New Essay on The Zompist: 'On Arguing'

[matt_arnold]

Is there a lull in flamewars, or am I just not on the right forums anymore? Summer time, and the living is easy. So I choose now to post this. There's very little point in pointing out essays like this to anyone who is currently hunkered down in a fortress of defensiveness. They'd just feel you're making up rules to impose; and will promptly ask

Comments

[atdt1991]

Funny you mention this, we seem to be on the same wavelength today.

[atdt1991]

"People hate non-recognition more than they object to disagreement. They want to feel that their point is understood and acknowledged. "

I like and believe in that statement pretty strongly. When I think of people whose disagreements turn into bitter arguing, it is from those who don't allow for that.

[atdt1991]

BTW, my favorite part is this:

Wearing either hat, I think it’d be pathetic to blame users or readers for having difficulty with my work. It’s my job to make myself understood.

Instead of whining about “misreading”, take responsibility for your words. You were unclear.

[jer_]

That is not always the case. Sometimes it quite simply *IS* the fault of the reader. Readers bring their own mindset to the conversation, so their comprehension can skew even the most impeccably crafted sentence. I can think of dozens of online discussions that I have read or been a part of in which one party has clearly not read the stuff that the other party has written.

That said, *MOST* of the time, the author failed to make him or her self clear. That does not mean that all communications faults are caused by unclear message...sometimes the receiver needs work.

[atdt1991]

I would definitely agree that it is not always the case. If you have restated your idea twenty different ways and someone still does not understand the idea itself (regardless of whether they agree with it or not), the problem may exist elsewhere.

As a rule (subject to any of those generalization problems), though, I think it is fair to say that step one is to presume initially (for the benefit of the conversation, if not for utter honesty) that the problem is on your end.

Looking back on what I just wrote, I wonder why people say I'm too verbose ...

[jer_]

Lol. Rephrased as such, I agree entirely. The first step shouldn't be "you are dense" or "you don't get it" but "hrmm, let me rephrase".

I would say I do that about half the time. Unfortunately, the other half of the time, I let loose with invective that would sour milk.

[matt_arnold]

Yeah. There is weight to be pulled by both speaker and listener. Either one of them can unfairly carry all of it. When the only way to continue is to carry a disproportionate amount of the weight as an interpreter or clarifier, I ask myself how much I care about the outcome. Possibly I can carry on as if the entire section of the conversation is a wash

[atdt1991]

Meh. People give so little effort to understanding that when you are misunderstood the best response may be to forget about it

[atdt1991]

I have seen people say that, yes. It's even come out of my own fingers. *grin*

I suppose I have more patience in those circumstances. I care more about being clearly understood, when possible, than in agreement. I'm pretty cool with having an argument where I don't expect to change minds, but perhaps that's because I enjoy debate more than the average person.

[jer_]

Have you ever seen an internet argument end with, "Oh, I guess you're right!"?
No, but I've seen several that ended with "I stand corrected" or some version of "you make a good point, but I still disagree"

[matt_arnold]

What? I don't understand you. I wasn't listening.