Is the Argument You’re About to Get Into Worth It?
How to Avoid Unchangeable Minds and Wasting Your Time On Them
When is the last time you remember seeing two people on Facebook or Twitter agree after disagreeing on things they proudly believed, especially after assuming they were each better than the other person somehow?
Yeah, I can’t remember either.
If it does happen, at what percentage do you think it occurs? 5 percent of the time? 2? 0.01?
Whatever the answer is, we can probably agree that it happens very rarely. So rarely, in fact, that it would beg the question, “why do people even do it?” Sure, there are many reasons a person may have, including “providing the opposing ideas for that fair-minded third party in the audience,” assuming they exist, but figuring out what reasons are and aren’t actually justified isn’t the purpose of this article.
We’re here to look at some of the problems found in arguing and debating with people, online and off, and to suggest a way to mitigate those problems through learning how to be more selective in who we try to change the minds of, and conversely, who not to waste our time on.
DEBATE! HUH! GOOD GOD, YA’LL. WHAT IS IT GOOD FOR?
Arguing with people who seem to be missing the point of what we’re saying can be frustrating. Arguing with people who seem to be intentionally missing the point of what we’re saying through disingenuous means can be absolutely maddening. It taxes our emotional and mental energy banks. It can make us feel hopeless in the fights we think are worth fighting and even more hopeless regarding our fellow human beings. Furthermore, it takes away from other areas of our lives because of the finite resources we have, as people are likely already stressed and feeling stretched in too many directions. Not only does that affect us, but it can affect those we care about as well.
Even worse, if we conservatively went with a “10% of arguments between people who disagreed on proudly held beliefs ended with their agreeing with each other”, that’s still the equivalence of two people’s wasted resources multiplied by 90% of all arguments happening every minute of the day around the world. While many people worry about the harmful excessive carbon footprint we leave on the environment, we don’t seem all that worried about the wasted and emotionally harmful human resource footprint we leave behind as well.
I wonder what the carbon footprint of all the unproductive arguments on the internet is in terms of hard drive space, data transmission, electricity, and everything that goes into them and what it’s collectively comparable to. One can only imagine. See? We’re even hurting the planet!
It’s one thing for someone to comment with their opinion with no intention of sticking around to defend it (even if it’s already been said by many others, albeit in different ways), but to stick around to defend that opinion with people who literally can’t be convinced that they’re wrong… it almost starts to sound like a form of masochism.
What else could we be doing with all that time and energy?
Here are just a few examples:
- De-stressing in our favorite ways
(video games, exercise, art, listening to music, a nap, etc.). - Setting and working on goals.
- Spending more time connecting with our friends and family.
- Getting into or practicing a new hobby.
- Organizing (i.e., a cluttered room, finances, calendar).
- Talking with people whose minds we have a much greater chance of changing (and who we’d be more willing to change our mind for in return).
- Spending all day writing a blog post you’ve been thinking about for over a month.
If you thought about what you could be doing instead, especially after realizing how fruitless it is time and time again, how would you convince yourself the argument is worth it?
THIS IS WHY WE CAN’T HAVE NICE THINGS
In any debate or argument between two people, all it takes is one of the two being closed-minded to the possibility that they could be wrong for all productivity to have already been doomed and out the window before the debate even started. That close-mindedness tends to rear its ugly head regarding topics or issues closely entangled with a person’s identity or moral and intellectual self-concept. These are often political or religious, but they can be anything we proudly believe that indirectly or directly supports the idea that “I’m as good/smart as I think I am.”
There is, of course, the chance that both people are close-minded to that possible wrongness. In that case, whoever is right or wrong tends to be a matter of coincidence more than proof of anything else. But, we’ll assume that whether that’s the case or not, there are ways in which we can guarantee a much higher likelihood that the debate or argument we’re about to get into will be constructive.
Ready to start saving yourself (and your loved ones) a buttload of time and grief?
PROBLEM, MEET SOLUTION
When you want to express your disagreement with someone, three types of people will much more likely be willing to fairly consider what you’re saying or, at a minimum, respectfully admit that they don’t have the capacity to do so at the moment.
The “not wasting my time” criteria:
- They trust you.
- They have the desire to keep your day-to-day relationship maintained
- They have already expressed valuable intellectual traits
The more of these criteria your would-be opponent meets, the more likely you are to have a productive dialogue. So, let’s see why:
1. They trust you
When a person trusts your character and intention, they can feel safe allowing themselves to be more vulnerable to the less pleasant thoughts and, in turn, feelings that new information which you specifically have offered can bring. They can unconsciously assume that what you’re saying results from you only having the best in mind for them, yourself, and/or something you both might care about. As a matter of hypervigilance for threats and assumptive mindreading, we tend to see malintent in those we don’t yet trust to pre-emptively protect ourselves from ulterior motives that we’re just not privy to yet as they assert the things they do.
This is likely the strongest indicator of how willing a person will be to put effort into considering the things you say.
2. They have a desire to keep your day-to-day relationship maintained
When we’ve already established a pleasant enough day-to-day relationship with someone, say a coworker, friend, or romantic partner, we tend to form a dependency on that relationship being a safe haven from the other stresses in our lives, if not at least something we can count on to be what it appears to be and with few surprises. We want to protect that relationship, and we do that by trying to be good to the other person in the ways we believe they are good to us. This is not as strong of an indicator as a deeper trust, but if the other person doesn’t want to risk a conversation that will threaten the relationship, they will likely let you know. Unless you’re disagreeing with the harm that they’re unknowingly or have rationalized themself into causing, that’s their healthy boundary to have. It’s not necessarily that they don’t want to hear what you have to say or how they may be wrong, but it does show us that they care about the relationship with you very much and don’t want to risk losing it.
3. They have already expressed valuable intellectual traits
If you’ve witnessed your would-be opponent reacting, not only well, but with an open and honest mind without resorting to personal attacks when faced with new information that may be uncomfortable for them to hear (i.e., evidence that a political position they’ve held for a long time is “wrong”), it can be an indicator that they may be willing to extend the same considerations to you as well. Valuable intellectual traits are apparent when someone shows a consistent application of critical thinking standards in their thought. The three that I find are often most crucial for productivity in any disagreement, as defined by the Foundation for Critical Thinking, are:
- Intellectual Courage — Having a consciousness of the need to face and fairly address ideas, beliefs, or viewpoints toward which we have strong negative emotions and to which we have not given a serious hearing.
- Fair-mindedness — Having a consciousness of the need to treat all viewpoints alike, without reference to one’s own feelings or vested interests or the feelings or vested interests of one’s friends, community, or nation.
- Intellectual Humility — Having a consciousness of the limits of one’s knowledge, including a sensitivity to circumstances in which one’s native egocentrism is likely to function self-deceptively; sensitivity to bias, prejudice, and limitations of one’s viewpoint.
Of the three “not wasting my time” criteria for assessing the other person’s ability to keep the debate or argument productive, “expressed valuable intellectual traits” is likely the weakest indicator. This is because a key feature of valuable intellectual traits is that they’re consistently applied rather than only applied when it’s convenient or easy. If your sample size is too small, you might not have seen their lack of consistency even though it exists.
“You’re so wrong, you honking idiot.”
INDICATORS THAT YOU’RE EVEN MORE LIKELY TO WASTE YOUR TIME
If we were to look at the opposites of our three “not wasting our time” criteria, we find indicators of an even greater likelihood of time being wasted than if you were to have no information at all.
You are even more likely to be wasting your time if a person has expressed:
- Their distrust in you.
- They would rather sacrifice their (potential) relationship with you than hear how they may be wrong.
- They have already expressed the opposite of valuable intellectual traits (intellectual cowardice, narrowmindedness, intellectual arrogance, etc.).
What’s interesting is that the strength of each opposing criterion is now in reverse as well, starting with pseudo-intellectual traits being the greatest indicator of how much of a waste of time your debate will likely be, their willingness to sacrifice the relationship coming in second and their distrust coming in third. Distrust comes in third because if that is the only opposing criterion they meet, the issue of that distrust can be discussed and possibly resolved.
It should also be said that strangers, especially those on the internet, have the easiest cop-out of an argument possible from the very start; they don’t care to save a relationship with you that doesn’t really exist beyond your disagreement. This gives them plenty of room to do whatever they truly desire, and it’s usually far from the way they would treat those that they already have some kind of maintained relationship with when it comes to the intent behind their actions. This difference in their actions is what allows some people to assume their online behavior doesn’t reflect on who they are as a person compared to how they act off of the internet, but it ends up only being a double standard.
“…strangers, especially those on the internet, have the easiest cop-out of an argument possible from the very start; they don’t care to save a relationship with you that doesn’t really exist beyond your disagreement.”
If you are going to argue with someone online, even though all signs point to “I shouldn’t,” consider making or linking a video instead of writing out your entire argument. Research shows that there’s a very big difference between the way people interpret each other’s words when they’re heard compared to when they’re read. I’m glad I had already planned to make YouTube videos for each of these articles. …Phew…
However, if you’re going to argue with someone off of the internet, you can still share a video of someone else providing the entire argument. This decreases the confrontationality of a perceived ego looking to come out on top. When you share a video with someone with the context that the video was enough to convince you of holding the position you then hold, you’re communicating that it isn’t you that’s so smart, knowledgeable, and, in turn, morally superior as a result, but rather that you agree with an argument that seems honest and logical enough. With that, the focus is more likely to stay on the message rather than the messenger.
If this still doesn’t work, don’t say I didn’t warn you.
Efficiency geesonified.
A NAP SOUNDS PRETTY GOOD RIGHT ABOUT NOW. THANK GOODNESS THERE ARE NO WORTHWHILE DEBATES TO GET INTO.
If the schizophrenic hive mind marketplace of ideas that is everyone arguing with each other were productive, we’d likely be closer to being on the same page on many issues and subsequently have a better world than we have today as a result.
Unfortunately, that isn’t the case, and we appear to be wasting our time in the vast majority of arguments we get into (outside of many using it as an excuse to low-key or outright bully each other to feel better about themselves and get the addictive dopamine hit with that sweet, sweet virtue and intellect signaling).
Until enough of us learn how to be consistently open-minded to allow a true marketplace of ideas to flourish with productivity, the best that can be done is whatever’s best for ourselves and those we care about. And I don’t think it’s arguing with little to no return on what we invest in it when it’s ultimately at the cost of the potential we claim to care about.
Your time and energy are valuable. Don’t sell yourself short by wasting it on those who don’t appreciate or respect you enough to make it worth everyone’s while.
Give it a whirl, and let me know how it goes via my Twitter.
