When I was a kid, I got the shit beaten out of me by people that were bigger and stronger then me. At the time, I was quite bitter about it. But I now realise that this is just the way of the world. The strong beat on the weak.
And I grew up. And I found that I could argue better than many people around me. And think more imaginatively around certain kinds of problems. Hah! They were weak! And I ended up bullying certain people. It didn't seem that way - they were wrong and I was right and couldn't they see that?
But it ended up with them feeling hurt. And disengaging from what I had to say. Which was a shame, because I realised if I wanted to achieve any of my goals, I needed their help. And I couldn't get it by beating them over the head with arguments. And anyway, I quite liked a lot of them and seeing them in pain wasn't pleasant.
So where is this meandering anecdote going? Well, I suppose it preludes a discussion about styles of argument. What is appropriate where? And by "appropriate" I mean: what styles of argument lead to the most engaging conversations and satisfying outcomes?
What are the dos and donts? And does our style of argument need to vary from person to person? And when is it appropriate just to walk away?
And how does this play out in an environment like Dissensus?
Does all this make me sound like an intellectual wimp or a hand-wringing hippy? I dunno.
I'm not as engaging as Woebot. Or as visionary as Kpunk. Or some of the others here. And that isn't false modesty, it's an observation. But I am equally fascinated by people and by ideas. I want the optimal combinations of both and I won't stand for anything less.
And I grew up. And I found that I could argue better than many people around me. And think more imaginatively around certain kinds of problems. Hah! They were weak! And I ended up bullying certain people. It didn't seem that way - they were wrong and I was right and couldn't they see that?
But it ended up with them feeling hurt. And disengaging from what I had to say. Which was a shame, because I realised if I wanted to achieve any of my goals, I needed their help. And I couldn't get it by beating them over the head with arguments. And anyway, I quite liked a lot of them and seeing them in pain wasn't pleasant.
So where is this meandering anecdote going? Well, I suppose it preludes a discussion about styles of argument. What is appropriate where? And by "appropriate" I mean: what styles of argument lead to the most engaging conversations and satisfying outcomes?
What are the dos and donts? And does our style of argument need to vary from person to person? And when is it appropriate just to walk away?
And how does this play out in an environment like Dissensus?
Does all this make me sound like an intellectual wimp or a hand-wringing hippy? I dunno.
I'm not as engaging as Woebot. Or as visionary as Kpunk. Or some of the others here. And that isn't false modesty, it's an observation. But I am equally fascinated by people and by ideas. I want the optimal combinations of both and I won't stand for anything less.