Argument Cultures and Unregulated Aggression

>An argument is the use of aggressive opposition to weed out weak logic, keeping the strongest ideas possible. The philosophy behind using arguments for problem-solving is that attacking the weak parts of an idea will leave the best solutions. The metaphor for argument in our culture is war. We think of people we argue with as opponents, we attack their position and defend our own, we can gain or lose ground, and ultimately we can win or lose arguments—just like battles [1].

the author probably has no idea about some wrestling and in general war strategies. In many cases you don't need to aggressively attack the opponent. Just let him fall using his own impulse and under his own weight... you can even help him by adding to his impulse (like in many cases in judo :) In corporate environment - just let the opponent develop his great idea in details, ask helpful questions about inter- and intra- component integration, performance, suggest the opponent do quick POC demonstrating all these great characteristics of their idea ...

"debata" looks an awful lot like "debate", which is a generally a civilized, two sided discussion. Argument, when used to describe a discussion (rather than an idea), has at least some connotation of it being unpleasant/disagreeable/angry.

There are two different words in English too right? "Debate" and "argument", the former implying a civil one, the other one meaning where people are angry at each other.

"Debata" is even just one letter away from "debate"

The article is not talking about constructive debate. The article is talking about emotional dominance. Not a question of debating the merits of one thing and holding a position and defending it against legitimate questions.

Instead it's talking about making threatening and emotional overtures in order to get the other party to submit. She belabors that point in the first paragraphs to make sure that's what's being conveyed.

It's not a matter of having a correct opinion, it's about acting in a way that causes another person to concede, maybe because they don't want to fight. I'm certain you've been in a meeting where someone in a position of authority has told you to do something that you didn't agree with, in a harsh tone of voice, and you've done it because despite the fact that you didn't agree with it, it wasn't worth the fight.

Maybe you have spoken up about it but despite the fact that your argument is better, his is louder and he has authority over you, so you submit.

Now move that situation to co-workers on an otherwise equal level, now you try to debate, but your co-worker starts to very stubborn and raises his voice. You don't want to make a scene so you back down.

Now say you don't really want to back down. He raises his voice, so you try to rationally discuss the merits of your idea and he just keeps parroting his idea loudly and angrily, maybe you stick in a jibe about how he is getting too emotional, maybe not, but at this point you know you can't just debate, you have to beat him at a different game. You either make him self-conscious, or you make him feel weaker than you by yelling over him. Your only other option is to submit.

This is something I see in normal day to day work. Not outright yelling, but the power dynamic of "I disagree with you, but I'm not willing to engage in an escalating fight, so I'll let you have your way."

Unfortunately, if you're in a situation where that kind of culture dominates, someone who always backs down will never get their way. You can't win through rationality in those circumstances. The only way you can win is to represent a more dominant position than the other person. This is a strictly emotional scenario and because of it it does suck for women. Because while a guy might tolerate being outdebated by a woman, to be socially dominated by a woman is something that is still really taboo.

I mean, if two stubborn men both hold a position, both believing themselves to be right, and they both raise their voices, and one guy ends up making the other back down by belittling him and making him feel it's not worth the fight, that's annoying, it's awkward, but it's sometimes life.

On the other hand if a stubborn man and a woman hold differing positions, and they both raise their voices, and the woman ends up making the man back down by belittling him and making him feel that it's not worth the fight, well that's a terrible thing. She's got to be some sort of crazy bitch to not listen to his opinion rationally.

And flipping that around, if a the man ends up making the woman back down by belittling her and making her feel it's not worth the fight, then the woman feels like it's a terrible thing, but people tell her that she should have stood up for herself more, that she needs to be more assertive, that it's her fault that he won the battle.

But the whole thing is that the article is not talking about the "debata" side of things. The article is talking about the "hadka" side of things. About forcing your opponent to submit to your idea, not because you have convinced them through fair discussion, but because you undermine your opponent's credibility, resort to ad hominems, and use personal attacks.

She's not talking about whether talking with co-workers about the merits of some tool is bad or not. Simply about the culture of "I'm right because nobody is willing to say I'm wrong".

I also am not sure what you mean about "It's also amusing that she blames engineer's arguing for the competitive atmosphere, while being from the US, which has this hyper-competitive capitalist culture, which I rather despise and I am not the only engineer who does"

The culture that she's talking about is a US trait, and if you despise it, I'm wondering why you're arguing against it. Maybe you feel that she is generalizing to you, or other countries?

I think you might just be misunderstanding the article. She's not talking about disagreements or logic. She's talking about, in her own words "The use of aggressive opposition", which is using "personal remarks, interrupting, speaking much more loudly, entering someone's personal space" as opposed to "logic, facts and better information."

If you are in a situation where that never happens, then great, you're not the people that she's talking about. I've seen workplaces that operate very much entirely on the rule of aggressive social dominance, to ones that are very rationally handled. It really depends on management and culture. American startup culture is often described as much more like the former. A lot of arrogance and little management expertise. A lot of young people and little perspective.

But she's not saying that challenging other people's opinions is wrong. She's saying that a culture where what is right is decided by who is the person who people are most afraid to stand up to is dangerous. Look for example of how lauded Steve Jobs is and how tyrannical he was to his employees. You don't get into an argument with him, you don't even want to get his attention. Not because you might be wrong, but because he has more power than you and you'll just end up fired. There's no rational business reason for that decision, but he did like to show that he had the power to make you sink or swim.

As entrepreneur, with experience as manager and engineer I could tell you that arguments and discussion are probably the most useful thing for any company.

More than two interesting people, with different backgrounds and beliefs should always argue. It is a great thing for any institution.

Arguments discard weak ideas before the market does. If the market does you have already spent enormous amount of money.

This should not be confused with keeping it civilized. My main job as a manager was keeping a great environment for discussion.

Good quality debate and discussion should be teached in schools, like in ancient Greece, when they were trained to defend their position, and then to defend the opposite. This forces you to understand the other side.

Like in marriage, a great marriage does not mean no arguments, because if there are no arguments it means simply that one party is surrendering to the other. You can love and respect the other person and disagree, listen to the other party, understand what they tell you and take a shared decision.

No arguments in a company means design by committee. Everybody's opinion is equal an usually this means disaster, unless the people in the Round table are already preselected like King Arthur's.

Brainstorming is something that you do before arguing. First you are not critical, you expose all ideas that you have, you are creative, not rational, but at the end end of the process you start trimming, cutting for getting to decisions(witch etymologically means to cut branches) based on rational decisions that make some ideas stand and the others perish.

Also, I believe (at least I hope) that men are able to see women in a more relaxed way than boys see girls, doing far less thinking about showiing off.