arguing   194

« earlier    

Attachment Style Influences Adult Conflict Resolution
Baptist, J. A., Thompson, D. E., Norton, A. M., Hardy, N. R., Link, C. D. (2012). The effects of the intergenerational transmission of family emotional processes on conflict styles: The moderating role of attachment. American Journal of Family Therapy 40.1, 56-73.
security  anxiety  health  arguing  psychology 
12 weeks ago by phillmv
Knocking Down a Steel Man: How to Argue Better
"The beginning of thought is in disagreement - not only with others but also with ourselves." - Eric Hoffer You know when someone makes an argument, and you know you can get away with making it seem like they made a much worse one, so you attack that argument for points? That’s strawmanning. Lots of us…
arguing  discourse 
february 2018 by NorwegianRockCat
THUNK - 135. Aumann's Agreement Theorem & Arguing to Learn - YouTube
Aumann’s Agreement Theorem suggests that rational folk shouldn’t be able to continuously why do we?

-Links for the Curious-

Agreeing to Disagree (Aumann, 1976) -
(You might be intimidated to read the original paper, but it’s only 5 pages long!)

Are Disagreements Honest? (Cowen & Hanson, 2004) -
The Influence of Social Interaction on Intuitions of Objectivity and Subjectivity (Fisher et al, 2016) -
Rationally Speaking, Episode 143 - Scott Aaronson on Aumann’s Agreement Theorem (AAT) & its Implications -
“Political Polarization in the American Public,” by the Pew Research Center -

“Are Toxic Political Conversations Changing How We Feel about Objective Truth?” (Fisher et al, 2018) -

Lesswrong’s entry on the AAT -
starstarstarstarstar  arguing  bayes  bayesian 
january 2018 by radeor
Charles' Rules of Argument | Geek Feminism Wiki | FANDOM powered by Wikia
Entering into arguments is not necessarily good: they're tiring and you often don't convince anyone.

Arguments make people defensive. Do not expect your interlocutor to change their mind during the argument. They will only change it later if at all.

In groups, your argument is actually normally aimed at onlookers more than your interlocutor.

Once you have stated your position and corrected any factual misunderstandings, there is nothing further you can do. Anyone who still disagrees with you cannot be convinced by you arguing with them.
internet  arguing 
august 2017 by enne
Collected Essays: Autobiographical Notes [by James Baldwin]
"About my interests: I don't know if I have any, unless the morbid desire to own a sixteen-millimeter camera and make experimental movies can be so classified. Otherwise, I love to eat and drink---it's my melancholy conviction that I've scarcely ever had enough to eat (this is because it's impossible to eat enough if you're worried about the next meal)--and I love to argue with people who do not disagree with me too profoundly, and I love to laugh. I do not like bohemia, or bohemians, I do not like people whose principal aim is pleasure, and I do not like people who are earnest about anything. I don't like people who like me because I'm a Negro; neither do I like people who find in the same accident grounds for contempt. I love America more than any other country in the world, and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually. I think all theories are suspect, that the finest principles may have to be modified, or may even be pulverized by the demands of life, and that one must find, therefore, one's own moral center and move through the world hoping that this center will guide one aright. I consider that I have many responsibilities, but none greater than this: to last, as Hemingway says, and get my work done."

[via: ]
jamesbaldwin  autobiogaphy  food  drink  poverty  hunger  pleasure  laughing  arguing  bohemians  bohemia  us  hemingway 
july 2017 by robertogreco
A philosopher’s 350-year-old trick to get people to change their minds is now backed up by psychologists
Put simply, Pascal suggests that before disagreeing with someone, first point out the ways in which they’re right. And to effectively persuade someone to change their mind, lead them to discover a counter-point of their own accord. Arthur Markman, psychology professor at The University of Texas at Austin, says both these points hold true.

“One of the first things you have to do to give someone permission to change their mind is to lower their defenses and prevent them from digging their heels in to the position they already staked out,” he says. “If I immediately start to tell you all the ways in which you’re wrong, there’s no incentive for you to co-operate. But if I start by saying, ‘Ah yeah, you made a couple of really good points here, I think these are important issues,’ now you’re giving the other party a reason to want to co-operate as part of the exchange. And that gives you a chance to give voice your own concerns about their position in a way that allows co-operation.”

Markman also supports Pascal’s second persuasive suggestion. “If I have an idea myself, I feel I can claim ownership over that idea, as opposed to having to take your idea, which means I have to explicitly say, ‘I’m going to defer to you as the authority on this.’ Not everybody wants to do that,” he adds.

In other words, if it wasn’t enough that Pascal is recognized as a mathematician, physicist, and philosopher, it seems he was also an early psychologist.
psychology  arguments  arguing  Trump  Pascal  reverse-psychology 
may 2017 by thegrandnarrative
Bullish Q&A: How Can I Defend Feminist Ideas If I’m Terrible at Arguing? – GetBullish
If there’s a fact you’d like to present but you can’t remember it exactly, say that, and offer to send the information later if the person really wants it. If appropriate, even acknowledge that you could be misremembering, but you’re pretty sure that, for instance, the vast majority of people in the US receiving government benefits are seniors, veterans, and disabled people, and that in fact cash aid to poor families with children barely even exists anymore. But who can remember the exact stats? “I’ll send it to you later if you’re interested.” Shrug. You know the truth. If others want it, you’re willing to help them. You are not required to make an argument here. That doesn’t mean you’ve lost. You are reasonable and unruffled. You can leave the matter unsettled. That’s okay.
arguing  questions  jen 
april 2017 by seakelps

« earlier    

related tags

*****  2014  5star  advice  all  analysis  angry  angst  anxiety  argue  argument  argumentation  argumentative  arguments  article  articles  assumptions  author:saone  autobiogaphy  based  bayes  bayesian  best-practices  best  bias  bike  bikeshed  bikeshedding  bikesheding  biology  blog  boga  bohemia  bohemians  brain  brain_hacks  bryan  charitable  charity  charles/erik  charles  charlieloyd  cheatsheet  chef  clint/phil  comic  communication  complaining  complexity  conflict  conflict_resolution  conflictresolution  conservative  controversy  conversation  critical  criticism  critique  culture  cute  d/s  dan  daniel  danieldennett  daring  day  debate  debating  denier  dennett  derailing  design  devils.advocate  deyoung  digital  director  disagree  disagreement  discourse  discussions  doctors  doctrine  dougwils  drama  drink  dummies  education  engilsh  epiphenomena  equipment  erik  fact  facts  fallacies  fallacy  fan  fanfic  fanfiction  feedback  feminism  fiction  fireball  firstimpressions  flamewars  fluff  food  for  funny  gender  googlereader  grammar  graph  gruber  hair-splitting  health  hemingway  history  hoops  hospitalized  hot  howto  humility  humour  hunger  idiots  ifttt  illustration  infographic  inforgraphic  information  intelligently  interesting  internet  intuition  ireland  irving  is  iterestedness  jackassery  jamesbaldwin  jared  jen  jesus  john  king-cormac  kyle  kyrie  laughing  leadership  length:1000-5000  levels  lifehack  lifehacks  list  listening  lists  literacy  logic  logical  lol  make-me-smile  make-up  malek  marvel  men  meritocracy  mind_hacks  mindchanges  mindchanging  motivated  negativity  neuroscience  no  nuance  nytimes  on  one-shot  oneshot  openmindedness  options  pain  palo  panic  parenting  pascal  patriarchy  pdf  pedantry  pediatric  persuasion  phil  philosophy  pitch  pleasure  pointless  poke  politics  poster  posters  poverty  pr  privilege  promotion  proving  psychology  pub  public  puerto  questions  quiz  quora  rage  rami  read  reason  reasoning  reddit  reference  relationship  relationship:established  relationships  reportedly  resolutions  respect  restaurant  reverse-psychology  rhetoric  rico  rigor  rules  security  see  semantic  sented  set  seven  shed  shedding  sheding  short  shouting  si  sickness  siliconvalley  singer  sjws  skeptics  slash  snark  snopes  social-media  solutions  speech  starstarstarstarstar  suffering  suggestions  systemsthinking  technology  the  theavengers  theory  thing  threw  tips  tona  tools  towrite  trial  trolls  trump  tweet  twitter  us  vaccine  victory  vox  waiter  web  wedding  win  winning  with  women  work  writing  x-men  young  you’ll  ‘wrongness’ 

Copy this bookmark: