posted on October 14, 2001 06:50:53 PM new
While reading threads in the Round Table - particularly political threads - I sometimes alternate between LMAO and getting POed. I love to argue. In fact today my husband and I played devil's advocate as we listened to the news. Then we argued over whether there was a difference between debating and arguing.He said that I needed to learn to debate, not argue. I told him there wasn't much difference in my opinion - just because I become excited about a subject doesn't mean that there's a difference. He's a bit of a peacekeeper and has been paid well for his negotiating skills over the years. On the other hand, as a free-lance writer, I've wheedled a lot of information out of people by arguing the other side of an issue (as well as by listening). Okay, this is a roundabout way of asking:
Why do people get upset when the other side of an argument is presented?
Why do people assume that the arguer holds the presented position personally?
Why are some people angered at the messenger rather than the message?
My mother said I drove her crazy with my questions, but for many of us, it's fun. I know just as many people who resist arguing at all costs. I guess I'd like to understand why. And by the way, I'm not talking about insults or slugfests, just verbal sparring involving differences of opinion..
posted on October 14, 2001 07:01:42 PM new
Why do people get upset when the other side of an argument is presented?
Why do people assume that the arguer holds the presented position personally?
Why are some people angered at the messenger rather than the message?
Because their thinking is the RIGHT thinking and everyone else is wrong?
posted on October 14, 2001 07:28:35 PM new
Sometimes I think people get very insecure if someone argues the other side because they let it become part of their value. In other words if they're proved "wrong," they've diminished in their own eyes.
I get upset sometimes when someone I know is basically a kind person believes in something that has an underlying hatefulness to it. Rationally, I know we're all a product of how we process the information we receive, but it can still get to me.
posted on October 14, 2001 07:32:57 PM new
A little of both saabsister. I dont really have an answer that will encompass it all. Maybe it depends on who the person is that is doing the arguing? Or the mood of the people who are reading it? Or the convictions of those who are doing the posting? Killing the messenger has been the norm for centuries. Thats why messengers didnt like being the one to deliver news, especially if it was bad news, lol.
posted on October 14, 2001 07:48:24 PM new
When I wrote for a newspaper, I always tried to do it objectively. I found that if I covered a certain subject often, I had a regular list of people to contact and I could always count on someone volunteering info. The volunteers usually had an agenda and I'd have to ask a lot of questions to ferret it out. I never pi$$ed anyone off during an interview, but often someone was surprised to read the resulting article. I was always amazed at the number of people who failed to see both sides of an issue. Can you imagine a lawyer who fails to anticipate what the opponent will bring into the courtroom?
Sadie, I often debate whether to try to "enlighten" people like the one you described, but lately I've gotten lazy and let those types of comments slide by unchallenged. I'm not sure that's a good thing.
posted on October 14, 2001 08:14:10 PM new
Saabsister, I can only echo what others have already alluded to in answer to your questions. People -- especially on chatboards, where what we say is perceived to be who we are -- think they are their point of view. Even if a poster starts a thread that is nothing more than a link to what someone else wrote, he or she gets miffed if responses to the thread question or attack the veracity of the linked commentary. It's a fascinating phenomenon (to me) and one that goes a long way toward proving that we use these chat forums as popularity contests...
posted on October 14, 2001 08:22:34 PM new
My guess would be that people who can't argue/debate/discuss rationally are people who are insecure in their opinions.
I totally agree with Plsmith's comment. People are so tied up in their online personas that a disagreement is perceived as a personal attack.
posted on October 14, 2001 08:30:47 PM new
These are tough questions. I'll take a shot at it, but I don't have satisfactory answers. The easiest first -
"Why do people assume that the arguer holds the presented position personally?"
Unless a person distances himself, from the beginning, from the position he puts forth, I assume it's his.
It's like this - Unless I have a reason to believe otherwise, I assume a person is telling the truth. We all operate on that basis, even though we don't realize it. If I ask you what time it is, barring any evidence to the contrary, I'm not going to factor into your response the probability of whether you're telling the truth or not. Without thinking, I'll assume you are. It's automatic.
When a person puts forth a position, what the "truth" of that position is, I can judge for myself, comparing the position to my own set of facts and experiences.
But, since I have no way of judging whether or not the person putting forth the opinion actually holds it, I assume, unless he affirmatively distances himself from it, that he's "telling the truth" to the extent that he believes what he's saying. After that point, I can judge for myself. Before that point, I assume he's telling the truth. (I'm not sure if that makes sense)
"Why do people get upset when the other side of an argument is presented?"
I don't know. I know I do, sometimes. We naturally like to interact with people who agree with us - who wants to be around disagreeable people? But, on the other hand, I do like to see, or have, arguments.
But some people, or maybe all people at some times, get way too incensed when faced with differing opinions. When we post here, there are always some posters who get on our nerves, so it's easy to get mad at them when they come out with yet another differing opinon. This isn't so much a case of anger at another opinion, but more a case of - geez, there's that jerk again, I hate that guy.
So I think you're really asking about something else, the kind of anger that's not tied to a particular person, but is impersonal, like the rage that made NYC construction workers beat peace marchers who unintentionally crossed their path way back when I was younger, or the kind of feeling that makes someone say - I see red when I hear someone say (differing viewpoint here). And I don't have an answer for that.
"Why are some people angered at the messenger rather than the message?"
I think that goes back to the first question - We automatically assume a person is telling the truth, insofar as the truth being that he believe what he says. So if what he says enrages us, like the peace marchers' message enraged the construction workers, then the person enrages us. But sometimes, it might just be that, like we say in my family "I hated him from another movie," and then, everytime he shows up on the screen, no matter what role he's playing or what he's saying, we go - "Geez, there's that jerk again, I hate that guy."
posted on October 14, 2001 08:53:22 PM new
Thanks Donny, and whether you realize it or not you've taken the long way to saying the same thing in all instances, which is "Geez, there's that jerk again, I hate that guy.", and I agree with you.
But you, of all people, must also know that there are many people who are so like wind-up talking dolls that no matter what is placed before them, or who pulls the little string at the back of their neck, the response will be one of the same few that are preprogrammed into the chatmaking mechanism.
I'm sure that you know this because I've seen you use the string.
posted on October 14, 2001 09:18:04 PM new
"Thanks Donny, and whether you realize it or not you've taken the long way to saying the same thing in all instances, which is "Geez, there's that jerk again, I hate that guy.", and I agree with you."
I do realize it. And, just to show how clearly I realize it, the original line was going to be "Geez, there's that blowhard again, I hate that guy." but I changed it because I resemble that remark.
"I'm sure that you know this because I've seen you use the string."
Well, I don't know about that. It's not that I don't like to see people jump through hoops, and get satisfaction from knowing I was right in my assessment when they perform as I'd predict, but I'd say I'm generally too lazy to hold up the hoop myself. It'd be easier for me to agree that you've heard my pre-programmed chat. I have an ideological bent, like everyone else, so naturally I tend to listen to and read things that I find sensible, (read - agree with my position), more than I read things I find less sensible. There are always "talking points," and we absorb them and spread them.
But, like a premium brand of paper towel compared to a cheapo brand, some people are more absorbent than others. It does make me feel frustrated, and more than a little depressed, to find that people have picked up and are spreading around something that they should be able to realize doesn't have a good basis. Oddly, this is especially true when when it's a faulty "talking point" that's been spread around by the side of a position I agree with.
posted on October 15, 2001 05:54:16 AM new
Thanks for your replies. But then again, I figured you folks would reply because I've observed that you like to argue a point.
Whenever I've taken the Myers-Briggs test, I've scored low in feeling. Logical arguments appeal to me and emotional ones don't. (Come on, RAEMOND, let's argue about the validity of Myers-Briggs!) I'd like to hear some answers from those so easily upset by hearing the opposing viewpoint.
Donny, yup, I too think "Geez, there's that jerk again..." when I hear some comments. I guess I don't get wrapped up in the persona of saabsister because I post on this board only and generally don't get involved in the personal stuff.
posted on October 15, 2001 06:19:36 AM newWhy do people get upset when the other side of an argument is presented?
I suppose there are varied reasons for this. Sometimes the other side is presented with such malice and condescension that is provokes the reader. Sometimes people just don’t like opposing views, no matter how well they are presented. And, it is difficult in this type of forum to decide if the poster is being nasty, or just not thinking about how their words will “sound” in the brain of the reader. Sometimes their view is presented in such a way that you just know they believe themselves to be so much more enlightened than the rest because of their “advanced” opinions.
Why do people assume that the arguer holds the presented position personally?
If the person posts the comments, and doesn’t give a disclaimer or point out that they do not hold that view, what else is the reader supposed to think? Are we totally wrong to think or assume that if someone takes the time to post, that what he or she post is coming from his or her opinion? It’s not really fair play to post something, then get your shorts in a twist because other readers believe your post to actually be your opinion. If it’s not necessarily your view, then say that. When you don’t, it’s like a boobie trap.
Why are some people angered at the messenger rather than the message?
Human nature?
Normally it is the people who are the rudest and most condescending that roar the loudest when someone calls them on it, or gets a good joke off at their expense. Well, they either roar or just get real quiet.
posted on October 15, 2001 06:27:22 AM new
If you look in a dictionary, there's not much apparent difference between "debate" and "argue". In most cases, the terms are interchangeable.
In common usage, though [especially when applied to chatroom situations such as this], I think "argue" connotes a debate with an emotional context [especially anger]. Your typical argument is characterized by snide remarks and personal attacks, while your typical debate actually focuses on the issues being discussed. A debate is usually backed up by facts and logic, whereas an argument often devolves to simple name calling.
When I'm debating a topic, I don't mind when the other side is presented, since it's hard to have a debate when everybody has the same opinion. I do often get upset when the other side of an argument is presented, however, since that side is usually presented with the aforementioned snide remarks and personal attacks. And, to be honest, even in debate I tend to get frustrated when the other side seems incapable of grasping elementary logic ["if you say white is white, you REALLY mean that white is black"] or is too close-minded to acknowledge the POSSIBILITY that the other side might have some merit to it ["I know the earth is flat, since that how it looks to me, and nothing you say will convince me otherwise. End of debate!"]
I assume the person arguing a point of view shares that point of view, simply because it is human nature to argue for what you believe in. Unless somebody says up front "I'm playing devil's advocate", I think it's perfectly valid to assume that they mean what they are saying. Unless, of course, the person in question is known to be an Evil Clown....
As for getting angered at the messenger instead of the message, I think it often has to do with the way the message is presented. Take religion, for example. I don't have a problem if somebody says "I believe that God exists and here are the reasons why", even if i don't share that belief. But that's different than saying "since you don't believe in God the same way that I do, you're an evil person and will burn in Hell."
I love to debate, but am not fond of mindless arguing.
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on October 15, 2001 06:38:21 AM newYour typical argument is characterized by snide remarks and personal attacks, while your typical debate actually focuses on the issues being discussed.
Now that you have argued your position in your post above, perhaps now you can present the same idea in debate form?
posted on October 15, 2001 06:49:32 AM new
Barry, I agree with what you've said. I suppose what surprises me the most are the attacks people launch merely because a question is posed. Often, I'll pose questions that may not parallel what I believe personally just to get other's opinions or to discern whether they've considered another angle. Generally, I lean to the left of center and I've stated that occasionally. I don't go out of my way to deceive.
Meya, although you and Linda_K hold different opinions from me on a variety of political issues, I've enjoyed your posts and have to say that folks like you made me decide to join AW - mainly because you two weren't afraid of stating differing opinions.
[ edited by saabsister on Oct 15, 2001 06:53 AM ]
posted on October 15, 2001 07:31:24 AM newI suppose what surprises me the most are the attacks people launch merely because a question is posed
Well, some people argue/debate because they feel strongly about a point. Others do so for the sheer fun of debating/arguing. Still others, however, do so solely to be disagreeable [perhaps they don't like the poster, or perhaps they take perverse joy in making other people look bad]. And in that latter case, it really has nothing to do with the question being posed itself.
I suppose there may be a fourth class of "debaters" -- those who don't have anything useful to contribute and therefore simply make snide remarks as a way of trying to make themselves look intelligent or knowledgeable. These people rarely, if ever, actually engage in a "debate" -- they just love to make deprecating comments without bothering to back up their remarks with any sort of counterargument. I suppose this is really just a subcategory of the last one I mentioned above [those who argue just to be disagreeable], except what they do can't really be called "argument" or "debate".
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
[spelling....]
[ edited by godzillatemple on Oct 15, 2001 07:33 AM ]
posted on October 15, 2001 07:49:28 AM new
"Your typical argument is characterized by snide remarks and personal attacks, while your typical debate actually focuses on the issues being discussed."
To my way of thinking, the difference between a debate and an argument is that a debate is an artificial construct. You take, or are assigned, a position first, and then gather together a set of facts and opinions to support it. It's not that a typical argument is characterized by snide remarks and personal attacks (Barry's been hanging around here too long), it's that a debate isn't, because built into the debate equation is the understanding that the position put forth isn't contingent on whether or not the debater actually holds the opinions.
With an argument, you've arrived at your position through a previous assessment of a set of facts and opinions, then you sally forth.
Sometimes, what we call "debates," are really "arguments" in a formal setting. And sometimes an "argument" is really a "debate" in an informal setting.
( Edited from: "Sometimes, what we call "debates," are really "arguments" in a formal setting. And vice-versa." )
[ edited by donny on Oct 15, 2001 07:53 AM ]
posted on October 15, 2001 07:50:25 AM new
I think that you can disallow that 'fourth class', Barry, at least here, if you consider that it would most often be made up of a subset who come here mainly because the protective environment keeps others from calling their idiocy to task. In fact many have found survival impossible in freer forum already and have come here because it's one of very few places in which there is a figurative mommy to call.
posted on October 15, 2001 08:07:00 AM new
Hidden insults are just another attempt at being "clever". The poster imagines themselves to be constructing amazing witty remarks, and he/she also imagines the targets of said hidden insults cower and "call for mommy" when they realize the insults are aimed at them.
Say what you mean, and mean what you say. Why hide?
I like the way Donny put it too. I wish I could articulate my thoughts that well. Even when I don't happen to agree with a post, I do appreciate well written ones.
posted on October 15, 2001 08:22:20 AM new
krs calling donny "apple" as in??? One bad apple spoils the barrel, an apple a day keeps the Dr. away, if life hands you an apple make sauce?
I don't get it and anything krs posts without a link is suspect!!
