The 10 minute argument please.
Feb. 4th, 2006 06:56 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
andrewduckerThere are three kinds of arguments (he said, simplifying wildly, and implicitly inviting someone to disagree wildly with him)
At work, I'm largely (but not entirely) dealing with other geeks. There, I can argue in the style I most prefer - both sides stating their opinions on the matter clearly, and then hammering out the differences in opinion. One person will point out an area of disagreement, and tell them exactly where/why they have it wrong. The other person will then respond with the reasons why they think they're right and the original person is wrong. Eventually, the two of them will narrow down the origin of the differences, and then either find an answer that satisfies them both, agree that it needs further work before they have the right answer, or put it down to a simple difference of opinion about which style of bracket indenting is the most readable (for reference I prefer BSD/Allman style to K&R style).
Obviously, there are places this doesn't work. When you're dealing with something that's purely aesthetic in the first place, like whether Mulholland Drive is a better film than Lost Highway, there's not much scope for persuading one person that one is better than the other. There are three tactics you can take - you can agree a set of criteria that are important and then pick the films apart using those criteria to see which ones fulfil them better, you can go through the film pointing out the cool bits and remind the other person how cool it was (and also possibly explain away any niggles the other person had which were spoiling the movie for them), or you can not attempt to decide that film A is better than film B at all, and simply enjoy the films individually and in their own right.
And then when you're dealing with more emotional subjects you can simply remain aware that the subject of the argument itself is frequently not that important, and that what you're doing is being very loud at each other because you're upset, and the topic at hand is simply a handy excuse for lashing out. But that the people involved almost certainly don't realise this at the time, and need to calm down themselves before they can come to terms with the fact that they had a shouting match over whether the number 34 or the number 44 is the best bus to get (correct answer - it depends). Attempting to stop the argument halfway through _can_ work, but only if both people want to - otherwise you're simply left with one person still arguing and the other one simply nodding occasionally and thinking about something else while they wait for the argument to finish (note to various ex-girlfriends - I have never, ever done this. Honest.)
The first major problem, I find, occurs when you think you're having an argument of type A, but are actually having one of type C - and while you think you're involved in an attempt to get to the root of whether AI is obviously inevitable or merely a silly idea that'll never work, you're actually talking about whether you care about your girlfriend as a person, or think that there's nothing special about her and would be just as happy playing on your computer rather than ever talking to her again.
The other major problem occurs when both of you are having a type A conversation, but the fact that you're excitable and emphatic about whatever topic is being discussed (OMG - can you believe that in the latest edit they both shoot at the same time?!?!?!?) leads people to think that you're intractable and completely attached to your viewpoint. This is the one that I've been discussing in the depths of this post, where I've been trying to make it clear that I'm not desperately attached to that many of my ideas. Sure, I defend them when I'm arguing about them, because that's my job in the argument. The other person's job is to argue me out of them, and show me how wrong I am, in the same way that trials have lawyers on both sides, making sure that they're both strongly represented, but the eventual hoped for outcome is the truth. Thesis. Antithesis. Synthesis. This is how the world moves on. It's the synthesis I really care about, not the thesis or the antithesis.
At work, I'm largely (but not entirely) dealing with other geeks. There, I can argue in the style I most prefer - both sides stating their opinions on the matter clearly, and then hammering out the differences in opinion. One person will point out an area of disagreement, and tell them exactly where/why they have it wrong. The other person will then respond with the reasons why they think they're right and the original person is wrong. Eventually, the two of them will narrow down the origin of the differences, and then either find an answer that satisfies them both, agree that it needs further work before they have the right answer, or put it down to a simple difference of opinion about which style of bracket indenting is the most readable (for reference I prefer BSD/Allman style to K&R style).
Obviously, there are places this doesn't work. When you're dealing with something that's purely aesthetic in the first place, like whether Mulholland Drive is a better film than Lost Highway, there's not much scope for persuading one person that one is better than the other. There are three tactics you can take - you can agree a set of criteria that are important and then pick the films apart using those criteria to see which ones fulfil them better, you can go through the film pointing out the cool bits and remind the other person how cool it was (and also possibly explain away any niggles the other person had which were spoiling the movie for them), or you can not attempt to decide that film A is better than film B at all, and simply enjoy the films individually and in their own right.
And then when you're dealing with more emotional subjects you can simply remain aware that the subject of the argument itself is frequently not that important, and that what you're doing is being very loud at each other because you're upset, and the topic at hand is simply a handy excuse for lashing out. But that the people involved almost certainly don't realise this at the time, and need to calm down themselves before they can come to terms with the fact that they had a shouting match over whether the number 34 or the number 44 is the best bus to get (correct answer - it depends). Attempting to stop the argument halfway through _can_ work, but only if both people want to - otherwise you're simply left with one person still arguing and the other one simply nodding occasionally and thinking about something else while they wait for the argument to finish (note to various ex-girlfriends - I have never, ever done this. Honest.)
The first major problem, I find, occurs when you think you're having an argument of type A, but are actually having one of type C - and while you think you're involved in an attempt to get to the root of whether AI is obviously inevitable or merely a silly idea that'll never work, you're actually talking about whether you care about your girlfriend as a person, or think that there's nothing special about her and would be just as happy playing on your computer rather than ever talking to her again.
The other major problem occurs when both of you are having a type A conversation, but the fact that you're excitable and emphatic about whatever topic is being discussed (OMG - can you believe that in the latest edit they both shoot at the same time?!?!?!?) leads people to think that you're intractable and completely attached to your viewpoint. This is the one that I've been discussing in the depths of this post, where I've been trying to make it clear that I'm not desperately attached to that many of my ideas. Sure, I defend them when I'm arguing about them, because that's my job in the argument. The other person's job is to argue me out of them, and show me how wrong I am, in the same way that trials have lawyers on both sides, making sure that they're both strongly represented, but the eventual hoped for outcome is the truth. Thesis. Antithesis. Synthesis. This is how the world moves on. It's the synthesis I really care about, not the thesis or the antithesis.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-02-04 07:10 pm (UTC)And your solution to the film dilemma is exactly the same as the one for the geek example. It just doesn't seem the same to you because you work with one. I don't work with either, and they seem fairly identical.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-04 08:14 pm (UTC)I'm intrigued by your comment films - would you mind explaining the ways in which they aren't aesthetic?
no subject
Date: 2006-02-04 08:48 pm (UTC)To some extent I'm both a film and computer geek. I don't find the process of argument in them to be that different. Although you can say that there's maybe a more right or wrong answer with a piece of code, there are still multiple criteria by which you can evaluate it beyond whether or not it works - e.g. maintainability, efficiency (for the computer or the programmer?), elegance, speed. Different types of film have their own evaluative criteria, and often the problem is that critics try to apply their preferred set to everything - something that's a great realist film won't score very highly if the critic prefers a formalist approach, for instance.
Thesis, antithesis, synthesis doesn't work for all arguments I think - sometimes there are just incommensurable alternatives, like - I guess - evolution and 'intelligent design'
For the record I use K&R braces.
What next? vi or emacs :-)
no subject
Date: 2006-02-04 08:56 pm (UTC)Art should/can speak on more than one level, whether it's a design for a chair or a painting - it can have a message, it can try to change the perceptions of the viewer, it can play tricks on the eye..
I'm trying to do three things at once, so this comment is not well formed, I do apologise.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-04 08:56 pm (UTC)Evolution/Intelligent Design is, I think, something that can be progressed. If both people involved in any one argument can agree what constitutes 'proof' then they can work away at it. If one person in _any_ argument says "No matter what you say I will not shift my argument." then no discussion can take place. But ID is frequently about poking holes in the evolutionary argument, which can be a good thing, provided they are actual holes, and not just sophistry.
Oh, and both vi and emacs suck. I like Visual Studio :->
no subject
Date: 2006-02-04 09:05 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-04 09:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-04 10:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-04 10:30 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-04 10:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-04 10:38 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-04 10:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-05 12:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-05 01:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-06 04:07 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-06 03:28 pm (UTC)