I often get into “deep conversations” with people. I’m not opposed to small talk, but if there’s an opening in the conversation to talk about religion, justice or politics I go for it (and often often end up antagonizing the person I’m chatting with). One Christmas party I went to with quietrose I ended up have an extended discussion about the re-rehabilitation and appropriate justice-perspective for pedophiles (although, to be honest, even I felt that this wasn’t the best venue for that conversation afterwards).
Often when I get into “big chats” with people there will be something that bugs me, and for the longest time I couldn’t put my finger on it. I have *NO* problem with people disagreeing with me (its a short conversation otherwise and I don’t have much of a chance to learn anything). What bothers me is when people provide their conclusions rather than their reasoning.
“Vanilla is the best flavour of ice cream.” Is this true? I don’t know, clearly its an opinion, which is fine, but what I’m interested in is WHY the person feels that way.
“The minimum wage should be raised.” Is this true? Again, its an opinion. If you ask people way, they’d probably say “People can’t live in today’s society earning $7.75 / hour“. Is this true? It seems like another opinion. If someone showed me a very frugal budget, and the weekly costs couldn’t be met by $7.75 * 40, I might find this convincing. If you try to dig deeper than this (such as wanting to see such a budget), people get upset. Many economists have shown that a minimum wage hurts the population its supposed to help (by making small businesses re-evaluate their labour needs and potentially down-size – e.g. its better to have a job at $7.75/hr than no job at $8 / hr).
People will get upset with this point, flippantly say something like (“any business that’s willing to pay someone $7.75 can afford to pay them $8″), then re-iterate their conclusion that minimum wage should be raised.
At this point I usually start thinking I should have been hitting on the host’s cute niece rather than getting myself into this, but there’s no way out at that point.
I’m always at pains in my posts to explain my REASONING for what I believe. Sometimes in an on-line “discussion” someone writes “well, I disagree”, which is well and fine, but it doesn’t really add anything. Either the points I raise don’t lead to the conclusion I think they do (in which case its best to point out the faulty reasoning), or one of the points my conclusion is based on is faulty (which obviously undermines the entire argument). Sometimes I’ll give a litany of reasons, someone will pick out a semantic point with one of them, then feels they’ve demolished the entire argument. However, arguments sometimes stand on more then one leg.
I suspect that either people haven’t really thought out their position on a topic, so they CAN’T provide their reasoning, or they realize that an opinion is far easier to defend than an argument. The goal of an “argument” off-line (or a flame-war on-line) is sadly often to win, not to discover the truth).
I met a guy in university who had been in a debate club (I wish my high school had had a debate club), and his style of argument was pretty irritating as well (it mostly consisted of insulting the other person). His response to my assertion that OAC had value for high school students going to university was to laugh in my face.
Perhaps academia is the best place to have such extended, in depth investigations. Papers take time to write and publish, so almost like making an offer on a piece of real estate: when you write down (publish) your ideas they’re far more grounded then flippantly making an offer.
What do you think is the best forum for discussions where the goal is to honestly illuminate the topic of conversation and to get to the truth of the matter?
September 12, 2007 at 10:29 am
Mr. C,
You remind me much of myself as I often like to get into ‘deep’ conversations while others may not want to go there.
Regarding our online arguments over dividends etc., my goal is to learn at all times and I certainly do not believe I have all the right answers.
September 12, 2007 at 12:52 pm
What do you think is the best forum for discussions where the goal is to honestly illuminate the topic of conversation and to get to the truth of the matter
Based on prior experience, I know it’s certainly nowhere near anything involving the Internet! People hide behind anonymity online way too easily, and have no problem being much more vicious and arrogant than they would otherwise be.
I’m not surprised that the ex-debater came off as a bit of a jerk. Formal debating is much more about scoring points than it is about outlining a series of rational points. To use a baseball analogy, most debaters tend to swing for the fences, when a series of solid singles is a much better way to score in the end.
Honestly? I’m the same way as you. I always tend to get into serious discussions over small talk. It’s only gotten me in trouble a few times, but as long as you’re aware of the context you’re in, I say keep doing it. I guarantee everyone else at the table is listening in because your conversation is so much more interesting. As long as you’re not rude about it, nobody is thinking “who was that jerk?”
And in general, I find the old rule of “don’t discuss sex, politics and religion at the dinner table” actually rings true.
Personal finance discussions, however…well, there’s never a bad time or place for those. They get the party started!
September 12, 2007 at 12:53 pm
MG: I really appreciate reading your blog and your comments here. I haven’t quite figured out your perspective on valuation, but I’m definitely going to keep reading what you write and try to figure it out!
September 12, 2007 at 12:56 pm
GIV: You’re probably right, although I’m suspicious blogs might be the closest you’ll get on-line.
September 12, 2007 at 1:58 pm
Mr. Cheap,
There is a really easy answer as of to why people comes down to conclusions instead of reasonings: Reasoning requires effort and time while you can get free conclusions throughout medias. They read something or watch TV during lunch and they get a free-ready-to-use conclusions about a specific topic. This is why you can’t really go deep with these people. Unfortunately, these people represent the majority of the population.
I don’t have an opinion on everything simply because I don’t have time to think about everything in life. However, when I do have one, I do have a reasoning behind it. I’m sure we would have great conversation if we ever meet
September 12, 2007 at 3:40 pm
Unfortunately, I think we’ve become far too lazy to get into an enlightening conversation or debate. People don’t have the time nor the inclination to spend a few hours to discuss a certain topic of interest beyond the basics. Thus, our conversations with friends seem to have been “dumbed down”.
I remember in my university days, one of our favourite (albeit somewhat silly but remember, there was usually alcohol involved
) debates was who would win in a battle, a polar bear or an ape. Someone would bring up the question, “well, could we train the animal to use a weapon?” and it went on from there.
Ok, so the debate was silly, as I said, but the point is, we never questioned why we dissected the topic for 2 hours. Now that we’re all working professionals, two hours are spent catching up about how things are going at work, how little Suzie is walking now, how we’re overworked & underpaid and how expensive life is in general.
We just don’t have time for “meaningless disagreements” – it’s just impolite.
We have a few friends that we get into deeper conversations with and those are the best get-togethers imo. Except when we get into the hockey debates.
Good post btw.
September 12, 2007 at 4:02 pm
Yeah man, you’ve met fellow souls. I have very few illuminating “discussions” b/c most people haven’t spent half the time that I have learning and reading and researching.
And then when you do bring stuff up, lots of people like throwing flak around: here’s a slashdot link I’m in. Notice the lack of explanation or supporting information from anybody? Mostly just me being modded a troll for asking why people are coming out with 40k in debt from a degree when my whole degree cost me less than 20k.
September 12, 2007 at 4:29 pm
Great post, Mr. Cheap! First of all, that conversation at the Christmas party about helping pedophiles to change their behavior was a weird one, but all parties involved had something to do with it!
I agree with the views expressed in your post. Most people tend to look for and retain simple conclusions about topics, instead of thinking about and formulating their rationale. There are many reasons why people do this, in addition to not being too bright. In my field of work, I am constantly trying to get my clients to discuss their ideas and rationale for their behavior. In my personal life, I strive for the same thing. Guess it is just the kind of person I am.
It’s great that your blog and the blogs of your readers seem to be honest and open to discussing personal finance issues! It’s a rare thing on the net.
September 12, 2007 at 4:33 pm
On second thought, no….
I disagree with your post entirely because you’re a stupidhead.
September 12, 2007 at 4:56 pm
I love a good debate. Even if I agree with someone, I will at times argue an opposing view. I feel that you cannot learn unless you explore the issues and other viewpoints.
What I dislike is that many people seem to get so emotionally attached to their arguments. I try to only argue based on reasoning, and perhaps opinion plays in, but I never make it personal. Yet they act like any opposing view is a personal attack.
My mom always told me “never discuss politics or money.” But why can we not have open discussions about such things?
September 12, 2007 at 6:19 pm
Wow, what a lot of great comments. Thanks all!
telly: There’s an episode of “Angel” where there’s a sub-plot throughout the episode that different people in the group keep having an argument over who would win in a fight: a caveman or an astronaut. My money would be on the polar bear (claws and more aggressive) and the astronaut (peak physical shape AND a lifetime of good nuitrition).
WC: A buddy of mine likes to argue with his wife until she starts to get upset, then he says “ok, now switch!” and insists that they now argue the opposite positions to what they were before. Surprisingly (or perhaps not) he seems to have a very strong marriage.
September 13, 2007 at 3:34 am
I’ve discovered that people are emotional when it comes to debate or reaching a conclusion over a particular issue. They never try see the other person’s point of view. There’s a regular male reader on my blog who reads my articles and usually ends up sending in some conclusions that are pretty chauvinistic. At first, I tried to explain the reason behind some of the articles I wrote but that ended up leading to more chauvinistic comments. So I decided to ignore him cos he came across as someone who had deeper issues to deal with.
September 13, 2007 at 8:04 am
January: I’m at the point in life where I’ll try a couple times to explain my reasoning to someone, and if it seems llike they’re deliberately misunderstanding me (to try to argue) I’ll usually let it go after that point.
September 17, 2007 at 12:15 pm
Mr. Cheap, if you can train them with weapons, it’s gotta be the ape, hands down. I’d pick the astronaut though too.
The comment about your friend and his wife switching sides mid argument is really interesting. I could see that making their marriage stronger but I wonder how they do that. Not sure if I could follow through but I’d like to try that methodology sometime. However, I could never, ever switch sides in the usual argument with my husband and pretend to like the Leafs!