Why Do We Argue?

While some people avoid arguments at all costs, others love to defend their opinion or belief against an oposing point of view. People have been arguing ever since history has been recorded, and from these arguments we've gained valuable theories and principles that continue to guide eithics, science, and law. Over time, however, it seems that our arguments have become less and less productive. In this video, Daniel Cohen explains why this may be and what he beleives could be the solution.

He's got a point, right? Although there exists three types of arguments (argument-as-war, argument-as-proof, and argument-as-performance), the adversarial style of argument as war definitely dominates the perception of arguments in our society. If someone does not agree with our point of view, we see that as a personal offense. Instead of seeing an argument as an opportunity to open our minds, we see it as a duty to defend our opinion at all costs. We try to convince others to think like us, and in response Cohen asks, "Is it right to try and force someone to believe something they do not want to believe"?

But Arguing doesn't have to be this way. We can have arguments and debates that are not heated, and rather informational. Instead of a dead-end discussion that leaves both sides upset, we can have a productive conversation where each side has the opportunity to think in a new way about the subject, and decide whether to alter their point of view, or further reinforce what they already believed.

For a new type of argument to evolve, though, we need new types of arguers. People who approach arguments differently and accept negotiation and collaboration as a result instead of just winning or losing.
How do you usually feel when you get into an argument?
Do you feel defensive and on-edge, or ready to listen and willing to learn?
As Cohen said, a "good argument" isn't one where some walk away "winners" and others "losers", but where everyone walks away having thought about something new.

Katie Smith