How to Teach a Child to Argue
figarospeech.com
figarospeech.com
> Me: “Thanks. Where did you have in mind?”
> Dorothy: “Ben & Jerry’s.”
There's a difference between argument through reason and manipulation. I think this guy is teaching his kids to be manipulative.
The little dialog above shows that the daughter doesn't care a wit about how her father feels, she's just using the emotion as a point of leverage. If I had kids and they did this to me, it would sadden me.
The "advertising inoculation" mentioned in the article is an example of this.
The overall thing is that he's teaching his kids to be critical, which is a good thing for kids to learn. But it's also important to put ground rules and let the kids know that you're the one teaching them this and to lead them on that you'd be wise to their attempts at using it on you.
If we are taught manipulation is wrong, we never learn how to use it and we are less able to defend against it, and it puts us at a disadvantage when we have to deal with a less scrupulous person who doesn't have a problem using it.
Instead if we are taught that manipulation is a tool, and like any tool can be used for good or evil depending on the tool user, maybe we would get less upset at the beer commercial with the twins in wet t-shirts, but also we would be less affected by it.
No kidding. That's the whole point of the parent post in the first place isn't it? He's asserting that manipulation, is self evidently wrong, that there is no justification to resort to manipulative tactics over argument through reason.
Here's a counter example for you: If we taught that murder is wrong, we'll never use it and we are less able to defend against it... etc. That's actually, exactly how most people are brought up and for good reason. We generally consider murder to be wrong.
Let me tell you something, the world seems to be raising more individuals comfortable with implementing these sort of manipulative tactics, "appealing to the audience" as it were. As far as I can tell, what this article promotes is a sure fire way to encourage your child to grow up into being a manipulating psychopath; nothing could be further from fostering talent for argument through reason.
Wow, talk about employing pathos to manipulate the audience!
I too assert however that manipulating the audience in spite of appealing to reason is unethical, and that some sort of notion that we should practice manipulation so as to strengthen ourselves to it is rubbish, if we consider manipulation to be unethical in the first place. Hence, if it's beneath us, even if using manipulation made us better at persuasion through appeals to ethos and pathos, or at least better apt at detecting and exposing manipulation, what what would be the point after having compromised our own values in the first place?
No shit Sherlock! It's called "How to Teach A Kid To Argue." That's where you bat a point of debate back and forth in an attempt to manipulate the other side to agreeing with you or at least seeing your viewpoint.
Reasoning is manipulation because you use reason to change other people's opinions or actions.
I like this approach and one day when I have kids I'll probably use it with them.
However I was never encouraged to be manipulative, only clear and logical.
As a result, I expect that most people will respond to reason, which is far from the truth of how the world works.
I totally agree with his parenting style, great article all around.
Good article.
The fact is, that kids do "run" their parents quite a bit. This approach might just bring it out in the open.
I think that by bringing it out into the open, the ground is leveled and there is more understanding.
It is like the difference between being able to think, and being able to think about thinking.
It is the ability to reflect on conversation.
I think it's more ruled by the fact that they feel they owe it to their kids or that they've fostered this need in their kids to always gratify their wants. There's less emphasis on critical thinking, which is what I think the author of the post was trying to get at.
Not just being "argumentative".
In Canada, we call the class on rhetoric "Critical Thinking".
Which are all forms of argument. (Ok, the last one is more general than "argue" but it is far too broad to be useful in this context.) One of the minor points the author made is that people often try to downplay disagreement or avoid dealing with it to their detriment. Acknowledge the disagreement up front and employ persuasion, negotiation, and reasoned debate to come to an agreement that both parties live with.
However, for most parents the colloquial meaning of "arguing" or "being argumentative" understood as the opposite of "being reasonable".
"Go to bed now!", insisted Mom. "Don't argue with me", she told the six-year-old. "We can talk about your bedtime tomorrow, after you have had some sleep, but I am not going to negotiate your bedtime at 11pm on a school night."
I highly recommend "Thank You for Arguing." It's a wonderful book that takes classical rhetoric, a relatively dry subject, and turns it into something entertaining to study.
Some parents have a problem with this. I remember a conversation where a woman volunteered that she completely suppressed her kids every time. She was absolutely proud of this fact.
Kids whose parents let them win consistently have their world views shattered when they find out that they aren't the best at everything. These children are usually poor sports at winning and losing.
My boys are pretty happy when they beat their old man and I'm proud of them when they do.
One of my boys will call a foot race to the car when he's close enough to where he thinks he can beat me. When he says go, I'm coming full tilt. Or when we practice baseball I'll set up a contest - hit a ball past me and we go for ice cream.
The corollary to that, is that kids who never win quickly realize that playing the game is pointless, and give up.
It's old, it's dated, in places it's laughable, but it contains amazingly useful advice. It seems trite and shallow, but it's astonishingly effective.
If you read it as a complete cynic you'll have plenty to laugh at and get nothing of lasting value. If you try to gain insight from it, reading past the no-longer-relevant examples to find the intended truths, you will have the means to be a better person, and accomplish much, much more.
Yes, that's a rave review. Perhaps I hold the book in such high regard because it was exactly what I needed at exactly the time I needed it, but I still reference it to this day and ask "What could I do better?"
In most cases, divergence among rational people can be traced to different priorities. I think the same would apply if discussing religion with a rational religious person (something I don't think is totally impossible).
For example, here's my argument about why I'm an atheist:
God gave humans rational minds where he gave animals teeth and claws. He surely didn't give us rational minds so that we would stop using rationality. Thus, God intended humans to be atheists at first. If He intended humans to be faithful (which you claim) then he intended it not as a counter to rationality but as the result of the application of rationality. Just as the bird is meant to flap its wings in order to alight, the human is meant to exercise the full strength of his rationality in order to thrive.
By contrast, God also created angels, who lack the problem of rationality-inspired doubt. They are in essence "faith robots" who are incapable of achieving faith, since they start out with it. Such a being is really little more than a slave or automaton.
As we all know, the plight of humans toward faith is a far higher cause than if we were simply pre-programmed. God intended humans to have a journey whose reward at the end (a solid, rational, unwavering faith) is not something that can be gained by reciting something as a child or sitting unquestioningly in a pew, but must (and should) be earned via the most earnest rational inquiry one can muster.
Thus I, an atheist, am completely confident that if God one day wishes me to be faithful I will discover that faith through the same process of rationality that currently makes me an atheist. QED.
Lust is a variation on an emotion that is necessary to truly be close to God, known as rapture. Lust is simply the profane version of it. We may misuse any of the gifts God gave us, but that doesn't mean that their intended purpose isn't to bring us closer to him.
The advantage is that, if there is any claim to rationality in your opponent's view, you can use it to build a bridge to alternate viewpoints that they'd never normally consider. It can be very persuasive.
The downside is that this persuasiveness can be so strong as to feel invasive. That can provoke an angry reaction; in some countries it could endanger your life. There's a reason that several religions prescribe harsh punishment for apostates: someone who has left a religion knows enough about it (and about what they see as its shortcomings) to be dangerously good at 'leading others astray'.
In addition, by arguing from their axioms you are implicitly accepting large parts of their viewpoint which they can then use against you. For example, any sufficiently persuasive argument against Christianity from a Christian viewpoint can be met with "The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose." Why should they trust someone who seems to acknowledge Christianity as true, only to argue against it? Surely only someone on the side of the devil would fight God while acknowledging his existence.
And once they've labeled you as being on the side of devil, the more persuasively you argue, the more sure they'll be that they're right ... and that you're just deliberately lying to lead them astray.
What tool did God give only to humans to bring them closer to Him? Rationality. Thus, who would want you to suppress this but God's opponent Satan.
What does this irrational faith look like? It's like the child's faith in the easter bunny, juvenile and hollow, the kind that will not stand up to scrutiny. Is this the kind of faith that God intended for you? Did He want you to simply claim things that you do not fully believe? Did He want your prayers to be lies or mere wishes?
All I am arguing is that God wants your faith to come from his greatest gift to you, which is Reason, not from the part of you that can easily lie to yourself about things, for that is what Satan is trying to harness.
Satan knows that faith is difficult and knows that you would happily take the easy way out. He knows that you would enjoy patting yourself on the back for being more faithful than others and for enjoying the resulting feelings of superiority. It is Satan's victory over God when your faith is shallow and self-serving.
Only a solid, adult faith that has been honed by every ounce of your rationality can help you get closer to god by avoiding the various traps laid by Satan.
When fundamentalists say there's no morality outside of the bible, I've tried telling them to look at certain parts of the Buddhist scriptures (which in my opinion covers some of the moral parts of religion without the blind belief parts). But it just seems to go over their head. Anything outside the bible is suspect. If it seems to contradict the bible, it must be devilish. Etc.
Not every religion has a Kalama Sutta (also known as "Buddha's charter of free inquiry").
Doubt as a path towards (deeper) religious faith lies at the heart of the story of Saint Thomas the Apostle. Note in this respect the theological views of Georg Hermes:
... the starting-point and chief principle of every science, and hence of theology also, is not only methodical doubt, but positive doubt. One can believe only what one has perceived to be true from reasonable grounds, and consequently one must have the courage to continue doubting until one has found reliable grounds to satisfy the reason.[3]
I'm a theist, but the way I see it, God made atheists (or made the conditions under which atheism would occur) to get a new and important perspective on things (eg God, science, society).
The irony of it all is this: the atheists I have met are generally devout servants of God who deny his existence. And yet I hear those of suspect motives condemn atheists!
a fa laa tacqiluun - so won't you use your intellect? - the quran
As for the "advertising immunization shots" the author of the article talks about, the authors experience is beautiful confirmation of what C.S. Lewis writes in the first few chapters of "The Abolition of Man".
Unfortunately, this is a double-edged sword. Often, victory is achieved in ways that damage reasoned public discourse, even when the "right" side wins. And the "right" side doesn't always win.
There was a football up in a tree - "how could we get that down?" I asked and we proceeded to take turns starting off with the prosaic "use a stick" to the increasingly farfetched "helicopter" "string elastic between the houses and bounce... no it would get tangled".
We still play it today and as she gets older the form modifies and she gets more imaginative. There's a nice element of problem solving and silliness. I recommend it.
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text.jsp?doc=Aristot.+Rh...
Or at least, this passage is the earliest attested formulation of this sort. Aristotle may have been codifying a system developed by others.
Credibility = Quality + Consistency
I read it on the Kindle, then I bought a copy so I could refer back to it easily and make notes in the margins.