Assertiveness in arguments

[iHeartCats]

I feel that if I want to learn something from a discussion, I need to be assertive about my opinion. If I'm not assertive enough, people won't react to my words and they won't oppose me and provide counter arguments, and the assertiveness is not a strategy, it's something that's just a part of me and something that I do naturally.

If I don't get counter arguments, I won't be able to learn more about the subject of the discussion from other people. The only way I can learn more about the subject than I already know is if I am elaborately opposed in a certain way, because I quickly form opinions about things and stick to them until I get solid proof that I'm wrong. I am a highly practical person who doesn't really find pleasure in theorizing, I find theories useful only if they can actually be applied in a practical way and I usually just want to find the quickest way to get things done, which is usually why I like to stick to what I already now when doing things and don't find much pleasure in exploring new ways of doing things.

So being opposed about something, if done in a certain way, can force me to change my opinion about the subject of the discussion and see something that I missed, and learn something new which I wouldn't learn otherwise.
For all the reasons stated above, I find assertiveness useful. Since I am a naturally passionate person, my assertiveness combined with passion with which I present my arguments is sometimes perceived as rudeness, which I am aware of, so I sometimes feel like I need to edit the expressions of my opinions into more mellow and polite derivations of the original in order to not unintentionally offend people, but still, I usually get the best counter arguments when I don't edit my natural expression, so I really kind of wonder if I should downplay my natural expression or not.

I would like to know what people think about this.

 

[Gaze]

I think there's a difference between assertive vs. aggressive. Aggressive is seen as rude because it is about dominating and being in control. For the person listening, it may appear the person is simply stating their views as irrefutable facts which the listener has no right to counter but simply to accept. Not everyone has the same arguing style. Expression is just as important as content in some cases. So, if your tone and volume say, "you don't have a choice but to listen to me and accept what I say," it can be a turn off. But for others who understand, appreciate, and enjoy this style of argument, conversation is productive. So, maybe the issue is when not what. It may simply be a case of knowing when to use the various styles of argument with the appropriate audience.

 

[Lark]

I feel that if I want to learn something from a discussion, I need to be assertive about my opinion. If I'm not assertive enough, people won't react to my words and they won't oppose me and provide counter arguments, and the assertiveness is not a strategy, it's something that's just a part of me and something that I do naturally.

If I don't get counter arguments, I won't be able to learn more about the subject of the discussion from other people. The only way I can learn more about the subject than I already know is if I am elaborately opposed in a certain way, because I quickly form opinions about things and stick to them until I get solid proof that I'm wrong. I am a highly practical person who doesn't really find pleasure in theorizing, I find theories useful only if they can actually be applied in a practical way and I usually just want to find the quickest way to get things done, which is usually why I like to stick to what I already now when doing things and don't find much pleasure in exploring new ways of doing things.

So being opposed about something, if done in a certain way, can force me to change my opinion about the subject of the discussion and see something that I missed, and learn something new which I wouldn't learn otherwise.
For all the reasons stated above, I find assertiveness useful. Since I am a naturally passionate person, my assertiveness combined with passion with which I present my arguments is sometimes perceived as rudeness, which I am aware of, so I sometimes feel like I need to edit the expressions of my opinions into more mellow and polite derivations of the original in order to not unintentionally offend people, but still, I usually get the best counter arguments when I don't edit my natural expression, so I really kind of wonder if I should downplay my natural expression or not.

I would like to know what people think about this.

People can be as assertive as they like, if I think they are wrong or they arent clear then it wont impress me.

People are free to choose to engage in discussion or not bother to engage in discussion, I'd wonder if someone was responding just because someone is asserting a point, that's likely to be a fast track to an emoting match.

 

[muir]

People make good sounding boards for ideas and one way to test ideas is to expose them to rigorous examination

 

[nosferatu]

I think it's good to keep confident about your opinion and why, because you're trying to make your opinion look good. But at the same time don't steam roll the other person, and leave your statements open ended if you want constructive feedback from the other person. Otherwise they might believe you are provoking them for your own personal gain (more knowledge on the subject).

 

[BrokenDaniel]

Arguments are fun, but i don't take them too seriously most of the time. Sometimes i display antagonism in discussions, and that leads to be perceived as obnoxious, and it's ok, i can't bother too much for people who take themselves and their opinions that seriously on certain subjects.
Also, imo, it's more important to think and inform oneself before talking than the other way around.

 

[Gaze]

I think being firm about what you think is not a negative, but it's assuming that's the issue. There's a tendency to think that if you are not aggressive in stating your position or expressing your opposition (if you disagree or challenge a point) then it's not as valid. I think this is what some people object to. The idea that you don't have a valid argument if you don't shout it or yell it or that if it can't stand up to constant criticism (which may be unfounded and weakly supported) is questionable. Some people feel they are not having a real argument if people are not aggressively pushing a point, but that's just what makes them feel engaged. Doesn't mean everyone has to feel this way about argument. This idea that people who don't argue aggressively just can't handle real argument and criticism it is a likely ego trip. This is not unlike the person who assumes they are right and have won the argument because they spoke the loudest while the other person spoke with a soft voice.

 

[BrokenDaniel]

I think being firm about what you think is not a negative, but it's assuming that's the issue. There's a tendency to think that if you are not aggressive in stating your position or expressing your opposition (if you disagree or challenge a point) then it's not as valid. I think this is what some people object to. The idea that if you don't have a valid argument if you don't shout it or yell it or that if it can't stand up to constant criticism (which may be unfounded and weakly supported) is questionable. Some people feel they are not having a real argument if people are not aggressively pushing a point, but that's just what makes them feel engaged. Doesn't mean everyone has to feel this way about argument. This idea that people can't argue aggressively just can't handle it is a likely ego trip, not unlike the person who believes they are right and have won the argument because they spoke the loudest while the person who they are speaking with spoke with a soft voice.

I think it's bound to circumstances too, like an argument with my ex gf about the state of our relationship felt pretty different to an argument with a friend about politics by example.
Some people are indeed, more heated and dramatic than others, it's kind of a cultural thing too, like the italian family stereotype. These kinds of differences can lead to misunderstandings.

 

[sprinkles]

I think being firm about what you think is not a negative, but it's assuming that's the issue. There's a tendency to think that if you are not aggressive in stating your position or expressing your opposition (if you disagree or challenge a point) then it's not as valid. I think this is what some people object to. The idea that you don't have a valid argument if you don't shout it or yell it or that if it can't stand up to constant criticism (which may be unfounded and weakly supported) is questionable. Some people feel they are not having a real argument if people are not aggressively pushing a point, but that's just what makes them feel engaged. Doesn't mean everyone has to feel this way about argument. This idea that people who don't argue aggressively just can't handle real argument and criticism it is a likely ego trip. This is not unlike the person who assumes they are right and have won the argument because they spoke the loudest while the other person spoke with a soft voice.

Yes. Moreover, with some people you can't argue gently. I know I've seen it plenty of times where I speak gently and it's either not taken seriously or misinterpreted to such an extent that it wouldn't have made a difference if I spoke gibberish. Then unfortunately others end up catching my lingering frustration undeserved.

 

[Vict]

That's a quick way to learn.

Another is to observe over a long period of time. Pick up cues and patterns. But that won't win you the argument right now.

 

[Gaze]

Yes. Moreover, with some people you can't argue gently. I know I've seen it plenty of times where I speak gently and it's either not taken seriously or misinterpreted to such an extent that it wouldn't have made a difference if I spoke gibberish. Then unfortunately others end up catching my lingering frustration undeserved.

That's true. Yeah, sometimes to win you do have to use a more aggressive persona. This suggests though that in these instances it's not truth that matters but who can get their point across in a way that makes others take notice, acknowledge, and concede. Also, being assertive makes the person appear confident and believable. It shows they have strong belief and that's attractive to people. Not that being more assertive makes an argument more valid or truthful but we are more likely to see it as such because of the delivery we use to present or convey it.

 

[Gaze]

That's a quick way to learn.

Another is to observe over a long period of time. Pick up cues and patterns. But that won't win you the argument right now.

agree, for example, competitive argument or debate is not everyone's strong suit. Some are more effective at listening and analyzing. They can more easily pick apart an argument's faults better if they focus on listening rather than overtly trying to prove the person wrong, but they can mentally dismantle their opponent's argument quite easily. That alone makes can someone feel content but it won't win them the debate. Of course, passive approaches to argument rarely win.

 

[iHeartCats]

I think being firm about what you think is not a negative, but it's assuming that's the issue. There's a tendency to think that if you are not aggressive in stating your position or expressing your opposition (if you disagree or challenge a point) then it's not as valid. I think this is what some people object to. The idea that you don't have a valid argument if you don't shout it or yell it or that if it can't stand up to constant criticism (which may be unfounded and weakly supported) is questionable. Some people feel they are not having a real argument if people are not aggressively pushing a point, but that's just what makes them feel engaged. Doesn't mean everyone has to feel this way about argument. This idea that people who don't argue aggressively just can't handle real argument and criticism it is a likely ego trip. This is not unlike the person who assumes they are right and have won the argument because they spoke the loudest while the other person spoke with a soft voice.

I don't think that aggressiveness (I was talking about assertiveness but I won't object for you naturally taking assertiveness for aggression since there is a thin line between the two and I can well understand that my assertiveness can be perceived as aggression even if it's not by people who are naturally less assertive than me) has anything to do with trying to make my argument seem valid, and if you read the OP carefully you can see that I've never said that.

For me it's kind of the other way around. If I have a very strong opinion on something I am more likely to be more assertive about it, usually because I want to simply get down to the bottom of the subject without much fuss and beating around the bush. When I'm having a serious discussion I never try to insult people while stating my argument, and I don't care about "winning" or "losing", I don't even think about discussions in that terms.

The only purpose of my assertiveness is to try to make someone notice something I believe they have missed and I consider that something to be important or even fundamental. I just want to make my point well understood and one brief assertive sentence can do miracles in that regard I've found, that is if I am actually right about something.
If I'm aware that my knowledge of a subject is limited, I won't be as assertive and I will usually try to downplay my expression, since I am aware that other people who participate in the discussion easily have more knowledge about the subject than me, but I still have that natural tendency to speak/write in a manner that says "If you want me to understand your point, then find a way to relate it to common sense or else I'll probably fail to see what you're trying to say, since I'm a practical and not a theoretical person".

 

[SealHammer]

Being loud, clear and assertive is like rhetoric 101. It's basic psychological manipulation.

It's important to keep in mind, however, that public debate is less about who's right and more about who puts on a better show. That's why if you ever want to be taken seriously you need to format your argument and tailor it for consumption by your target audience.

 

[iHeartCats]

Being loud, clear and assertive is like rhetoric 101. It's basic psychological manipulation.

I disagree with this.

A person who has an interest in manipulation could certainly use assertiveness to try to manipulate (like politicians do), but in my opinion assertiveness in itself does not equal manipulation. It can be used to try to manipulate, but doesn't need to be. In fact, assertiveness can be used to defend oneself against being manipulated by others, so it can be used to oppose manipulation just as much as it can be used to apply manipulation.

 

[ryiker]

I feel that if I want to learn something from a discussion, I need to be assertive about my opinion. If I'm not assertive enough, people won't react to my words and they won't oppose me and provide counter arguments, and the assertiveness is not a strategy, it's something that's just a part of me and something that I do naturally.
If I don't get counter arguments, I won't be able to learn more about the subject of the discussion from other people. The only way I can learn more about the subject than I already know is if I am elaborately opposed in a certain way, because I quickly form opinions about things and stick to them until I get solid proof that I'm wrong. I am a highly practical person who doesn't really find pleasure in theorizing, I find theories useful only if they can actually be applied in a practical way and I usually just want to find the quickest way to get things done, which is usually why I like to stick to what I already now when doing things and don't find much pleasure in exploring new ways of doing things.
So being opposed about something, if done in a certain way, can force me to change my opinion about the subject of the discussion and see something that I missed, and learn something new which I wouldn't learn otherwise.
For all the reasons stated above, I find assertiveness useful. Since I am a naturally passionate person, my assertiveness combined with passion with which I present my arguments is sometimes perceived as rudeness, which I am aware of, so I sometimes feel like I need to edit the expressions of my opinions into more mellow and polite derivations of the original in order to not unintentionally offend people, but still, I usually get the best counter arguments when I don't edit my natural expression, so I really kind of wonder if I should downplay my natural expression or not.
I would like to know what people think about this.

You stated that you receive the best counter arguments when you do not edit- if that is the case then I'm guessing it's more a question of not wanting to offend? In my opinion, people will be most of the time be offended despite how we censer ourselves, they interpret our actions and manner with their evaluation of how they see assertion, aggression, or passion. If how ever your exploring getting the most out of discussions or debates then you might want to explore trying to gauge and manipulate your audience and opponent.

Being loud, clear and assertive is like rhetoric 101. It's basic psychological manipulation.

I agree and keep in mind this is only one way to manipulate; depending on your opponent you can use softer, thoughtful inflection to draw more information or counter points out of them for example. Its all based on the body language and feedback your getting during the discussion. Again this is only useful if your looking to broaden or add to your skills of discussion. Just to be clear, I may not have any right to post on your thread because I myself am so damn theoretical; usable, practical information is necessary but not exactly exciting to me lol.

Yes. Moreover, with some people you can't argue gently. I know I've seen it plenty of times where I speak gently and it's either not taken seriously or misinterpreted to such an extent that it wouldn't have made a difference if I spoke gibberish. Then unfortunately others end up catching my lingering frustration undeserved.

One more thing to think about is that as sprinkles stated sometimes when you debate or discuss with one method regardless of your opponent you may be missing out on some extremely potent debates. I for one do not discuss or debate when someone seems to me to be overly assertive or loud only because if I have to speak louder or be more forceful to get my point across then I usually assume they wont listen anyways and I have better things to do than convince them. If assertive works for you though then go with it.....I'm just offering food for thought.

 

[Gaze]

I don't think that aggressiveness (I was talking about assertiveness but I won't object for you naturally taking assertiveness for aggression since there is a thin line between the two and I can well understand that my assertiveness can be perceived as aggression even if it's not by people who are naturally less assertive than me) has anything to do with trying to make my argument seem valid, and if you read the OP carefully you can see that I've never said that.

The post you quoted was meant to be a general statement, and not directed to your OP specifically. In any case, do whatever you want to do when it comes to argument. Whatever makes you feel comfortable.