General Question

LostInParadise's avatar

What if instead of arguing with one another we deliberately set out to find the source of the disagreement?

Asked by LostInParadise (24861points) March 6th, 2009

I thought of this a long time ago, but have never put it into practice.

Suppose that two people disagree over some issue. One person could write down something to the effect that A is true because of B, C and D. Now the second person might agree with B and C, but disagree with D. So the first person might write down D holds because of E and F.

In this way, things get broken down until the root causes of disagreement are reached. Once the roots have been exposed, it may not be possible to go any further. There may be a difference in values or in the credibility of a particular source.

The net result is that each person gets insight into the thinking of the other and a basis has been set up for each person changing their opinion if something happens to change one of the root causes of the disagreement.

I know this is all very abstract, but I think it would be fun to try to put into practice some time.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

12 Answers

laureth's avatar

This is something like how my nerd husband (and my nerd self) have fights. :)

Bri_L's avatar

@laureth – Your not a nerd becase a. your Laureth, b. Laureth is on fluther and c. laureth is on fluther.

This would be a very interesting thing to attempt in it’s purest form here on fluther.

Jeruba's avatar

This is kind of the way I do go at it. But it is not the way my husband goes at it. I say we are never going to resolve the matter if we don’t get to the root of the difference, and he says that I am avoiding the issue by arguing about the argument instead. And none of it is done very well in the heat of the emotion.

Later, at a calm and rational time, I want to try to perform the analysis, and he says what’s the point if we’re not having a problem with it right then?

This is probably our number one conflict of style. We’ve always done this little battle and we probably always will, and we don’t get much better at it, but at least we do it faster than we used to.

@laureth, I would love to borrow your husband long enough to have one good argument with him just for the pleasure of it. You could have him back when it’s time to make up!

marinelife's avatar

We don’t do it this way, because emotion enters in to argument and trumps logic.

Not everyone, by any means, is logical.

Many people do not understand themselves well enough to get to what is really going on for them.

augustlan's avatar

I always go in for the analysis after we’ve calmed down. He generally doesn’t want to (see: Jeruba’s husband), but I feel like it’s not over until we have. I pretty much insist on it.

tinyfaery's avatar

Marina took my answer. Not everyone is reasonable and rational.

Bri_L's avatar

Then there are those who state a, b and c as if they are fact when in fact they are not.

Not at all rational

cwilbur's avatar

Discovering the fundamental point of disagreement is the point of argument. Otherwise you’re just shouting at each other.

LostInParadise's avatar

@cwilbur, In all the arguents that I have ever seen, the main objective is to state one’s opinion and to knock down what the other person says. Closely examining points of disagreement is never on the agenda.

cwilbur's avatar

@LostInParadise: then you need to argue with better people.

philosopher's avatar

Great idea I wish it could work .

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther