An Argument vs. A Discussion...

[maxpower]

Great Python bit, Prospero.

[trish]

Arguments have gotten a bad rap. Mathematicians give arguments all the time to establish one proposition or another, and they very rarely raise any tempers. Same thing goes on in many other areas of discourse as well.

If two people disagree there is nothing wrong in presenting arguments and counter-arguments to describe, press and defend their positions. In fact this is what I think people ought to do to mutually explore difficult issues. Good arguments move rational listeners, not always, and certainly not always immediately. But sometimes I will find my own positions shifting weeks after I heard a good argument and had time to digest it.

Arguments go sour when they degenerate into name calling, ultimatums, misrepresentation and intellectual dishonesty. I don’t think it’s wrong to return fire when subjected to such behavior but not in kind; i.e. answer name calling with logic, lies with honesty, ultimatums with reason. I usually fail miserably at this myself.

[GroobyKrissy]

I disagree. I think people argue because it is human nature to devolve to our basest instincts whenever threatened. Few people can control that urge. It appears to be more prevalent now because we have technological tools that enable just about anyone who can pay for a cell phone or internet access to voice their 'opinion' in multiple places almost simultaneously to an audience numbering anywhere from 1 to millions. And EVERYONE wants to believe their thoughts are more important and valid than the next person.

You seem to be inferring that there were good old days where people were more polite, educated, and industrious. This is false. More people now have formal education but the basic tenets of old school education based on classical Roman or Greek methods are being replaced by more touchy/feely, nobody-is-ever-wrong, accept everyone, validate every opinion no matter how invalid, live for the moment idealogy. Is it good? Is it bad? No matter,,,,it just is.

I disagree. I think there were times when you could engage in a discussion with people and they were MUCH MORE willing to listen and understand your point of view... especially in a written format. And it is almost incredible to believe that we're a more "polite" society than we used to be.

I type long entries... I know that I do this and people tell me about it all the time. Take an entry of mine though and READ IT ALOUD. I should take you all of 20-30 seconds. So basically we are to the point where we cannot abide to read something that cannot be digested in one or two lines, yet we carry on conversations with people where one party will talk for 2-3 minutes. That is lazy at best.

Having a discussion has little to do with being polite, educated, or industrious. It has everything to do with being willing to take the time to understand what the other person is saying and refute it directly. Then having the other person take your points and refute them directly.

Impolite people can have discussions. Uneducated people can have discussions. Lazy people can have discussions. We're now people though, who don't have the time, capacity, or willingness to have a discussion in a written format.

And, while we're on the subject of being polite... when was the last time you heard these words...?

"Oh... good point! I hadn't thought about it that way."
"You know what... you're right. I have to rethink this a bit and flesh out my thought process."
"I'm sorry I said that."

[bte]

Why do you think that is?

Personally, I think it is because we expect people to say things in 140 characters or less, and most things just can't be discussed in that short of a span thoroughly.

Also, we've become a society that lacks critical thinking skills or the attention spans to read, partially because we're just so damn busy and partially because we have just become lazy.

I think its because we expect people to believe in what we believe when there is a discussion. If someone doesn't agree then they it escalates into a "you're wrong no you're wrong" type of conversation. People going to have to realize that everybody has different thought processes and different ideals. Everyone on this board was raised differently and has experience different things in their life. Discussions are always welcome, but arguments increase the view/post count on HA.

[bluesoul]

I don't think you can always "agree to disagree".

actually i think it's very possible. my best friend and i disagree on a lot of things: from personal believes to even things as simple as "did you think that film was good/entertaining?"

the strange thing is, we see each others point of view but either we agree that those things (that made the other person find said article of discussion interesting/important) weren't as paramount for us individually. therefore, it's easy to see why the other party loved it or held their point of view.

so the discussion therefore becomes about understand "why" the other party finds those highlights paramount to form their opinion.

i think another value here we might be forgetting is respect. if you have a discussion with someone that either cannot articulate themselves properly then you'll either 1). lose patience with them or 2). lose their respect
this is of course, assuming you actually had these to begin with

i think when one of these 2 values is lost we see an argument arise either in the name of name calling, belittling, calling out the other person's validity or even bringing into question their intentions-

but when the discussion arises when one of the parties doesn't have these values to begin with, it's easy to notice the choice of vocabulary or "stiff upper lip" used

[GroobyKrissy]

Arguments have gotten a bad rap. Mathematicians give arguments all the time to establish one proposition or another, and they very rarely raise any tempers. Same thing goes on in many other areas of discourse as well.

If two people disagree there is nothing wrong in presenting arguments and counter-arguments to describe, press and defend their positions. In fact this is what I think people ought to do to mutually explore difficult issues. Good arguments move rational listeners, not always, and certainly not always immediately. But sometimes I will find my own positions shifting weeks after I heard a good argument and had time to digest it.

Arguments go sour when they degenerate into name calling, ultimatums, misrepresentation and intellectual dishonesty. I don’t think it’s wrong to return fire when subjected to such behavior but not in kind; i.e. answer name calling with logic, lies with honesty, ultimatums with reason. I usually fail miserably at this myself.

Mathematics though is a hard science... meaning it is [largely, besides a few fringes] based in hard facts that cannot be disputed. Thus you are either wrong... or right as long as you can prove your theorem.

Once you add opinions, and especially experiential ones, into the mix, I think you've added an element (haha) that the sciences don't really have to deal with.

I don't believe in a discussion you should become a doormat for the other to walk all over. Civility is nice in a discussion but I think you can still have a discussion, without it being an argument, without being entirely civil as well.

[RallyCola]

There is very little difference in everyday conversation and almost no difference here because people are so entrenched in their POV that discussions quickly devolve into unless arguments. No one is here to cede a point to anyone else. Forums such as this allow people to disseminate their opinion without interruption and mentally masturbate about how awesome their POV is. unfortunately, this is the world we live in.

[GroobyKrissy]

actually i think it's very possible. my best friend and i disagree on a lot of things: from personal believes to even things as simple as "did you think that film was good/entertaining?"

the strange thing is, we see each others point of view but either we agree that those things (that made the other person find said article of discussion interesting/important) weren't as paramount for us individually. therefore, it's easy to see why the other party loved it or held their point of view.

so the discussion therefore becomes about understand "why" the other party finds those highlights paramount to form their opinion.

i think another value here we might be forgetting is respect. if you have a discussion with someone that either cannot articulate themselves properly then you'll either 1). lose patience with them or 2). lose their respect
this is of course, assuming you actually had these to begin with

i think when one of these 2 values is lost we see an argument arise either in the name of name calling, belittling, calling out the other person's validity or even bringing into question their intentions-

but when the discussion arises when one of the parties doesn't have these values to begin with, it's easy to notice the choice of vocabulary or "stiff upper lip" used

Oh, I'm not saying it can't be done... just that it isn't possible always.

All the rest, good points.

[trish]

Mathematics though is a hard science... meaning it is [largely, besides a few fringes] based in hard facts that cannot be disputed. Thus you are either wrong... or right as long as you can prove your theorem.

Once you add opinions, and especially experiential ones, into the mix, I think you've added an element (haha) that the sciences don't really have to deal with.

I don't believe in a discussion you should become a doormat for the other to walk all over. Civility is nice in a discussion but I think you can still have a discussion, without it being an argument, without being entirely civil as well.

I agree about the hard science versus opinion distinction. Though I still think good argumentation is a way to make progress toward a consensus view. But not when it turns uncivil. Another good way to move closer on issues that are more opinion/experiential than science related is story telling. Just exchanging experiences can make a for an enjoyable and often enlightening evening. Though again, my life is pretty dull, I do better at arguing than telling stories. But probably stories and novels have done more to progress social justice in the world than all the argumentation of politicians and philosophers...and I'm willing to argue that point.

[GroobyKrissy]

There is very little difference in everyday conversation and almost no difference here because people are so entrenched in their POV that discussions quickly devolve into unless arguments. No one is here to cede a point to anyone else. Forums such as this allow people to disseminate their opinion without interruption and mentally masturbate about how awesome their POV is. unfortunately, this is the world we live in.

I would wholly disagree that there is little difference in everyday conversation. I have discussions with people every day at work that don't devolve into an argument. My friends and I meet weekly for "discussion and debate" around wine and we never let things devolve into an argument.

I do like your "mentally masturbate" line though. Points for originality.