The only way to win an argument
I agree with Dale Carnegie, who says:
"The only way to win an argument is to avoid it." and--
"You may be right, dead right, as you speed along with your argument, but as far as changing another's mind is concerned, you will probably be just as futile if you were wrong."
"You can't win an argument. You can't because if you lose it, you lose it; and if you win it, you lose it. . . . you will feel fine. But what about him? You have made him feel inferior. You have hurt his pride. He will resent your triumph."
Ben Franklin said, "If you argue and rankle and contradict, you may achieve a victory sometimes; but it will be an empty victory because you will never get your opponent's good will."
Abraham Lincoln said, "No man who is resolved to make the most of himself can spare time for personal contention. . . . Better give your path to a dog than be bitten by him contesting for the right. Even killing the dog will not cure the bite."
Some people like to argue for fun. I think it is a detestable habit, and counterproductive, to say the least. Even if you know you're right, and are able to prove it--so what? Every argument you win makes you a lesser person overall. It's why I walk away when things get too contentious. Being in the middle of a snarling dog pack is not as fun as it looks on cartoons.
I've changed people's opinions on things before, and I consider that winning. There's a difference between getting someone to just back down and not only admitting that you're right, but to also take your opinion as their own.
... Every argument you win makes you a lesser person overall...
No it doesn't [/argument clinic]
Every argument I win proves that once again, I'm right about something, and every argument lost is a lesson learned.
The ability to reason, debate, and form conclusions is what life is all about. Socrates said "A life unexamined is not worth living." Sometimes you examine more of yourself when you hear differing opinions; I know I have been urged to rethink some of my very set ideas as a result of Cellar debates.
And I've certainly seen more detestable habits, but I won't go there.
By the way, Dale Carnegie also said "Fear not those who argue but those who dodge." :cool:
Wow, I think the opening post has been totally debunked.
Thanks. I'll be here all week. Try the veal.
I'll be here all month, but the caterer is late.
Debate is not a contest... I do not live against anyone, those that do are deluded IMO, there is nothing to win. I feel sad for them.
an arguer focuses solely on himself or herself, instead of listening. Perhaps that's why I've not been made to feel welcome here, despite a pretty diligent effort on my part to contribute.
It's okay! You guys can go argue with Lincoln and Ben, if you want. :)
Sure, everyone gets along better if there are no arguments. But...
I've modified my thinking based on arguments here in the Cellar. Being presented with new ideas and perspectives is always a good thing. It doesn't always happen, of course. Sometimes a topic gets beaten to death, and you just have to agree to disagree. I notice a lot of people are staying out of the gun debate in the VT thread. It's been done to death here and nobody is changing anybody's opinions on that one.
Which is strange. That thread is a good example of weird behavior.
Person A: makes a statement.
Person B: refutes
Then person A just makes the same initial statement without ever taking into consideration the change in paradigm made by the second statement... it is strange and, as I said earlier, sad. It shows a lack of imagination and, in some, intellect.
And emotions are not valid when making a point as to why they choose not to address points. Guns, or anything else, are not any more "emotional" than any other discussion, they just are.
Perhaps that's why I've not been made to feel welcome here, despite a pretty diligent effort on my part to contribute.
Really? Sorry to hear you feel that way. I thought you were pretty well included, and even thinking about it I can't remember anyone arguing with you on anything in particular... I think there's a difference between debating a topic and rudely arguing about it. You also have to remind yourself on occasion that for every heated argument, there are dozens of active users
not participating in it. You can walk away from a thread without pulling back from the whole community. :2cents:
I think that people think I'm an asshole, well one of the reasons, is that I just don't see that there is a place for emotion in debate and one should remove it.
Your style is to speak in absolutes. I think that rubs many people the wrong way.
oh, I'm not giving up on The Cellar just yet. Just expressing an opinion.
It doesn't matter if it's online or in RL--I just don't like arguments. Discussion, sure. "My way or the highway" -- no.
All agruments are discussions.
My way or the highway is more like an ultimatum.
Your style is to speak in absolutes. I think that rubs many people the wrong way.
I make statements, I rarely state that I am entirely correct. It has always confused me that people load their own shit onto my statements and/or make them things that they are not.
. . . but not all discussions devolve into arguments.
Some suggestions on how to keep a disagreement from becoming an argument:
1. Welcome the disagreement. Treat it as an opportunity to learn something new.
2. Distrust your first instinctive impression. Stop and think--don't be knee-jerk defensive.
3. Control your temper. Frankly, I think I scared myself as a child with my temper, which is why I usually get sad, not mad.
4.Listen first. Give your opponents a chance to talk without interrupting. Everyone wants to be listened to.
5. Look for areas of agreement. Make sure and acknowledge the points you do agree on.
6. Be honest. If you're wrong, admit it. It will disarm your opponents and reduce defensiveness.
7. Promise to think over your opponent's ideas and study them carefully. Step back at the beginning and ask yourself--is my opponent right? Doing this at the beginning avoids set-in-concrete positions later on.
8. Thank your opponents sincerely for their interest. "Anyone who takes the time to disagree with you is interested in the same things you are. Think of them as people who really want to help you, and you may turn your opponents into friends."
9. Postpone action to give both sides time to think through the problem. Ask yourself about the consequences if you win.
Again, all this is straight from "How to Win Friends and Influence People" by Dale Carnegie. A bestseller for 70 years, it's worth the time to pick up a copy at your library and read it.
Now we're just "discussing" semantics.
Your style is to speak in absolutes. I think that rubs many people the wrong way.
I make statements, I rarely state that I am entirely correct. It has always confused me that people load their own shit onto my statements and/or make them things that they are not.
I'm not trying to attack you here, so I hope you don't take this personally. I clicked on posts you have made, and only had to go back to last night before I found an example.
In the unpopular opinions thread you said:
Democracy is a terrible option. No true American wants democracy.
Now the first sentence is an attack against democracy. An attack against an idea. No problem there. Everyone here does that - attacks ideas. But in the second sentence, you personalized it.
By saying that no true American wants democracy, you are saying that anyone who wants democracy is not a true American. If I am a person who considers myself a true American, and I also want a democracy, you have just insulted me.
You make statements like this with regularity, which means you are insulting groups with regularity. Eventually, you get around to insulting almost everyone here.
You can make more friends in two months by becoming interested in other people than you can in two years by trying to get other people interested in you.
er . . . Dale Carnegie posted? From beyond the grave?
But you're right!
lol...I woke him up especially for that quote!
Is your real name Anita Blake?
shhhhh...no one is supposed to know. :)
Cloud, I can't believe you started this big argument.:rolleyes:
Arguing is only pointless when you have two people that will not move from their position.
I like to see arguing as a friendly way of sharing ideas. I think my definitions of friendly and sharing are a bit off though.
This is only my personal opinion, but I feel quite strongly that one can disagree with someone else...respectfully. It is absolutely not necessary to condemn, criticize, mock, belittle, or berate in the course of stating one's position even if it is diametrically opposed to another's. I don't consider this to be 'walking on eggshells', but simply behaving in a healthy, mature, and emotionally/mentally secure manner.
I don't feel that in order to bolster my 'rightness', I have to prove my opponent to be 'wrong'. I believe what I believe and you are 100% free to disagree. And just because I don't scream it from the rooftops or TYPE IT ALL IN CAPS, or argue you into submission does NOT mean I don't feel strongly. It merely means I am secure enough in myself for it not to matter if the entire world disagrees with me. I am right with myself.
Someone on another forum posted a quote that said something like, 'True listening is hearing what someone else is saying to the extent you are willing to have your view changed'. I beleive that someone who refuses to hear the possibility that someone else's (differing) opinion may contain truths is someone who is unwilling to grow. And because growth is precious to me, I try to see the potential truth or 'rightness' in everything. Sometimes, this gives me great insights and other times, it merely cements my own position.
But no matter which, I believe that by offering other's the same respect I desire, I maintain my self-respect (which means more to me than anything anyone else can give me).
an arguer focuses solely on himself or herself, instead of listening. Perhaps that's why I've not been made to feel welcome here, despite a pretty diligent effort on my part to contribute.
Really? Sorry to hear you feel that way. I thought you were pretty well included, and even thinking about it I can't remember anyone arguing with you on anything in particular...
Yes, you surprised me with that comment too. I haven't seen any evidence of you being unwelcome and I am sorry you feel that way. Maybe you just expected something different?
This is a long-established site with many veteran members, so there is a lot of history that can be opaque to newcomers, and it has a character and sense of humor of it's own which I guess can feel brusque, maybe... ascerbic, perhaps. Sometimes the most inane threads take off, sometimes interesting questions go largely unanswered. But that's what I like about it. It's unpredictable and the fluff is avoidable if you're not in the mood and available by the bucketload if you are.
I've found other forums where I guess people are just trying to be friendly but to me the atmosphere is cloying and intrusive and the chatter inane because everyone feels the need to ask personal questions and answer every post, even if it's just to say "I don't know". But I think I felt that just because it was not what I expected/was used to.
It's unpredictable and the fluff is avoidable if you're not in the mood and available by the bucketload if you are.
Understatement of the week.
Oooh.. new thread idea! :idea:
Yeah, I'm pretty familiar with the vicissitudes of forums and try not to take it personally. You can never tell which threads take off--like this one!
fluff is good. You notice I tend to avoid the current events and politics threads, LOL!
You can never tell which threads take off--like this one!
That's 'cause the rest of us can't resist a good argument ;) :p
interesting that the argument thread has more action than the beautiful women thread.
lol...that's because beauty is in the eye of the bebitcher! :D
Summary of: How to Win friends, yadda yadda:
Fundamental Techniques in Handling People:
* "Don't criticize, condemn or complain."
* "Give people a feeling of importance; praise the good parts of them."
* "Get the other person to want to do what you want them to by arousing their desires."
Six Ways to Make People Like You:
* "Become genuinely interested in other people."
* "Smile."
* "Remember that a man's name is to him the sweetest and most important sound in any language."
* "Be a good listener. Encourage others to talk about themselves."
* "Talk in the terms of the other man's interest."
* "Make the other person feel important and do it sincerely."
Twelve Ways to Win People to Your Way of Thinking:
* "Avoid arguments."
* "Show respect for the other person's opinions. Never tell someone they are wrong."
* "If you're wrong, admit it quickly and emphatically."
* "Begin in a friendly way."
* "Start with questions the other person will answer yes to."
* "Let the other person do the talking."
* "Let the other person feel the idea is his/hers."
* "Try honestly to see things from the other person's point of view."
* "Sympathize with the other person."
* "Appeal to noble motives."
* "Dramatize your ideas."
* "Throw down a challenge."
Nine Ways to Change People Without Giving Offense or Arousing Resentment:
* "Begin with praise and honest appreciation."
* "Call attention to other people's mistakes indirectly."
* "Talk about your own mistakes first."
* "Ask questions instead of giving direct orders."
* "Let the other person save face."
* "Praise every improvement."
* "Give them a fine reputation to live up to."
* "Encourage them by making their faults seem easy to correct."
* "Make the other person happy about doing what you suggest."
The Cellar used to be more debate-heavy back in the day. Some of it was good, but a lot of it was chest-thumping, IMO. People wanting to be right at any cost--name calling, humiliation, etc. I tried to be respectful, but inevitably, I too became disrespectful at times.
I'm finally at a good place now--I enjoy debating, but try to make sure I do it for the sake of good talk, not to "win." And I pick and choose my battles better, and know when to walk away.
Yeah, now everyone takes everything personally... to the point of making everything about them. It is sad and indicative of an epidemic of something I consider insanity. (yes, literally)
If it did not happen to you, will not be happening to you... it is NOT about you.
Cloud, I don't want broken friends & I don't give a fuck if I offend someone if I'm right and was not intentionally rude. People ARE accountable for their emotions, always, period.
I don't think I want broken friends, either.
Like when they fall (or been pushed) down the cellar stairs and they're lying there . . . all broken.
I'm not trying to attack you here, so I hope you don't take this personally. I clicked on posts you have made, and only had to go back to last night before I found an example.
In the unpopular opinions thread you said:
Now the first sentence is an attack against democracy. An attack against an idea. No problem there. Everyone here does that - attacks ideas. But in the second sentence, you personalized it.
By saying that no true American wants democracy, you are saying that anyone who wants democracy is not a true American. If I am a person who considers myself a true American, and I also want a democracy, you have just insulted me.
You make statements like this with regularity, which means you are insulting groups with regularity. Eventually, you get around to insulting almost everyone here.
What group? Democracy is mob rule and an unmanageable, impractical idea. You make it work for me, where minorities (not the PC, bullshit, definition, but
real minorities) are not just slaves and fodder for the majority and I'll listen to you.
But, it is a fact.
Again, your response is not based in fact. Show me someone sane who REALLY wants
true mob rule?
Cloud, people who need to be handled with kid-gloves and don't want you to be honest with them are broken.
BTW, by
your definition, I am broken.
I've fallen and I can't get up!
Hmm.
I used to have very low self-esteem, which caused me to do everything I could to make people like me. I avoided arguments like the plague, complimented everyone constantly, and treated everyone who was willing to spend time with me like a close friend. Online, I stuck to "fluff" discussions, flirted, posted pictures and acted like a "good girl" because that was what was expected of me. It made me happy that I was "popular" -- when I wanted to go out, I had all kinds of people to go out with, and when I wanted to stay in and go online, lots of people sent me messages.
A couple of years ago I had some experiences that forced me to re-evaluate this strategy. I realized that the people I'd thought of as "friends" didn't really respect or value me, and were not there when I most needed them. Why not? Not because they didn't like me -- because they didn't KNOW me. I'd never really shared my feelings or opinions because I didn't want to risk losing the happy cloud of people around me.
So I made a conscious decision to stand up for myself, express my views and not be afraid to disagree with others. It is not always easy for me because my instinct is to be timid, but I am much happier when I am willing to argue. It doesn't mean that I won't *listen* to other views, but I have been told by others in many cases that my opinions have made them consider a new point of view, rethink their personal prejudices, and change the way they view the world. That motivates me to do my best to express myself and challenge views and paradigms that I disagree with. I don't do so because I want to hurt people or make them admit that they are "wrong," but because I believe that, like everyone else, I have my own unique point of view that is well worth putting out there.
On the other hand, if you're talking about factual arguments like "who won the battle of tripoli?" or "who was the first actor to play Darren on Bewitched?," then yeah, that will make you look like an asshole if it's with anyone other than the kind of friends/family members who have that kind of conversation for fun.
What group? Democracy is mob rule and an unmanageable, impractical idea. You make it work for me, where minorities (not the PC, bullshit, definition, but real minorities) are not just slaves and fodder for the majority and I'll listen to you.
But, it is a fact.
Again, your response is not based in fact. Show me someone sane who REALLY wants true mob rule?
What I am saying is that when you say something that amounts to "anyone who is in favor of democracy is un-American", you are going to insult some people. A lot of people out there
think they are in favor of democracy. Probably the majority of Americans. Those same people probably
think they are pro-American. If you mean to have a political science discussion about what "democracy" means, then by all means, have that discussion. But when you make a simple statement in black and white drawing a battle line between groups of people, you are going to insult some people.
If someone does not actually know that we are not, never have been, or were meant to be, a democracy, that is not my problem in any way, shape or form.
The uneducated are their own issue. It is their job to fix it.
A lot of people think god talks to them and the fact they can't figure out a flower is evidence for "him".
I don't understand calculus. But hey! I did pretty well with the National Vocabulary Challenge.
If someone does not actually know that we are not, never have been, or were meant to be, a democracy, that is not my problem in any way, shape or form.
The uneducated are their own issue. It is their job to fix it.
A lot of people think god talks to them and the fact they can't figure out a flower is evidence for "him".
You have said that you know that your style does not take emotion into account and you don't care if you offend people. So why are you continuing to argue about it?
...that is not my problem in any way, shape or form.
The uneducated are their own issue. It is their job to fix it.
If you are trying to make a point, and you write in a manner that offends your audience, then you sabotage your point. It is your problem.
Right. It's far and away better to make your point in such as way as to lead the other person to think it was their idea! That way, they will cooperative instead of resentful for evermore.
That's not "handling people with kid gloves" to me--it's just common sense. Unfortunately, a lot of people (including me, okay?) lack basic common sense and communication skills.
If you are trying to make a point, and you write in a manner that offends your audience, then you sabotage your point. It is your problem.
No argument, just refuting your point. I still see nothing offensive in my statement.
I don't understand calculus. But hey! I did pretty well with the National Vocabulary Challenge.
I don't see how that is on point, but as long as you don't argue about calculus and/or get offended if you misunderstand discussions about it, good... that is what I was saying.
and to think, nobody likes my beer launcher thread!
:(
I've fallen and I can't get up!
I'm getting one of those, probably not that company though.
you're getting a panic button? or a beer launcher?
I usually hit the panic button AFTER using the beer launcer. 'Cause, you know--by then I really can't get up.
yuk yuk yuk!
Panic button. I can no longer drink alcohol. When I did drink beer it was not in cans.
. . . is to get the last word in.
NO! I mean . . . is to walk away from it.
:)
I say the slash is straight. Everything else is leaning.
Dale Carnegie has produced thousands of smarmy, dishonest, devious, back-stabbing, businessmen.
Can someone please explain to me why one gets bent when someone else disagrees with them?
It is not personal... it is just a different idea. Nothing else.
Do people really think that their opinions are who they are?
Opinions change every day just like facts do.
It's been explained to you before, but you didn't listen.
Bruce, that is not Dale Carnegie's fault. If you read the book, it is absolutely not like that. I have no knowledge of the seminars focus, but I'm sure they don't focus on either smarm or backstabbing skills.
rkzenrage, I'm not sure how to respond, since this thread is really about the inadvisability of arguing, not about disagreements.
No one has answered it. Some have stated they did not like the way I made statements, some say it does not need to be that way.
Neither shows why people take disagreements personally.
As I stated before, they are important and need to happen. Without them we do not grow.
Neither shows why people take disagreements personally.
As I stated before, they are important and need to happen. Without them we do not grow........rkzenrage
It's been firmly established that once an individual states a position publicly, they are unlikely to change that position. A disagreement is often incorrectly perceived as a personal attack rather than an interesting alternative. This is a flaw that we all suffer from time to time, one that is magnified by this medium......we can't interpret body language or tone of voice. I was at one time a bit put off by the use of smilies, firstly because the term itself is silly and secondly because it seemed a tad childish, but I've accepted the fact that their attempt is to substitute for the missing indications of intent.
As for the latter part of your statement, I accept it as fact......an indisputable fact. :thumb:
A group of "agreers and back-patters" may very well feel better about their position, but this form of gathering in no way verifies that position's validity.
"Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain--and most fools do. But it takes character and self-control to be understanding and forgiving. That breeds sympathy, tolerance, and kindness."
Doesn't sound too smarmy to me.
Sympathy, tolerance, and kindness make you warm and fuzzy.
Fine, I prefer honesty and integrity.
"Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain--and most fools do. But it takes character and self-control to be understanding and forgiving. That breeds sympathy, tolerance, and kindness."
Doesn't sound too [COLOR=blue]smarmy[/COLOR] to me.
smarmy
One entry found for
smarmy. Main Entry:
smarmy 
Pronunciation: 'smär-mE
Function:
adjective
Inflected Form(s):
smarm·i·er;
-est
Etymology:
smarm to gush, slobber
1 : revealing or marked by a smug, ingratiating, or false earnestness <a tone of
smarmy self-satisfaction --
New Yorker>
2 : of low sleazy taste or quality <
smarmy eroticism>
-
smarm·i·ly /-m&-lE/
adverb
-
smarm·i·ness /-mE-n&s/
noun
From Merriam-Webster online.
I've seen this term used a number of times and I've wondered if those that use it with regularity know what it means. Furthermore, how does one go about objectively determining whether a comment or post is
smug, ingratiating, or falsely earnest?
:confused:
I hope you're comfortable in your wondering, Hyoi, because you'll never know about those who use it regularly. I certainly think it fits in this well in Cloud's post.
Second, are you wondering how to distinguish if a post is one or the other or the other definition? A given post could be one or any combination of all of those aspects of "smarmy". Or are you wondering how to "objectively" determine the smarminess quotient? I reckon there's no such objective answer. Most adjectives have this same elusive quality. I found the post entertaining. Entertaining--is there an objective measure for this quality? I found your post puzzling. Is there an objective measure for that? Indeed, you may have found your post perfectly clear, and mine obtuse. Which measure is true? Objectivity can be diabolically subjective, neh?
I hope you're comfortable in your wondering, Hyoi, because you'll never know about those who use it regularly..........BigV
I've become comfortable with being uncomfortable, BigV. The post was intended to embellish the very points you're attempting to make PRIOR to your having made them. There IS no objectivity in the use or interpretation of such terms as smarmy, and the use thereof can lead to destructive argument as opposed to healthy debate.
xo used it to describe Dale Carnegie grads, lumberjim used it to characterize a comment made by DanaC, and now Cloud has wondered if her post reads like it, so I wanted to, and did, solidify both the meaning of the term and the smarminess of using it at all.
This is two.....and counting.
Neither shows why people take disagreements personally.
As I stated before, they are important and need to happen. Without them we do not grow........rkzenrage
It's been firmly established that once an individual states a position publicly, they are unlikely to change that position. A disagreement is often incorrectly perceived as a personal attack rather than an interesting alternative. This is a flaw that we all suffer from time to time, one that is magnified by this medium......we can't interpret body language or tone of voice. I was at one time a bit put off by the use of smilies, firstly because the term itself is silly and secondly because it seemed a tad childish, but I've accepted the fact that their attempt is to substitute for the missing indications of intent.
As for the latter part of your statement, I accept it as fact......an indisputable fact. :thumb:
A group of "agreers and back-patters" may very well feel better about their position, but this form of gathering in no way verifies that position's validity.
Did not answer the question, just restated that people are reluctant to change their stance.
uh, I have no idea what you guys are talking about.
Salesmen may be smarmy, but Dale Carnegie's philosophy, as set out in his own words, emphasizes sincerity. I certainly don't think his viewpoint is inconsistent with honesty and integrity.
I've always considered myself blunt, as in don't ask me what I think of you--I'll tell you. Brutally honest, in fact. I've come to realize that this has done me more harm than good in my life, so I'm trying to change my ways.
Did not answer the question, just restated that people are reluctant to change their stance........rkzenrage
[COLOR=darkred]Ego[/COLOR]. You could easily have deduced this from my post, and probably did. Why did you continue to harp for a predetermined answer? [COLOR=darkred]Ego[/COLOR]. Why do you not want to enter a serious debate with the likes of me? [COLOR=navy]Fear[/COLOR].
Sad dodge.
I asked a question and you are angry because I did not answer it after you posted a non-answer?
What strange issues live there.
I'm not the least bit angry. I'm simply pointing out a flaw in your character. One enters a debate in anticipation of an end, whereas it appears your purpose is to merely argue for the sake of arguing. Your question was answered in my original post......you just didn't want to see it. What strange issues live there?
Neither are true. I am quite happy when I am shown to be incorrect and feel nothing but gratitude toward the party that points out the flaw in my logic.
If I had that flaw I would not read as much, participate in these threads as much, be as good a teacher as I am (my students still call me today for help from the professional sector, I continue to learn from them), or continue to audit classes when I can.
The fact is that I do not attach emotion to a disagreement or simple discussion and do not see the need to.
Those that do dislike this about me, that is their issue, not mine.
Are you under the impression that you answered the question?
uh, I have no idea what you guys are talking about.
Salesmen may be smarmy, but Dale Carnegie's philosophy, as set out in his own words, emphasizes sincerity. I certainly don't think his viewpoint is inconsistent with honesty and integrity.
I've always considered myself blunt, as in don't ask me what I think of you--I'll tell you. Brutally honest, in fact. I've come to realize that this has done me more harm than good in my life, so I'm trying to change my ways.
What Dale Carnegie's mission was in writing the book is anyone's guess. But the result was corporations, large and small, sending their minions off to take his course, how to win friends and influence people. Unfortunately the students aren't required to pledge not to use their powers for evil.
Now the graduates return to the real world of business better equipped to con friends and screw people. Harsh? Think about what the basic charge of the employee is... to do whatever it takes to make you're employer, the company, more successful (richer).
They were also better equipped to climb the corporate ladder over the people with honesty and integrity. Corporate politics is much like public politics... by the time you get very far you've usually sold your soul. I know there are exceptions, I'm speaking in generalities.
Carnegie's philosophy sounds wonderful but so does communism, until you try to integrate it with the real world.