There is strong social pressure put on individuals to "not argue"
particularly about important things like politics, religion and
ethics. We are pressured not to discuss these subjects because people
may become upset if foundational beliefs are questioned.
But which is worse, becoming upset, or basing one's life on false
precepts. There are several reasons why we have this taboo, and I
hope to address each that I am aware of.
First roadblock is the word "argue" itself. This is a troubling word
with several different meanings. First it means "give reasons or cite
evidence in support of an idea, action, or theory, typically with the
aim of persuading others to share one's view", this is the definition
I am referring to. The other (perhaps more common definition) is
"exchange or express diverging or opposite views, typically in a
heated or angry way." In other words, to verbally battle.
If we use a more verbally neutral word, for instance "discuss" rather
than "argue," the objections don't, however, go away. It seems to me
that we each have two competing social needs that vary from individual
to individual. One is a need to share our beliefs with others, and
another is the need to blend in and just get along. Different
cultures may encourage one more than the other, but all have strong
taboos that favor and encourage the latter need.
It is my belief that these taboos arose out of the need for "unit
cohesion" amongst the small bands of hunter gatherers. Where survival
required all the members to act together without delays while
individuals debated the relative strengths of one course of action
over another.
Indeed those organisations that most restrict individual opinion and
debate today are those military and paramilitary organisations where
quick cooperative action can make the difference in life and death.
However, outside of a few unusual circumstances, we do not need to
make those sacrifices in our daily lives. In fact, I argue we would
be better served to encourage open argument about all subjects.
Argument benefits us in 2 ways, First it helps us to see errors in our
understanding and therefor create a more accurate model
with which to base our decisions on. Having a flawed model of
political systems, the universe, or ethics can have profound negative
effects on decision making. Second it helps us to flesh out our
current understanding of our own beliefs. Someone's opposing beliefs
may help us to better understand our own beliefs by putting them to
the test.
So whether You win or loose, you win.
I'm glad that you mentioned the military part, as that was what my argument to you was going to be based on. However, even the military has changed in how they handle such issues.
ReplyDeleteSo, as much as I would enjoy a good argument, I must confess that I agree with the general idea of your arguments.
I believe that the biggest hindrance to a healthy debate would be the people who deliver one side of an argument and then belittle anyone who simply wants to express an opposing view. A plethora of examples can be found on AM radio.
Anyway, in closing I'd also like to point out that anyone who wishing to argue about arguing is just inviting the recollection of a Monte Python sketch.
> I believe that the biggest hindrance to a healthy debate would be the
ReplyDelete> people who deliver one side of an argument and then belittle anyone
> who simply wants to express an opposing view.
Yes, these people are referred too in the argot of debate by term "a horses ass." If you are unwilling to hear out your opponent, you aren't arguing, your just yelling a lot.
BTW, I don't recall the python sketch you are referring too, do you have a pointer to a video clip?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y
ReplyDeleteMonty Python, check it out!