Tag Archives: argument

They do not know

Children do not know they lack the wisdom of age.

An adult does not know when more information and knowledge has ceased to provide more wisdom.

When blind privilege provides an advantage it does not know that this advantage has been bestowed.

When ignorance is spoken it does not know that it is spoken while lacking relevant information.

Anger does not know how it clouds rational thought.

Hate does not know how to foster love or forgiveness.

A biased person does know their subjectivity lacks objectivity.

An irrational person does not know that their judgments are clouded.

The delusional does not know their view of the world is altered.

The hypocrite does not know their words do not meet their own standards or revered beliefs.

The fool does not know when they are being fooled.

To tell a child that they they are too young to understand; To tell an adult they are not wise enough to understand; To tell the blindly privileged that they are privileged; To tell the angry or hateful not to be angry or hateful; To tell the biased, irrational, or delusional of their faulty perspectives; to call a hypocrite a hypocrite, or a fool a fool… These are vain and futile attempts to share what you know with someone that does not know.

To be noble in principle, thoughtfully persuasive, and influential in a way that can be heard is no easy task. Knowing when you can be convincing and when efforts are futile is not always clear. To believe that you can change a fixed mind is a fool’s errand, but to give up on a fixed mindset that can be changed is a lost opportunity to have meaningful influence.

Related post: Ideas on a Spectrum

I don’t agree to disagree

In Canadian fashion I will apologies for this, but I don’t agree to disagree. Sorry.

No I won’t say it’s ok for you to have a different opinion about Covid-19, it is not just a flu. It’s also not an infringement on your rights to wear a mask any more than it is to insist you wear a seatbelt, or not enter a store naked from the waist down… and no, this is not a ridiculous comparison.

No, it’s not ok for you to spread QAnon conspiracies any more than it’s not ok to share religious reasons to infringe on the rights of others. These are both wrong in an open, free, and democratic society.

Do you have a right to expunge stupidity in this open, free, and democratic society? Yes. Yes, you do… but I don’t have to accept it as something deserving an equal stance to science and facts. I don’t have to see it as an opposing view worthy of debate. You are wrong.

I don’t agree to disagree, not at all. Your sources are not reliable, your opinions are not facts. I’m not agreeing to disagree. To do so, I would be weighing fact to fiction like they somehow are the same thing. They are not.

The economy can stay open if people wear masks, socially distance themselves and sanitize appropriately. Some people might disagree with me, and on a topic like this we can agree to disagree.

However, with 40,000,000+ cases worldwide 1,118,443 deaths, and over 9,000,000 known active cases worldwide this is not just a bad flu, it’s a pandemic. And if you want to disagree with that well then sorry… you are wrong.

Put a mask on, and thank those around you for being respectful and doing the same.

Listen to what they have to say

Last week I wrote, ‘Know your audience‘ and asked, “Are you trying to share your view only with people that already agree with you? Or are you trying to share your view with others who think differently?“

Yesterday I wrote ‘When you live in a democracy… VOTE‘ and quoted Thomas Jefferson, “We do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.”

Would my message actually reach anyone who chooses not to participate and change their mind? It’s possible, but unlikely.

I’m in education, it’s not that I don’t believe that we can change minds, open them to new ideas, and help people learn… it’s just that I’m guessing my audience already votes. And if they don’t, my post won’t change their pattern of behaviour. This reminds me of a quote that I often share,

“As a general rule, adults are much more likely to act their way into a new way of thinking than to think their way into a new way of acting.” ~Mark Millemann

Adults don’t tend to act differently as a result of hearing new and different ideas. They are not convinced easily, or as easily as kids. So how do we speak to them? In his comment on my ‘Know your audience‘ post, Dave Sands said,

“Perhaps share a your message in a “way” that they will hear it as well. Too often we display an emotional response to those who hold a different view and our egos emerge blocking any chance of reciprocal understanding. Staying logical and intentional with a genuine will to listen goes a long way in seeking to understand as opposed to seeking to convince.“

‘A genuine will to listen.’

Why don’t people really vote? I gave the reasons I thought, but are they the reasons people actually have?

It’s interesting that I originally titled this, ‘How do you speak to them?’ and not, ‘Listen to what they have to say’. But is listening enough? Can listening help me better understand something like a person’s choice not to vote in such a way that can then alter my argument enough to change their minds?

I can’t say that I’ve really tried. So, if you choose not to vote, tell me why? You don’t have to do this ‘out loud’, here is a contact form to share your thoughts privately, if a comment below is too public.

How can I help you act your way into a new way of thinking? Or why won’t I be able to do this?

I’m listening:)

Know your audience

Social media is filled with people who are ‘preaching to the converted’. There is nowhere that this is more evident than in politics and religion. I’m amazed at the blindness with which people spew their ideology.

Basically, what I (mostly) see are two ignorant camps:

1. I don’t care what you think.

2. You don’t think like me, so you are an idiot.

Neither of these deliver a message that comes remotely close to convincing anyone of anything. Neither of these pander to an audience beyond those that already agree with the perspective being shared. Neither of these promote thought or dialogue.

Sure it might feel good. Yes, it’s nice to be in the company of others that completely agree with you. But social media shouldn’t just be about screaming into an echo chamber, and there should be opportunities for dialogue that goes beyond winning a point against a foe whom doesn’t even acknowledge your point.

I keep coming back to the realization that ideas lie on a spectrum, and the reason I keep coming back to this is because most of us don’t sit on the extremes, even if that’s where we argue our points from. We don’t really wish ill of those that oppose our view, we don’t really believe that our neighbours are unneighbourly because they view things differently than us, politically, religiously, or ideologically. Yet that’s what it looks like on social media.

Are you trying to share your view only with people that already agree with you? Or are you trying to share your view with others who think differently? If your answer is the latter, then think about your audience, and share a message they can actually hear.

The best they can with what they’ve got.

I’m sure if I go looking, I’d find a similar post I’ve written before, but this idea is worth exploring (again) and it was inspired by Aaron Davis’ comment on yesterday’s Daily Ink.

I don’t remember where I first heard this, but it was decades ago, before I became an educator: “People do the best they can with the resources they have.”

This is such an empowering position to hold when dealing with an upset person. They are trying, they are doing their best, they are hurting and need compassion. This shifts the direction of the conversation, especially when your own buttons are pushed by the person or when they are showing their upset by going on the attack.

If you go into a conversation with an upset person believing they are only there to attack you, that leaves you only with a choice of being defensive or going on the attack yourself. If you go into the same conversation thinking this person is upset and doing the best they can, suddenly you can shift to helping them, even when their strategy isn’t ideal.

This isn’t always easy. Here is an example from a while back at another school: Student does something very inappropriate. Parents are invited in. Parent has heard the student’s ‘creative’ perspective on how they are not at fault. Parent comes in with metaphorical ‘guns-a-blazing’ to defend the kid.

Whether it’s a father or mother that comes in, I call this ‘mama bear’ behavior. Mama bears will do anything to protect their cubs. So, what’s the worst thing that you can do with an angry mama bear? Attack the cub in front of them.

The easy, but unhelpful reaction to hearing a parent defend a kid, who has fabricated a story to the parent about the innocence of their behaviour, is to call the kid out. The harder thing to do is to remember that the kid is scared and doing the best they can, and the parent is angry and doing the best they can. A counterpoint at this juncture can easily lead to an unhealthy argument. So, a softer approach is better.

It’s a matter of remembering that we want the same thing… to take care of a student who has in our eyes done wrong and in the parents eyes has been wronged. And so that parent is doing the best they can with the knowledge and resources they have.

This doesn’t mean that you let the kid off. It does mean that you can take an approach that is more aikido than karate, more deflective and less of a direct attack.

Without going into specifics, I talk about how more than one kid was involved in the situation. I talk about how intentions aren’t always known and that two people can see the same situation in different ways. I ask the parent to remember that the other kid has a parent too, and might ask what they would think of the situation if they were the parent of the other child (this is delicate and not something to do early on, only when the parent is less angry than when they came in to defend their cub).

It’s only when the parent can see another perspective that I then discuss their kid, and the approach is that ‘we both want the same thing’. Without saying it bluntly, the approach is asking ‘Do you want your kid acting this way?’ or more subtly, ‘Do you want your kid being perceived they way they are being perceived?’

In essence, it’s about giving the parent more information and resources than they arrived with, to deal with the situation better than an angry mama bear has defending a cub from danger. It’s about saying, ‘Your kid made a bad choice’, and separating their behaviour from their identity and the parent’s identity too. And then it’s about helping both of them get the strategies and resources they need to make the situation better.

It’s not easy. But when a mama bear sees that you want what’s best for their kid… and that’s really what you want even though the kid made a really bad choice… then the outcome becomes what you intended it to be. That same mama bear parent has, at times, even wanted to go harder on their kid than I do. If it comes to this point, they are still operating under the same pretence, they are doing the best they can with what they’ve got.

Anti-social media

I was in a Twitter conversation recently that went a bit sideways. I don’t want to get into details, but I want to talk about a landscape of social sharing that is exhausting me. Is it just me or does every challenging conversation seem to go somewhere it doesn’t have to?

Pick any prominent public figure, if they say anything germane to a serious topic, the comment responses are caustic and angry. It’s like people are trolling just to attack. That’s not what happened in the conversation I was having, but that’s where my mind went.

What happened to me was that I went silent. I had more to share, but saw no use in saying more. The conversation between two others went to a place where I could add no value. It was upsetting. I am not someone who likes to walk away from something unresolved, but I didn’t have the words. I typed a response, then deleted it. I did this again.

I can’t stay on Twitter and only share things I think will acquire likes and positive comments. I’m not a poop disturber either, but I want to be able to go to hard places sometimes, to question and to learn. But I’m not feeling like good discourse can happen on social media anymore. Discourse has become argument and different views are not tolerated.

What I’m talking about goes far beyond the conversation I had, but what I’ve seen recently has pushed me away from following conversation threads on Twitter… Not because I’m not interested in the topic, but because I’m not interested in the polar, angry, and even nasty comments that fill any (even slightly) controversial thread.

Social media seems a lot less social these days.

Ad Hominem Attacks on Social Media

Ad hominem (Latin for “to the person”), short for argumentum ad hominem, typically refers to a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. (Wikipedia)

It used to be that an ad hominem attack during an argument was a (weak) defensive move, but that is no longer the case… especially on social media. Don’t like someone’s ideas? Attack their character, their physical features, their business acumen, or even their choice of clothing. As for the point they are making, the very thing that was upsetting, this is not dismissed with any points of merit. No, instead it is simply assumed that the opposing view is already a lost argument with no need to fact check or provide counter evidence or opposing rationalization.

I’m not sure when this became so acceptable? It is a weak and counterproductive approach to disagreeing with someone’s ideas, and yet it is pervasive on all social media platforms. While ad hominem attacks used to be used as a poor, defensive response, now it is done as a knee jerk reaction with little thought as to how it undermines any points made in conjunction with it. While ad hominem attacks used to be used by weak people avoiding having to put forth a weak argument, now it is used as fuel to feed the rage that social media can invite. ‘Here is my point, and here is a personal attack I’ll add for good measure.’

Ultimately, here is the problem, an ad hominem attack is literally an argument that preaches only to the converted. It undermines any valuable information or argument that is shared along with the attack. Sure it scores a point with the people who agree with the person on the attack, but it does the opposite with those that disagree, those that the attacker would actually want to convince otherwise. Think that through to its logical conclusion: Ad hominem attacks are great for convincing people who are already agreeable, while angering or being fully dismissed by those that disagree. What does this accomplish?

____________

Addendum: Sarcasm works the same way, pandering to those who need not be convinced, while being dismissed by those that it would be desirable to influence.

Also, this brings me back to the post: Ideas on a Spectrum.