Why do we argue?

[avasopht]

Q1: I was just reading a few topics here and I have to ask, why do we argue?

Q2: What is the objective or motivation, and how well does discussion serve?

I have my own thoughts but I'd like to see what other people come up with.

Q3: How can this interaction be productive?

[orthodox]

A1:
a) to provide various grounds so that the truth is found
b) to correct what we believe is wrong
c) just to engage in conversation

A2: there may be different causes and results

A3: Obviously, it can be. You may be referring to some particular unproductive discussion, can you please give links?

[Riverman]

Q1: I was just reading a few topics here and I have to ask, why do we argue?

Q2: What is the objective or motivation, and how well does discussion serve?

I have my own thoughts but I'd like to see what other people come up with.

Q3: How can this interaction be productive?

I have rigorous discussion for two reasons:
1. To find truth, to have greater certainty, or be made aware of and convinced out of an error.
2. To help others do the same.

[selig]

Arguing is all ego IMO. What I prefer is an honest and spirited discussion. But these are two VERY different things, though I would suggest not everyone agrees there's a difference… ;(

Arguing is never proven to be productive in my experience, other than to teach the occasional participant that it's a futile exercise (as happened to me once upon a time). Spirited discussions OTOH, can be VERY useful in my experience. One of the main reasons for a forum such as this to have these sort of discussions is so multiple views can be presented. This allows those new to the game the chance to see that there's no single "right" path for all people and all occasions, and also allows them to pick and choose from the all of the ideas presented to find the ones that work best for THEM.

This is how I learned while working at a studio, watching different engineers/producers etc. come through and work different ways - all getting great results!
That sort of service is invaluable IMO in this day and age, with many major studios disappearing. An environment that can encourage this type of discourse is to be admired to be sure, as long as the basic arguing is kept to a minimum (and when it does happen, it is used to educate/encourage participantes as to why it's a waste of time!).

That's my 2 cents, will be interesting to see what others think…

[-008']

I think most people just argue because they believe they are right.

Fewer still may just be contrarians for whatever reason.

Personally speaking, I argue when I think I'm right and someone else is wrong...but the other guy is probably doing that at that same time, huh? (In his mind anyway)

That said.. I am reminded of a quote from the late, great Carl Sagan:
"If it can be destroyed by the truth, it deserves to be destroyed by the truth."

[-008']

Arguing is all ego IMO. What I prefer is an honest and spirited discussion. But these are two VERY different things, though I would suggest not everyone agrees there's a difference… ;(

Arguing is never proven to be productive in my experience, other than to teach the occasional participant that it's a futile exercise (as happened to me once upon a time). Spirited discussions OTOH, can be VERY useful in my experience. One of the main reasons for a forum such as this to have these sort of discussions is so multiple views can be presented. This allows those new to the game the chance to see that there's no single "right" path for all people and all occasions, and also allows them to pick and choose from the all of the ideas presented to find the ones that work best for THEM.

This is how I learned while working at a studio, watching different engineers/producers etc. come through and work different ways - all getting great results!
That sort of service is invaluable IMO in this day and age, with many major studios disappearing. An environment that can encourage this type of discourse is to be admired to be sure, as long as the basic arguing is kept to a minimum (and when it does happen, it is used to educate/encourage participantes as to why it's a waste of time!).

That's my 2 cents, will be interesting to see what others think…

I like the way you put this.

I think "arguing" is less productive and it sort of just leaves two people madder than they started. While "spirited discussions", as you put it, is where at least one but hopefully both sides actually go away having LEARNED something. Without any of the "drama" from flat out arguing.

[selig]

Arguing is all ego IMO. What I prefer is an honest and spirited discussion. But these are two VERY different things, though I would suggest not everyone agrees there's a difference… ;(

Arguing is never proven to be productive in my experience, other than to teach the occasional participant that it's a futile exercise (as happened to me once upon a time). Spirited discussions OTOH, can be VERY useful in my experience. One of the main reasons for a forum such as this to have these sort of discussions is so multiple views can be presented. This allows those new to the game the chance to see that there's no single "right" path for all people and all occasions, and also allows them to pick and choose from the all of the ideas presented to find the ones that work best for THEM.

This is how I learned while working at a studio, watching different engineers/producers etc. come through and work different ways - all getting great results!
That sort of service is invaluable IMO in this day and age, with many major studios disappearing. An environment that can encourage this type of discourse is to be admired to be sure, as long as the basic arguing is kept to a minimum (and when it does happen, it is used to educate/encourage participantes as to why it's a waste of time!).

That's my 2 cents, will be interesting to see what others think…

I like the way you put this.

I think "arguing" is less productive and it sort of just leaves two people madder than they started. While "spirited discussions", as you put it, is where at least one but hopefully both sides actually go away having LEARNED something. Without any of the "drama" from flat out arguing.

Yes, the main difference being that in the "discussion" I'm talking about, neither party is making the assumption they are "right", and neither party is reduced to name calling or personal attacks. Both parties are merely sharing what has worked for them in the past. When I participate in these sort of discussions, I almost always learn something myself, or at least get something new to try (and I've been doing this for a LONG time now)!

Additionally, these types of discussions can include users at ALL levels, because we've all experienced SOMETHING! The point is to share your experiences so others can pick through the options and find things that work for them. Let each person draw their own conclusions from what is presented.

That being said, yes there are times when facts are being misrepresented. But even then the best way to counter those misconceptions IMO is to provide solid proof and links to back up what you're saying. If you do this without dismissing or disrespecting the other person, life can be beautiful. If not, you'll live in a world of your own creation - each of us are free to choose which path to follow!
(spoiler alert: one of these paths may lead to you getting banned…)

[avasopht]

I'm thinking very much about the underlying motivations, sure, spirited discussions are much more productive but what is the deep rooted desire to correct other's supposedly erroneous beliefs?

Given the propensity for argumentation among people of differing views it seems reasonable to suspect the process provides some useful function, after all, a misguided populace will crumble under the weight of its errors of judgement and understanding.

I'd rather not being up any subjects I've seen this happen in since it will just reignite the argument but I'm confident that the self seeking of agreeableness, harmony and right thinking far better yield the well desired much more productive habit of spirited discussion than focusing on what is not agreeable.

[avasopht]

I don't think believing one is right is a problem in itself, it is how we deal with the counter argument and information that conflicts with our beliefs.

Black is not white, 1 is not 2 and fish don't speak in Aramaic. In some (or many) cases there is only one right way or answer, in some cases the correct answer is difficult, if not impossible to know for certain and in some cases the answer is a preference for outcomes according to one's values or underlying beliefs as to the meaning of the outcomes.

It is with a sound character that one can enter the arena holding conflicted views and peacefully engage in discussion in such a way that they can come out knowing more even if it is agreed they're view was correct, or with a changed or improved view after examination of the information.

I enjoy discussions with my friends who are grounded enough to be able to debate without any attachments to their beliefs and have respect for people holding beliefs they may not agree with.

Being of sound mind and judgement requires correction at times, but taking correction required a certain type of mindset.

[selig]

I don't think believing one is right is a problem in itself, it is how we deal with the counter argument and information that conflicts with our beliefs…

Is it not our beliefs that we hold to be "right"?

[gak]

We argue because we are ancient aliens.

[Riverman]

I'm thinking very much about the underlying motivations, sure, spirited discussions are much more productive but what is the deep rooted desire to correct other's supposedly erroneous beliefs?

Because I care about people. If I'm convinced about a particular situation - a problem, it's cause, and it's solution - I care enough to be hated for trying to help someone caught in say, a self-destructive belief for example, than to be liked, but leave the person damaging themselves with the particular belief.

I have a lot of friends who are ex-alcoholics, ex-drug addicts for example. I have seen (and experienced) how destructive being caught in a particular mindset can be and how beneficial receiving support and being challenged on particular beliefs can be.

Does a true friend let their friend destroy themself? I certainly don't think so, and I regard strangers as friends I haven't met yet.... so there you have it.

[willowman]

Sorry...disagree with everyone here...nice stories bro's

[O1B]

[tibah]

Humans...

That said, point of all of this here is to get different perspectives and to remind yourself, not to convince people that they are wrong, but that they also could be right. Though, this has to be in the flow of the thread and the people involved.

[Noplan]

Sometimes you have to provoke peoples minds so that they give you an answer that is good enough to change your own mind.

I can quote myself in forums from ten years ago and disagree with me completly.

We argue because we have always diffrent experiences and knowledge that lead us to diffrent opinions. Arguing is just the first expression of these diffrences and discussion exposes and combines our opinions from wich we can grow. Every word has an effect to our mind even if we are not aware of it. People said things to me that i only understood some years later. It's like a fucking puzzle that you can't complete.

[avasopht]

I don't think believing one is right is a problem in itself, it is how we deal with the counter argument and information that conflicts with our beliefs…

Is it not our beliefs that we hold to be "right"?

Yes. Again that's not the problem, the problem is how we respond to information that contradicts what we believe is true.

Again, black is not white. Some things just aren't true. It doesn't " work " for someone else, it's just plain incorrect.

Like the Salem witch trials or apartheid in South Africa and America, it's just plain wrong.

Misinformation has a negative effect on people. There are children who die or suffer serious illnesses because their mothers persisted to believe erroneous information about medicine.

There are many schizophrenic people living in fear because of tricksters who make up lies in YouTube to make money through advertising. I know someone who's friend used to do this.

All in all, history is rife with lies/incorrect beliefs causing atrocities. People burned alive at the steak for saying earth was not at the centre of the universe, children trailed by sword fights with professionals, sacrifices and massacres.

So no, it doesn't "work" for some.

When it comes to production technique, sure, some things are just down to a person's own method, but some things are either correct or incorrect. For example, the statement, "Selig Leveler is an fm synth," is incorrect

[avasopht]

I don't think correcting a false belief is ego driven, but arguing is.

Correction turns into argument / quarrel because of ego. The person identifies themselves with the belief and seeks to preserve that belief.

Then you have persistent irrationality.

It's representative of unhealthy psyche and is at the seat of much bad in this world.

[Noplan]

For example, the statement, "Selig Leveler is an fm synth," is incorrect

What? Not a fm synth? I want my money back!

[normen]

I guess you could just as well ask why we put our coffee pots and glasses in separate spaces in the cupboard.. People build a certain order in their minds, things that challenge that order will be addressed one way or the other.

Or the other way around - if theres a new kind of liquid container one might want to exchange opinions on where to put that container in respect to the others. So based on facts, experience and opinions this can be evaluated through discussion.

[jappe]

When it comes to production technique, sure, some things are just down to a person's own method, but some things are either correct or incorrect. For example, the statement, "Selig Leveler is an fm synth," is incorrect

True.
If I however state that Selig leveler is an AM effect, then I would agree with myself

Many interesting views in this thread.
Since people are arguing, I guess it's a benefit for the population from a Darwinistic perspective.
If too many people in a population were genetically disposed to relentless arguing, then I guess they'd have a lot of wars, and the disposition would decrease.
But if too many people just wanted to acknowledge other peoples opinions at their own opinions expense...hmm...lots of faulty decisions, possibly fatal to the population?

People tend to appreciate leadership skills.
Problem is that psychopaths can win arguments not because theyre right, but because the opponents give up out of fear.
So psychopaths are more likely to climb up to the top, climbing on other more suitable leaders?
Or perhaps fearlessness is a better trait for leaders than empathy?

Which makes me think of this:

[chk071]

Q1: I was just reading a few topics here and I have to ask, why do we argue?

Because we all think we're right.

[chk071]

Haha, that's great.

[O1B]

There it is, Folks. Some people just shouldn't open their mouths in the first place.

It's based on the position they're in.
It's for their own Good. Just Listen.

F'n Priceless.
And, if ReasonTalk is your fix, then Thank the Ever Loving Lord Jehoshaphat!
...Ever wormholed onto HairlossTalk.com..? Or Reddit... or any WN site...? Sheesh!!

[avasopht]

Q1: I was just reading a few topics here and I have to ask, why do we argue?

Because we all think we're right.

But why devote time convincing others to believe the same? What benefit does that expense of valuable time resources yield?

Surely given the propensity for man to argue it must have a deep rooted biological basis, ..