The Trouble with Being Good at Arguing

With the UK’s general election now in full swing, it is perhaps an ideal time to reflect on what we are hearing.

Don’t worry, this isn’t a party political post. We all get to vote. Good luck to you. It’s not what’s said that this piece is interested in, it’s the way it’s said.

People arrive at their views through a combination of instinct and observation. As both of these factors vary, a range of opinions are inevitable. Assuming an individual to be of good character and their information to be correct, it is fair to say that views can oppose each other and still be true – or at least have merit.

But what may be true for me may not be so for you.  To arrive at a universally accepted consensus, we would have to rigorously test each of our views, over a long period of time. (After which, the answer may no longer matter.) Which is why we seldom do this. And besides, it’s far more fun to watch people argue.

We listen to their arguments and trust our instincts. It’s quick and easy, and it gets things done. The trouble is, the prevailing viewpoint will largely be a matter of how well it was argued – rather than its substance.  And here lies the problem.

The problem with being good at arguing, is that the better you get at it, the weaker your arguments can be – and still prevail. In the wrong hands, up can be down, in can be out, best can be worst and so on?

I was recently chatting with a friend, a music producer, who told me how many modern songs are “written by committee”, as he put it. I asked him what the potential problems of this were. He answered that the piece is often shaped by the member of the group with the most self-confidence and forthright presentation. This, of course, is great if that person is also the one with the most skill and the best ideas. Unfortunately, this isn’t always the case.

The same can be said of any group activity. It is the ideas with the most bombastic champions that are most likely to be heard and, therefore, gain traction. Arguably this is not such a bad thing if you are promoting your own brand of widgets over that of the competition. The problems come when important issues are being discussed.

Imagine, if you will, a large company that has recently developed a problem with excessive staff turnover. The boss can’t think why this may be, as when he has discussed issues with staff, they have always ended up agreeing with him. And yet, still they leave.

Or the bloke propping up the bar, lamenting a lost love. “I can’t understand it. We never had a cross word,” he’d say. “When there was a problem, we’d discuss it and then move on.”

And so to our politicians. The super-skilled presenters of their own viewpoints. I imagine I am not alone in having stared wide-eyed at the tele, trying and work out if they actually believe what they are saying. To be honest, I just don’t know. But I wonder what the solution could be to see through the gloss. Trying to reword the arguments, and then seeing if they still make sense? Discussing them with a political neutral (if you can find one)? Or fact-checking everything you see and hear? All rather time-consuming.

I guess my advice to the arguers is: be aware of how good you are at it. Yes, it may be a useful tool. And you may win all of your arguments. But be mindful of falling into the trap of thinking that means you are always right. It is not a pretty sight and will quickly promote disengagement.

Image by Pixabay.