Blue balls of the mind
December 1, 2009 11:17 AM Subscribe
Argumentative types: how do you avoid becoming this guy?
I love debating. It's less about any passionately-held political convictions (I tend to lean conservative/libertarian, but am enough of a reactionary that I can find reasons to disagree with almost anything) and more about the logic of it. Inaccurate statements, poor reasoning and tendentious language get at me like off-key singing, and I get this wave of energy compelling me to point it out and fix it. I'm guessing most naturally pugnacious people will be able to relate to this: the endorphin rush, the elevated heartrate, that slightly bloodthirsty feeling, and the subsequent frustration and depression if you can't engage.
In the few instances where I actually have the opportunity to thrash things out with a willing and competent partner, all's well; win, lose, or draw, I generally end up in excellent humor with myself, my partner, and the world. Unfortunately, I've found that both online and off, most people either don't like arguing or aren't very good at it. Since I do try hard not to be a dick about things, that's an awful lot of debates I just can't have. And I really don't have time to waste composing long recycling-bin-bound posts, baiting my husband, and waking up at 3AM to assemble syllogisms just because I strayed into the wrong part of the blue that evening, or flipped past some ridiculous story on NPR.
I do like being a critical thinker-- probably one of my favorite things about my brain-- but would love it to be a facultative, rather than an obligate, thing. The obvious solutions-- exercise, meditation, repeating, "It's not about logic. You're not going to change anybody's mind."-- just don't help much. (Oddly, alcohol does, but I really don't need the calories.) What else might I do to help dissipate all that excess argumentative energy? Has anyone out there found serenity now?
I love debating. It's less about any passionately-held political convictions (I tend to lean conservative/libertarian, but am enough of a reactionary that I can find reasons to disagree with almost anything) and more about the logic of it. Inaccurate statements, poor reasoning and tendentious language get at me like off-key singing, and I get this wave of energy compelling me to point it out and fix it. I'm guessing most naturally pugnacious people will be able to relate to this: the endorphin rush, the elevated heartrate, that slightly bloodthirsty feeling, and the subsequent frustration and depression if you can't engage.
In the few instances where I actually have the opportunity to thrash things out with a willing and competent partner, all's well; win, lose, or draw, I generally end up in excellent humor with myself, my partner, and the world. Unfortunately, I've found that both online and off, most people either don't like arguing or aren't very good at it. Since I do try hard not to be a dick about things, that's an awful lot of debates I just can't have. And I really don't have time to waste composing long recycling-bin-bound posts, baiting my husband, and waking up at 3AM to assemble syllogisms just because I strayed into the wrong part of the blue that evening, or flipped past some ridiculous story on NPR.
I do like being a critical thinker-- probably one of my favorite things about my brain-- but would love it to be a facultative, rather than an obligate, thing. The obvious solutions-- exercise, meditation, repeating, "It's not about logic. You're not going to change anybody's mind."-- just don't help much. (Oddly, alcohol does, but I really don't need the calories.) What else might I do to help dissipate all that excess argumentative energy? Has anyone out there found serenity now?
Man, I'm glad your link wasn't to me.
I've learned that the best way is to make my overall point, see if there is a response, and then (and this is the crucial bit) if I think the response is the result of insufficient clarity on my part or if they have changed my mind, respond. In any other case, gracefully walk away.
posted by phrontist at 11:25 AM on December 1, 2009
I've learned that the best way is to make my overall point, see if there is a response, and then (and this is the crucial bit) if I think the response is the result of insufficient clarity on my part or if they have changed my mind, respond. In any other case, gracefully walk away.
posted by phrontist at 11:25 AM on December 1, 2009
Personal mantra: it doesn't really matter.
Also, arguing online often leads to anger, resentment and more closed-minded replies than debates in person, because inflection and intent are read into flat words. A simple statement of facts becomes condescension and belittlement.
If you want to debate, find a place where debating is encouraged. Most forums are for discussion, not debate. People come looking for like-minded individuals to share facts and insight, not for point/counterpoint.
posted by filthy light thief at 11:30 AM on December 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Also, arguing online often leads to anger, resentment and more closed-minded replies than debates in person, because inflection and intent are read into flat words. A simple statement of facts becomes condescension and belittlement.
If you want to debate, find a place where debating is encouraged. Most forums are for discussion, not debate. People come looking for like-minded individuals to share facts and insight, not for point/counterpoint.
posted by filthy light thief at 11:30 AM on December 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Personally, I like to think about it in terms of "Why do I want this person to change their mind? What will I get out of him thinking like me?" If it's a political argument, remember that you probably won't win his vote, since it's people who are moderates and independents who tend to be the swing votes. A person deeply entrenched in one political point of view will not suddenly change their mind, and the act of debating raises the person's desire to prove that their existing opinion is right. It's textbook cognitive dissonance.
It's human to want to make people agree with you, but when you know in your heart that you are right, and are certain of it, sometimes it's best to make lemonade out of lemons and smugly think to yourself, "I'm right, he's wrong, and I'm that much smarter for it. I saw his arguments, saw they were wrong/irrelevant, and I'd change my mind if he made a compelling enough case."
It may not be the most humble position, but it's a good way to burn up that anxious desire to keep the fight going. If you need to, write a journal entry or blog post on the issue and explain your stance and why the arguments you got from your opponent (quote him anonymously, you don't want to move the fight to the comments page if he does vanity Googles) were wrong. That takes time, of course, but it'll give you closure if you feel you can't get it just from walking away.
posted by mccarty.tim at 11:41 AM on December 1, 2009
It's human to want to make people agree with you, but when you know in your heart that you are right, and are certain of it, sometimes it's best to make lemonade out of lemons and smugly think to yourself, "I'm right, he's wrong, and I'm that much smarter for it. I saw his arguments, saw they were wrong/irrelevant, and I'd change my mind if he made a compelling enough case."
It may not be the most humble position, but it's a good way to burn up that anxious desire to keep the fight going. If you need to, write a journal entry or blog post on the issue and explain your stance and why the arguments you got from your opponent (quote him anonymously, you don't want to move the fight to the comments page if he does vanity Googles) were wrong. That takes time, of course, but it'll give you closure if you feel you can't get it just from walking away.
posted by mccarty.tim at 11:41 AM on December 1, 2009
Remember: The Internet is serious business.
This is also useful.
Print them out. Tape them to your monitor.
Also, yeah, argumentation can be a rush, but there are more productive ways to do it than ambushing random strangers, some of whom may or may not be trolls. I don't know what your line of work is, but consider doing sufficient research to credibly claim mastery of a particular subject and getting yourself published if your discipline has such an outlet.
If it doesn't, do the research anyways. I generally find that clever syllogisms usually fail to capture the nuance of most situations. If you can express your argument in a sentence or two, odds are pretty good you're missing something important. Find out what that is. Nothing like the perspective borne of productive tedium to put a damper on argumentative belligerence.
Making more room in your diet for booze is also an option. I'm just sayin'.
posted by valkyryn at 11:42 AM on December 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
This is also useful.
Print them out. Tape them to your monitor.
Also, yeah, argumentation can be a rush, but there are more productive ways to do it than ambushing random strangers, some of whom may or may not be trolls. I don't know what your line of work is, but consider doing sufficient research to credibly claim mastery of a particular subject and getting yourself published if your discipline has such an outlet.
If it doesn't, do the research anyways. I generally find that clever syllogisms usually fail to capture the nuance of most situations. If you can express your argument in a sentence or two, odds are pretty good you're missing something important. Find out what that is. Nothing like the perspective borne of productive tedium to put a damper on argumentative belligerence.
Making more room in your diet for booze is also an option. I'm just sayin'.
posted by valkyryn at 11:42 AM on December 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Get old. It fades.
+1
Another thing that helps is going back and rereading old posts that you've forgotten about. You'll realize that you come off as a total dick more often than you think when you're composing the stuff.
If you really want to argue in a place where pedantry and pugnacity are acceptable, go to law school and become a litigator.
posted by The Michael The at 11:44 AM on December 1, 2009
+1
Another thing that helps is going back and rereading old posts that you've forgotten about. You'll realize that you come off as a total dick more often than you think when you're composing the stuff.
If you really want to argue in a place where pedantry and pugnacity are acceptable, go to law school and become a litigator.
posted by The Michael The at 11:44 AM on December 1, 2009
I have to second The Michael The.
Rereading some old posts I did few years back, I can't believe I actually wrote some of those!
Also trying to ignore people being wrong.
I'm the same as you. I have a hard time accepting people being wrong.
But the worse part is that you try to prove someone wrong when they were right all along. That hurts! :)
posted by PowerCat at 11:59 AM on December 1, 2009
Rereading some old posts I did few years back, I can't believe I actually wrote some of those!
Also trying to ignore people being wrong.
I'm the same as you. I have a hard time accepting people being wrong.
But the worse part is that you try to prove someone wrong when they were right all along. That hurts! :)
posted by PowerCat at 11:59 AM on December 1, 2009
I totally get that bloodthirsty feeling. For me, it's partly about being annoyed at what I perceive as stupidity, and partly about wanting to see the person decisively and powerfully proved wrong.
Instead of actually starting an argument, I try to satisfy the urges by kvetching about it to someone sympathetic, and then reading counter arguments or watching rebuttals on youtube.
posted by lucidium at 12:14 PM on December 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Instead of actually starting an argument, I try to satisfy the urges by kvetching about it to someone sympathetic, and then reading counter arguments or watching rebuttals on youtube.
posted by lucidium at 12:14 PM on December 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Make a game out of not commenting or replying. Reward yourself for every time you really, really want to say something and instead let it go.
It redirects that angry energy into self-control, which is something anyone can feel good about. The key for me is not making it about changing minds, but about proving to myself that I can control my impulses. It feels good afterwards, better than if I got all mad and ranty.
If that doesn't work, do this: when you want to respond to something, wait. A few hours later, go back and see if you're still itching to reply. Nothing online is really so terribly misinformed that it can't wait a few hours for your opinion. Cooling down helps.
It also helps to think back on things you were once so mad about. Do this now. Don't they seem silly in retrospect, if you can even remember most of them?
posted by Solon and Thanks at 12:41 PM on December 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
It redirects that angry energy into self-control, which is something anyone can feel good about. The key for me is not making it about changing minds, but about proving to myself that I can control my impulses. It feels good afterwards, better than if I got all mad and ranty.
If that doesn't work, do this: when you want to respond to something, wait. A few hours later, go back and see if you're still itching to reply. Nothing online is really so terribly misinformed that it can't wait a few hours for your opinion. Cooling down helps.
It also helps to think back on things you were once so mad about. Do this now. Don't they seem silly in retrospect, if you can even remember most of them?
posted by Solon and Thanks at 12:41 PM on December 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Change all your usernames so the people on the boards won't care what you say.
posted by twistofrhyme at 12:49 PM on December 1, 2009
posted by twistofrhyme at 12:49 PM on December 1, 2009
God, if you figure it out, let me know.
posted by KathrynT at 12:53 PM on December 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
posted by KathrynT at 12:53 PM on December 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
Join some kind of debate club. You're not the only person like you out there. Then vow to never try and debate someone on the Internet, because it's a losing battle. On the Internet, treat your posts like articles instead of debates or conversations; make your point, provide supporting evidence, allow for caveats, and move on. If you're writing to engage someone in a conversation, stop and go find someone in the real world to talk about it with.
posted by davejay at 12:56 PM on December 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by davejay at 12:56 PM on December 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Go to law school.
We lawyers do exactly what you like to do all the time, and we're paid to do it. We do it in writing, and orally before judges. We write long and short arguments. We marshall facts in our favor. Logic is our language, our oxygen, our lifeblood. Unlike TV lawyers, we don't go for the emotional or the surprise fact. We argue the law as applied to the facts, we draw logical extensions from prior cases, we analyze grammar and structure in statutes and legal opinions, and for us getting the law right is more important than anything else.
I am that person (my dear friend emailed me exactly that cartoon a couple of weeks ago, said it reminded her of me) but I save most of my passion for work. (I'll admit that you'll see my footprint online in various places, so it hasn't completely cured me. But it has made me better, and a better debater too.)
posted by Capri at 12:56 PM on December 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
We lawyers do exactly what you like to do all the time, and we're paid to do it. We do it in writing, and orally before judges. We write long and short arguments. We marshall facts in our favor. Logic is our language, our oxygen, our lifeblood. Unlike TV lawyers, we don't go for the emotional or the surprise fact. We argue the law as applied to the facts, we draw logical extensions from prior cases, we analyze grammar and structure in statutes and legal opinions, and for us getting the law right is more important than anything else.
I am that person (my dear friend emailed me exactly that cartoon a couple of weeks ago, said it reminded her of me) but I save most of my passion for work. (I'll admit that you'll see my footprint online in various places, so it hasn't completely cured me. But it has made me better, and a better debater too.)
posted by Capri at 12:56 PM on December 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
note: this is what I mostly do, and it works well for me. the only times I wish I hadn't written something is when I don't do it and someone engages to debate/argue, and I realize "ah fuck now I have to spend time on this and they'll never change their mind and neither will I and we can't go have a drink after so to hell with it"
posted by davejay at 12:58 PM on December 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by davejay at 12:58 PM on December 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
It helps not to care if somebody else is wrong unless it directly affects you.
posted by Astro Zombie at 12:59 PM on December 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
posted by Astro Zombie at 12:59 PM on December 1, 2009 [4 favorites]
Practice giving up being right and find a place to be comfortable in that, physically. That rush of energy sounds like a bit of anxiety, driving your need to make your surroundings (information) safe. The arguing that you DO get to do probably dissipates the anxiety.
Just another way of looking at it. Try exercising when you feel this way and see what happens.
posted by Vaike at 1:00 PM on December 1, 2009
Just another way of looking at it. Try exercising when you feel this way and see what happens.
posted by Vaike at 1:00 PM on December 1, 2009
It's worth pointing out that if you already have asshole tendencies, going to law school isn't probably going to help that much. I went to law school, so I feel qualified to say this.
Also, now's a terrible time to go to law school. I'm just sayin'.
posted by valkyryn at 1:20 PM on December 1, 2009
Also, now's a terrible time to go to law school. I'm just sayin'.
posted by valkyryn at 1:20 PM on December 1, 2009
1) Give it time; if you see a post you want to argue with, walk away - at least a few hours. More often than not, you won't care once you come back.
2) Realize that very often the other person is not worth trying to educate. Years ago, I used to argue with someone on a music-related website. Then I met him. When I understood what a uneducable loser that guy was, I felt ashamed - ashamed of spending time arguing with him, ashamed of my need to prove this guy wrong, ashamed of my total inability to tell that the guy just wasn't worth my time. Now, anytime somebody writes something idiotic, I take a moment to visualize the music guy, and my resolve to argue melts away.
3) Get busy. When I have a project underway, I stay off boards for the most, and I spend no time arguing. When I'm in between projects, with a lot of time and unfocused energy, my desire to argue and correct all the world's wrongs escalates - and it's stupid and not productive. I try to just get busy with something else.
4) It makes no difference. The world is not going to be a better place because you argued to the death against some fool or another.
posted by VikingSword at 1:30 PM on December 1, 2009
2) Realize that very often the other person is not worth trying to educate. Years ago, I used to argue with someone on a music-related website. Then I met him. When I understood what a uneducable loser that guy was, I felt ashamed - ashamed of spending time arguing with him, ashamed of my need to prove this guy wrong, ashamed of my total inability to tell that the guy just wasn't worth my time. Now, anytime somebody writes something idiotic, I take a moment to visualize the music guy, and my resolve to argue melts away.
3) Get busy. When I have a project underway, I stay off boards for the most, and I spend no time arguing. When I'm in between projects, with a lot of time and unfocused energy, my desire to argue and correct all the world's wrongs escalates - and it's stupid and not productive. I try to just get busy with something else.
4) It makes no difference. The world is not going to be a better place because you argued to the death against some fool or another.
posted by VikingSword at 1:30 PM on December 1, 2009
Time. Compulsive internet arguing only happens because you let your buttons get pushed. Whether or not you're 'mad' or just 'excited' or 'bloodthirsty' -- cooling off will make it all go away and you'll sit back, laugh and move on.
Sometimes though, a finely crafted internet burn is worth your time and effort -- you know, if it's just that good.
posted by wrok at 2:00 PM on December 1, 2009
Sometimes though, a finely crafted internet burn is worth your time and effort -- you know, if it's just that good.
posted by wrok at 2:00 PM on December 1, 2009
I used to be a lot more pugnacious online today than I am now, until I realized that a lot of other people are pugnacious as well and logic does not matter to them. Ad Hominem attacks, pure snark, vague statements are all too common countermeasures in the blue and pretty much everywhere else. Going to law school might help you make logical arguments, but people who are emotionally invested in their position have a thousand other ways to dismiss your argument.
The road to happiness is to filter your inputs. If certain MeFi posts set you off, create a custom RSS feed that filters out certain keywords. Certain NPR shows annoy you, start listening only to podcasts of selected shows that you can stomach. Avoid the 'screaming match' shows on TV.
I'm not saying you should bury your head in the sand and avoid the news, but if certain inputs draw you into arguments that you're never going to 'win', filter those out and find different ones.
posted by mattholomew at 2:01 PM on December 1, 2009
The road to happiness is to filter your inputs. If certain MeFi posts set you off, create a custom RSS feed that filters out certain keywords. Certain NPR shows annoy you, start listening only to podcasts of selected shows that you can stomach. Avoid the 'screaming match' shows on TV.
I'm not saying you should bury your head in the sand and avoid the news, but if certain inputs draw you into arguments that you're never going to 'win', filter those out and find different ones.
posted by mattholomew at 2:01 PM on December 1, 2009
"more pugnacious online than I am now" yeesh, sorry about that.
posted by mattholomew at 2:01 PM on December 1, 2009
posted by mattholomew at 2:01 PM on December 1, 2009
I think one thing that's important is excepting yourself for who you are. You may never be a yoga kind of it's all ok kind of guy. So maybe for you, people who don't like to argue are going to be tough to be friends with.
I like to joke around, hard, a lot. Now...this can get me into trouble. But I tend to find friends who either find it funny when I do it, or like to do it right back. This works out awesome.
The problem is when I start a friendship with someone who laughs at 85% of what I say, and then some random 15% offends them deeply. After a while I've just pulled away from these people because I know that I like who I am and want to be able to be myself. This is not to say that I don't piss off my friends occasionally, but they piss me off too (I also have feelings). So they tell me, I tell them, we're all ok. But if you have a really big problem with me as a person or the way I talk to people...I guess, I don't have a problem because I think I really like people and joking with them is my way of expressing that.
So just saying: don't be a bore, and don't argue with people who don't want to be argued with. Because that's lame. BUT do honor that part of you that wants to engage that way.
****I think what I'm trying to say is:
You like arguing a lot, but you also at least say you like being argued with. So your desire isn't to just batter someone into the ground and make them cry. You want to have a give and take and that's a form of conversation that's good to you. There's nothing wrong with that, at all. So try to make a world and friendships where that's ok. You may find yourself being nicer to the people in the world who don't act this way if you are able to allow yourself the space to do it.
posted by sully75 at 2:16 PM on December 1, 2009
I like to joke around, hard, a lot. Now...this can get me into trouble. But I tend to find friends who either find it funny when I do it, or like to do it right back. This works out awesome.
The problem is when I start a friendship with someone who laughs at 85% of what I say, and then some random 15% offends them deeply. After a while I've just pulled away from these people because I know that I like who I am and want to be able to be myself. This is not to say that I don't piss off my friends occasionally, but they piss me off too (I also have feelings). So they tell me, I tell them, we're all ok. But if you have a really big problem with me as a person or the way I talk to people...I guess, I don't have a problem because I think I really like people and joking with them is my way of expressing that.
So just saying: don't be a bore, and don't argue with people who don't want to be argued with. Because that's lame. BUT do honor that part of you that wants to engage that way.
****I think what I'm trying to say is:
You like arguing a lot, but you also at least say you like being argued with. So your desire isn't to just batter someone into the ground and make them cry. You want to have a give and take and that's a form of conversation that's good to you. There's nothing wrong with that, at all. So try to make a world and friendships where that's ok. You may find yourself being nicer to the people in the world who don't act this way if you are able to allow yourself the space to do it.
posted by sully75 at 2:16 PM on December 1, 2009
Previously
And the most-favorited answer in that thread below:
----------------------
Oh, by the way, this is what Dale Carnegie has to say about it in How to Make Friends and Influence people:
I was attending a banquet one night given in Sir Ross's honor; and during the dinner, the man sitting next to me told a humorous story which hinged on the quotation "There's a divinity that shapes our ends, rough-hew them how we will."
The raconteur mentioned that the quotation was from the Bible. He was wrong. I knew that. I knew it positively. There couldn't be the slightest doubt about it. And so, to get a feeling of importance and display my superiority, I appointed myself as an unsolicited and unwelcome committee of one to correct him. He stuck to his guns. What? From Shakespeare? Impossible! Absurd! That quotation was from the Bible. And he knew it.
The storyteller was sitting on my right; and Frank Gammond, an old friend of mine, was seated at my left. Mr. Gammond had devoted years to the study of Shakespeare. So the storyteller and I agreed to submit the question to Mr. Gammond. Mr. Gammond listened, kicked me under the table, and then said: "Dale, you are wrong. The gentleman is right. It is from the Bible."
On our way home that night, I said to Mr. Gammond: "Frank, you knew that quotation was from Shakespeare."
"Yes, of course," he replied, "Hamlet, Act Give, Scene Two. But we were guests at a festive occasion, my dear Dale. Why prove to a man he is wrong? Is that going to make him like you? Why not let him save his face? He didn't ask for your opinion. He didn't want it. Why argue with him? Always avoid the acute angle." The man who said that taught me a lesson I'll never forget. I not only had made the storyteller uncomfortable, but had put my friend in an embarassing situation. ...
You can't win an argument. You can't because if you lose it, you lose it; and if you win it, you lose it. Why? Well, suppose you triumph over the other man and shoot his argument full of holes and prove that he is non compos mentis. Then what? You will feel fine. But what about him? You have made him feel inferior. You have hurt his pride. He will resent your triumph. And --
A man convinced against his will
Is of the same opinion still.
posted by Comrade_robot at 8:28 PM on July 5 [139 favorites]
-----------------------
I will add one thing though, since your question seems to be more about online forums:
If you are predisposed to being overly argumentative and defensive, the best way to avoid being "that guy" online might be to not post in contentious threads in the first place.
posted by chalbe at 2:28 PM on December 1, 2009
And the most-favorited answer in that thread below:
----------------------
Oh, by the way, this is what Dale Carnegie has to say about it in How to Make Friends and Influence people:
I was attending a banquet one night given in Sir Ross's honor; and during the dinner, the man sitting next to me told a humorous story which hinged on the quotation "There's a divinity that shapes our ends, rough-hew them how we will."
The raconteur mentioned that the quotation was from the Bible. He was wrong. I knew that. I knew it positively. There couldn't be the slightest doubt about it. And so, to get a feeling of importance and display my superiority, I appointed myself as an unsolicited and unwelcome committee of one to correct him. He stuck to his guns. What? From Shakespeare? Impossible! Absurd! That quotation was from the Bible. And he knew it.
The storyteller was sitting on my right; and Frank Gammond, an old friend of mine, was seated at my left. Mr. Gammond had devoted years to the study of Shakespeare. So the storyteller and I agreed to submit the question to Mr. Gammond. Mr. Gammond listened, kicked me under the table, and then said: "Dale, you are wrong. The gentleman is right. It is from the Bible."
On our way home that night, I said to Mr. Gammond: "Frank, you knew that quotation was from Shakespeare."
"Yes, of course," he replied, "Hamlet, Act Give, Scene Two. But we were guests at a festive occasion, my dear Dale. Why prove to a man he is wrong? Is that going to make him like you? Why not let him save his face? He didn't ask for your opinion. He didn't want it. Why argue with him? Always avoid the acute angle." The man who said that taught me a lesson I'll never forget. I not only had made the storyteller uncomfortable, but had put my friend in an embarassing situation. ...
You can't win an argument. You can't because if you lose it, you lose it; and if you win it, you lose it. Why? Well, suppose you triumph over the other man and shoot his argument full of holes and prove that he is non compos mentis. Then what? You will feel fine. But what about him? You have made him feel inferior. You have hurt his pride. He will resent your triumph. And --
A man convinced against his will
Is of the same opinion still.
posted by Comrade_robot at 8:28 PM on July 5 [139 favorites]
-----------------------
I will add one thing though, since your question seems to be more about online forums:
If you are predisposed to being overly argumentative and defensive, the best way to avoid being "that guy" online might be to not post in contentious threads in the first place.
posted by chalbe at 2:28 PM on December 1, 2009
I have pretty much the same problem as you. I genuinely enjoy debate (although not as much online as I used to) and I think I come off as argumentative and jerky sometimes. Please ask The Light Fantastic for confirmation.
However, I generally limit myself to those I respect and those I know can deal with (and enjoy) a good debate as much as I do. Even in those cases, I often will mention how much I'm enjoying myself, if only to make clear that I'm just excited about the subject, as opposed to pissed off.
posted by brundlefly at 2:54 PM on December 1, 2009
However, I generally limit myself to those I respect and those I know can deal with (and enjoy) a good debate as much as I do. Even in those cases, I often will mention how much I'm enjoying myself, if only to make clear that I'm just excited about the subject, as opposed to pissed off.
posted by brundlefly at 2:54 PM on December 1, 2009
Jesus addressed this issue in the Sermon on the Mount. "Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces." (Matthew 7:6) Clearly, this passage is talking about wrong people on the internet. When someone is really being an idiot, instead of giving them what for, I TAKE MY PEARLS AWAY FROM THEM and let them suffer all alone in the mud. That's their punishment for being so dumb, and it just so happens to keep me from getting into too much trouble.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 4:18 PM on December 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 4:18 PM on December 1, 2009 [3 favorites]
Teach instead of arguing.
I'm one of those softies who doesn't like fighting, but I love learning. And I especially love learning from people who are sharp and exacting -- who don't mince words.
You can use almost all of your critical skills when you're teaching. You're just not allowed to insult people. Insults detract from your message, anyway, unless your whole point is "you're stupid."
(Good teachers don't just lecture. So you can also have some of the back and forth you like.)
By "teach," I don't necessarily mean that you should become a school teacher. I mean that if you're online and you have a point to make, make it and make it strongly. I guarantee you that it's possible to make almost any point clearly and sharply (even one that corrects someone else's error) without being combative or insulting. (Of course, some people will take opposing points of view as insults, but that's not your fault.) If you can't figure out how to do that, then you need to work on your writing skills.
Let's say I claim that WWII ended in 1960. If you were to respond, what would be your goal?
1. To prove to me that I'm wrong?
2. To prove to me that I'm stupid?
3. To prove to me that you're smart?
It CAN'T be all three. It can't even be two. You have to choose one. You can't prove to me that I'm wrong AND that I'm stupid (or that you're smart), because the latter point will crowd out the former. I won't be able to think about how I'm wrong about WWII, because I'll be on the defensive. So if your goal is to show me how I'm wrong, you're doing it badly if you spend ANY time on showing me that I'm stupid or that you're smart.
If your goal is tor prove that I'm stupid or that you're smart, look into the reasons for that. I would guess insecurity. There are probably better ways to deal with that than arguments on the web (e.g. therapy).
By the way, like you, I love debate -- as long as it doesn't get personal. I get a rush from the rough, tumble and rigor of ideas facing off. The older I get the more okay I am that not everyone is into this (and the less I enjoy forcing it on people who aren't). But I cultivate relationships with people who like doing it. I don't need that rush all the time, but it's fun to get it sometimes.
posted by grumblebee at 4:22 PM on December 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
I'm one of those softies who doesn't like fighting, but I love learning. And I especially love learning from people who are sharp and exacting -- who don't mince words.
You can use almost all of your critical skills when you're teaching. You're just not allowed to insult people. Insults detract from your message, anyway, unless your whole point is "you're stupid."
(Good teachers don't just lecture. So you can also have some of the back and forth you like.)
By "teach," I don't necessarily mean that you should become a school teacher. I mean that if you're online and you have a point to make, make it and make it strongly. I guarantee you that it's possible to make almost any point clearly and sharply (even one that corrects someone else's error) without being combative or insulting. (Of course, some people will take opposing points of view as insults, but that's not your fault.) If you can't figure out how to do that, then you need to work on your writing skills.
Let's say I claim that WWII ended in 1960. If you were to respond, what would be your goal?
1. To prove to me that I'm wrong?
2. To prove to me that I'm stupid?
3. To prove to me that you're smart?
It CAN'T be all three. It can't even be two. You have to choose one. You can't prove to me that I'm wrong AND that I'm stupid (or that you're smart), because the latter point will crowd out the former. I won't be able to think about how I'm wrong about WWII, because I'll be on the defensive. So if your goal is to show me how I'm wrong, you're doing it badly if you spend ANY time on showing me that I'm stupid or that you're smart.
If your goal is tor prove that I'm stupid or that you're smart, look into the reasons for that. I would guess insecurity. There are probably better ways to deal with that than arguments on the web (e.g. therapy).
By the way, like you, I love debate -- as long as it doesn't get personal. I get a rush from the rough, tumble and rigor of ideas facing off. The older I get the more okay I am that not everyone is into this (and the less I enjoy forcing it on people who aren't). But I cultivate relationships with people who like doing it. I don't need that rush all the time, but it's fun to get it sometimes.
posted by grumblebee at 4:22 PM on December 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
In late high school/early college I was highly argumentative. Now it should be said that I feel I was always rather social and amiable, but when things got political, I would get political and passionate. This wasn't problematic as most people I talked to either didn't care or had similar sentiments, but freshman year of college I had a roommate who was exact same way as me only had an opposing political viewpoint. We were great friends from high school and after a year of spirited "debate", it almost destroyed us. We didn't take any of it personally, or anything, but it was completely toxic.
Over time I realize just how truly fruitless an exercise it was, and the internet just made it all even worse. At this point in my life I have tried abandon the practice completely. And I am about a thousand times happier with my life. What has helped is a few basic realizations (much of this is assumptive, but it's being assumptive for the sake of reinforcement, not because I assume it's what your like):
1. The reasons "it's not about logic" and "you won't change anyone's mind" don't help (even if they may be cliche-level-for-sure true) is that they are insufficient in their complexity of explanation.
2. You are clearly intelligent, but I can assure you that the act (nay, lifestyle?) of Contrarianism is a useless exercise. Argumentative people, like my old college friend, think that it is in a way providing a service for the order of the world; that being the proverbial Devil's Advocate. But being a good Devil's Advocate is an exceptionally difficult thing to do, much more so than people realize. I actually only think the practice works in essay form, and I rarely find a writer who is any good at it, as the advocate MUST have the sincere aim of wanting to genuinely help said opposing person/viewpoint in a genial way.
3. Otherwise? It is nothing more than combativeness. Thinking of debate in terms of "sport" is nothing more than a self-effacing exercise, because in any interaction, an individual is always representing themselves as a person and any viewpoint is secondary to that; it can ONLY be destructive. The good feelings you've experiencing once having a spirited debate with someone is actually a mirage. It is not the celebration of having a participated in a worth-while exercise, but instead the joy of finding someone who is just like you in the appreciation of combativeness. It is the re-assurance of a behavior, but unfortunately the behavior is most resembling WW1 trench warfare, and thus wholly pointless.
4. I don't think it's necessarily the case that most people don't enjoy debate or are bad it. And more likely, the veracity of that statement is irrelevant. Once anyone senses that the person they talking is enjoying the actual argument (usually characterized by someone picking apart your words, rather than merely elaborating on their own), it immediately turns people off the conversation. Because when most people have a conversation they are just expressing a viewpoint, a feeling, an opinion. They don't need a reason to articulate it, because they feel it's true. You may see this behavior as deplorable, and perhaps the reason they have an inarticulate opinion, but to them, conversation is not a sport. It's just trying to get by in life and justifying who they are as a person. In a way, you do the same thing in looking for a justification to being argumentative.
5. You partially answered the question with your libertarian reveal. Arguing is inherently a solipsistic action. It is training the mind to be self-reliant, an incredibly important skill that is paramount to any progression in this world, but also full of danger because it can form the mind to be ONLY self-reliant. As you are drawn to a likewise argumentative and self-reliant mind, you are thereby drawn to a libertarian politics that likewise reflects self-reliance. There is no problem with any of these things in and of themselves, but collectively they create a lifestyle of a human mind inclined to be a singular entity. Humans are social beings. I need it. We need it. You clearly want it to, but the problem is you are having trouble relating to people who don't relate to the nature of conversation in the same way that you do. But, oo argue is to be lonely. It's this realization that stuck with me above all else. Because I need other people in my life. You can find the few that matter, but we need more than that. It is a condition of being human. And the act of debate is not conducive to that.
6. Concerning the certainty of logic... I am liberal. I believe many things of that political philosophy, just as you may believe things of an opposing philosophy. We could argue forever on some issue. We both sure of the certainty of these things even if there is no assured answer. For example, I've spent the last 4 years of my life researching the drug problems in this country. While I once had very certain opinions concerning the drug laws, I now have absolutely no opinion on the correct course of action. Every conceivable approach is so riddled with problems, both ethical, human, and practical that my solutions/opinions would satisfy absolutely no one, despite my absolute mirth of information and experience. Never in my life has logic felt so irrelevant. And it's that reason, that I think "regular" people embrace that mind set. Articulate minds can navigate a host of issues, but in the end their opinions are no less truly "certain" than those of someone going off an anecdotal experience.
7. Luckily, much of my realization happened in college, when I was still in formative mind years. I think it gets harder and harder to change as you get older. Just noting.
My advice is this:
Transfer your critical mind into the ability to be constructive. Do you have a blog? If so. Good. I focus all my arguments into that stuff. When I'm good, I don't respond to inane commentators, and just focus on putting ideas out there that help people. It's one of the reasons I love AskMe. The idea is to be constructive, not destructive.
*Meditation only works if you can buy into it. It's a literal act of faith, because all meditation is on the scientific level is just sitting there and thinking and relaxing. That's it. It thus defies logic.... hey... maybe it could help you overcome then?
Best of luck. Embrace the gray area. Enjoy yourself. And remember argumentation is lonely.
Don't be that guy.
posted by Lacking Subtlety at 4:57 PM on December 1, 2009
Over time I realize just how truly fruitless an exercise it was, and the internet just made it all even worse. At this point in my life I have tried abandon the practice completely. And I am about a thousand times happier with my life. What has helped is a few basic realizations (much of this is assumptive, but it's being assumptive for the sake of reinforcement, not because I assume it's what your like):
1. The reasons "it's not about logic" and "you won't change anyone's mind" don't help (even if they may be cliche-level-for-sure true) is that they are insufficient in their complexity of explanation.
2. You are clearly intelligent, but I can assure you that the act (nay, lifestyle?) of Contrarianism is a useless exercise. Argumentative people, like my old college friend, think that it is in a way providing a service for the order of the world; that being the proverbial Devil's Advocate. But being a good Devil's Advocate is an exceptionally difficult thing to do, much more so than people realize. I actually only think the practice works in essay form, and I rarely find a writer who is any good at it, as the advocate MUST have the sincere aim of wanting to genuinely help said opposing person/viewpoint in a genial way.
3. Otherwise? It is nothing more than combativeness. Thinking of debate in terms of "sport" is nothing more than a self-effacing exercise, because in any interaction, an individual is always representing themselves as a person and any viewpoint is secondary to that; it can ONLY be destructive. The good feelings you've experiencing once having a spirited debate with someone is actually a mirage. It is not the celebration of having a participated in a worth-while exercise, but instead the joy of finding someone who is just like you in the appreciation of combativeness. It is the re-assurance of a behavior, but unfortunately the behavior is most resembling WW1 trench warfare, and thus wholly pointless.
4. I don't think it's necessarily the case that most people don't enjoy debate or are bad it. And more likely, the veracity of that statement is irrelevant. Once anyone senses that the person they talking is enjoying the actual argument (usually characterized by someone picking apart your words, rather than merely elaborating on their own), it immediately turns people off the conversation. Because when most people have a conversation they are just expressing a viewpoint, a feeling, an opinion. They don't need a reason to articulate it, because they feel it's true. You may see this behavior as deplorable, and perhaps the reason they have an inarticulate opinion, but to them, conversation is not a sport. It's just trying to get by in life and justifying who they are as a person. In a way, you do the same thing in looking for a justification to being argumentative.
5. You partially answered the question with your libertarian reveal. Arguing is inherently a solipsistic action. It is training the mind to be self-reliant, an incredibly important skill that is paramount to any progression in this world, but also full of danger because it can form the mind to be ONLY self-reliant. As you are drawn to a likewise argumentative and self-reliant mind, you are thereby drawn to a libertarian politics that likewise reflects self-reliance. There is no problem with any of these things in and of themselves, but collectively they create a lifestyle of a human mind inclined to be a singular entity. Humans are social beings. I need it. We need it. You clearly want it to, but the problem is you are having trouble relating to people who don't relate to the nature of conversation in the same way that you do. But, oo argue is to be lonely. It's this realization that stuck with me above all else. Because I need other people in my life. You can find the few that matter, but we need more than that. It is a condition of being human. And the act of debate is not conducive to that.
6. Concerning the certainty of logic... I am liberal. I believe many things of that political philosophy, just as you may believe things of an opposing philosophy. We could argue forever on some issue. We both sure of the certainty of these things even if there is no assured answer. For example, I've spent the last 4 years of my life researching the drug problems in this country. While I once had very certain opinions concerning the drug laws, I now have absolutely no opinion on the correct course of action. Every conceivable approach is so riddled with problems, both ethical, human, and practical that my solutions/opinions would satisfy absolutely no one, despite my absolute mirth of information and experience. Never in my life has logic felt so irrelevant. And it's that reason, that I think "regular" people embrace that mind set. Articulate minds can navigate a host of issues, but in the end their opinions are no less truly "certain" than those of someone going off an anecdotal experience.
7. Luckily, much of my realization happened in college, when I was still in formative mind years. I think it gets harder and harder to change as you get older. Just noting.
My advice is this:
Transfer your critical mind into the ability to be constructive. Do you have a blog? If so. Good. I focus all my arguments into that stuff. When I'm good, I don't respond to inane commentators, and just focus on putting ideas out there that help people. It's one of the reasons I love AskMe. The idea is to be constructive, not destructive.
*Meditation only works if you can buy into it. It's a literal act of faith, because all meditation is on the scientific level is just sitting there and thinking and relaxing. That's it. It thus defies logic.... hey... maybe it could help you overcome then?
Best of luck. Embrace the gray area. Enjoy yourself. And remember argumentation is lonely.
Don't be that guy.
posted by Lacking Subtlety at 4:57 PM on December 1, 2009
Maybe you could change your style? Instead of trying to win an argument, why not try to ask questions. I don't argue as much these days because.. asking "I wonder why you think things are that way?" became more interesting to me than telling somebody "this is the way things are." Because what do I know, anyway, I don't even know. This doesn't mean turning off your critical thinking skills, you can use them to find a logical point to ask a question, where something doesn't add up. And if someone has basic facts wrong, try to bring in the correct facts without getting hostile about it.
posted by citron at 9:23 PM on December 1, 2009
posted by citron at 9:23 PM on December 1, 2009
It's worth pointing out that if you already have asshole tendencies, going to law school isn't probably going to help that much. I went to law school, so I feel qualified to say this.
Seconded, and not just for the humor. The characteristic you describe is highly rewarded for many attorneys, and as Capri said, some people can let it out at work and chill out everywhere else.
But for others that kind of compartmentalization is impossible because the job is so all-consuming. A lot of lawyers find themselves debating the DMV lady and deposing their mothers. So if you're looking for personal growth in this area, becoming a lawyer might not be the best idea. Speaking from experience as well, sigh.
posted by pitseleh at 10:15 PM on December 1, 2009
Seconded, and not just for the humor. The characteristic you describe is highly rewarded for many attorneys, and as Capri said, some people can let it out at work and chill out everywhere else.
But for others that kind of compartmentalization is impossible because the job is so all-consuming. A lot of lawyers find themselves debating the DMV lady and deposing their mothers. So if you're looking for personal growth in this area, becoming a lawyer might not be the best idea. Speaking from experience as well, sigh.
posted by pitseleh at 10:15 PM on December 1, 2009
I realised I was on a lot of boards and forums which somehow... encouraged the argument/snarking? Despite the fact that where I'd get fed up and want to 'correct' was in other more annoying places, once I seriously lopped off a large amount of what I now look as as deadwood, and that included most news on TV or newspapers (if it's not important enough to be wikipedia'd, it's not important, and if it's important, it's important enough to read about in an attempting-to-be-rational manner rather than tragedy-whoring myself on news articles), and forums that had a low time/actual-infotainment ratio (eh, blue included).
So, once I cut that out, I chilled out a lot more, and the few instances I did see rolled off more easily. I feel more satisfied.
I see it as an adrenaline shot.
Online debates are a glorified battles for non-existent primal pack dominance, and often feels like it kicks off the same chain of 'fight' chemical reactions and adrenaline. So it becomes addictive to some people.
Something to keep in mind - beta's fight all the time. Alpha's don't.
If you want to engage in future, you still can, but in the meantime, for me, I kind of feel more comfortable and secure in my environment, and like I don't need to. Issues I still support, debates less so.
Worrying about anonymous people on the 'internets' too much is a sign that... you care about people on the internets more than has any relevance to your life, for me, feeling more secure is related to ramping up the 'not caring', or rather, more *correctly* assessing who is worth caring about.
posted by Elysum at 12:40 AM on December 2, 2009
So, once I cut that out, I chilled out a lot more, and the few instances I did see rolled off more easily. I feel more satisfied.
I see it as an adrenaline shot.
Online debates are a glorified battles for non-existent primal pack dominance, and often feels like it kicks off the same chain of 'fight' chemical reactions and adrenaline. So it becomes addictive to some people.
Something to keep in mind - beta's fight all the time. Alpha's don't.
If you want to engage in future, you still can, but in the meantime, for me, I kind of feel more comfortable and secure in my environment, and like I don't need to. Issues I still support, debates less so.
Worrying about anonymous people on the 'internets' too much is a sign that... you care about people on the internets more than has any relevance to your life, for me, feeling more secure is related to ramping up the 'not caring', or rather, more *correctly* assessing who is worth caring about.
posted by Elysum at 12:40 AM on December 2, 2009
« Older What is a better gift for my recently laid-off... | What to do in Denver for a year? Masters? Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by GuyZero at 11:24 AM on December 1, 2009 [3 favorites]