Monday
May122008
Agree to disagree
Monday, May 12, 2008 at 11:03AM
Talking to people who think differently than yourself is the best way to further your understanding of a subject. Sure sometimes it's difficult to find someone with an opposing view who is still willing to have an amicable discussion, but restricting your discussions entirely to people who share your viewpoint does not force you to challenge the evidence for your beliefs.
by ohhector
I bring this up because I almost always play devil's advocate in discussions with my friends, and some people do not respond well to being challenged. It would seem that some people would prefer that you just agree with them rather than expand the conversation by attempting to poke holes in their argument.
by Denni Schnapp
Personally I vastly prefer to talk with someone who is willing to challenge me, as opposed to someone who just agrees with me because they either have no other evidence, or just want to avoid confrontation. I have no interest at talking over beers with someone who just says "Yeah I can see where you are coming from" to every outrageous claim that I make, such as "Generally I think babies and children are overvalued". Clearly there is a poorly substantiated thought process that lead to that conclusion, and it deserves to be exposed in all its ignorant glory.
by moriza
I think that some people's desire to see only their own beliefs reflected back in others stems from the fact that they are too emotionally invested in that belief. With some people it actually gets to the point that they begin to take personal offense to my challenging their argument, as if my attacks on their evidence for one subject or another were attacks on their character or identity. Granted sometimes my arguments are far-fetched and clearly just arguing for the sake of arguing, but that should be seen to make their position even more strong if it requires that I reach that far for a counter-point.
by Kevin Steele
So while I think it is essential that you be willing to have your arguments challenged; that can only be done when you retain the ability to think rationally about a subject. Just because someone questions something you hold to be morally self-evident, such as "Should we devote more resources to lowering Toronto's murder rate?" does not imply they believe murder is ok, or even that they shouldn't devote more resources, but merely that they want to you support your argument. If you respond to that question emotionally, thereby inferring that the other person is an idiot for even asking it, you've missed an opportunity to expand your understanding of your position.
by CHOLKE
by ohhector
I bring this up because I almost always play devil's advocate in discussions with my friends, and some people do not respond well to being challenged. It would seem that some people would prefer that you just agree with them rather than expand the conversation by attempting to poke holes in their argument.
by Denni Schnapp
Personally I vastly prefer to talk with someone who is willing to challenge me, as opposed to someone who just agrees with me because they either have no other evidence, or just want to avoid confrontation. I have no interest at talking over beers with someone who just says "Yeah I can see where you are coming from" to every outrageous claim that I make, such as "Generally I think babies and children are overvalued". Clearly there is a poorly substantiated thought process that lead to that conclusion, and it deserves to be exposed in all its ignorant glory.
by moriza
I think that some people's desire to see only their own beliefs reflected back in others stems from the fact that they are too emotionally invested in that belief. With some people it actually gets to the point that they begin to take personal offense to my challenging their argument, as if my attacks on their evidence for one subject or another were attacks on their character or identity. Granted sometimes my arguments are far-fetched and clearly just arguing for the sake of arguing, but that should be seen to make their position even more strong if it requires that I reach that far for a counter-point.
by Kevin Steele
So while I think it is essential that you be willing to have your arguments challenged; that can only be done when you retain the ability to think rationally about a subject. Just because someone questions something you hold to be morally self-evident, such as "Should we devote more resources to lowering Toronto's murder rate?" does not imply they believe murder is ok, or even that they shouldn't devote more resources, but merely that they want to you support your argument. If you respond to that question emotionally, thereby inferring that the other person is an idiot for even asking it, you've missed an opportunity to expand your understanding of your position.
by CHOLKE
Reader Comments (2)
I have to say that I also enjoy playing devil's advocate and I use “Yeah, I can see where you are coming from” as one of my key phrases guiding the conversation. It's important to me to constantly reassure the person that their views may be sensible and perhaps a natural conclusion to draw from their experience, but that it does not necessarily mean the view is logical or reasonable. That distinction is probably the most enjoyable for me to draw out in conversation.
An enjoyable post.
A post a can relate to.