ARGUMENTS THAT SHUT-DOWN THINKING

When we want to make a point with someone, we arrange certain facts together in order to make “an argument,” that is, to “argue” for our point. This use of the word “argue” or “make an argument” refers not to “arguing” in the normal emotional sense of the word. It refers rather to a reasoned way of thinking that is designed to bring another person to see and understand your positions as well as to persuade the other person to agree with your argument or your point. This use of the term “argument” does not referring to bickering, accusing, or disputing at all. It is reasoning, giving reasons, giving evidence, and making an appeal for a perspective. And when you do that, you make your way of thinking clear which goes back to the Latin word, arguere “to make clear” from which “argue” and “argument” come.

Yet the two meanings of argue and argument are connected. Typically, you present your evidence for your point, but then the more you contend for it, the more you debate, and then lecture, and then disagree, and then eventually both parties in up making accusations and personal attacks. We all know that far too well! In the end you are in a shouting match about who’s right and who’s wrong and so you are now arguing in the most obnoxious and aversive form of that term.

Now a good argument depends on several things. First good evidence and then the ability to clearly communicate your line of thinking that led you to your conclusions. It depends on an open mind that you could be wrong, that you could not have the most relevant facts, and that your reasoning may not be correct. It depends on robust dialogue that listens, reflects, gives sensory-based feedback, and adjusts as issues become clearer.

One of the ways that arguments go wrong and shut down thinking is when they are based on fallacious reasoning and this is what you can see on any evening on television or cable. In fact, to me it is a wonder of the world that such low level arguments continue night after night. Anyone who actually thinks about it for just a few moments can see that it is false reasoning and that it is primarily propaganda and childish argumentation and it’s not going to lead anyone to a thoughtful consideration or change of mind. So why does it continue? Probably for the entertainment value (!) and because it delights the “true believers.” That’s my guess.

Some people base their arguments by appealing to one or more cognitive biases. “As everyone knows how X is a racist.... you can expect ...” this social appeal or bandwagon bias comes with

an assumptive bias. By labeling, the person taps into the labeling bias (that words are the reality), and therefore unquestioned. We all tend to easily confuse words and labels with the reality they refer to and often never even question the labels. Intellectually we know that words are just words and labels are just labels, but in the heat of an argument, we forget and respond to the labels emotionally. Call someone a name (and it does not have to be derogatory) and all sorts of associations and assumptions come along with it. Now thinking stops and defensiveness begins!

Then there is the causation bias which is so easy to trigger. Mention a name or term and we stereotypically link all sorts of things with it and also assume all sorts of very questionable causations. Thus, we think that anyone advocating for gun rights must want or at least approve mass shootings. We think that anyone advocating for gun control must want or at least approve of only criminals having guns. We are assuming causation in both cases, “If you do X, then that must of necessity mean that you want Y.” Of course, such arguments are fallacious and their appeal is wrong-headed. We are assuming too much.

A bias that drives the majority of people is that of simplicity and over-simplifying and so if you can tell a cohesive story, you can appeal to how simple it sounds to them. This is the narrative bias at its best and it works best when there is less information because in that way you can make an appeal based on simple causation and not have to answer questions that arise due to other facts that do not so easily fit into the narrative.

Beyond the cognitive biases are the cognitive fallacies— the appeals based entirely on fallacious (erroneous thinking). Here a person makes an appeal based, not on the reasoning, but on character (the person), or emotions, or correlation, etc. People appeal to an over-simplification of the other’s argument by creating a strawman argument which they then proceed to tear apart which they easily do because it was a weak strawman argument.

We all make arguments for our ideas and beliefs. It is how we attempt to influence and persuade each other. Yet we do not all make high quality arguments. Often our arguments are of poor or low quality. And often we learn to do that as we see and hear such low quality “arguments” in the media. A big problem is when our arguments utilize cognitive biases and fallacies— that’s because those arguments actually shut down thinking rather than encourage it.

The next time you make an argument or hear one— consider, “Does this argument encourage open exploration, dialogue, and respectful exchanges, or does it seem to be shutting the down on conversation?”