<< Thanks for commenting, John. I am *not* surprised that no one else did. The article and TED talk just hit "too close to home" for some here to deal with. >>
Or, it wasn't anywhere near as relevant or smart or insightful as you thought it was. << I'd almost be willing to bet that a few of the people whom almost everyone would categorized as "compulsive arguers" were afraid to even *read* it, much less comment on it. >> I read it, thought it was pretty dumb for a number of reasons. But if I'd commented along those lines, I'd be have been accused of starting an argument (even though it was Barry who posted it, hoping to start one himself). << > I pass it along because a number of people here on FFL seem to be > *addicted to* arguing. Given the findings discussed in this article, one > can only assume that the reason they endlessly try to start and > perpetuate arguments is that they're addicted to their brains > functioning without logic and reason, and to the "rush" they feel from > the fight-or-flight response. >> Actually, that was only one small study, > specifically about politics, and carefully engineered to rile up the > subjects. Not anything on which to base the above conclusion. I was wondering how the author of the article is defining "argument." I've read and heard, and participated in, many arguments in which the opposing sides presented their cases with logic and facts and careful reasoning. Arguments don't have to be "fights"; but they can become fights when at least one party finds the other side's presentations threatening because it's more solid and rational than their own. I also wonder how the author would characterize the tactic of "pushing buttons," especially when it involves making statements that are not true or highly distorted, and concluding that they have "won" if the people they're aimed at object (and the button-pusher refuses to engage). What would they say the button-pusher is addicted to? <snip> << In that TED talk above, Daniel Cohen makes another excellent point that often gets overlooked: "Losing an argument means you learn something." Knowing how to win every argument would be a terrible personal loss. You don't get any wiser by verbally bludgeoning people. You get wiser by learning. Winning an argument is a short term ego victory. Losing an argument can be a learning experience that benefits you the rest of your life. >> If that were true, you'd think Barry would be the wisest person on FFL. ;-)
