7 ways to argue

[binary suns]

http://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/how-to-disagree-well-7-of-the-best-and-worst-ways-to-argue

 

 

 

[Yep, me]

The top three are the ones to use.

[Epitaph]

I seem to drift depending on who I'm responding to. Then again I'm not the best arguer either. Should probably add an eighth option at the bottom of the triangle (opts out of argument in self realization that the argument ultimately amounts to nothing)

[Pramana]

They should add "smug condescension", the passive-aggressive approach that people adopt on forums like AVEN where name-calling is prohibited by a Terms of Service.

[apatrickwsu]

1 hour ago, Pramana said:

They should add "smug condescension", the passive-aggressive approach that people adopt on forums like AVEN where name-calling is prohibited by a Terms of Service.

Responding to tone in a nutshell. The thing is that using bad arguments doesn't say anything about if you are right or wrong. There is someone arguing badly and someone who at least seems to be arguing well on just about every issue. Someone's well-made argument should persuade you to look into the details more, not to accept what they say on its face. And while I joked about Pranama's post I should also say they often bring a lot of info and research to a number of topics, whether you agree with them or not.

[Skycaptain]

There is an eighth way, the dogmatic "I am always right even when I'm wrong approach" 

 

My opinion is that, in science it's easier to refute a point with evidence to support your counterpoint than in say politics or sociology as a couple of examples 

[binary suns]

I contradict and respond to tone too often. 

[Yatogami]

...tone doesn't exist online. Why do people respond to a non-existant thing? Get it together!

[Nevyn]

Tone absolutely exists online. It happens on AVEN all the time. Someone will start a controversial conversation and the tone will quickly be set by how much people dislike the topic. So much so that it can be hard to get any counter-points across through all the mockery and echo-chambering.

[gisiebob]

awe, I was hoping for like "Eight different styles of constructive arguments"

 

oh, and I would like to point out that "responding to tone" or whathave you isn't 'wrong', tone says a lot, like what your motivation and intent are and how you feel about a subjuct. for example, I am totes arguing tone in this thread: https//www.asexuality.org/en/topic/169075-i’m-tired-of-talk-and-no-action-asexuality-should-be-a-complete-devoted-lifestyle/

however, the important takeaway is that just because there is a disagreement over tone, doesn't mean that there is a disagreement over the subject. this is especially important to remember when it's your own tone that is being disputed.

 

also: there is very much tone here on the intertubes. the pitfall is, sometimes that tone is invisible.

[FaerieFate]

I'm going to steal these resources for a PPS project I'm working on

[Karret]

I do like... all of those, both the good and bad. Ad hominem I do my absolute best to avoid, though, but yeah, my arguments are like a mish mash of it all.

The name-calling, in some spaces, I see more as like... whooping your ass with genuine points while speaking your language. Sometimes I'll be the one starting off with that shit, but if the other person doesn't descend into that, I end up knocking it off.

 

[Epitaph]

On 3/21/2018 at 1:38 PM, Malum said:

...tone doesn't exist online. Why do people respond to a non-existant thing? Get it together!

I dunno if you framed that with a sense of humor in mind, but I smell tone in that.

 

It's definitely there in some cases. It's usually much easier to pick out when a discussion becomes heated or somebody's got some fire in them. It's even worse if you know anything about psychology. Having any kind of insight into the writers mind based off what they type creates some easy to spot instances where you can see the mental processes of the writer and therefore the emotions behind them. But as some others have said, sometimes it's just not there either.

[binary suns]

On 3/21/2018 at 3:38 PM, Malum said:

...tone doesn't exist online. Why do people respond to a non-existant thing? Get it together!

Tone is not only the literal tone of the sound, but it is the emotion in the speaker that is associated with it, as well as the logical/strategic attitude that results from that emotion which affects the word choice, stance, grammar, and whether or not different thoughts are spoken literally, spoken with modified negotiation to adjust away from undesired ways of opinion, or not spoken. And, tone is also the impression of it in the listener. 

 

 

Tone exists when humans speak, whether or not that speaking is audible or not. 

 

Our brains are strong pattern recognizes, and so will still be able to sense, process, and respond to tone in text-based media even tho voice is missing.... especially if the reader’s mind would then create voice within the mind to replace what was lost. 

 

However, voice, body language, and facial emotion are all truly a very significant contributor to tone! Without  them, the precision of reading tone become very poor. The brain will extrapolate what it anticipates the tone is, but since the most obvious markers it uses when reading in-person are completely lacking, it is fumbling around in the dark, and will easily misread tone. 

 

We even misread tone in person too, or over-analyze it... so it only gets to be more intrusive in text-based discussions! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

... ever since I left college, and my ex tried to stay friends long distance; and this meant body language and vocal tone was lost — which I relied on to read her emotional affect, and she needed to receive communication from me; which all resulted in constant miscommunication and fighting despite the fact that we connected well in person — I realized how much tone is a critical part of communication; and in losing the biggest factor that it’s communicated via (in voice and body language and face expression), tone’s meaning becomes very crucial to online communication. 

 

 

At least in handwriting, tone can be found in the strokes of calligraphy! 

 

 

But I’ve been passively working on tone ever since 8 years ago: on noticing it, identifying it, and communicating it; and I’ve noriced marked improvement in that aspect of my online communication during that time. 

 

However, I have not been very able to check if the tone I read is accurate to what people think, and so even now I need to be very cautious with how I interpret tone into anyone’s communicated thoughts. 

 

 

It can be helpful to purposefully ignore reading tone in text conversation, however I would encourage to anyone to reread their own words before posting, to check their own tone. 

 

 

 

 

I apologize for the abuse of sentence structure in this post.....  

[Yatogami]

I more or less hate the idea of "tone" because I am incapable of figuring out how I feel about anything most of the time (I have alexthymia). So when people tell me what I am conveying with my words, I get irritaited because its wrong. Emotion is generally not the first thing I try to convey, no matter how heated a topic is. Because to me, I am conveyinh very flat and unemotional statements and opinions.

 

I see what you mean about syntax and grammar varying by one's emotional state. I guess that is a way to tell tone.

 

I would say people who assume negative toneof people they disagree with, are numerous.

[paperbackreader]

I guess it's a pyramid of arguing courteously rather than successfully? 

 

1 Be mindful of biases 

 

2 Especially your own 

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/07/03/upshot/a-quick-puzzle-to-test-your-problem-solving.html

 

3 Remind yourself we are all human and it's not a competition 

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/believe

 

4... and finally if you'd like to learn more about how people argue and persuade successfully, read this book 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/books/2008/feb/03/referenceandlanguages.features 

 

Personally, I don't look at many things as arguments, rather discussions to map the ground we are on. It's as important to find common ground as it is to find differences in opinion. 

[Karret]

@paperbackreader that was a really interesting puzzle! C: 

About your argument/discussion thing, I suspect some people see arguments more as formulations for explaining X or Y idea, and having accompanying evidence to help show why the person got to thinking of X or Y idea in the first place. I think arguments are a component of discussions, not simply heated discussions themselves. I think that's a similar, but separate, definition of an argument, and I think some people might mix those definitions up without realizing it.

[StormySky]

The halo floating above it all: taking it all with a grain of salt. You are choosing to spend your moments arguing on the internet and getting too worked up about it kind of defeats the point of this being a thing you choose to do.

[Duke Memphis]

I read the second-lowest level as "add hominy". I hate hominy.