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

Nice

[fiat_knox]

Intriguing essays, to be sure.

However, I would cavil at citing the example statements given in the essay on disagreement; statements predicated on the viewpoint that, somehow, Intelligent Design carries scientific weight, such as:-

I can't believe the author dismisses intelligent design in such a
cavalier fashion. Intelligent design is a legitimate scientific theory.

I am more likely to look at a book promoting intelligent design or some such semantic shill game trickery and disagree with its flawed core premises with this statement:-

I can't believe the author dismisses evolution in such a
cavalier fashion. Evolution is a legitimate scientific theory.

and I would say so confidently, based on my current understanding that evolution through natural selection is a scientifically valid theory, based on the overwhelming amount of evidence uncovered to date.

Re: Nice

[matt_arnold]

The word "cavalierly" makes it a response to tone, not content. The use of the phrase "legitimate scientific theory" is about defending bruised dignity, not factuality. If it were about the evidences that show evolution to be a fact, it would cite them instead. That's why he included that quote as an example of what not to do. Your statement about evolution is making the same mistake.

[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.

How To Fight

[anonymous]

Michael Crichton wrote a similar article, on fighting (arguing) within a romantic relationship:
http://www.michaelcrichton.net/essay-playboy-howtofight.html

[jer_]

I like it. I suffer from snap-judgement syndrome, though. I make a decision fairly early in the conversation as to whether or not another person in the discussion is interested in "discussion" or in "fighting", and that is the filter through which the remainder of my communication on that topic is run. It's a flaw, I'm sure. It's probably even one I should fix.

Hrmm...things to ponder.