Why do we feel compelled to argue when we know the futility of it?

[Fiery Diamond]

In order to have a debate, in order to have actual conversation, in order to communicate in a way that is constructive, in order to talk with others in a way which induces compassionate understanding, in order to speak in a way that induces change other than in one's blood pressure, it is a prerequisite that the parties involved have some common ground as relates to the subject matter that they wish to discuss. Even if the people involved disagree on particulars, there needs to be some base that is shared.

Examples, just because. Not relevant if you already understand what I'm saying. And no, please don't hijack the thread to talk about the examples. The examples are only there to help if you don't quite get what I mean.
For example, you can't have a comprehensible conversation about what is "right" or "wrong", what is "good" or "bad", if one party starts with the base that the very principle that defines these things is the furtherance of society existence regardless of the individuals who make up society, while the other believes that the defining principle is the furtherance of the individual's immediate happiness regardless of the society which the individual belongs to: if one person thinks that long-term benefit for the greater number is what is most important while the other thinks that short-term benefit for a single individual is most important, there may be overlap in some areas, but the two will not be able to reconcile.

Or, in case that wasn't convincing, how about a more extreme example: One person believes that supporting others is most important, while the other believes that keeping everything earned for oneself is most important, the two will certainly not agree on certain kinds of governmental policies. (this is just an example; I am not making reference to any particular governments or governmental philosophies)

So WHY do people feel the need to argue against others in support of their own viewpoints when they know that it is the basic premises which are really the disagreement and that neither party is going to budge on those? I encounter countless people, both in person and via newspaper letters, internet, you-name-whichever-media-you-like who are like this, and I myself am like this. The smart ones of us know we should just back off, but why do we rarely do so even when we know we should?

Let the philosophical rambling begin! (also, xkcd strip (http://xkcd.com/386/) that shows how people might display this tendency, though the strip doesn't HAVE to be about that)

[hamishspence]

So WHY do people feel the need to argue against others in support of their own viewpoints when they know that it is the basic premises which are really the disagreement and that neither party is going to budge on those?

Possibly, a hope that the person will examine those basic premises, and maybe budge a bit?

Getting a person who believes
"all morality starts with self-interest" or
"all morality starts with altruism"

to examine the other viewpoint, and maybe modify their existing premises, might be a vain hope, but people might feel that with enough logical arguments, and premises, others will at least modify their viewpoint.

[Knaight]

People can change their opinions, even if they aren't likely to until the argument is over. Furthermore, many of these arguments are targeted at bystanders, and influencing the person argued with may not even be a secondary concern. Add all this to the sheer fun inherent in reasonable argument, and the reasons for arguing become evident.

[Fifty-Eyed Fred]

There is, of course, the absolute joy of debate. The exchange of ideas, everything that can be learned through the wondrous force of argument, is so profoundly interesting, as is coming to understand the base assumptions a person holds and their internal logic.
There is no need for the other person to be won round to your point of view; the immense satisfaction of the thing is in comprehending the views of another and in having them comprehend yours.
Naturally, not everyone feels this way. For many people, I realise arguments are emotional affairs that they cannot deal with and are taken personally - having an argument hurts such a person. But for me most debates are like a brilliant sort of game that really gets my mind working (to clarify, for me intellectual engagement with another is marvellous - simply the best thing).

[Toastkart]

Arguements, debates, discussions, etc. are very much like battles. It's built into our language and our metaphors that we think of them in this way. We also like to win, or feel that we've won.

Further, debating and discussing is a way of reinforcing and affirming our own beliefs and values, because conflicting and contrary evidence is so easy to ignore.

Also, while yes people can and do change their opinions, values, beliefs, etc. it probably isn't very likely they would do so because of a debate, or at least, participating in a debate. As knaight said, bystanders are more likely to change their opinion than the people actually doing the debating.

[MoelVermillion]

Because I'm right dammnit :smallfurious:!

Or more accurately because I think I am when I'm in a heated argument and I'm not going to let go of that :smalltongue:

[Traab]

Its not exactly impossible to change a persons opinion, so long as you both go into the argument willing to listen. Ive seen tons of online debates end with something along the lines of, "Huh, I hadnt thought about that" It DOES happen! Also, as someone else already said, a part of it is to try to influence the fence sitters in a thread. As an easy example, lets take a political thread. Someone takes say, obamas new health insurance program as a good idea. If you dont think it is, you go on there, say so, and why, not to so much change the original posters mind, but to present your viewpoint to others so they know there ARE other views.

Its one of the reasons why i watch multiple news channels, ones that have a clear republican slant, and ones that have a demo slant. That way I get to see both sides of an issue, and I get more accurate info out of it. I see how one side phrases things then the other, and I can then start to sift out "the truth" of an issue.

[weeping eagle]

People rarely argue to discover the truth, or even to determine how their basic premises differ. Usually it's a power struggle, pure and simple.

If the participants come to knowledge or truth through debate, it's purely a side effect.

EDIT:


Its one of the reasons why i watch multiple news channels, ones that have a clear republican slant, and ones that have a demo slant.If you don't read The Week, you probably should.

[Coidzor]

To inflict pain, anguish, or at least frustration on the other party in order to vent the negative emotions they cause us to feel.

[DeadManSleeping]

If you want to boil it down to a couple simple reasons, you're wasting your time.

Still, there tend to be two kinds of arguers.

1. The kind that wants the other person to believe something
2. The kind that wants the other person to DO something

Number 1 uses logic (or at least does their best to) and doesn't get mad if it's refuted, nor do they mind when somebody argues back, even if the other person makes bad points. It's a debate, essentially.

Number 2 is by far the most common. While a lot of 2 may seem like 1, what they want is for someone to do something that would be correct to do if they believed something. Maybe they want someone to stop telling them what to do. Maybe they want someone to just stop arguing with them. Maybe they want someone to show them respect. Maybe they want someone to be afraid. I could go on and on, but this the very essential core of most arguments. Oh, and don't go trying to end an argument by pointing out that someone is arguing for this sort of thing. Agree or deny, it'll just make them angrier.

I do my best to stop arguing the instant somebody seems to want me to do something rather than believe something. I don't stop talking to them, I just think that sort of thing can be communicated through better means than arguing.

And you all probably disagree with me at least somewhat, but honestly, I don't feel like arguing about it.

[HalfTangible]

In my case, sometimes i don't realize i was operating under different assumptions from the other party until after we've both stormed off in a huff.

[Trog]

So WHY do people feel the need to argue against others in support of their own viewpoints when they know that it is the basic premises which are really the disagreement and that neither party is going to budge on those? I encounter countless people, both in person and via newspaper letters, internet, you-name-whichever-media-you-like who are like this, and I myself am like this. The smart ones of us know we should just back off, but why do we rarely do so even when we know we should?
Stubborn pride.

[ShadowySilence]

I think part of the reason people argue is to not only convince others and share their opinion but to prove to themselves that they are true to their own opinion. Arguments can be healthy ventilators of feelings and emotions, they allow human beings to interact, share ideas, and learn more about ourselves. It is sad though that not all arguments take this route.

[Ytaker]

Supporting others is important.

For example, to help people in other countries we give to charities.

In x country the military take a large cut of the cash- it may actually prolong the the conflict and hurt the people. Admin costs, eh?

If you want to make someone agree with you, show them the consequences of their beliefs. If you're right presumably their beliefs have negative consequences. Be utterly reasonable in assigning some event to their beliefs- if you assign someone an event they have no particular reason to associate with themselves they will resist-

Supporting others is important.

Hitler supported his generals, you bastard.

Is a bad example.

Edit. Also, it's fun having policy disagreements. Even on issues where I have no hope of changing their mind (and I have successfully changed people's minds) I enjoy the challenge.

Edit. Also you can challenge popular memes of the other side. People often believe blatantly wrong things (i.e. things you can prove wrong by citing history or science or their own idols.)

[CarpeGuitarrem]

One interesting designation that I learned about recently is between Classical and Rogerian argument.

Classical argument is like what you describe. Both sides set up their positions, and then aim to deconstruct their opposition. The point of this type of argument is not so much to convince the opponent (though it is possible) as it is to convince anyone who's witnessing the argument. It establishes credibility by making a strong position, and crushing the enemy, so to speak.

Rogerian argument is rather different. In a Rogerian argument, you're aiming to change the other person's opinion. To do this, you begin with the common ground that you share. Then you state their own position reasonably and fairly, and then suggest a way that they can work towards your own position. You don't force anything on them, but rather show them that you consider them to be reasonable, but possibly missing some key info.

[Mikhailangelo]

I like arguments. I also like being right. Therefore, I have fun arguing with people until they accept that I am right, or their argument degenerates to a point in which a neutral bystander would agree with my view over theirs.

Generally, it's just good fun to challenge the firmly held beliefs of others. The fact (as a hypothetical example of an argument) is that there is no ultimate utopia, as a utopia is the perfect state as envisioned by an individual. Individuals have opinions on matters such as morality and ethics, and as opinions (unlike knowledge) cannot either be proven or disproven by argument or empirical fact it essentially means that, while one may seek to justify an opinion by way of reasonable argument, that argument will fall on deaf ears if the opposing side equally has his/her own view, with either an unwavering certainty or a well structured argument, takes it upon themselves to argue their own case. Ultimately, arguments on ethics and such ethereal concepts could, theoretically, last forever if those debating never tired of argument, though it would eventually degenerate to the point in which one of the arguments would cease to hold as much merit as the other, if looked at in a purely neutral standpoint, and thus that would be the point in which the argument is, as such, won.

[Moonshadow]

I guess I like arguing... well, I don't really know. I get kinda a kick out of driving people into a corner with logic while they try and argue using faith. That, and it's just fun. A heated debate fires up the blood and gets the brain cells going. It's kinda energising being able to give your all into an arguement and win and not have the other person hate you because your opinion is different.

[Darklord Bright]

I generally only get into the 'heated' arguments when someone directly and purposely challenges me. Otherwise, some people may be surprised to learn that I actually don't argue to win - you can't "Win" an argument. I'll much sooner drop an argument altogether than continue until I'm foaming at the mouth (which I used to do, until I matured and learned the futility of it).

I also find that sometimes I'm arguing in the hopes that the opposition is rational enough to change my mind. If they can change my mind, I'll happily step down from my argument and tell them such. Anything that gives me a broader understanding of anything is good. However, I often find that the opposing argument does not seem to be founded on any sort of logic, or relies on one critical flaw that the opposition just will not see, no matter how glaring it is or how many others point it out. These are arguments that will usually manage to frustrate me, especially if they are otherwise intelligent. I try to show them the error they are making, and if they refuse to see it, I will not bother myself with it.

Also, sometimes when I can tell someone online clashes opinions with me drastically enough that nearly everything they say to me feels like a challenge, I will just ignore/block them and be done with it. A debate is fun once in a while, but sometimes I just want to chat. I can't do this if there is someone picking fights with me all the time.

Sadly, too often I find that I'm simply defending myself - I'll defend myself until I've managed to settle whatever issue a person has with me, or a statement I've made. I try to be civil nowadays, mostly because being rude doesn't change anyone's opinion of anything.

[AsteriskAmp]

Arguing, or for a more lenient term, discussing is not in fact futile, viewpoints can be changed, teenagers are a living proof of the fact that one shifts or expands it's viewpoints, interests and stances.

Another use of arguing/discussing is giving your position on a determined topic, many of us feel the need to do so when controversial topics are on the line, or even for none controversial topics were one feels the need to express it's viewpoint since it would a) contribute to the discussion at hand, b) the more psychological need to reveal a part of oneself to another as a sign of a determined level of trust, or c) the psychological need to express oneself's intellectual standing.

Also, in relation to your argument over the fact that there has to be a common base premise, I disagree. I've been able to hold a discussion beyond an impasse with people who had a completely different basic premise, and I've also been pushed beyond an impasse by people with completely different basic premises. It works by getting on their mindset and working on arguments/refusals from there.

Finally, there is also the possibility of a discussion made completely on factual/empirical basing.

[RabbitHoleLost]

Adrenaline is the cheapest drug.

[Elder Tsofu]

So this is an discussion/argument about why were arguing in the first place?
Perfect.

I argue because it is fun, and my behaviour is depressingly easy to predict as when someone says something I can't really agree with (usually due to flaws in the reasoning) I will take the part of the different view. Regardless of my own personal view of the matter.

Its important to discuss in an academic setting, results and methods and the deduction drawn from these are far from set in stone - something that hone you in recognising and actually looking for flaws in the other persons argument. (you do them a favour of telling them now, instead of letting them find it out the hard way 3 months later)

[Fiery Diamond]

Also, in relation to your argument over the fact that there has to be a common base premise, I disagree. I've been able to hold a discussion beyond an impasse with people who had a completely different basic premise, and I've also been pushed beyond an impasse by people with completely different basic premises. It works by getting on their mindset and working on arguments/refusals from there.

I'm curious for examples of this. How would you, for example, manage to get beyond an impasse if you had one person who believed that it was inherently okay to kill any living organism (including other people) just because you happened to be annoyed at them and the other person believing that you shouldn't take life of any animal bigger than a fly under any circumstances whatsoever, when the conversation was about, say, treatment of prisoners? Yes, I'm using something that is rather extreme and you're unlikely to find these two people talking to each other in the first place, but other more common examples which are just as extreme would be not-allowed for talking about on this site.

What I mean is, I suspect that you did share common ground relating to the discussion with the people you were discussing with, it was only the subject matter itself that you had differences on. In the case of the example here, what I suspect your situations were more like would be "Person 1 thinks that prisoners, being prisoners, are no longer possessing the basic rights of humanity any more (but does believe that these basic rights, like the right to life, exist) while Person 2 thinks that prisoners are still entitled to the basic rights of humanity and thinks that this is self-evident." On the surface, those two people don't have common premises at all, but you'll find relevant common ground if you dig deep enough; the discussion then will probably focus on "why should or shouldn't prisoners be treated fairly."

[AsteriskAmp]

I'm curious for examples of this. How would you, for example, manage to get beyond an impasse if you had one person who believed that it was inherently okay to kill any living organism (including other people) just because you happened to be annoyed at them and the other person believing that you shouldn't take life of any animal bigger than a fly under any circumstances whatsoever, when the conversation was about, say, treatment of prisoners? Yes, I'm using something that is rather extreme and you're unlikely to find these two people talking to each other in the first place, but other more common examples which are just as extreme would be not-allowed for talking about on this site.

Easy, let's label them [A and B for convenience sake (A being the Anti-Existence and B being the Biophilic).

A will argue that there are prisoners which have committed murder, they are in direct opposition of B philosophy. If B philosophy boils down to the fact that everything should permanently keep the same rights and privileges, than A will simply push the fact that B is operating a system were there is no punishment, ergo his philosophy will cause more deaths since the killer hasn't been stopped. As such, he may also push the fact that B would be a hypocrite allowing this persons such liberty when in fact they oppose his philosophy, the one which he believes is the base of living, therefore, why should those who oppose the base of living be allowed to roam care-freely with light punishments when they are in fact a menace to other living things if not punished harshly enough.

Meanwhile B will pursue the fact that A philosophy also implies that A isn't suitable to live, no one in reality is suitable to live and therefore, there is no reason for him to be alive, as he probably has annoyed someone, and as such he himself should be killed as he is pushing further harm towards another being who will understandably be annoyed. Why shouldn't be A killed? A contradicts his own philosophy by living.



What I mean is, I suspect that you did share common ground relating to the discussion with the people you were discussing with, it was only the subject matter itself that you had differences on. In the case of the example here, what I suspect your situations were more like would be "Person 1 thinks that prisoners, being prisoners, are no longer possessing the basic rights of humanity any more (but does believe that these basic rights, like the right to life, exist) while Person 2 thinks that prisoners are still entitled to the basic rights of humanity and thinks that this is self-evident." On the surface, those two people don't have common premises at all, but you'll find relevant common ground if you dig deep enough; the discussion then will probably focus on "why should or shouldn't prisoners be treated fairly."

Actually there will always exist a common premise, like the fact that humans exist, evil exist, good exists, etc... After the premise of existence however, none other is needed to be able to formulate a discussion and go beyond an impasse. Taking a philosophy case "Humans are born Good and society corrupts them" v.s. "Human is born evil and society forces them into becoming Good", the only common premise is that evil exists, humans exist and the fact that society impacts man, and I've managed to go beyond an impasse and get pushed beyond too. Eventually you have a need for a premise to confirm that reality exists, a solipsist can be debated if you take the assumption of the existence of his mind, but most arguing never go that far, so a premise of the fact that reality exists is needed, beyond that nothing else (and as explained before, that may not even be needed for some debates).

[Ytaker]

I'm curious for examples of this. How would you, for example, manage to get beyond an impasse if you had one person who believed that it was inherently okay to kill any living organism (including other people) just because you happened to be annoyed at them and the other person believing that you shouldn't take life of any animal bigger than a fly under any circumstances whatsoever, when the conversation was about, say, treatment of prisoners? Yes, I'm using something that is rather extreme and you're unlikely to find these two people talking to each other in the first place, but other more common examples which are just as extreme would be not-allowed for talking about on this site.

You would find it difficult to find anyone who believed that. What you would find is someone who believed that prisoners had it coming to them if something bad happened to them in jail (e.g. horrific torture murder) but otherwise wanted their friends and family to stay safe. The pacifist example is possible though.

They'd probably dispute over the purpose of prison- rehabilitation or punishment. They could successfully argue over whether rehabilitation was successful, over the benefits and flaws of hurting prisoners in jail, and the success rates of things like education in preventing crime.

Some of the core assumptions of the pacifist side can be challenged quite easily. Violence never solved anything? I recently solved several problems with violence. I stopped a group of bullies intimidating your child when I was baby sitting him in the park by hurting one of them, and that did stop them.

Likewise with the non pacifist side. Violence causes people to become more violent. By encouraging revenge you are simply making your family and friends less, not more safe. You know, like when your aunt got uncle joe jailed for beating her, and then when he got out he beat the crap out of her and she was worse off than ever.

@Ara
As such, he may also push the fact that B would be a hypocrite allowing this persons such liberty when in fact they oppose his philosophy

B would respond that violence encourages more violence and in fact makes it worse.


Meanwhile B will pursue the fact that A philosophy also implies that A isn't suitable to live, no one in reality is suitable to live and therefore

A would likely believe they were an exception, and would argue that they train to fight to stop this scenario specifically. As such, neither side would resolve their differences.

[AtlanteanTroll]

People don't have to agree to debate. Just look at all the stuff we cant talk about on here.

[--Lime--]

I think you've chosen the best word possible there. It is a compulsion, even when we know that changing one person's mind half-way around the globe won't actually change anything.

I argue for purely selfish reasons. It exposes me to other viewpoints (I watch Fox News but I am certainly what Fox would call Left Wing) which causes me to question and defend my own. It forces me to think about why the other side is wrong, as well as why I'm right. I welcome debate and I come to it with an open mind - it's why I quitted debating society, even though I was good at it.
The specific case was back in the 2000s, I had to defend Tony Blair's extension of custodial periods based only on suspicion, and not on prosecution. I couldn't do it. I tried, really I did, but even when looking for cogent arguments I couldn't find any that outweighed the opposition to them. I stepped down as chair and never returned.

The case someone else brings up where you argue so that others can observe the argument is very interesting, and extremely noble. Any work that tries to convince me to change its mind is practically the same. I used to be religious, but now I'm not. I still read things that challenge my viewpoint, but trust me, they fare a lot better if they try to pre-empt my thoughts and argue with themselves before concluding. For people that don't have access to that, or the confidence to do it themselves, watching the arguments unfold on the internet while not being directly involved is invaluable.


But to answer the question...
People argue because it's an assertion of power.

Let me explain. If you're arguing and the other party says "Fine. Fine, whatever. You're right. You win. Well done." there's no satisfaction. You know they're lying.

I believe this goes back to where we evolved from. If someone doesn't believe in you it's a safe bet that they either won't back you up when it comes to the crunch or will actively betray you. We're biologically programmed to need people on our side: it's why we make friends, and why we try to convince and educate others of our views. Deep inside all of us, there's the leader of the tribe, and without allies, he won't last long.

In a rational sense, though, I'll happily discuss and debate things, but I don't care if I don't convince you. Call it the boon of being sentient. I debate things now to learn what others have learned on that same subject; what has managed to convince them of the opposite to what I believe. It's selfish, in a way, but it does mean that if we end up disagreeing, it's usually agreeing to disagree, or me just not caring.

[Anxe]

Enjoy your education.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protagoras

[grimbold]

People can change their opinions, even if they aren't likely to until the argument is over. Furthermore, many of these arguments are targeted at bystanders, and influencing the person argued with may not even be a secondary concern. Add all this to the sheer fun inherent in reasonable argument, and the reasons for arguing become evident.
thank you knaight
you are correct

[UserClone]

Stubborn pride.

It seems to me that at it's most essential, this would appear to be the crux of the problem. If you get the chance, snag and read yourself a copy of How to Win Friends and Influence People.