Discussions / Arguments?

Post Reply New Topic

I don't know if this belongs here, but I thought this may be the most relevant place to post it;

I have a friend who frequently gets angered at me - I recently enquired to see why this may be (it was apparently different reasons every time, so I wondered if there was a related cause for all of them), and was told that 'I over-analyse things/go too much into things' and that I am supposedly getting into arguments with the person a lot due to this.

Firstly, I can't see what the problem is with analysing things - though today my friend was angered merely by me saying that a statement (that they'd said) was incorrect and went into explaining how it was logically incorrect. I wouldn't classify this as analysis but merely correcting and explaining their mistake, though even still the person was angered by me explaining anything even to the smallest degree; they appeared to be angered more by me attempting to explain (and they wouldn't listen or accept what I was saying) rather than being angered by merely not wishing to be wrong.

Secondly, I have noted that what they believe is a hostile argument, I usually perceive as merely a non-hostile debate - I've had to specifically say to them that I dislike hostilities and that I generally wouldn't attempt to argue with someone, and that I wouldn't view correcting or giving another opinion on something as arguing.

Is there a distinction between arguing and debating?
Why would the person not be able to view opposing opinions as non-hostile discussion as opposed to hostility?
..And why would someone be angered by me attempting to explain or analyse something?! o.O

I was just wondering what some of your views were on this topic...
(I apologise if there's already been some expansive thread on this subject but I could not find it if there is)

Actually, I think the person knew he/she was wrong and tried to deflect their embarrassment by turning it into your problem.



Simply put, many people don't like to admit that they COULD be wrong about something.

There should be a distinction between arguing and debating, but some people let themselves get far too emotional when defending an idea, belief or what have you. My bf found that out when he tried to debate religion with a few people on another discussion board--all he got in return were Bible quotes and a bunch of statements that basically amounted to "I'm right, you're wrong, and anyone who disagrees with me is going to hell."

People get angered by your attempting to explain/analyze because they may not want to take the time to listen, may not want to HEAR an opposing point of view because it might actually make sense (and therefore call their viewpoints into question, leading to a nasty little condition called cognitive dissonance) or some combination of these.

This is why what should be intellectual debate often escalates/degenerates into hostile arguing. People assume you are attacking them personally rather than disagreeing with their ideas. It's far too easy to blur the line between the two.

If this person doesn't like when you "over-analyze," as he/she puts it, then don't have those kinds of discussions with him/her. Find some other people you can have such discussions with.

Some may even be right here on this board.

Thanks for taking the time to answer,
what you've said sounds like a credible reason. ^^

[quote="Sol-IV"Is there a distinction between arguing and debating?
Why would the person not be able to view opposing opinions as non-hostile discussion as opposed to hostility?
..And why would someone be angered by me attempting to explain or analyse something?! o.O
I was just wondering what some of your views were on this topic...
(I apologise if there's already been some expansive thread on this subject but I could not find it if there is)[/quote]

A debate involves the mutual perception of both parties that each party will present their opinion and facts supporting it with the understanding that neither side is waging a personal attack on the other, and with each side being receptive to learn from the other and open to conceding their original point.

An argument is usually where both sides are mutually adamant about their position and unreceptive to input from the opposing side, or where one party views the contributions from the other as a personal attack and who's goal becomes defending themselves, or their position from hostility.

Or something like that.

Personally I don't see anything wrong with correcting inaccuracies as long as it is done in a non-condescending way.

Even so, some people are just incredibly sensitive to this kind of thing. I have a friend who seemed to be under the impression that I thought he was stupid and that I knew everything.
We have different areas of interest, where mine is more scientific and widespread and his is more oriented in pop culture and more focused.

What is really is though, is he just has low self esteem. He undervalues the knowledge he has and has a low opinion of the venues through which he learns it. He also does not come from a family which engages regularly in discussion, whereas in my family, discussion has always been very common place and is generally how we communicate.

I tried to get a direct answer from my friend on this but as usually, he was quite vague, unable, or unwilling to give me an example of when I have acted in a way which makes him feel like I know everything and thinks he is stupid, and very promptly used his change the subject and laugh technique to evade the situation even though I presented it in the least hostile manner possible.