleted member 1424]

I agree with hawkeye. Good debate tactics take advantage of human nature and the success of an argument is usually dependent on the charisma of its champion rather than its actual validity.

The last time I became upset in a discussion, the other party was both calm, lightly condescending and stonewalling me at every turn. I had become visibly frustrated over the course of the conversation. They were denying the existence of Homo Neanderthalis; calling it a mere construction of a vast liberal conspiracy.

I was certainly a bit steamed, but I still think I was right.

 

[walfin]

They seem more likely to be correct as they are calmer.

That's also an emotional assessment.

Ultimately, what determines correctness is evidence.

 

[pernoctator]

Shouldn't those individuals that have a greater emotional attachment to an idea/proposition be more inclined to make sure their ideas are correct and believed by others?

If the emotional attachment comes first, truth might be less of a priority. This relationship exists more when the cause and effect are reversed; that is, confidence that your ideas are true can lead to emotion.

I think the reason you are surprised that reality doesn't look this way is because you are assuming that there is a direct link between confidence and verification. Have you found that people are frustrated by how often you answer questions with "I think" and "I don't know"? Many people value efficient decision-making over verification, and they can reach confidence without it, and by extension can argue emotionally for an incorrect idea.

Personally, I'm usually more emotional when I am more sure that I'm right, but I think there is more to it than that: What I am actually emotional about is the fact that the other is wrong... or more precisely, the fact that they believe they are right. Even if I know nothing about a topic, if I know that the other person knows as little as I do, I will be angered by the fact that he is confident -- even if he turns out to be correct.

 

[paradoxparadigm7]

Aren't you assuming there is a true/false in a debate or dinner-table argument? Most things that are argued ARE value judgements (right/wrong) and highly subjective. When taking a stance on a topic, there is always pros and cons. Seems to me having strong convictions with feelings attached to them are simply that. I can have strong feelings about a stance but I'm also able to see the cons behind it. I think that's the critical part...conceding the pros of the other person's stance but being able to stick to your guns because it's congruent to your values. Most often it ends up being lets agree to disagree.

 

[wonkavision]

I'm not sure if this is just a tendency of the people I associate with (in real life and via the internet) or if it is a tendency of humanity in general, but I have noticed that the majority of times I witness a conversation/debate/argument the party who remains calm and doesn't become (overly) emotional is nearly always the party whom is right. A couple of examples that come to mind are the 'gay marriage' debate or any conspiracy theory you can think of.

Why is this so?

It's just a typological bias.

For whatever reason, probably due to your own cognitive biases, you think that being calm in a conversation/debate either lends more credibility, or reveals more objectivity, etc. than someone who is passionate about what they're saying.

I wish I had time to give a substantive argument about why this just isn't so, but I really don't have the time.

You're pretty close to answering your own question, though.

This is not far from the mark:

Shouldn't those individuals that have a greater emotional attachment to an idea/proposition be more inclined to make sure their ideas are correct and believed by others?

 

[paradoxparadigm7]

It's just a typological bias.

For whatever reason, probably due to your own cognitive biases, you think that being calm in a conversation/debate either lends more credibility, or reveals more objectivity, etc. than someone who is passionate about what they're saying.

I wish I had time to give a substantive argument about why this just isn't so, but I really don't have the time.

You're pretty close to answering your own question, though.

This is not far from the mark:

MLK's "I have a dream" speech gives a good example. He was passionate and his argument was full of feeling along with good reason for his stance and plea for change.

 

[Grayman]

@ Pi - Very accurate statement on how to maintain more accuracy and correctness in a conversation however it does nothing to explain how accuracy/correctness may be perceived by others.

@Paradox - The MLK example did provide me with an interesting picture of how passion may affect some speeches, and has brought on some more thought that I will discuss below.

There were/are many radicals who fight for freedom with much more passion than MLK and yet they are perceived with much less correctness than MLK who seemed to be much more calm than they in his considerably more passive stance. I would also argue that any 'single' example would do little to dissuade the OP of the majority of calm speakers being more accurate.


Passion is not an indicator of correctness but instead an indicator of confidence and belief. We can be so often passionately wrong. This can make is look stupid or crazy or whatever. Religions provide many examples of passion. They are also not viewed as correct a lot of the time by people on this forum and by other religions.

@OP

Are you confusing 'commonly' perceived accuracy with actual accuracy in a conversation?

Passion and calmness can both be integral to the accuracy of your conversation. Passion gives direction and if the direction is not the truth but instead is biased to one direction or the other you will be blinding yourself to the possibilities and the end result will be you being incorrect. This was stated well by PI.

Superseding other passions with the passion of the truth can enable you to be more accurate.

Calmness is important in retaining reason in your thinking. Letting your passion blind you, as stated above defies reason. Letting your passions trigger your emotions can hinder thought and make a person reactive and thus lose credibility in conversation.

*****
Since we are talking about perceiving correctness, it is a lot less about what the speaker does than what the listener hears. The listener is comparing the statements to their own beliefs and this is how the listener determines the accuracy of the statement.

If the speaker wants to convey accuracy to the listener all he really needs to do is try to provide a more middle ground answer to the problem, contributing to the values that are important to the majority of the people and then tying it into a pretty picture. Hitler did this well to the listeners in his group.


Forgive me if it takes too long to respond to any replies to this. I am trying to avoid this forum in favor of other activities but it seems I like you guys too much I am easily addicted to forum discussion.

 

[Thurlor]

@ Jennywocky

Doesn't that just explain why people who are irrational or (overly) emotional resort to tactics such as 'appeals to emotion' or 'raging'? They know (on an intellectual level) that there is no substance in their arguments yet still feel the need to defend them leading to crappy debating methods.

 

[Thurlor]

@ Hawkeye

There will always be exceptions to a rule.

And just as BAP pointed out, you seem to be discussing anger/emotion in regards to a debate/discussion method versus topic.

You say 'raging' does not mean that one is wrong. Fair enough. But how would you explain that the vast majority of 'ragers' I have met are wrong or that those who are wrong are more likely to have engaged in 'raging' whilst debating/discussing?

 

[Jennywocky]

@ Jennywocky

Doesn't that just explain why people who are irrational or (overly) emotional resort to tactics such as 'appeals to emotion' or 'raging'? They know (on an intellectual level) that there is no substance in their arguments yet still feel the need to defend them leading to crappy debating methods.

I try to give people more credibility (although sometimes it seems clear they're inconsistent). For example, people aren't "irrational" or "emotional" to be such, they actually have a decision-making process that values an approach based on feeling (the feelings are guiding their decision) or by some other system that you, in your rational mindset, view as "irrational."

See what I mean? They're operating under their own framework / viewpoint from their perspective, and "emotional" to them (or whatever other word is appropriate) is not something negative, it's a positive. Strength and degree of passion and feeling justifies their stance, rather than detracts from it, to them. Detached logic would seem cold and inhuman, and also miss out on the humanity of the people involved, perhaps.

Of course, getting 'more emotional' might actually then be part of the strategy, since it's a positive value to said person, versus a negative as it would be to a rational mindset.

 

[Thurlor]

Ultimately, what determines correctness is evidence

I couldn't agree with you more.

 

[Thurlor]

Personally, I'm usually more emotional when I am more sure that I'm right, but I think there is more to it than that: What I am actually emotional about is the fact that the other is wrong... or more precisely, the fact that they believe they are right. Even if I know nothing about a topic, if I know that the other person knows as little as I do, I will be angered by the fact that he is confident -- even if he turns out to be correct.

I feel very much the same. False confidence and braggadocio in a debate/discussion really annoy me.

 

[paradoxparadigm7]

I think what's behind this post is the fear of being manipulated by emotion. Given a particular charismatic person impassioned by his/her pleas, can easily manipulate the masses. There is good reason to be skeptical but it doesn't have to be the case that the intent is to manipulate. We as enlightened human beings can allow our emotions to sway us when appropriate or choose to go with our rationality. Neither is 'right or wrong' but fluid to the context.

When your aging parent calls you up and is scared because someone close to them died and wants you to be with them, you can see they are being irrational but you might choose to drop what you're doing and go to them. You know they are swept up with emotions and know they will be fine but you allow your compassion to dictate your actions. In another scenario, you might choose differently.

 

[Thurlor]

@ paradoxparadigm7

I don't think I'm assuming the existence of 'true/false' any more than you are assuming the non-existence of the same. Besides, if a debate/discussion involved a truly subjective subject with no 'true/false' dichotomy then it would be incumbent on the rational individual to point out such a fact and possibly not get involved to begin with

Most often it ends up being lets agree to disagree.

Most (but not all) of the people I've known to pull this line fall into one of two groups;
- Those who can't be bothered to continue the debate/discussion because they realize their opponent can't/won't be swayed by proof or reason.
- Those who have had proof and reason presented to them but insist on sticking with their original position (usually due to religious or emotional reasons).

 

[Thurlor]

@ wonkavision

If it isn't too much trouble please explain this typological bias.

I'm not sure what I believe in regards to all of this, thus my reason for started this discussion. All I know is that in my personal experience these are the tendencies I've noted. Maybe I have only noted these tendencies (and not others) because of some internal bias. Who knows?

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Most (but not all) of the people I've known to pull this line fall into one of two groups;
- Those who can't be bothered to continue the debate/discussion because they realize their opponent can't/won't be swayed by proof or reason.
- Those who have had proof and reason presented to them but insist on sticking with their original position (usually due to religious or emotional reasons).

Have you considered that the one doing the presenting is wrong?
Have you considered that the one doing the presenting has presented nonsense or gibberish and they falsely believe that they're being rational?
Have you considered that the presenter is conflating their emotions for being rational?

 

[Thurlor]

@ Grayman

Are you confusing 'commonly' perceived accuracy with actual accuracy in a conversation?

I don't know. That's part of the problem and why I'm here discussing this. I'd like to think I'm rational enough to be able to tell the difference.

As I stated in the OP, this may all be a function of the limited subset of people I associate with. Or it could be a false correlation on my part.

 

[redbaron]

This is at best weakly correlative.

Besides, if your final judgements are going to be based on research and evidence, this step is redundant.

 

[Thurlor]

@ redbaron

I'm well aware of the adage 'correlation does not equate to causation' and I try not succumb to it.

I feel I should note that I'm not advocating any of this as a replacement to evaluating the ultimate veracity of a belief or view.

 

[Thurlor]

@ ProxyAmenRa

Yes
Yes
Yes

 

[redbaron]

@ redbaron

I'm well aware of the adage 'correlation does not equate to causation' and I try not succumb to it.

I feel I should note that I'm not advocating any of this as a replacement to evaluating the ultimate veracity of a belief or view.

Well this is all rather redundant then.

 

[paradoxparadigm7]

You can be calm and correct.
You can be calm and incorrect.
You can be passionate and correct
You can be passionate and incorrect.
You can be both passionate and calm and correct.
You can be both passionate and calm and incorrect.
Calm or passionate has nothing to do with correct/incorrect.

 

[paradoxparadigm7]

@ paradoxparadigm7

I don't think I'm assuming the existence of 'true/false' any more than you are assuming the non-existence of the same. Besides, if a debate/discussion involved a truly subjective subject with no 'true/false' dichotomy then it would be incumbent on the rational individual to point out such a fact and possibly not get involved to begin with



Most (but not all) of the people I've known to pull this line fall into one of two groups;
- Those who can't be bothered to continue the debate/discussion because they realize their opponent can't/won't be swayed by proof or reason.
- Those who have had proof and reason presented to them but insist on sticking with their original position (usually due to religious or emotional reasons).

I'll throw another wrinkle in this...the most interesting arguments (in my humble opinion) are not about true/false but about what we value. Ex: Seat belt laws. Most arguments are not about whether or not seat belts save lives (many studies support that they do) but should the government dictate how to live your life? To me, thats a more interesting question and gets to a value I hold dear. I still contend most arguments are values based.

 

[BigApplePi]

Suppose the debate were about what the moon looks like. I say it wouldn't matter what each debater said, if they were emotional or calm or whatever. If all concerned had seen only one side of the moon, everyone would be telling only a partial story. They would be right-ish about what they saw, but definitely omitting the hidden side of the moon. To be correct about what the moon looks like one must see both sides. That is one reason why debate can be irrelevant to the truth. Things are left out.

 

[Jennywocky]

I'm having trouble keeping things straight, jumping between the p0rn thread and this one... especially when you use the word "moon" in this thread.

 

[Thurlor]

What sort of studies would be required to show whether or not this could be used as a predictive model?

 

[Grayman]

You can be calm and correct.
You can be calm and incorrect.
You can be passionate and correct
You can be passionate and incorrect.
You can be both passionate and calm and correct.
You can be both passionate and calm and incorrect.
Calm or passionate has nothing to do with correct/incorrect.

Yes, that is what I was saying until the last part. Passion and calm are tools in most anything we do. We have to utilize them correctly to achieve our goals including debate. Passions can help us strive for more knowledge and to continue on when we lose face. They provide the meaning in things to give us directive. The passion that direct us in conversation can lead us into ruin if misdirected or if we let them control us instead of controlling our passions. Calm is simply the result of that control. It is a result of properly directing our passions. MLK shows his calm and his passion in his speech.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you and Wonk are trying to say, or perhaps we have different definitions.

 

[redbaron]

None because it's a flawed, inconsistent premise.

I.e.

You can be calm and correct.
You can be calm and incorrect.
You can be passionate and correct
You can be passionate and incorrect.
You can be both passionate and calm and correct.
You can be both passionate and calm and incorrect.
Calm or passionate has nothing to do with correct/incorrect.

It wouldn't even pass the stage of becoming a testable/observable hypothesis, let alone become a predictive model of reality.

 

[Thurlor]

@ redbaron

Fair enough, I suppose.

 

[paradoxparadigm7]

None because it's a flawed, inconsistent premise.

I.e.


It wouldn't even pass the stage of becoming a testable/observable hypothesis, let alone become a predictive model of reality.

Huh? School me.

 

[Grayman]

@ Grayman



I don't know. That's part of the problem and why I'm here discussing this. I'd like to think I'm rational enough to be able to tell the difference.

As I stated in the OP, this may all be a function of the limited subset of people I associate with. Or it could be a false correlation on my part.

An emotional person is more likely under the influence of a value that is being questioned and likely that means a great deal to them. This can cause the person who's values are being questioned to not properly think through their answers. They may not have developed a knowledge base yet to accurately convey their thoughts further causing them to stumble.

If a person is emotional about a topic they are also under stronger bias and they are more susceptible to putting the blinders on "blinkers on" when they are discussing the topic. They become unable to see the other side at times.

I suppose these are reasons I feel the same way about some people. These are just instances and not necessarily something that always occurs. It used to take effort to remind myself that an emotionally irrational person has some validity in what they are saying but now it is habitual thought.

 

[paradoxparadigm7]

Yes, that is what I was saying until the last part. Passion and calm are tools in most anything we do. We have to utilize them correctly to achieve our goals including debate. Passions can help us strive for more knowledge and to continue on when we lose face. They provide the meaning in things to give us directive. The passion that direct us in conversation can lead us into ruin if misdirected or if we let them control us instead of controlling our passions. Calm is simply the result of that control. It is a result of properly directing our passions. MLK shows his calm and his passion in his speech.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you and Wonk are trying to say, or perhaps we have different definitions.

Grayman, I think tools are a good way to look at calm/passionate so I agree with you. What about my last part didn't fit? I'm truly interested...

 

[redbaron]

Huh? School me.

I was using your post to demonstrate the reason why you couldn't make this concept into a predictive model (as per Thurlor's last question). We are on the same page

 

[paradoxparadigm7]

I was using your post to demonstrate the reason why you couldn't make this concept into a predictive model (as per Thurlor's last question). We are on the same page

In the immortal words of Homer Simpson, Doh!

 

[Grayman]

Grayman, I think tools are a good way to look at calm/passionate so I agree with you. What about my last part didn't fit? I'm truly interested...

Passion directed appropriately can increase the correctness of your arguments and it can also decrease it depending on how it drives you to study and learn or how it directs you in what you concentrate on in a conversation. Calmness is the same. Calmly explaining something instead of allowing yourself to get irritated and saying something embellished is a simple example. Staying calm when your passions are invalidated by the other person so that you have time to question the value of their statement and respond appropriately is another important factor. These functions/feelings can affect your correctness. Although not directly related, they do have an effect on an everyday conversation. Retaining your calm when interacting with everyone in your normal everyday life is likely to yield more results in the direction or more wise and correct statements as apposed to emotional and reaction based statements. Calm is specifically important when facing someone overly passionate.

A cause and effect relation, is what they have to do with each other. These are only a few factors in what can affect your correctness, but they are factors.

 

[Hawkeye]

@ Hawkeye

There will always be exceptions to a rule.

And just as BAP pointed out, you seem to be discussing anger/emotion in regards to a debate/discussion method versus topic.

Isn't that what this thread is about?

The title is after all: Why is it that those who [method]remain calm[/method] during a conversation/debate are usually those whom [topic]are right/correct?[/topic]

You say 'raging' does not mean that one is wrong. Fair enough. But how would you explain that the vast majority of 'ragers' I have met are wrong or that those who are wrong are more likely to have engaged in 'raging' whilst debating/discussing?

It works both ways. It's equally as frustrating when the person you are debating with is narrow-minded, stubborn, arrogant, ignorant, etc... But more importantly, they are also completely wrong.

For example: I had a conversation with a Mormon once who said he could prove God existed. Intrigued, I asked him to prove it to which he replied "Wait and see". I tried to reason with the guy that this was not proof. He was having none of it, but not once did he raise his voice. He acted all calm and condescending because I simply didn't get it.

I got more irritated as the conversation went on whereas yet he didn't. I think the thing that annoyed me most was that he acknowledged what I was saying, but then his counter arguments completely ignored it.

------------------------------------------------------------

The more mature thing to do in a conversation is to maintain level-headedness. This is easier said than done when a topic you hold dear to your heart is being bastardised by some uncultured swine!

Like I said in my first post, it depends on the conversation/debate and the type of person.

There is no rule regarding emotional state and correct information. All you have is a subjective observation.

 

[Latte]

People who are more emotional in debates are usually the ones who are correct.

Just wait and see.

 

[Jennywocky]

There is no rule regarding emotional state and correct information. All you have is a subjective observation.

I posted this on a different forum a month or two ago:

Just because something is personal for someone doesn't mean that their arguments have no merit.

Just because someone is angry about something doesn't mean that they're in the wrong.

 

[OldCoyote]

I got more irritated as the conversation went on whereas yet he didn't. I think the thing that annoyed me most was that he acknowledged what I was saying, but then his counter arguments completely ignored it.

The Mormons are my Favorites, they always do the "yea....really.....interesting, but no".... I've noticed they tend to have a weird confidence, robotic even. Freaks me out, more so then the other Christian types anyway.

I usually end the conversations with: "If The Jews showed up at a Maya temple, the Mayans would have pulled out their beating hearts and danced naked in pools of Jewish blood"...

 

[Duxwing]

Analyzing and rebutting is easier when one is calm.

-Duxwing

 

[wonkavision]

MLK's "I have a dream" speech gives a good example. He was passionate and his argument was full of feeling along with good reason for his stance and plea for change.

EXACTLY.

Good example.