I see peoples perception as a screen in front of their eyes. That screen is their currenct perception of reality which has been placed there by their societal conditioning.
If you try to convince them of a different perception of reality they are unlikely to abondon their perception unless they are already dissolusioned with it and are willing to discard it
But by placing a piece of information in their mind that undermines their current perception of reality you have put a little crack or micro-fissure in their perception screen
They will then go away and somewhere down the line they will get a new bit of information that challenges their currently held perception of reality and that will then increase the crack you put in. At some point eventually the information that undermines their current perception becomes too overwhelming to ignore and their perception shatters and then they can see further (at least as far as the next layer of societal conditioning).
So things aren't how they always seem.....some people are playing a long game
I understand and agree with Muir's 'perception as a screen' and unless they have already begun to move social and swallowed logic on their own, an argument with them is not only useless but some of the people I have encountered, find it almost abusive when I don't I don't see their points of view. I agree some are playing a long game, but I prefer to think of it more as a long con, not a con on the opposing argument per say, but a long con on yourself if you have not weighed and examined all of your own perceptions. How can you state that they 'belong' to you if you have never made a serious effort to break them down and counter them?
People have positions or perspectives they hold and feel strongly about. They may feel they have good reasons for holding these views and so they won't question the validity of belief or the reasoning used to justify it. Most people consider themselves intelligent enough to make good judgments so they will feel their judgments are reasonable, fair, and correct. It's usually in debate that those assumptions are challenged.
With this I have to disagree to a degree (haha). If someone has a point of view or argument etc and they hold it to be right or true according to their knowledge of right/truth then they would have had to examine it wouldn't they? How can someone say they believe or know something to be right/true if they have not examined it themselves, asked questions and (hopefully) challenged it with experience and counter arguments of logic? If someone says they stand for something or believe in it and then they immediately get defensive or upset when asked or arguments arise, it is obvious to me they have no ground for what they are stating. I don't have to prove them wrong, or even discuss and find out if their arguments are in fact correct- the underlying perception for me is that they have no argument to make if they are this upset over someone questioning it. If they are in fact correct then someone, somewhere else will possibly have the same idea or point of view and I will be able to discuss and evaluate all arguments with them. If they are not comfortable doing this then I would be continue to discuss it with them for what reason? Yes I do enjoy discussing and arguing theories, logic etc, however in order to do that I require a capable counter part or at least devils advocate.
In other words, doesn't everyone entering a debate believe they are right? Isn't that a good starting point for raising the question, "am I in fact right about how I think about this issue?" It seems that's what makes debate fun for many, is that feeling of looking forward to someone try to prove them wrong and see what they can use to combat those person's ideas, hopefully learning something in the process. Maybe the issue is more that believing you're right means no one should challenge you, maybe that's the attitude that's a turn off to many.
Again I disagree, I enter debates and arguments always to learn more and expand on what others can tell me. I have NO problem changing my argument or position mid sentence if you can give me something new or an angle I have not yet seen. Anyone who gets into an argument simply to prove their right has already lost the debate in my opinion (or maybe never begun it) because there is no give, just continuous self righteous positioning. If that is the intention then the individual is looking for followers and to be justified, not in the expansion that debate potentially creates when all parties are interesting in actual discussion. On the other hand many individuals fall into the of charisma or psychological manipulation that debtors use to win an argument regardless of what the actual discussion is. They hear a discussion or participate and fall for the individual's mannerism instead of the argument. This manipulation is effective and unfortunately (to me) many people base their 'idea' of which side is correct off this. In my ruthless point of view, if this is how you decide debates then you have no part it whatsoever, except as the manipulative statistics of those arguing.
For me the purpose is just to challenge and stir things up. Because often it's like people just want to say their opinions without being challenged like they just want to hear themselves talk or something. Like everybody cares. To me it is really selfish and self centered to drop a "this is what I think" and expect it to stay in a pristine bubble completely unchallenged, like they don't want to argue or even discuss but they still want to say stuff. What makes them think anyone wants to hear it?
I agree this types of input piss me off and I have no patience for it. I will walk away mid-sentence or ignore if some is only giving opinions to hear themselves speak. [MENTION=6917]sprinkles[/MENTION]They remind me of the attention whores you were going to punish lol
No I don't think the end result of arguments should be always to agree. Most of the time you learn something new with each debate and people challenge themselves as much as one another. It's a form of communication and is to be enjoyed I think.
