Arguing with a fool

There are really two ways of interacting with a person, one is rational, and one is emotional. In the physical interaction, you have of course a more emotional side, albeit instinctual side, which is predominant. For example, in a fight you will act in an instinctual manner or in sex you will also act instinctually; of course, there a degree of rationality involved which depends on the person. For example, a good fighter will use his rationality and a good love maker will use it also. However, it is finding that balance in physical activities that makes a successful interactor.

However, in the verbal interaction there this more a conscious decision as to whether you act rationally or instinctually. You can talk to another person in a rational manner, removing emotion, which makes the conversation more interesting and open. Rid yourself of those instincts and emotions that make discussions closed and reductive. This of course does not concur with all discussions or conversations. For example, if you are delving into a certain experience or emotion that you felt, it is good to express your experience in an emotive manner to communicate it. Or if both parties are expressing a certain feeling that is common between both and is understood by both parties.

However, if you are having a contestable discussion where both parties are bringing different views over a certain issue, and where the other party does not understand your perception or stance. You must discuss it in a rational manner and attempt to distance yourself from your emotions because this emotive expression is foreign to the other party and therefore, they may not comprehend where you are coming from.

Being able to switch from emotive to rational expression is a key for communication. Emotive expression when the rationality behind it is already understood by both parties, and rational when trying to make the other person understand.

Rational talk is building the edifice and emotional expression is enjoying the view or sealing the deal. However, if one is to only talk rationally, then there is no real enjoyment of the discussion or viewpoint being expressed, and if there is no rational building behind it, there is no point for consensus that allows the enjoyment of a point.

This process allows for further discussions as well, once you have a nice view, you can see where you are best positioned to start the next building (next conversation).

The problem I see with many discussions is that there a natural human tendency to bring in instinctual and emotional attributes before rationally expressing a point, which leads to confusion and frustration from both parties.

The party expressing the point is unable to make the other understand the emotion they feel, and the other party is frustrated that they don’t understand what the other is saying. This leads to a self-perpetuating emotion interaction, leading to anger, resentment and bitterness.

Key influencers of this sort of emotional interaction is the level of knowledge a person has over the topic, the level of emotional commitment a person has to it, whether they are in a majority or minority, and how extremist their viewpoint is. The first two a pretty self-explanatory and easily relatable to experiences everyone has, however, the third and fourth is less known.

In terms of minority or majority, when someone is in a minority group it promotes insecurity and doubt over whether they are correct. They feel threatened and overpowered by the majority consensus, leading them to act instinctually and emotionally. On the contrary, the majority perspective members are snug and believe to be correct with security, which may also lead to a more instinctual and bully like interaction. Any emotional interaction by one party will lead to an emotional retaliation by the other. The image that comes to my mind is a fox screeching and growling in exuberance whilst being surrounded by a pack of wolves lancing small, menacing bites.

The other point of extremism of point is less to do with the instinctual and naturally resonating interaction but more to do with previous notion of rational building blocks that we talked about before. Of course, the more extremist a person’s viewpoint, the harder it is to explain it in a rational and commonly relatable fashion as it is out of the ordinary. What I mean by this is that when someone explains something vastly different to what another person is used to, trying to transcend that person to your perspective is hard and therefore leads to a lowered likelihood of rational consensus over an point. It requires someone who is intelligent, informed and a good communicator. As explained before, if this rational building is not constructed then there is no way of moving forward.

This I feel is the problem with many small extremist groups, their failure to communicate rationally. However, perhaps understanding this and influencing those groups to attempt the exploration of a rational route to consensus would be beneficial for their cause. It would lead to less emotion conflict between competing perceptions and a more rational discussion.