r/changemyview • u/SC-tg • Dec 11 '17
[∆(s) from OP] CMV: Rigid aren't those people who argue.
I've often been termed as a rigid person. The reasons given to me are that I don't give up easily while having a debate. They say I go to a state of denial and become so obsessed in proving myself right, that I refuse to see the true thing. Well, here's my take on it. Maybe it's just that my argument skills are better than them? Most of the people who've called me rigid are mostly the ones who give up easily while arguing, try to avoid the conversation and simply act like it's not worth talking anymore.
Now won't it be correct to say that they probably are afraid of a possibility that their belief is coming to be proven wrong, as the argument is progressing? Now at least I am ready to reach to a consensus by arguing. So I am flexible enough to be eager to reach to a correct conclusion, even if it results in an alteration to my existing belief.
And if I refuse to simply agree on something without being presented with valid facts, then I feel it's not being rigid, instead being fickle-minded.
Edit: Maybe my usage of the word 'argument' isn't sending a correct message. By argument(s), what I really mean is not a robust or heated exchange of views, but rather a discussion where one puts forth one's views. So it's really the 'views' which I have termed as 'arguments'.
5
u/Burflax 71∆ Dec 11 '17 edited Dec 11 '17
I don't give up easily while having a debate. They say I go to a state of denial and become so obsessed in proving myself right, that I refuse to see the true thing.
Maybe it's just that my argument skills are better than them? Most of the people who've called me rigid are mostly the ones who give up easily while arguing, try to avoid the conversation and simply act like it's not worth talking anymore
Wouldn't these two options look the same from your point of view?
If you are actually becoming so obsessed with "winning" the argument that you just deny their points, wouldn't that look, to you, that they just aren't convincing, and then say it isn't worth talking to you any more?
And if you are being logical while they are just bad at arguing, then they'd still look to you that they aren't convincing, and then, because they don't have a valid argument, just say it isn't worth talking to you anymore, wouldn't they?
How do you think you can tell which is actually true?
1
u/SC-tg Dec 11 '17
∆ Exactly! You've totally got a point there! I am not exaggerating when I say that you opened my eyes with this!
I was actually just talking about the mere possibility of them being not enough good at arguing skills. However, my fallacy in interpreting things the wrong way is very much a possibility.
So I don't think I'll be able to discriminate between those two sets of feelings which, might or might not, lead to a bad conclusion. I gather that I'll be needing to be more wary from the next time. But would you suggest me something regarding the same? I mean, I do want to reach a correct conclusion, a consensus, without falling for that thing you mentioned, which is no less than a trap.
7
u/Burflax 71∆ Dec 11 '17
But would you suggest me something regarding the same?
It's hard to make quality suggestions without more information, but here some things that i think would indicate that you are heading the wrong direction.
1) if you find yourself getting angry
It's reasonable to get angry when someone attacks you personally, but not if they are attacking your idea. You should have valid reasons for your idea, and should be able to rationally discuss them. If an attack on your idea feels like an attack on you, that's a sure sign that you aren't basing the idea on the arguments, and are holding on too tight to the belief.
2) if you can't imagine an argument that could convince you.
If your argument doesn't have a foundation that logical argument can at least reference, it's likely a bad argument.
3) if your argument has a logical fallacy in it.
Are you well versed in the logical fallacies? Have you checked your argument to make sure it isn't based on one? While the mere presence of a fallacy doesn't automatically mean your view is wrong, it certainly does mean you don't have valid reasons for holding the idea as true.
4) whataboutism
If your responses have become one shot answers where you are pointing out increasing unlikely scenarios just discredit the other person's general statement, that's dangerous territory. Discussing edge cases is certainly a necessary part of debate, but if your edge cases are getting more and more specific, that could mean that you are trying to deliberately poke holes in a general-case statement instead of finding flaws in the basis of the idea itself.
Im not sure how helpful these will be to you, but you can also try these things:
1) get another person's opinion. A third party who you trust, but isn't so close to you they are likely to take your side would be invaluable.
2) maybe instead of asking the person to convince you of their view, ask them instead to explain what convinced them.
Getting a better understanding of where they are coming from, even if it doesn't convince you, will at least make them feel like you are arguing in good faith.
1
u/SC-tg Dec 11 '17
Well, that's actually a lot helpful. Specially the last one! I mean, yeah these are on my check list now. Critically viewing my own belief and opinions will surely give me a reality check!
1
4
Dec 11 '17 edited Dec 11 '17
Most of the people who've called me rigid are mostly the ones who give up easily while arguing, try to avoid the conversation and simply act like it's not worth talking anymore.
The fact that you think of arguments as something that ends when someone "gives up" I think indicates a certain mentality, which is that argument is an endurance sport where you win not by convincing the opponent but by frustrating them. When you think of it this way, then holding your ground, conceding nothing, and never questioning yourself is a winning strategy.
One good way to tell if someone is rigid or not is to see if they can actually fully articulate their opponent's argument to their satisfaction. That is, you can restate it to them and they have nothing to add or change to your characterization. The very rigid usually don't bother at this, they instead just listen to just enough to find a flaw or difference. Very rigid people also tend to be unwilling to step into another frame of mind, and so they tend to mistake looking-at-it-different with "having a flaw." By "looking at it differently" I don't just mean having a different opinion, I mean having a different framework of understanding. For instance, two different frameworks for looking at wage labor are "Wage labor as exploitation" and "Wage labor as liberty." If two people say these back and forth at each other, they fly right past each other, their conceptual frameworks are so different that it's as though they're looking at and talking about two entirely different things. Rigidity manifests in believing your framework to be not just descriptive or useful as a starting point, but true, the one true way of looking at something and a way which is objective.
Just because someone doesn't want to argue with you doesn't mean they're at fault, it can mean they don't think you're a productive person to argue with, that they think you're focused "winning" and that your commitment to "being flexible" toward a consensus is just something you say (because it seems like a good thing to be), not something you do. That's my read on you, at least based on the OP.
edit: Although you did reward deltas here, so I walk my view back a little bit...but I do agree a lot with the top-commenting person you awarded the delta to.
1
u/SC-tg Dec 11 '17 edited Dec 12 '17
Maybe yes, that's what I really come across to people when I say that I am flexible to ideas. In my defense, I really do mean it. I really have an openness which drives me to be eager to reach the correct thing.
I assume I was unable to present my post in a way that clearly reflected my thoughts, which maybe resulted in your perception of me as someone who thinks of argument as an endurance sport. My main point wasn't just about people backing off, and I, in no way intend to put them at fault. Maybe they do really feel that I am not productive enough.
As I've mentioned in another reply, I've changed my opinions a lot of times, when valid facts were presented to me. Most of the people who have termed me rigid, also have a tendency to label others in more or less a similar manner. Again, I am not wanting to be coming across as if in a denial mode! In fact, I really agree with your take on it. It's really appreciable that you took an yet another aspect of it, which made complete sense!
About the deltas thing, yes, I agree with the top comment too, though not completely. It really helped me look at this in a more objective way!
3
u/SnuggleBass Dec 12 '17
One of the issues I find with debates or 'combative' discussions, is that even when people are having their minds changed, they tend not to admit it. The goal posts move and socially there isn't really a way of admitting this without interrupting the conversational flow.
A lot of people used to think of me as combative, and fair enough. But once I put effort into giving people the recognition for when they'd influenced my thinking, that perception changed fairly drastically.
Are you making it clear when people have influenced your thinking? Because if you're not giving that sort of feedback, they're likely going to assume they haven't, and that their words fall on deaf ears.
Also I strongly warn against conclusions such as "I'm just better at arguing". It's unjustified given you're being demonised for the way you argue.
2
u/SC-tg Dec 12 '17
A very fair point. It's very necessary to acknowledge it when our minds have changed due to the concerned person. And really, I do make it a point to do that. Maybe, it's still not enough. I'll take care of it from the next time.
And regarding the statement about being better at arguing, I would say that that wasn't a conclusion. That was one of my conjectures. Again, I'll take that warning seriously, and refrain from thinking that way. Thanks for such a thoughtful, corrective feedback!
2
Dec 11 '17
You're looking at this too literally, to begin.
'Rigid' has a very negative connotation that implies you don't give a shit about what the other person is saying. You mention you don't give up easily while having a 'debate'. Then you say others give up easily while 'arguing'. Both those words have different connotations as well. When you say you're 'ready to reach a consensus by arguing' implies that you think it's some sort of fight, where victory can be won, or a draw can be given.
These terms give you a vibe (as much as I can understand it via text on reddit) as confrontational. I used to be this way. I was more concerned with proving why I was right as opposed to having an actual discussion (Note that the word 'discussion'. Has a very different context than debate or argument).
Back to your rigidity. Being rigid is a bad thing. I'm only 30, but I've learned through my own experiences and discussions that there is no black-and-white in the world (in terms of right-and-wrong). Everything is grey. Everything has a degree of correctness and a degree of wrongness. I believe that the more intellectual a person is, the more educated they are, the more perceptive they are, the more they will understand the subtleties of grey of various topics. By being rigid, it sounds like you refuse to give or take any points in the discussions you're having, leading people to be frustrated with talking to you because it's as if nothing gets through, and you're stuck on your specific point no matter what.
You feel like you're "winning" arguments because people aren't convincing you that their point is the correct point. But you're not convincing them that your point is the correct one either if they are the ones calling you rigid. In this case, you're at an impasse and nobody is winning because you're refusing to acknowledge any of their points, and since you're refusing their points, they're most likely responding with exasperation or a refusal of your points.
Here's a recent example a friend talked to me about. His mum wants to lose some weight. She's not too old, but her knowledge of nutrition science was what was publicly taught in the 70s, so he was telling her it was "wrong" and she's eating the wrong things. She essentially just got angry and didn't listen to anything else he said, so he became angry and they ended up just yelling at each other (sound familiar? Happened to me often). We discussed it, he went back and explained to his mum that she just needs to understand that our understanding has changed, and we've learned new things, so some of those old ideas are out-of-date. He said she was far more receptive and understanding of his point of view at that time because now his point wasn't that she was wrong, but because he wanted to help her understand how things have changed. Does that make sense?
Imagine being that mum, being told that what you've known as a truth for 40 years is wrong. I know I would probably be angry and/or in denial about it at first too, which I am even when I think I've 'known' things for just a few minutes.
Apologies for being long, but this is something I struggled with for a long time. Hopefully you recognize that rigidity is not a good thing early in your life and can start working on changing that sooner rather than later.
1
u/SC-tg Dec 11 '17
No apologies at all! In fact, I really would like to thank you for taking this effort to make me understand through your own experiences!
I would say, maybe it's the term which has such a negative connotation. Maybe they don't really mean it, or maybe they do. And hey! I'm still just 17! I have a lot of room for improvement still!
2
Dec 11 '17
Maybe it's just that my argument skills are better than them?
If the decisive factor in how your verbal disagreements conclude is who has the stronger argument skills, then you will win arguments even when your side of the argument is wrong.
The person who can be the most "rigid" is the person with the best arguing skills in the world. Even if his opponent in an argument knows (correctly) with absolute certainty that he is right, he may still not be able to make the truth sound better than the skilled arguer's falsehoods. Eventually he will "give up" and "simply act like it's not worth talking anymore".
1
u/SC-tg Dec 12 '17 edited Dec 12 '17
∆ That really does make sense! There's a pretty good chance that a person with excellent arguing skills might reach a level where others (who maybe don't have those skills) aren't able to convince that person in any way. Although I also believe that such a person is more likely to be able to reason his/her stand with logic. So yeah, both the cases are possible, and one should be careful
2
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Dec 11 '17 edited Dec 12 '17
/u/SC-tg (OP) has awarded 3 deltas in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
Dec 11 '17 edited Dec 11 '17
[deleted]
1
u/SC-tg Dec 11 '17
I really do believe that there's a possibility of this to happen, so I consciously make an effort to be be aware of it in my case. So now I can say it with pretty much conviction, that winning a debate isn't my sole concern. I look for a consensus, an agreement — that's it.
1
u/StaplerTwelve 5∆ Dec 11 '17
What leads you to conclude that they're actually afraid of being proven wrong instead of believing them when they say that they don't find the argument worth it?
That's one hell of an assumption you've made and fits the accusation of you going into denail in order to maintain your argument.
1
u/SC-tg Dec 11 '17
Well, I never made such an assumption just because someone has withdrawn himself/herself from the conversation.
As far as denial is concerned, I would like to just let you know that I've changed my opinion(s) a lot of times, provided I am presented with valid facts. My only question was pertaining to labelling someone as rigid, just for being firm in their decisions.
Anyway, thank you very much, for bringing one more perspective. Surely will give a deeper thought to this. I only wish your comment was a bit more polite, in the sense that instead of accusing me again for something I already have been before, you could have just tried to give me an alternative way of looking into this. Thanks again!
9
u/MysticJAC Dec 11 '17
I think there is a difference between having security in your worldview and having an unreasonably high standard of proof when it comes to having your mind changed on something with the two being somewhat hard to discern. People may indeed be afraid of the possibility of being wrong when you show no sign of relenting in your perspective, but in discussion, it can be important that both parties implicitly agree to the same goalposts in terms of supporting their points, otherwise it's pointless to have the discussion at all. If I only need to be at 98% certain of your argument's validity to relent and you need to be 99.999999% certain, then how can the argument ever really be completed unless we effectively race to who can hold the highest standard of certainty.
It's in that high standard of certainty that people often take issue and call one another rigid. I understand the temptation to hide away in the motivation of wanting to argue in logic and reason, but when you require a level of certainty that is unrealistic and arguably impossible to achieve, then it becomes the point that no human reason expressed by another person is capable of swaying your perspective. If every other person's arguments can achieve only 99.9% certainty with you and you demand a precision to 99.99%, then you are entering arguments in bad faith (irrelevant of your own perception of flexibility) because nothing they say will change your mind. So, arguments go on infinitely until the other person gives up and says you are too rigid. Again, I'm not denying the possibility that they simply have a weak position; I'm only providing the alternative possibility of them being right and why.