Disputes

I have a principle which may be naive, but it is something I try to follow in my everyday disputes. I see a dispute as a discussion, where the most important goal for both sides should be to get nearer to the truth by perfecting the aspects of an idea or theory that is being discussed. It doesn't matter which side you're on, but what does matter is that you won't be trying to win at any cost.

What both sides should do is to take their opinion of the idea and test it against the opposite one, represented by the other side, to see where are its flaws and weak spots. Should there be a moment when you notice, that your opinion doesn't hold water, then it is time to change your point of view. But that doesn't mean the dispute is finished, continue protecting your initial opinion and try to search for flaws in your new point of view. By finding flaws and fixing them, the opinion of the matter gains more value, it is stronger. At the end of the discussion if you changed your point of view then you should, for good manners, tell the other side, that you agree with his point of view by stating the reasons why, which still has nothing to to with the pleasure of winning.

It may sometimes happen, that the participants are not equal and one has way more arguments to support his theory than the other. This is a good situation for the one with weaker arguments, because he or she can learn from it, change his point of view and therefore get nearer to the truth. Although the other one might be less motivated, because there could be no gain for him or her. This for example often happens in school, between teacher and student. 

This is all quite bright and shiny as a theory, but which rarely works in practice. It all goes well until the people involved are reasonable and somewhat intelligent, on almost every other case it fails miserably. Why? The principle has two main weak spots, one being the part of changing the point of view and the other not trying to win at any cost. There are two things that mostly happen when one involved in the dispute understands that his side of the idea is not quite true: he or she gets personal and starts insulting the other one or simply rejects logic. This is often a dead end. At this point it is most reasonable to stop the discussion and move on to something else. The reason why people cling to their side might be that they fear to be wrong. Being wrong, feeling stupid is something we all try to avoid. Well, in this case people should understand that when having a discussion, being wrong is normal and it is actually a good thing, because the newly obtained theory is stronger than your previous one, therefore they just got wiser. This also covers the 'winning at any cost' part.

Most of my ideas and theories have went through the fire of dispute, sometimes coming out alive and stronger, sometimes a bit specified or sometimes as the exact opposite. But that is the magic of it, now I can be sure, that each of those ideas or theories is now stronger than it was before regardless its current state. Whenever I get the chance to debate over something I take it trying to get most of it. I also really enjoy the process as long as my opponents are reasonable and calm.

I hope this was as thoughticious for you as it is for me.