Discussions and Arguments

I've spent a good 10 mins. trying to work out a catchy title for this post. To No Avail!

But my new found realization that no effort ends up futile as long as one is able to retro fit it into a different context leads me to postulate as below :

The pressure of having to come up with an 'eyecatcher' far outweighs it's benefits if the time spent in deriving the eyecatcher is anything more than 30 seconds.

Moving on - I'm going to stick my neck out and say that most of us have probably been in more conversations that have tipped over from being a discussion into an argument.
I certainly have -a number of times - that I've now started wondering why...

The problem with cause and effect study is that they are effective when applied to systems that comply to the laws of physics. However when trying to understand human behavior they need to be supplemented with another important component namely motivation. And working out the motivations that lead to a set of causal effects is a complex endeavor.

So this post will not venture to do so..

But this post claims to offer the following as root causes for 'arguments' :
1) The Tone
2) The Subjectivity Trap aka The Lack of a Context
3) Ready, Fire, Aim
4) I'm here and I'm going to say something..

1) The Tone - This key dimension of conversation is often understated or it's effect under realized. It has a profound effect both in written and oral communication. More often than not people react to the tone of a conversation rather than it's content.
Let me illustrate this with an example from my favorite blogger :
The first of what I hope to be numerous saniyan pudicha series (literally meaning Satan Captured, but really meaning "ducking idiot")

A damning review of Suhashini Maniratnam.

http://hawkeyeview.blogspot.in/2012/10/saniyan-pudicha-suhasini-maniratnam.html

Although Hawekeye is not out to reform Suhashini through an induction of self realization - a rant of that kind of classy vitriol should serve the purpose of inducing some self introspection into it's target. But if Suhashini ever got to reading it - her chest (in a matter of speaking) may just get heavy with indignation and if necessary she may hit back with a post on how the blogosphere is filled with right wing conservatives with a narrow view on people and the world!
The reason she would do that is because when she first reads the word Saniyan Pudicha - there would be a longjmp to a piece of code called insulting_tone that would set the emotional counter in her brain (in a matter of speaking) that would prevent her from ever looking at the post as useful feedback! Again - not that Hawkeyeview cares.., but then you get the point.

People are more content deaf/blind than tone deaf and by that I mean that it's perfectly natural for us to skip a couple of lines when reading something (especially something long) as long as we get the context, but we never miss the tone. The tone detection unit is a intuitive, always turned on, inbuilt device.

2) The Subjectivity Trap - I was discussing this with my buddy Ajith over facebook the other day. Discussions are necessary to gain objectivity on a topic that is fundamentally subjective - if it wasn't there would be no need for a discussion.

But for the discussion to progress - the conversations would need to progress through objective exchanges.

For instance -

Subject : The Lokpal Bill
Dude 1 : It should be implemented. We need something to over see corruption.
Dude 2 : But who would oversee the over see'ers
Dude 1 : Why the cynicism ? There are credible folks who've offered analysis for it and virtous people backing it.
Dude 2 : That still isn't substantiation. There is analysis against it too.
Dude 1 : But it's worked in Hong Kong - They've had an Ombudsman for long. You really should read up instead of arguing.
Dude 2 : I will.., But isn't Hong Kong a fundamentally different society, demography and culture to ours ?
Dude 1 : But so are most societies - you're never going to get an exact fit.You're just cynical..
Dude 2 : as you are gullible and naive!
and so on!

it's easy to guess that there's not going to be a consensus.
Hopefully technocrats and policy makers would be analyzing loads of data, evaluating contexts and converting that diatribe into a proper discussion before arriving at a decision.

Another example would be  the second of the Saniyan Pudicha posts - this time directed at desi folks who's opinions don't matter and support Obama.

http://hawkeyeview.blogspot.in/2012/10/saniyan-pudicha-us-desis-who-cant-vote.html

The real target of the post were idiot desis who discussed pro-life, gay rights, abortion etc issues which have no bearing on their lives - just to do some self attribution of significance in their lives. However, the post came out damning everyone who discussed politics and invited quite a few - hypocrite cries - rather unnecessarily!

In general - if there is no context on offer - then again there is a longjmp to the assumption subroutine in our brains that sets the context counter to 'general or across the board' and when stuff is read under that flag - it's again a case of heavy chest and indignation .....

3) Ready, Fire, Aim

This is a two way street and if discussions fail because of the instigator, then they also fail because of the receptor. I speak out of personal experience when I say that people dont comprehend before reacting, the blogosphere is littered with comments that have very clearly come through inadequate reading of posts and articles. The reason for this could be plenty -

• Attention deficit issues
• Assumptions and Predispositions
• Arrogance or as Leo De Caprio eloquently puts it in the Departed - a sense of 'scum bag entitlement' to comment on anything and everything

This often leads to - "But I am not saying that stupid...

which again tends not to be taken well and as you can guess by now triggers the indignation loop ...(all over again!)

4) I'm here, I'm going to say something - types of people
The genuine trolls - the dickheads that creep into every sort of conversation and sometimes annoyingly with high voices and misplaced eloquence - who have this ability to not only hijack a conversation, but to partisan the others involved around unrelated sub topics. Suhel Seth springs to mind - going by quite a few TV discussions.

There is just no escaping them...

However : -

Once the above realization of causals seeps in, the operations of the world start making sense

• The chances of a discussion sustaining it's state is minimal in most environments. 
• That being the case, it is no surprise that nothing gets done in these environments
• It is also not surprising that politicians are necessary and behave the way they do! 
• Turns out that the only thing that would converge people doesn't exist in a natural state - it needs to be created - hence the narrative!

The problem therefore 'Ladies & Germs' is not them - the problem is 'us'. If only we learnt not to argue!

PS 1 : This isn't a post from a perspective of offering guidelines to steer people from avoiding arguments. It's more an attempt to articulate the reasons for discussions tipping into arguments

PS 2 :Although most examples I have given are from the written communication front - they are equally applicable for oral communication too

Virtual Integration and the Partisan effect

So there are gazillion bytes of data already on the internet and a few billion bytes get added every hour. Interactions, commerce and information are all virtual. 
I've always believed that the accuracy of counter intuition is borne out of lack of a deep analysis in conventional views.
On the surface, this virtual information overload can only be a good thing - everyone has access to it and consequently can take an informed stance - right ? 
WRONG!
I conclude that the net effect of information overload is infact a more partisan and confused world. 

Here's why - Non Empirical Information on the net or news has the following features :

• They are made by commentators pedaling a specific view. The intent is to say something is wrong and something else is right
• Information is devoid of context. 
• Oversimplification is the order of the day. The premium is placed on people who can break down complex blocks of data into something that the layman can understand. While this has it's advantages, the dangerous unintended consequence is that it shapes large scale opinion through superficial analysis. The devil is always in the details and devoid of them - opinions are like the -you know what holes- that everybody has...
• Most of us do not take the onus to really understand underlying concepts prior to taking a stand. We rely on personal priors, effective articulation and anointed expertise to direct us. In other words, we are open to manipulation. 

Let's take the example of the reactions to FDI policy - if I had a rupee for every negative conclusion drawn on the policy - I'd have enough to pay for my next stint at the Kerala Ayurvedic massage parlor.
We conclude it is bad without an understanding of :

• Fiscal deficit and federal debt levels
• Significance of FDI to growth
• The implications of slow or stunted growth on India's economy
• Why governments borrow ?
• How economies grow ?
• Inflation, deflation and stagflation etc. 

After reading reasonably on the subject - I am as ambivalent as ever, but I feel that FDI is a good thing if implemented correctly.  
However this post is not about whether the general populace have got FDI right - it's more about the general implications of information making us more partisan than ever. If one despises the current govt. - they are more inclined to be taken in by the naysayers - if one likes them - they are more likely to follow articles that are positive. And that's the fundamental problem - despite all the information - it's not the specifics and the context but our prior dispositions that continue to drive us...
I'm going to leave this open ended as I don't have sufficient conviction to state a circumvention or a possible solution to this issue. 
Instead I'm going to state another example - It's been fun to see the democrats and the republicans go at it with regards to the fiscal situation management in the USA. While one set load their arguments in favor of more spending to grow - the others go the other way in favor of restraint and austerity. The general readers who don't know squat about Keynes or Hyak are neatly segregated along their natural predispositions. 

Arriving at an opinion should be a 3 step process :
Information -> Analysis -> Conclusions
When we get sucked into a narrative, we skip the key middle step, thereby rendering our opinions useless. The real travesty is that we inadvertently perpetrate the bad effects of half knowledge on a large scale !