|
Any discussion will
proceed along certain paths. Those paths have one beginning
point, but can stray in many directions. Those directions will
depend on the goals (overt and covert) of the participants more
often than they will of anything to do with rectitude and
relevant acumen on either side. They will also depend upon the
laying down of red herrings and strawmen, whether or not
intentional, that serve to lead the opponents of their courses.
All in all, whether they get anywhere depends on if either side
has an idea of a destination.
In spite of the nasty
nature of most of them, arguments are good events for humanity.
By ‘good’, for the moralists among us, it means they are of
overall benefit to us (wherein ‘bad’, of course, would mean they
are detractive of benefits. Nobody ever mentions that there is
neutral ground between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ that ought to be
considered as often and diligently as any of the rest of it). It
is because we have been taught to see anything that requires
actual thought and knowledge as evils (or, ‘bads’) that we fail
to appreciate argumentation enough to seek out the best ways to
go about it. Here, for your enlightenment, is the Mad Poet’s
approved process for argumentation along with many insights as
to why arguing is so often a counterproductive process.
The beginning point
of any argument occurs when someone
makes a comment, statement or assertion with which someone else
disagrees enough to make a countering assertion or negative
comment. Any countering assertion determines the direction (or
misdirection) of all that follows (and all statements made by
both sides (or, all sides) from this point on fall under the
heading “Countering Assertion” or “Agreement”.
Since agreement is not
conducive to argument (but is a laudable goal seldom achieved),
we will stick with “Countering Assertion” from this point on.
Countering assertions
possess certain recognizable characteristics. We will recognize
those characteristics as belonging to tactics taken by those
with goals that do not always portray a
high level of integrity. We could give those tactics names
to increase their tangibility to our minds. Tactics that do not
support the materials being discussed, that are
counterproductive to such support, can be found in any list of
logical fallacies. They are called ‘fallacies’ not so much
because they are untrue, but because they lead arguers astray
and prevent them from accomplishment.
A short list of
countering tactics would include Digression, Principled
Assertion, Avoidance, Personal Attack, Feel-Good, Power-Play and
Revenge.
The most common form
of countering assertion is Digression.
Digression gets applied by several means, all of which serve
covert purposes (so covert, in fact, their proponents are
sometimes not aware of them) by derailing the process. We cannot
deal with others' hidden agendas here, as there are as many of
them as there are people. We can deal with how to recognize the
tactics of Digression.
Personal Attack
may be the second most common form
of Countering Assertion. It occurs when the Countering
Participant fails to stick with the subject matter and, instead,
makes a statement about his/her opponent. Such statements may
often be of a mild nature that will go unnoticed as ad
hominems, but their digressive nature places Personal Attack
as a subheading under Digressive.
The format for
Personal Attack is made recognizable by its nature: It is about
the opposing person or group, or opposing statements themselves
rather than their contents. Any statement that attempts to show
an opponent in a less than attractive light is a Personal
Attack, including derogatory statements about what an opponent
has said, and despite any laudatory statements that might also
have been made.
Vying for second place
prominence is the Feel-Good assertion. Most often a
result of a glandular discharge, such assertions may be entirely
irrelevant in any manner, as they result from an emotional
outburst without much involvement of actual intellect. If
responded to at all, Feel-Good assertions will almost always
lead the discussion into personal attacks and flaming. The best
response, if one must be made, is with mirth absent of insults.
Agree with the assertion if you can do so without losing face,
and allow your good humor to backfire on your opponent.
Avoidance
may well be the third most common tactic. In argumentation, it
is not a synonym for Digression, but is yet another subheading.
It refers to common tactics that yield the same effect as would
simply overlooking an opponent’s assertion. The avoiding person
may actually agree with the assertion that had been made, but
has gotten so involved in some minor point that agreement went
unexpressed. More likely, and always suspect, avoidance is a
covert attempt at derailment.
Power-Play
is a synonym for One-Upmanship.
Any attempt to hornswoggle or pull a scam belongs under this
heading, as do any attempts to assert authority over an
opponent. Such attempts are not only unfair, they act as
detractive devices that are counterproductive to any good
argumentation goals.
Revenge
operates as a “get-even” tactic and is
a favorite modus operandi for Internet Trolls. Standers-by will
most often be unaware of what is going on unless they are
informed about the specifics. Since trolls are secretive and
keep their true identities hidden, their opponents may also be
unaware of this element in their agenda because it, too, may be
kept covert.
Persons bent on
employing Revenge may also be inspired to do so as a result of
having lost a previous encounter against the opponent (or, an
apparent member of the opponent’s group), or as an effect of
blaming the opponent (or someone seen as being “of his group”)
for some real or imagined evil.
Principled
Assertion (Focus) refers to a tendency
to develop real alternatives to an assertion. It is an attempt
to show why the assertion is wrong or how it can be improved, or
why it is irrelevant. To apply Focus may appear to incorporate
digression, but that is because the digression is actually away
from fallacious statements a participant has made in order to
keep a discussion on track. Such statements are avoided because
their counterproductive nature has been recognized by the
focused participant, who also recognizes that any attempts to
explain that will also serve to derail the discussion. Focused
participants realize that if a discussion is to be worth their
time and energy, prevention of derailment must be given a high
priority by them.
So, to summarize, our
incomplete list contains these as fallacious and
counterproductive:
DIGRESSION:
Personal Attack
Feel-Good
Avoidance
One-Upmanship (Power-Play)
Revenge
Those six items
(including Digression as a sub-heading of itself) all serve to
detract from Focus, which can only be maintained by Principled
Assertions. Focus is, regrettably, the least-often employed
tactic in argumentation, making avoidance of focus the most
common tactic. Focus maintains the purpose of argument, whereas
any other tactic serves only to detract from that purpose.
Focus can be employed
by keeping simple procedures in mind, and diligently applying
them. Those procedures involve questions:
1. What is the actual
subject of this discussion? Answer:
2. Is the assertion to
which I considering a response pertinent to that subject? Y__
N__
3. If not, can I
respond in such a way as to keep on track? Y__N__
How?____________________________
4. Is that assertion
about me?__ about my own statement?__or germane to the
subject?__
5. If it is not
germane, should I avoid it? Y__N__ (if it cannot be made
germane, choose Y).
6. How can I assert my
own views in the most germane manner without reinforcing my
opponent’s position, without resorting to personal attack, and
in the most persuasive way possible?
7. Can I learn
anything from my opponent’s statements? Y__N__
8. Am I, or my
opponent, making positive assertions intended to impart
information, rather than negative assertions that do nothing but
tell what is wrong with statements that have been made?
9. Am I wasting
valuable time and energy with this opponent now? Y__N__
10. Can I find any way
to turn this discussion toward a positive result? Y__N__
11. If not, then why
am I involved with it? _____________________________
Those may not be all
the questions, and the list of digressive assertions may be far
from complete, but keeping them in mind will serve yourself—and
humanity in general—by maintaining a sense of wellbeing that
results from an increased understanding of all the kinds of
events in which we get involved, and in which we see others
involved, at all levels of society. The goals ought to be to
impart information, to learn from others, and to seek and
portray truth so it can be made recognizable. The goals should
never be to attack or degrade others, nor to foster the spread
of misinformation. |
![[Visit Maeka]](../images/DMmaeka005[1].gif)
