Arguing with Aspies

Post Reply New Topic

See, I'm actually addressing a different crowd entirely, Aspies who understand logic and rhetoric and the theory behind them and take a technical approach to arguments regardless of the subject. To use myself as an example, I can debate guns very effectively because I know a lot about them, possibly the most on the board, but I don't need that knowledge to do so because I also know a lot about debating. I very seldom use stats or other measurements that can be manipulated in my arguments anymore because I don't like endless arguing over their validity, I prefer to advance a position and attack those opposing it using logic alone. Again though, I don't argue to convince opponents and I don't argue to the crowd, I argue for my own enjoyment.

It's because people imagine that more is riding on the debates than actually is, and turn to whatever tactics they think are "necessary" to "win". It's not entirely irrational though, there are people in PPR who are consistently dishonest, trollish, agenda-driven, etc, and it sometimes becomes necessary to point that out. I think what you're talking about is an arguing tactic that I dubbed "Bismark's Cigar" after the German statesman's habit of smoking a large cigar during diplomatic negotiations in order to irritate concessions out of tobacco averse opponents; trying to throw someone off their game by annoying them. I think it's just part of the game when it comes to internet debate, I've yet to see the forum where it's not commonly encountered. Personally I try and go tit-for-tat with it, though I like to think I can usually hit back harder than the instigator was expecting.

Yep, that's what I was referring to when mentioning there are times to take the gauntlets off and put the kid gloves on. There's a fine line to walk there, between being patronizing (because you're treating someone too gently, as if they were an inferior) and being an intellectual bully, clobbering a more sensitive person. It's all fun and games til someone gets hurt (a little agitation is kinda fun though )

Might be fun to have a debate sometime, though these days I've sort of retired from political debate and I think we're probably diametrically opposed there (I'm more of a sniper than a general lately, when it comes to politics). But I'll look out for you on more trivial topics.

I like to snipe in the Adult section; they aren't used to me there and seldom see it coming...

The problem with arguing is the people doing it hardly ever change their minds so what's the point? The arguing is more about the emotions behind the words than the actual concepts. People feel like they have to force their words on others and make them say the same words. It's a way to express dominance without actually kicking someone's ass.

Not true. I have learned quite a bit from debating with people. If you're expecting someone to completely roll over and adopt your entire worldview, yeah, don't hold your breath - that's an unreasonable expectation. But that's not to say that people don't change their minds about small points all the time. Those add up, you know.

If individuals are in a pliable state of mind, they wouldn't be arguing in the first place. The whole point of arguing is to get someone else to change their point of view, so two people are going to clash when they argue until they give up, realizing it's pointless. Usually one of them says, online, they will no longer respond to whomever it is they argue with. That's basically saying they know their opponent isn't going to change so why bother?
Now I am getting swept up in arguing :S
How much you want to bet neither one of us will change our minds?
When people argue, it can be argued they are in the rigid/black and white thinking pattern.

I've changed people's minds in online arguments. Others have changed my mind. It does happen and is definitely not impossible.

Also, sometimes it doesn't matter whether the person you're arguing with agrees with you so much as making a point so that when others read the argument they can see that point.

I don't expect to win money when I buy a lotto ticket, but I enjoy daydreaming about what I'd do with the money if I did. Arguing is a social interaction, an intellectual exercise, a game and a challenge, probably a few other things too all independent of whether anyone is persuaded of anything. Sure, persuading someone to change their mind can be a bonus, but it doesn't have to be the whole point, and IMHO it generally shouldn't be, especially over the net.

Not for me ... it's just a sport or game, like playing chess. That anyone happens to learn anything, that it helps me to develop more reasonable points of view, is a bonus.



To me this just means one of us have failed to have good sportsmanship. Maybe I'm being exasperating and not playing fair, or maybe they're flipping the chess board over in frustration because they were losing.



Well, I don't know. I quite enjoy arguing my way - you seem to be claiming your way is thoroughly unenjoyable. So I can't see any good reason to do it your way. If you came up with a very convincing argument for your approach, I might try it. But at the moment, given the nature of your position, this doesn't seem terribly likely.

Normally I would say I have a chance of convincing you, but since the nature of your position is that you cannot be convinced ever, and you say you never abandon a position, I guess that would be impossible. But I still enjoy playing the game.

If the weaker position is rigid, then it's true there can be no alteration. The stronger position could be fluid, but since it's stronger, it won't change either - but not for lack of flexibility. Most people who are flexible will tend to have the stronger position, for the simple reason that, their positions will have been developed and honed through many debates to withstand criticism. Those positions are the product of a dynamic, evolutionary process that is simply unavailable to more rigid debaters.

This is probably why you don't see positions changing more often. Those with the flexible style tend to have the stronger position, so they rarely have cause to change, those with rigid positions cannot change even with cause. It's only when 2 dynamic positions do battle that we get into, well, maneuver warfare I like to call it. Where positions are re-adapted and upgraded on the fly, sectors and even whole frontlines are abandoned for more defensible positions, ground is exchanged, etc

Usually the problems happen when the argument comes down to a disagreement on opinions of how things "should" be, rather than a purely logical or factual disagreement. At that point I don't see the point in continuing to try and "convince" someone. If I want to have an intellectual debate I'd rather discuss something non-contentious like science or mathematics. The problem is political discussions have a moral dimension that's impossible to just leave on the sidelines. What is "right" depends on what someone values.

Emotions are at the heart of any and all political debates.

You can say, "Noooooo...all of my political opinions are based on evidence and logic!"

I call bullplop. Politics is nothing more than a bunch of monkeys arguing over who gets the best position at the waterhole. That's it.

Which monkeys you think should get the best position at the waterhole will be based on personal preference, experience, and how you were raised. You'll choose to ignore evidence that contradicts your biases, and instead accuse others of having biases.

I'll "debate" occasionally, but I never think of it as anything other than a silly hobby.

I don't think that's always the case. A lot of people argue just to blow off steam. Hyperbole and straw-man attacks are more often constructed for self-amusement. Usually the only purpose they serve is to get a chuckle out of people who already happen to agree. Sometimes it seems like the only goal is to piss off your opponent by making a cartoon out of them.

Oh, and saying that we should only debate if we want to change someone's mind is like saying you should only fence if you can kill the other person you're fencing with.

i agree. on WP i usually argue as a way to express my ideas for third parties (i.e. other members) to make a decision about a topic. i don't aim to convince my opponents.

I don't think arguing is always about getting someone to change their opinion, but rather agree with you. For me arguing is short term stimulation and nothing more. I can get so worked up and absorbed into a discussion and then suddenly find no interest in it, and wondered why I wasted all that time in the first place.

When I detect a person becoming emotional over an issue I either try to point out how counter productive it is, or if I'm not in the best control of my own emotions I'd tell them to stop being so over emotional, because you know...that whole intense world syndrome thing. Even when I read a post it has emotion attached to it.

I'm not sure if I understood all the points in the original post but when I come into an argument it's more about bringing to the discussion one or even two things both sides have overlooked. It's both a blessing and a curse, because sometimes I just never agree. Bit annoying really.

Yes, politics is all about emotions. I was surprised when my PM went back to the old rhetoric of attacking the opposition. For generations it's been the same argument. One party for the rich, the other for the working families. Neither is actually for the working families.