RSS feedIt was about 1989 or so, several years after not synching particularly well with the NSW public school system, that I read a book on how to win arguments. This wasn’t one of those late 20th century pop-psych how to win arguments and influence people books, it was more technical and about English grammer and trickery. It was written back in about 1912, and it opened my eyes to how most arguments are won and lost on technique, not subject matter or who is right and who is wrong. Throw in our ingrained want to be more right than the competition, or to at least walk away thinking that they just didn’t get it and that we’re on a whole different level of understanding, and no wonder we’re often a little jaded about having to argue with someone. (I’ve lost the book by the way, so I’m afraid I can’t link to it)
You’d think however, that if we just had enough research, facts and figures at our disposal at the time, then we’d be able to prove that we’re right once and for all. If all that historical knowledge we’ve built up over the years was able to pulled out and placed on the table in a well structured and researched way, then the argument would surely be won? Well, you’d be wrong.
The Internet, and web forums in particular, of which blogging comments are an excellent example, gives us the opportunity to spend time, not a whole lot of time of course, but some time researching our arguments and posting our final uber-ripost, as if off the top of our heads.
Facts, figures, research and a clearly written reply, what else could we want? Well, perhaps if the other person hadn’t done the same, then we wouldn’t have wasted our time doing the research in the first place, except to reinforce or relearn our original reasoning. Information overload in the blogosphere has hit prime time, which effectively once again levels the playing field.
Darren Barefoot’s personal and work weblogs are good examples of professional writing in the blogosphere, and coincidentally he’s written about Synop’s bread and butter, single sourcing.
A few days ago I stumbled across his weblog, and this post about Dave Winer and American Interventionalism. But the interesting thing wasn’t so much the subject matter, it was that much of the ongoing comments discussion was what I’m calling a quotathon, or the World Wide Quotosphere. Each contrary argument was backed by another hyperlinked site detailing proof of that particular aspect of the argument. In the end Darren gives away several points and tries to nicely put down the discussion, but to some folks that’s like a rag to a bull, or more accurately, the door to the pantry left slightly ajar. (And no, the Richard Bennett in the argument is not me, just some new Richard Bennett stealing my name 🙂 )
Most of us love a good argument, it stretches our mental capacity, challenges our understanding of logic, and in 50% of cases tests our ability to save face against overwhelming evidence of a more accurate or correct contrary opinion. Does more research win an argument? No, typically passion, emotion, opinion and dirty tricks win an argument, and as a spectator, if you know what’s going on, they can be enormously entertaining.
Now, a heated discussion, that’s a whole new kettle o’ fish!
(Originally posted to Synop weblog)