Alphas: What is your goal in an argument?

[Creepy-]

Please, only Alphas respond to this poll [there is a similar poll in each quadra’s section]


In a debate, my main objective is...
... to win at all costs [I’m an Alpha]
... to arrive at a high truth [I’m an Alpha]
... to learn something from my challenger [I’m an Alpha]
... something else [please explain]. [I’m an Alpha]


ETA: The word "debate" [and "argument," for that matter] is not intended to connote a fight. For the purpose of this discussion, I intended "debate" to mean a discussion in which disagreement is expressed.

[Creepy-male]

Learn something gnu. People who argue to win don't belong in real arguments.

[Jimbean]

I don't argue unless I know I am 100% right, in which case I argue to win.

[Mediator Kam]

Well, I argue to discover the flaws in reasoning of the opposition.

high truth ftw.

[cracka]

I don't argue unless I know I am 100% right, in which case I argue to win.

I identify with this.
I don't argue just to argue and I usually can't stand the people that do this.

[Brilliand]

Sometimes I want to win at all costs, more often I want to arrive at a high truth. Often I just want to air my ideas, but those "arguments" don't last long, so I don't know whether they count. I can also go pretty long reiterating a technicality until someone gets it... I have no idea what to classify that as.

OK, after reading the other posts... like Jimbean, if I am certain that I am right, I will argue to win (this definitely counts). If I do not know what the truth is, but know some criteria for it, I will argue in search of some higher truth (which can involve countering the other person's points, but no me vs. you situation). If I don't even have that much, I'll just air my ideas (which really doesn't count).

So I could answer like Jimbean... but the search for knowledge is a gray area, which may or may not count as argument.

[ArchonAlarion]

I argue to clear misconceptions whether they be mine or my opponents and to test my logic and knowledge.

[redbaron]

I don't argue unless I know I am 100% right, in which case I argue to win.

look at that. a beta posting in an alpha-only poll. heehee

[Creepy-]

It's pretty interesting that so far Alpha is the only quadra where people have selected the first option, "to win at all costs." And two people, at that. Hmm....

Learn something gnu. People who argue to win don't belong in real arguments.

Why not? Because they're being unnecessarily combative, because they're not adhering to respectful debate, something else...?

-

I don't argue unless I know I am 100% right, in which case I argue to win.

&

I identify with this.
I don't argue just to argue and I usually can't stand the people that do this.

&

Sometimes I want to win at all costs, more often I want to arrive at a high truth. Often I just want to air my ideas, but those "arguments" don't last long, so I don't know whether they count. I can also go pretty long reiterating a technicality until someone gets it... I have no idea what to classify that as.

OK, after reading the other posts... like Jimbean, if I am certain that I am right, I will argue to win (this definitely counts). If I do not know what the truth is, but know some criteria for it, I will argue in search of some higher truth (which can involve countering the other person's points, but no me vs. you situation). If I don't even have that much, I'll just air my ideas (which really doesn't count).

So I could answer like Jimbean... but the search for knowledge is a gray area, which may or may not count as argument.

So you start out thinking you’re right before you’ll even enter into an argument... but what if, during the course of a debate, you become convinced that the other person is right? Would you continue to argue your original case and avoid admitting “defeat,” or would you give in?

[1981slater]

It's pretty interesting that so far Alpha is the only quadra where people have selected the first option, "to win at all costs." And two people, at that. Hmm....


Why not? Because they're being unnecessarily combative, because they're not adhering to respectful debate, something else...?

-


&

So you start out thinking you’re right before you’ll even enter into an argument... but what if, during the course of a debate, you become convinced that the other person is right? Would you continue to argue your original case and avoid admitting “defeat,” or would you give in?

Rationals never give in

[redbaron]

Rationals never give in

Unless their irrational mate proves them wrong. Then they get irritable.

and anyway, jimbean isn't alpha. nobody listens to me.

[Creepy-]

and anyway, jimbean isn't alpha. nobody listens to me.

I don't know what type he is, so I don't want to exclude his answers - if he thinks he's an Alpha and I don't have any reason to think his type is or is not that, that's good enough for this [for me, anyway].

[Creepy-]

Well, I argue to discover the flaws in reasoning of the opposition.

Can you expound on “flaws of reasoning”? Do you mean that you’re trying to see how the other person’s points do or do not fit a consistent system, and if there’s a flaw, you use it as a counterargument? What if the other person points out flaws in your reasoning – how do you react?

This might not be a useful question, but how important to you is it that the truth fit a logical, consistent system? And when you say “truth,” do you mean a universal truth, or can it be whatever works in a specific situation [even if it is different for other situations]?

-

some combination of the above, with emphasis on (2), to arrive at truth.

by truth, i am not as interested in say, correcting the whole of someone else's argument, as much as i am interested in how a subset of it relates to the essentials of my own argument.
i don't think all reasons for a (1) win/lose attitude are deconstructive, although in excess that attitude hinders the (3) flow of information which i do value to an extent.

Can you expound on this?

-

I argue to clear misconceptions whether they be mine or my opponents and to test my logic and knowledge.

So would you say that for you, most cases of disagreement result from misunderstanding? What if it eventually becomes clear that while you do in fact understand each other, you still disagree. Would you be more likely to walk away, try to convince the other person of your argument, or something else?

[redbaron]

I don't know what type he is, so I don't want to exclude his answers - if he thinks he's an Alpha and I don't have any reason to think his type is or is not that, that's good enough for this [for me, anyway].

you're right. sorry about that. I was kind of teasing, kind of not. carry on!

[Creepy-male]

Why not? Because they're being unnecessarily combative, because they're not adhering to respectful debate, something else...?

Welp, in my experience, as soon as you get an atmosphere of competition, people start either: clamming up and not contributing; or begin to butt horns and make lots of noise without actually going anywhere useful "because I can't back down now, or I'll have lost!"

I think it's more useful to have conversations where two or more peeps can just transmits their ideas and input and see what congeals, transmutes, explodes, or conquers the human race. My is proudly subordinate in this matter.

EDIT

But this is for a discussion.

In an argument where I'm trying to prove a point, goes Super Sayan 4 and tries to win at all costs. Even if I lose my points, I usually read up on it ASAP and see if I can get a new counter. In such a way, I've had extended discargumessions that last for 3 or so days at a time.

[redbaron]

I think it's more useful to have conversations where two or more peeps can just transmits their ideas and input and see what congeals, transmutes, explodes, or conquers the human race. My is proudly subordinate in this matter.

imo, this sounds very ILE. Based on the interactions I've had irl with ILEs.

[Creepy-]

Welp, in my experience, as soon as you get an atmosphere of competition, people start either: clamming up and not contributing; or begin to butt horns and make lots of noise without actually going anywhere useful "because I can't back down now, or I'll have lost!"

I think it's more useful to have conversations where two or more peeps can just transmits their ideas and input and see what congeals, transmutes, explodes, or conquers the human race. My is proudly subordinate in this matter.

This is what I was originally talking about - debate in the course of discussion, not as in a fight. Does that change your answer at all?

Hmm... I should have anticipated that people would see the words "debate" or "argument" and associate it w quarrelling/fighting/etc. What I meant was something closer to a discussion in which disagreement is expressed. I'll add disclaimers to the opening posts to hopefully clear that up.

[cracka]

So you start out thinking you’re right before you’ll even enter into an argument... but what if, during the course of a debate, you become convinced that the other person is right? Would you continue to argue your original case and avoid admitting “defeat,” or would you give in?

I don't like to argue, therefore do my best not to. If I happen to be in an argument with anyone, it's because of a difference of opinion where I think my own opinion is the correct one. If it comes to my attention that I'm actually in the wrong, I'll be the first to admit it and the argument is over.

[munenori2]

3. For delta, these guys are just losers... j/k I believe delta wishes to achieve a points victory, but things like love of the game and enjoyment of the game are valued over dominating the opponent. Not prone to running up the score. A tie might be considered the best possible game. In a delta influenced society like Japan, you can see this in the post-tie celebrations.

Like ultimate frisbee?

Ultimate has traditionally relied upon a spirit of sportsmanship which places the responsibility for fair play on the player. Highly competitive play is encouraged, but never at the expense of the bond of mutual respect between players, adherence to the agreed upon rules of the game, or the basic joy of play. Protection of these vital elements serves to eliminate adverse conduct from the Ultimate field. Such actions as taunting of opposing players, dangerous aggression, intentional fouling, or other 'win-at-all-costs' behavior are contrary to the spirit of the game and must be avoided by all players.

[Brilliand]

So you start out thinking you’re right before you’ll even enter into an argument... but what if, during the course of a debate, you become convinced that the other person is right? Would you continue to argue your original case and avoid admitting “defeat,” or would you give in?

I will avoid admitting defeat, if possible. Normally this means picking absurd definitions for words; when the strange definitions come to light, we can laugh about it and no one can say I was really wrong.

EDIT: I suppose that's trying to get out of it - if I find that I am wrong after all, I will try to make it seem like we were arguing over nothing.

[Jimbean]

Unless their irrational mate proves them wrong. Then they get irritable.

and anyway, jimbean isn't alpha. nobody listens to me.

Actually, I really should not answer any of these since my type is debatable, so disregard my input. Apologies for any confusion.

[Creepy-]

I've talked about this with some folks before concerning what victory or winning means to the quadras.

1. For beta, achieving victory is asserting dominance and superiority.

2. For gamma, they want to assert dominance and superiority but via something quantifiable, a points victory.

3. For delta, these guys are just losers... j/k I believe delta wishes to achieve a points victory, but things like love of the game and enjoyment of the game are valued over dominating the opponent. Not prone to running up the score. A tie might be considered the best possible game. In a delta influenced society like Japan, you can see this in the post-tie celebrations.

4. For alpha, winning and losing are based in less concrete elements. /// while other quadras have at least one concrete function which qualifies victory, such as and . Alpha's goals can be either advancement of truth or great popular attention. A victory for a alpha might be to figure out a new way to play a game, or a new understanding of the world and those ideas gaining some acceptance from others.

There is no fixed goal in a discussion or argument usually, sometimes one argues to win, say against someone attempting to incite racial bigotry or making false claims against others for political motives. In a argument with a research peer it might be more important to advance our mutual understanding and leave the ego stroking out of it. When having a discussion with a teacher, it might be important to ask appropriate questions in order to get more insightful answers.

Fixed goals are not really a Alpha motivation.

As far as other quadras not voting winning at all costs, advancement of a "higher" truth often provides a rational for "winning at all costs".

The idea of a higher "truth" actually means that one's truth is somehow greater then a opposing "truth".

A and B can be lumped together.

I think what you've written about each quadra in particular is really interesting, and it matches my own observations and experience - I think the Delta one is right on, at least for me.

Here's an excerpt from a conversation I had w a friend last night [I'm person A; I wonder if you can guess person B's type from this alone]: [Edited out]

[redbaron]

beta?

[Creepy-]

beta?

Seems beta NF.

Is it Strrrng or Gilly?

After this conversation, I am leaning towards Beta for his type [it isn't anyone from the forum]. I had been debating this guy's type - trying to decide bt ILE and SLE - and this threw me off a bit, as he hadn't said anything quite like that before. Something else he said later on sounded very "victim," though, so Beta NF is a pretty good possibility as well....

[Creepy-bg]

goal? why would my life need a goal? that's stupid.

[redbaron]

goal? why would my life need a goal? that's stupid.

not the goal of your life, the goal of the argument.

[Creepy-bg]

not the goal of your life, the goal of the argument.

oh lol... I dont argue. if you dont agree with me than whatever.

[redbaron]

oh lol... I dont argue. if you dont agree with me than whatever.

spoken like a true 9.

[Mediator Kam]

Can you expound on “flaws of reasoning”? Do you mean that you’re trying to see how the other person’s points do or do not fit a consistent system, and if there’s a flaw, you use it as a counterargument? What if the other person points out flaws in your reasoning – how do you react?

Well, I think you pretty much said it. There is a system of logic that is easily quantifiable by the majority of cases. For example, it would be(imo) fair to say that children love their mothers, even though I can assure you that one would be able to find a case where a kid's mother beat the shit out of them, and therefore there might not be much love there. Because the (hopefully) majority of mothers do well enough that their children love them, I take the above fact as truth.

Anyway, if a person's points do not accord with what I see as a point in the major system of things, what I would call my mental framework, I would disagree, but I'm not one to raise hell because someone might be off a bit. Now, when someone sits around making presumptuous statements, then I collect my arguments and engage, basing off the proofs that leads to my interpretation of that point that they have missed.

If someone points out a flaw in my reasoning, there would no need to necessarily back off, because I'm on the logical tree of nodes, seen here.

As you can see, to get to 9, you need to have 4, 2, and 1. I would consider 1 to be a basis of my mental framework, whatever you want 1 to be. If I argue the validity of let's say, 9 and I am having trouble rationalizing it, then I simply start arguing 4, and up and up until you reach your root node, which is 1 in this diagram. It is a fail-safe protocol, because it is assumed that 1 is someone that cannot be doubted. Then me and the arguer come back and find a common denominator to agree on, both learning more.

This might not be a useful question, but how important to you is it that the truth fit a logical, consistent system? And when you say “truth,” do you mean a universal truth, or can it be whatever works in a specific situation [even if it is different for other situations]?

Truth should be able to fit a logical system, then using the information you have, you can extrapolate connections through your ordered knowledge.

[Creepy-bg]

spoken like a true 9.

I'm just as God made me

[Khola aka Bee]

Well, I argue to discover the flaws in reasoning of the opposition.

high truth ftw.

Agreed from that persepective, but I voted 'to learn'.... it's almost the same for me.

A high truth is something learned, discovered from the argument, from the differences between you and the other/s.

I know it might be a little cliche to my HA, but hey, I'm keen to understand. In this case, I'm keen to understand the differences in opinion between myself and the person I am arguing with so that I can begin to see things from their unique viewpoint, and figure out where their conclusions have come from. If I have enough of this knowledge, I can pre-empt their next move before they make it in terms of Fe and create a more comfortable environment/avoid another conflict (if it rose from a misunderstanding). I actually really REALLY enjoy arguing, but please note the difference between an argument and a negative/threatening conflict (which I cannot stand and will traumatise me).

I find it specially difficult when arguing with gammas for this reason, as they seem to be unable to differentiate between the two...or should I say.... neither side (alpha and gamma) can differentiate between whether the other is arguing or attacking and hence become defensive-aggressive.

[Mediator Kam]

Agreed from that persepective, but I voted 'to learn'.... it's almost the same for me.

A high truth is something learned, discovered from the argument, from the differences between you and the other/s.

I know it might be a little cliche to my HA, but hey, I'm keen to understand. In this case, I'm keen to understand the differences in opinion between myself and the person I am arguing with so that I can begin to see things from their unique viewpoint, and figure out where their conclusions have come from. If I have enough of this knowledge, I can pre-empt their next move before they make it in terms of Fe and create a more comfortable environment/avoid another conflict (if it rose from a misunderstanding). I actually really REALLY enjoy arguing, but please note the difference between an argument and a negative/threatening conflict (which I cannot stand and will traumatise me).

I find it specially difficult when arguing with gammas for this reason, as they seem to be unable to differentiate between the two...or should I say.... neither side (alpha and gamma) can differentiate between whether the other is arguing or attacking and hence become defensive-aggressive.

This sounds very idealistic bee, but it is quite hard to keep that chill attitude when you are arguing in real life, especially when you are making someone defend a deep-set belief, like the assassination of JFK.

[Khola aka Bee]

Oh that is very true. This is what my aims are about, I frequently end up in tears (haha whoops!)

[astralsilky]

Has anyone else here had the repeated experiences of speaking to someone, only to be abruptly interrupted with, "I don't want to argue about it," in such a way as to end the conversation (eg, they walk away), when you didn't even think you were arguing to begin with?!

That's happened to me multiple times, which always surprises me. And then I get pissed because I was only trying to help ... yet in a state of befuddlement, I swallow my anger and chalk it up as another instance of skewed communication beams.

Oh! Which reminds me:

[Khola aka Bee]

Yes!! Although my reaction is to get angry and show them what an argument looks like!

(oops I suck)

[Creepy-male]

Yes!! Although my reaction is to get angry and show them what an argument looks like!

No it isn't.

Shut up.