Wednesday, April 06, 2022

On Arguments

I cannot precisely remember when it happened, but there came a point at which I realized that not every argument is what it is actually about.

Growing up I suppose, when I saw an argument (or the rare times I was involved in one), it simply seemed like it was about the subject of the argument.  To be fair, to my recollection I never saw my parents argue in public or in the home (although knowing my father, I suspect they happened; the first time I remember them having one was when I was in my twenties); my arguments were all of the garden variety child and pre-teen version.

To be fair as well, I am not a very good arguer.  I do not enjoy conflict at all and actually will go great lengths to avoid it.  I had a brief stint in college arguing my positions, until I was told by my advisor that my "arguing" was really just assuming my positions were correct and then trying to overwhelm the opposition, the equivalent of mass frontal attacks:  costly, ineffective, and almost never achieving the objective.  It was at that point I simply gave up arguing and just started listening.

And maybe that was for the best:  in listening to those arguing, one heard without being blinded by the actual nature of the views of the arguers on the subject at hand.  And often times what they turned out to be arguing about was actually not the problem at all.

Take a very simple example:  Someone has a bad day at work and comes home in a foul mood (mind you, this has happened to other people.  Never me.  Nope, not once).  Something minor happens - a dog that is just a little crazy, some element of the house that is a bit off, even something like random coughing - and the horse, as they say, has left the barn.  "Why is it that the dog is ill-behaved/the dishes are always in the sink/you never go to the doctor when you are sick?" is launched, and usually not in a quiet tone of voice.  Things escalate quickly.

The reality, of course, is that the real issue is not any of the things in the home.  The real issue is at the job or the job itself, which for any number of reasons the individual feels they cannot address.  All they can do is funnel that frustration into another area, one they feel they can control.

A simplistic example, for sure.  But take that into any actual real world situation, and you will find the mechanisms of cause and action the same.  We just put better titles on it to make it sound more sophisticated.

At the risk of struggling to find something (relatively) non-controversial, take preservation of agricultural land.  One side argues that land owners should be free to do whatever they want with their land, including selling it.  The other side argues that land owners should be prevented from doing whatever they want with their land, including selling it,  because preserving it has greater value.  In reality, the land owners would quite likely be willing to preserve the land as it is as long as they could reasonably profit from it as if they were selling it.  The preservers want the land preserved, but (often) are not willing to pay the land owner the going rate for the land to preserve it. 

In reality, both sides want to benefit from the land - in different ways, but benefit from it. That is the real core of the discussion:  how do both sides derive equal benefits.  But that is not what it becomes about.  In point of fact it becomes about power:  the power to dispose of versus the power to control the disposition of.  Which becomes expensive, angry and seldom ends up with what either side actually wants. 

(To be clear, I believe in the rights of land holders.  I also believe that agricultural land should be preserved.  This should be a simple resolution in principle.  It looks a lot people that want the land preserved doing everything in their power to make sure the owners are compensated fairly - at going rates for land that can be developed - to preserve the land and everyone doing everything in their power to drop the property tax rates down significantly on such land to make it worth more to keep it as it is than develop it.)

This has become my starting point when I hear two sides arguing any more.  Sometimes - almost rarely anymore - the argument really is about the argument.  Most times though, the argument is not at all what is being huffed and puffed about, but rather something behind the words and blustering.

Find that - find the unspoken thing, the "dog that is not barking" - and look to that, even if no-one else will. That is where true disagreement lies, and that is where the best chance for truly resolving the issue is.



12 comments:

  1. Anonymous2:37 AM

    I don't enjoy arguments either, but some 'lively discussion' on my mine and other's points have merit. When I listen to others debate, I learn more from conflicting points then when both have only agreement. The best debate is when both sides learn more information. They won't change their position but they gain insights - that is good too.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am all for lively discussion, and have been known (occasionally) to engage in it. What is problematic is we seem to abandon "discussion" for "yelling".

      The exchange of information is nice, but it seems to me that all too often, we have reached the point where no new information is wanted or desired, just a "see it my way - and I will shout over you and name call you until you do". Sadly, while this may lead to an external sort of acceptance, it is brittle - and will fall apart at the first opportunity.

      Delete
  2. I have long given up arguing because as you said, it rarely leads to favorable results. At most, I just state my disagreement, the reason for it and leave it at that. I leave the proverbial ball in the other court.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ed, as I thought about this and the comments here, what I realized is that a fundamental underpinning of an exchange of ideas is respect for the other person, even if there is no respect for the other side. Without that respect - and we can sense when it is not there - there can never really be an exchange of ideas. Even I having issues with people that have no respect for me as a person.

      Delete
    2. That is very true. I have certain acquaintances who love to stretch truths and I almost never take what they are saying seriously as a result. Although we are friendly in all other matters, I guess I do not respect their arguments anymore.

      Delete
    3. Interesting Ed. Now that I think about it, the same is true for me as well. Even if there was a "discussion" to be had, it almost will never take off in the same manner.

      Delete
  3. Some people get invested in one side, a belief, a crusade and the emotions get stoked real fast. Way too few attempt to de-escalate per your suggestion. It's the "If I yell louder I'm right and you're wrong" method. For myself getting that carry permit years ago resulted in keeping my mouth shut. But my eyebrows get the workout.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nylon12, we are a highly emotional people - and seem to have become even more highly emotional. Emotional people are not thinking people; they "react" instead of thinking (the ancient philosophers would not be impressed with us).

      Training in Iai has had the same impact on me: anything I do potential creates an issue that will reflect poorly on myself, my art, and my Sensei and Headmaster. But yes, the eyebrows and moustache often get a workout.

      Delete
  4. It is worth noting that big arguments are often triggered by current events but the potential energy was planted previously by a set-of-circumstances that the trigger resembled.

    Example: You and your girlfriend have a screaming, dish-throwing fight. You said you wanted to go fishing and she totally lost it. Turns out one of her previous boyfriends (maybe her first) cheated on her/broke up and he SAID he was going fishing. You saying "I am going fishing" unzipped a bag of emotion she had compartmentalized.

    If she is worth it, you work through it. If not, move on. Some people carry around too many bags of shit with slippery zippers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is a great point too ERJ. We never really know everyone's history and what can trigger things. That said, it also takes a sort of maturity to be able to differentiate between the person and the event.

      I do wonder though, in our increasingly sensitive age of "triggering", if we are short circuiting the healing and maturity process that leads to such things. If one never has to realize that just because the first boyfriend "went fishing" not everyone does that (some people just like fishing), they become forever trapped as a child whose world must always be bright and sunny and non-challenging.

      Delete
  5. How many times in an argument with the mister do I stop and say something like, "you know... this thing we're arguing about is not really what we're arguing about." Which totally confuses him. And I am, in turn, confused that he doesn't understand this by now.

    Or I stop myself mid-breath in my part of a heated argument and admit that "we've lost the plot."

    I do believe you hit the nail on the head that not hanging onto respect of the other is why arguments go so badly awry. Attacking the other person is the indication that respect has left the premises. And at that point, the person who still respects him/herself will probably do well to do the same (leave the premises, that is) - or, if leaving isn't an option, just stop contributing to the argument. I wish I followed my own advice more often...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Becki, how often have my own arguments spiraled far away from the original point of the argument.

      The more I have thought about it, the more I think the decline and fall of respect for others has contributed to a great many of the ills we are facing today. But more on that tomorrow.

      Delete

Comments are welcome (and necessary, for good conversation). If you could take the time to be kind and not practice profanity, it would be appreciated. Thanks for posting!