Why Are People Completely Unable to Argue Effectively

Some years ago, before my exile, a group of friends and I were eating dinner at a restaurant. The topic of conversation came around to the idea that the amount of "craziness" (as described anecdotally from police departments and emergency rooms) increases during a full moon. One friend in particular agreed with this idea because a relative had worked at an asylum once, and he had heard it from them. Around the table there were mutters of agreement.

I made myself very unpopular that night by voicing the opinion that this was a myth (I put it differently at the time - "Utter horseshit" was probably what I said. This was in the days before I learned tact). Soon I was the odd man out in an argument against five true believers.

Now you have to understand that, at the time, I was just finishing up a university course titled "Science, Magic and Religion". This was essentially a course on skepticism (of the sort espoused by Carl Sagan and CSICOP/The
Skeptical Inquirer). I had, in fact, just finished researching this very topic for a paper. I had consulted journal articles, checked the statistics, and basically did all the research I could short of commissioning my own studies.

Bottom line - there is no link between human behavior and the phases of the moon.

This is why I argued against my friends at the time. There was nothing personal about any of this - I didn't want to rub their noses in the fact that I was right and they were wrong. My friend had believed X when X was demonstrably not true - I wanted to correct my friend so that their was one less bad meme in the world and we could all move on. From the reaction I got, you would think I had accused his mother of being a crack whore. I was essentially told that I had no right to try to disabuse him of this notion - that his opinion was just as valid as mine.

At this point I think a quote from a smarter man than I is appropriate:

"Not everyone is entitled to an opinion. They are only entitled to an informed opinion."
- Harlan Ellison.

At that time, on that topic, I had an informed opinion. I spoke with some depth of knowledge on the subject that the others lacked. But that didn't matter. The most evidence my friends had was that someone who had once worked at an asylum had heard that it was true.

Allow me to let you in on a little secret, and this may surprise many of you:

I only argue a point when I know I'm right.

"Well Duh" some of you are no doubt thinking. Let me clarify that with some other points:

I'll concede a point or postpone an argument if I'm not 100 percent certain of my facts. When I am recounting hearsay, I am quite open about it.

I'll discuss it if the other person is willing to listen. In return I will listen to them - I dislike being wrong, so if someone seems to know better than I do, I will generally give them a listen.

I'm also willing to discuss (not argue) points for which there is no evidence. I'm an atheist, but I don't go looking for fundamentalists to debunk just because there is no evidence for the existence of Yahweh, Zeus or Shiva. On the other hand, if a fundamentalist tries to convert me to their side I will respond.

Matters of taste - Movie preferences, pros and cons of a particular hobby, etc. also fall into this category. You think The Musketeer was the greatest action film of all time? I'll respectfully disagree and tell you why I didn't like it, but that's not the same as arguing.

In short, I try to keep a very clear distinction between facts and hearsay - and it's not a fact unless I think I can prove it. I don't bet very often, but I've never lost a bet for money since I graduated from high school.

Strangely, I have an undeserved reputation for being argumentative. I can only assume the people who hold this opinion have forgotten all the times I've said "I hadn't considered that - I guess your right". I suspect this is because I have a hair trigger for certain kinds of arguing tactics that I view as dishonest. When I've encountered them in the past, I tended to dig in and raise my voice (and I have a voice that can be heard over an artillery barrage). Now I usually point out their tactic and suggest that they argue properly or concede the point. It works. Occasionally.

My pet peeves of arguing:

Just Say No
(argument by assertion)

This is the one where you end up having a one-sided argument with someone because they refuse to do anything but say "no".

"Here is my evidence that the death penalty has no effect on recidivism" (produces reams of studies proving my point).
"I don't agree."

Well that's nice, you don't agree. Care to point out what you don't agree with? Do you think the evidence is wrong (give me counter evidence), or reaches the wrong conclusion (show me why) or is their just insufficient evidence?

I think this one bugs me because it assumes that they're right with no proof whatsoever. Certainly the burden of proof would be on me if I was making an extraordinary claim (Al Duerr is a space alien), but generally this isn't the case. Usually I get this sort of stonewalling on the big, evenly divided arguments (Death penalty, abortion, gun rights, etc.).

I'm right and you don't have a say
(Eeyore's principle)

I know a guy who used to end arguments like this (maybe he still does, I don't know):

"I just have one thing to say about that, and then we're going to talk about something else".

This infuriated me for the longest time before I put my finger on why. It was the idea that only his opinion mattered - that he could state his position without any sort of objection at all. Sorry Eeyore - you're not Jesus and this isn't the sermon on the mount. If you want to end the discussion, fine. But don't use that as an excuse to slip in the last word unopposed.

I agree with you, but I'll look weak unless I nitpick

"Most dogs are bigger than cats."
"Chihuahuas aren't".

Hello - I was making a generalization. I didn't say 'all dogs are bigger than all cats'. How does your observation add anything to the conversation?

Slogans instead of evidence

"According to these statistics, nonsmokers who live with smokers are more likely to die of lung cancer than nonsmokers who don't.""Well you know what they say - anyone can lie with statistics."

This is really just Just Say No one step removed - no attempt to disprove the evidence is given. I.e. the fact that people have “proven” things with bad statistics does not mean that all statistics are bad - if you have evidence that the statistics are bad, then say so.

I'm Right Because I'm Unique

"I've heard that if you do X, morning sickness will be less severe"
"How would you know - you're a man."

What? The rules of logic and evidence don't apply to you?

I see this one turn up most often in three different places:

Gender arguments.
Parenting arguments.
Sexual preference/identity.

It's a lie and a cop out because it assumes the other person has no ability to imagine themselves
in your position, nor remember a similar situation other people like you have been in.

False Equivalence

"So-and-so is a real jerk because he talks about me behind my back"
"Well aren't you doing the same thing?"

This is like saying the allies were morally equivalent to the Nazi's because both sides used tanks and submarines. Hint (and this will seem very elementary school playground when I actually write it): They started it!

I see this used all the time by columnists in the Calgary Sun and Calgary Herald newspapers (it's also a favorite of Ted Byfield of Report Magazine) when talking about alleged discrimination against Christians - I.e. that preventing discrimination that the church approves of (against homosexuals for example), is therefore itself discrimination.

Preventing people from exercising their close mindedness is not discrimination.

Mob Rule

Sometimes I hear people wanting to take a vote for something that you can't (or shouldn't be able to) vote on. Civil rights for example. The current kerfuffle over Native land claims in BC for example. By extension, I hear people argue for numbers in a meaningless way.

Back in the day, I used to get into arguments on the local fidonet politics forum (Then I had an epiphany and subsequently stopped getting into arguments on the net). Being the lone liberal in a group about Alberta politics meant that the local rednecks were always holding votes to see if I was right or wrong. I'm still scratching my head over that.

"Homosexuals are ten percent of the population."
"Actually they make up less than 1 percent."

What, you can deny them their civil rights if they're 1 in 100, but not when they're 1 in 10? At what point are we allowed to round them up and put them into camps - 1 in 1000, 1 in a million?.

The Big Conclusion

If you're going to argue, do it directly and honestly. Don't go using tactics which have nothing to do with the heart of the matter.

For example, if you object to Canada's gun registry law because you think you have an inalienable right to bear arms, or you just think it's none of the government's damn business then say so. Don't say you're against it because you think it's a waste of money, or the bureaucracy is inefficient. Your just wasting everyone's time, and a convincing argument (that it could be made as efficient as the DMV, which already has your tacit approval, say) will have no effect because your real objections were hidden.

The problem is that people argue to convince others. If your against abortion because the Bible tells you so, then you end up having very short arguments with Atheists, who can simply respond with "I don't believe in God, so why should I care what the Bible says".

So they argue their point obliquely, and it takes a long long time to come to the same end - namely continued disagreement. Only now everyone's pissed off.