How often do you see 2 intelligent people get absolutely nowhere in an attempt at a conversation?
It seems that as soon as tempers flare both sides start writing out their positions in stone, where neither will under any circumstances consider a comprimise…
Why is it that we can go from an innocent perspective to a sort of attack mode where we only look for ways to further our own point instead of trying to come to a greater understanding.
Is it some neuro chemical that makes us this way? Some sort of competition mechanism?
From a strict psychological perspective an argument between 2 people is one set of experiences against another. In a rational discussion both sides would explain their experience to each other and then both of them would be able to reach the same, or at least a similar conclusion.
Again this is an ideal. To my regret i do not see this happen as much as i would like.
It seems like the people who i have had this kind of experience with all have something in common with me, belief wise or otherwise. It’s like they have to fit a certain bill. I’m not sure if it’s a respect thing or something more complicated, but one thing i am sure of is that there can be no disrespect.
Having an argument, as in sharing experiences, is a part of the rational process. there is nothing wrong with somebody objecting to you or even completely denying your position. But as soon as someone crosses a line by making some sort of snide comment, rude joke, run of the mill insult, or even a friendly joke, one side will full out attack the other with no regard for the truth at all, and the other side quickly follows suit.
Once you establish someone as an enemy, it’s easy to read their posts with an active contempt. i usually say that they’re writing with their eyebrows pointed (meaning they’re mad).
So what does reading something with contempt do?
Firstly it makes you allot less likely to believe anything you yourself are unsure of.
Secondly you are liable to obsess over any single plausible objection which has the effect of disallowing you to consider anything further.
Normally in order to understand the opposition you can give your opponent the benefit of the doubt in order to examine if the argument itself is sound.
This would be like a global warming guy saying that CO2 in the atmosphere raises the temperature. A contemptuous reader would probably demand that they prove that the current levels of CO2 are high before even considering the rest of the argument.
They would do everything they could to refute it’s validity instead of judging everything as a whole and coming to a proper opinion or conclusion.
They would refute it as true until their every desire for undeniable proof has been served, where a non bias reader wouldn’t deny the argument based on a lack of evidence (the appeal to ignorance fallacy).
These subtle oversights come in many forms. What seems to bring them on is an induced state of distrust, anger, or even hatred.
What causes these states of mind can be anything from a punch in the face, to a cocky attitude on line, to an unappreciated pat on the back.
What can we do to avoid this type of thinking?
I’m not entirely sure and that’s partly why i decided to write this thread. What i do when i catch myself getting angry is take a step back and try to forget everything i already know about the person and try to take what he wrote solely for what it is. (though this doesn’t always work)
Does anyone have any insight or experience in this topic? Perhaps a way of reminding yourself to stay objective?
Don’t be afraid to quote examples, especially of myself… that would be interesting…
](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/uploads/default/original/2X/7/7c349bf1053f368a5729d053e1e91215f22ce66c.gif "Brick wall"){kind=small}