Cognitive cage fights and lazy thinking
Few things offend me more than ignorance masquerading as knowledge.
“In our polarised world, a productive disagreement is a rare occurrence. People would rather talk to a stranger who shares their political views than a friend who doesn’t. That’s a travesty.”
When you preach, you’re trying to convert people to your point of view. In prosecutor mode, you’re attacking someone’s point of view. As a politician, you dismiss people unless they already share your point of view.
I recognize all three of these styles and I'm comforted to know there’s a fourth approach, founded on the idea that a good conversation isn’t about one person declaring victory, it’s about both people making a discovery.
Most of us are rubbish at maintaining our own point of view. Part of the reason is that as children were taught that it isn’t polite to disagree. As adults, we shy away from arguments.
Rather than being confrontational, conversation can be a tool to think critically. A good arguments helps reveal complexity where we once saw simplicity. The other person is a mirror to help us recognize our own blind spots.
Intellectual chemistry isn’t about agreeing with someone. It’s enjoying your disagreements with them.
The next argument I get into, rather than backing down to keep things cordial, I’ll remember that I hold my own opinions to lower standards than other’s. I’m just thinking lazy. I can’t see it because I’m too close to the idea. My argument is probably crap. And the conversation I'm in is an opportunity to discover why.
It's fine to have a different opinion, as long as you understand and respect the difference.
Harmony is a pleasing arrangement of different sounds, not the same ones.
...
From an article my dad sent me on how to argue better https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2022/jul/30/you-cant-say-that-how-to-argue-better