My friends say it pisses them off when I argue a point. Arguing pisses me off too, but I think for a much different reason. When I argue I feel like 99% of my effort isn't going into explaining what's wrong with someone else's premise, but into explaining my point. I think most of what I say isn't understood, or is understood poorly, and the arguments I get into are because people either don't listen, or assume I mean something that I never actually said. That I can handle; it doesn't annoy me. What starts to annoy me is when people get the idea that I think they're idiots because they don't agree with me, that I argue because I think I'm better than them. They seem to take it personally that I hold different opinions, and that I'll try to explain what I mean when people say I'm wrong. Things I say are twisted around into personal attacks. What really pisses me off is that well into the argument people start to get mad at me for arguing, as though I were the only one talking up to that point, and always change the argument from whatever it was to "you're a jerk for arguing about this." It's never "we're idiots for arguing about this." It's always all on me.
I'm going to say this once. If I thought you were stupid, I wouldn't argue with you. I probably wouldn't talk to you either. If I thought I were so much better than you I probably wouldn't care when you didn't understand me; I would generally take it as a given that you couldn't. If you hate arguing so much then don't get started; don't contradict what I say if you don't agree. It doesn't mean you're wrong and I'm right if you let what I say stand. But if you reply to what I say and expect that to be the end of it, if you always want the first thing you say to be the last word, then you're as much at fault as I am when we argue, so stop blaming me.
Tuesday, August 09, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
No one said you are all at fault, it takes two to tango (and to argue as well). But people are going to take it personally when you critisize the way they do things. And yeah, others participate in the argument, but, at least in my case, the argument often continues because I have to defend myself against attacks to my point. you are an offensive arguer (offensive as in a football player, not as in the pictures you have on your computer). I am usually on the defensive even when I start an argument. I think there are cases where you think someone saying one sentence you disagree with is an invitation to argue and then they get pulled into an argument they didnt really want to be in, but they feel the need to defend themselves.
in tonites episode, you critisized me for being scatterbrained while playing cards. Then you said that I was winning simply because of luck and that my strategy should be better. It didnt matter that I was still a novice, because I should be able to figure it out on my own. Whetehr taht is what you meant, it is how I took it. I didnt instigate the argument, and neither did Kevin. sure we perpetuated it, but I was defnding myself and kevin was backing me up.
I dont think you think I'm stupid, but you have to realize that it comes across that way. I can take it... I can argue back and usually not get offended. But I am a pushover. I will argue the same point over and over and forget what I am arguing. I will spend an hour arguing semantics. But that is me. Other people dont want to do that.
By the way, you should read my blog.
Man, people are going to read this and wonder what the hell happened in this house tonite, and probably be really dissapointed when it is not as interesting as they imagined.
believe me its not.
I thought last nights argument was about what a good poker strategy was. The comment that you were scatterbrained was a passing comment after kevin and I kept having to remind you when to do things. Also, there's a difference between criticize the way someone does things and attacking their character, which is what you seem to take it as. In this case it's a person who'se played a decent ammount of poker commenting on the strategy of someone who'se just getting started. By no means am I a great poker player, but I have picked up some tricks over the past couple months and I was sharing them. If you listened to what I said you would have realized that, scatterbrained comment asside, all my statements were about a strategy, not about a person implementing them. Think about it. If you were writing a program and one of your functions was horribly inefficient because there was a trick you didn't know about, and I told you about it, would that be a personal attack? If you defended the way you wrote it because it seems to work, and I try to show you how that's just because of the input you've been testing it with, and most cases the function wouldn't work, or wouldn't work well, would I be a jek, or would I just be trying to help you out with your program? All I was arguing was that getting by on luck may work in the short run, but it's not a viable strategy because eventually your luck will run out.
I'm just tired of people deciding after the fact that they don't want to argue, then getting mad at me as though I were forcing them. If you want to drop the argument, that's fine. If you want to criticize my character because you got into an argument you regret, that's not fine. If you want me to be a mind reader and know in every instance when you've had enough, without you having to say or do anything, that's not fine. If we got ourselves into an argument and you want out, say so; don't keep arguing hoping I'll figure it out, because you know I won't.
exactly, you were saying that I was relying on luck... you had no reason to suspect that. Poker is about weighing luck and strategy. My strategy is to approach a hand in a certain way based on what I perceive my chances to be and also to introduce a bit of randomness. I have done pretty well considering I am still new to the game by being unpredictable. If I were relying on luck soley, would I usually tend to do as well as I do? I have had more success than failure, so I am evidently doing something right.
That being said, I appreciate your pointers and yeah, I learned a thing or two last night. But a pointer or tip shouldn't sound like a criticism. And you shouldn't assume something about my playing style that you dont know. you also shouldnt say things like "you dont have to have experience to be good, you should be able to figure it out" Maybe you can, but not everyone is as math/logic oriented as you. also, you shouldn't tell people they are acting like Paul, cuz thats just mean, even if true.
This arguement is retarded, and I am going to stop it here. I am not going to tell you how to act, just try to point out it's effects on other people. I accept blame for perpetuating the argument last night, if only because I was defending myself. Kevin was the one who obviously wanted to stop it and we both continued, so we are more at fault than him. I unfortunately suffer from the same affliction of wanting to continue arguing until I redeem myself, instead of just brushing it off and continuing what i was doing . Anyway, I say we play another, less confrontational game of poker tonite after I get home from my parents.
I like how you said you were going to stop arguing, then continued to argue. I'm going to stop this sentence now, so don't keep listening like I'm saying something.
Everything after I said I would stop arguing was me admitting blame... not arguing, althought I guess it could be construed that way. I never said I wasn't a hypocrite.... See I am still arguing. But now I am stopping
For the record, I am also quite argumentative. It helped end my relationship with the last girl I dated. I apparently am contradictory for the sake of it. I like to argue, even though it generally puts me and the others involved in a bad mood. I would call it a character flaw. I'm working on not being so argumentative, but it is difficult. I hate being wrong (though it happens a lot), and will continue arguing until I have proven my point.
you, sir, should visit more often.
The problem is this: you argue, when if you want to engage people in a truly intellectual discussion, you should engage in debate
Arguing is trying to win at all costs, without rules to keep civility
Debate is monitored and structured argument without the aim to win... A good debate should be like an intricate dance of words and ideas with the other person where each person brings out the best in the other and the energy just makes each bring their best game
Also, good debate helps people learn to the point where they could actually switch sides successfully and still do a good job defending the other side. Arguing just brings out people's automatic defense mechanisms b/c they feel like they are being personally attacked
B/c you tell them their view is wrong... that's why arguing rarely if ever gets people somewhere...
But good debate is a learning experience for everybody and is probably 300X as fulfilling as just trying to win at an argument.
Even if you know you are right, there comes a time in every socially inept boy's life when he must master the method of walking away chuckling under his breath (and really under his breath) at the idiocy of his opponent and hoping that the argument encourages them to double-check their information and will end up being productive.
Badgering people continuously only strengthens their resolve to save face with faulty information.
Debate is respecting the opinions and the person on the other side, while arguing is focused on winning.
But, then again, you aren't a dancer, and maybe you prefer the jerky awkward movement of argument, to the fluid sensual mind-melding of good debate. ;-)
Post a Comment