Tone Arguments

[Trifoilum]

In the realm of social justice blogging / communities, there are one particular term that intrigues me; tone arguments.

http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Tone_argument
http://lucereta.wordpress.com/2011/06/30/tone-argument-as-logical-fallacy/
http://goodmenproject.com/noseriouslywhatabouttehmenz/in-defense-of-the-tone-argument/

You can read about it above.

But tl;dr version : Dismissing an argument because of the way it's spoken. Whether it's too angry, too bitter, too vengeful; anything but nice and pleasant. Would make a CLASSIC Fe behavior, isn't it?

On one hand, I agree with the core message; the way it's spoken does not and should not affect the content and the message.
On the other hand, it's hard to argue for that ideal. The way something is spoken does affect a lot of things; rationality (and the building blocks), cordiality (and the target of their anger), civility (and the intention)

Just now I had my father rattling about things-- for the nth time. It brought me back to this topic; particularly about insults; like, emotionally, I'm repulsed:
what, just because (assuming) you're right you can be a dick about it?

And that's assuming they're right.

What do you think?

 

[sassafras]

Tone arguments are more for discussions where the goal is a meeting of minds and to keep everyone's egos in check... though that's not to say they cannot be manipulated into doing just the exact opposite.

For instance, there are people who are just beyond sensitive and will dismiss anything that doesn't comply with their unrealistic expectations. It's inevitable that arguments can sometimes get heated and as people's passions are stirred, they express themselves with a bit more colour than would be polite for a civil tea party. That's human nature and this need to be taken into account, even in the most 'civil' of discussions. Still, some people's expectations of a civil argument are simply impossible to meet for the average person and on a subconscious level, this is done purposely. They get to to escape an argument without having to face the prospect of being 'wrong' and justify it to themselves by appearing to take the high road. In other words, the goal is to preserve the ego.

On the other hand,there are those who justify being right with being an asshole and bring the equivalent of a knife to a mediation room. They purposely incite negative emotions to muddle and confuse their opponents, especially if they sense their opponents have a weaker emotional constitution. Paired with personal attacks, that's arguing with the intention to wound instead of reaching conclusion or agreeing on a perspective. This is where ethics step in. A person can be right, but they can arrive at their destination the wrong way. Isn't that how our justice system is arranged? You need a search warrant before you can walk into a suspect's home to find a murder weapon. Not doing so violates laws of privacy and trespassing. How can you uphold the law if you're breaking it at the same time? Much the same way, how can you call a discussion a meeting of minds if you're emotionally manipulating the other person into stumbling into a point or reaction they might not have normally made if the discussion was calmer? In this instance, your goal is to assert your ego, not your point.

That all being said, it really depends what everyone's goals are when they're walking into a discussion. Do you want to gratify the ego or do you want to reach a conclusion? Once you involve the ego, it becomes a battleground.

 

[Jill Hives]

Oh man. This is something I think about often.

I personally get sick and tired of people saying that the way something is said should not matter. Growing up, this is what my father said to me day in and day out. That I should listen to him no matter how angry he looked or sounded, no matter how aggressive he was being. That honestly made me more adamant about not listening to him, and being young and stubborn I would completely tune him out and lock myself in my room when I decided that I was done speaking to him (IE being barreled over with words). He did not get to decide when we were done when he was being that way, I did. He tried busting into my room and yelling more but I would stare at the wall and absolutely deny his existence. He actually physically shook me a few times to try to get me to participate but I would not. I felt like emotional power was being taken from me and I took it back without hesitation, consequences be damned. When those situations happened, it seemed very much that his own reality was the only thing that mattered to him, not mine or anyone elses.

I think, in this reality where people are emotional creatures first and foremost (even those of us who try to deny that it is so), it absolutely DOES matter how you approach someone with a message. I firmly believe that true understanding can not be achieved in a passionate outburst. I do think there is a time and a place for passion, but when you are trying to relay important information and wish to be understood and really listened to on a fundamental level, it is probably not one of those times.

That said, I'm at both ends of the stick of this predicament very often. My passion for my ideas has often gotten me into trouble because it gets misconstrued and then I end up saddened and discouraged when someone insists on me dampening my feelings about a subject because it is making them uncomfortable. It seems that the emotional intensity that I convey ends up being perceived as being directed at them personally (ironically, causing them to feel the same way as I felt when my father would rant and yell in my face...the gloves are up, open minds are now closed, etc). And even if it is not perceived as a personal attack, just being exposed to the intensity itself is often enough to close someones mind to the thoughts that I am trying to express when I get caught up in an ideal.

I relate to both sides of the coin on this topic very much.

Ultimately I would say that it is important to try to be aware of the audience you are entertaining while you are expressing yourself. Is this person sensitive to intensely expressed emotions? Can they handle it or even enjoy it? Some can, and some can't. I think communication is a developed skill and not one that just comes naturally to a great many people.

Those who refuse to acknowledge the importance of how a message is relayed sound extremely arrogant and selfish to me.

That said, I think it's inevitable that this is going to happen. But I think when it does you should be quick to apologize for burning someone with your intensity and ask them if they would be willing to talk it over with you later on.

 

[Nixie]

I think a successful strategy requires that you are capable of speaking about something adaptively. There are always barriers to communication. Often people get caught up in the details while overlooking the actual goal. I care more about the fact that someone hears the message rather than how it is delivered. Additionally, it helps to not insist that someone agree with you. IMO, the idea that someone else MUST agree with your stance and that that you HAVE to say your words ONLY as you would say them are the biggest barriers to communication. The idea of "tone arguments" is a concept that encompasses one of those issues; (notice the semicolon! Hope I used it right!) To dismiss an argument because of the way it is presented.

 

[bionic]

Who cares about how something is presented? If someone came screaming to me in German about how they love me, it may make me look at them as though they have three heads... but the message is still essentially there.

I could care less about the display or the "emotions that are being shown". I want the message so the core of the situation can be addressed.

 

[Tin Man]

It's definitely not just an Fe thing. King of the Hilling is one of the most effective ways to win an argument and it's very much a Te tactic. If someone is getting angry or loud, all you have to say is "I see you can't have a rational conversation. There's no point in having a discussion with someone who can't control their emotions." And like that, you've pretty much won. If they continue to raise their voice, you've just proven your point.

As to whether tone matters to an arguments validity, I would say yes. If you can't present an argument in a calm reasonable manner, then it's likely there's little merit to your argument.

 

[barbad0s]

As to whether tone matters to an arguments validity, I would say yes. If you can't present an argument in a calm reasonable manner, then it's likely there's little merit to your argument.

I disagree with this. People could then use tactics to intentionally rile a person up emotionally, and then use their emotional reaction against them, claiming that their argument has no merit simply because it is presented in an emotionally charged way. I don't think that someone should take tone or emotionality into account when trying to listen to an argument. It's better to just be aware of everyone's motivations and biases and keep that knowledge in mind. Everyone has emotions and not everyone is capable of holding them back, and while it is reasonable to only want to discuss things when everyone is able to not emotionally react, emotions are in no way connected to the validity of any arguments in themselves.

 

[Nixie]

I disagree with this. People could then use tactics to intentionally rile a person up emotionally, and then use their emotional reaction against them, claiming that their argument has no merit simply because it is presented in an emotionally charged way. I don't think that someone should take tone or emotionality into account when trying to listen to an argument. It's better to just be aware of everyone's motivations and biases and keep that knowledge in mind. Everyone has emotions and not everyone is capable of holding them back, and while it is reasonable to only want to discuss things when everyone is able to not emotionally react, emotions are in no way connected to the validity of any arguments in themselves.

I am aghast! Surely no one would do this!

 

[the]

Tone and emotion matter to me, and that's the bottom line if you are trying to influence me. I will treat you according to how I think is most effective.

If you act like an asshole, my first reaction is that I don't want to believe what you say is true. My second reaction is to make you feel like an asshole and I will probably be an asshole to get that through to you.

If you act pleasantly as you tell me something, I will want to believe you and will give you the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Tin Man]

I disagree with this. People could then use tactics to intentionally rile a person up emotionally, and then use their emotional reaction against them, claiming that their argument has no merit simply because it is presented in an emotionally charged way. I don't think that someone should take tone or emotionality into account when trying to listen to an argument. It's better to just be aware of everyone's motivations and biases and keep that knowledge in mind. Everyone has emotions and not everyone is capable of holding them back, and while it is reasonable to only want to discuss things when everyone is able to not emotionally react, emotions are in no way connected to the validity of any arguments in themselves.

I forgot to mention that King of the Hilling is considered a very cheap way to win an argument.

I think a person can get emotional and still present their argument in a rational manner.

 

[barbad0s]

I forgot to mention that King of the Hilling is considered a very cheap way to win an argument.

Np, it was clearly implied.

I think a person can get emotional and still present their argument in a rational manner.

That contradicts what you said initially (what I quoted from your previous post). Are you saying that you changed your mind about it?

 

[Tin Man]

That contradicts what you said initially (what I quoted from your previous post). Are you saying that you changed your mind about it?

No, showing emotion and presenting an argument in a rational manner aren't mutually exclusive. In just about any debate, the best speakers are the ones who can be emotionally aroused but still put forward a well reasoned argument.

If someone shows poor impulse control, how are you supposed to take what they say seriously?