Dissecting an argument

We had a very rich tradition of arguments during my graduate studies. We argued over research, politics, religion -- well just about anything that was worth arguing. Even on rare occasions when two people agreed, we would not let the argument die. One of us would play the devil's advocate to reveal holes in our argument.

So I developed a keen interest in observing people argue their case. This post is about the different ingredients people use/abuse to build their arguments around.

Facts

An argument is swift, and definitive when there is huge information asymmetry among the two parties involved in the argument. In other words, one knows way more than the other. The more knowledgeable person can simply throw facts at the other person, and the discussion ends with no real argument. Fact, therefore is the most manipulated ingredient of an argument. For an argument to be swift, the asymmetry in information may not even be real -- it can simply be perceived. This perception is regularly used by teachers and parents against kids to stop them from arguing -- the teacher must be right, she knows more. Or as mentioned in, Freakonomics, information asymmetry is routinely used by experts (real estate dealers, doctors etc) to overcharge their customers. The worst example of exploiting this perception is when a Govt. imposes an unnecessary war on its citizens based on manipulation of facts.

Logic

Logic a tool grounded in sound mathematics, but extremely dangerous in the hands of idiots and people with malicious intent. As in the case with facts, perception of logic is probably more important that the existence of it. A master manipulator would typically use a logical leap in the midst of a seemingly logical argument. One of the best examples of logical leap is to infer causation based on correlation. The BBC recently ran a story titled "High IQ link to being vegetarian". If you read the article, it says that scientists have discovered a correlation between having higher IQ and being vegetarian. Either in ignorance or in an effort to spice up the story, the journalist added his own interpretation of cause and effect in the headline. Shouldn't the headline read "People with higher IQ tend to be vegetarian" ? -- Of course that would not be sensational enough.

The other (il)logical tool regularly exploited is the concept of Induction (or generalization). As defined in Wikipedia, induction "is the process of reasoning in which the premises of an argument are believed to support the conclusion but do not ensure it." In an inductive argument, a small number of observations is used to formulate a theory. For example, one can say -- Atkins diet worked for me, and therefore, it should work for everybody. Another example could be a racist who says "Indians are liars" where he should be saying "Some Indians I know are liars" or even "All Indians I know are liars".

Spin

When there is little room for manipulating facts, or logic , the weapon of choice is Spin. A spin is used to illuminate the proverbial "other side" of the argument. Consider these lines from an argument I had with a smart cousin (in-law) of mine a few months back --

Me: I think it is a balancing act. One has to consider trade-offs.
Her: You mean compromise ?

I was applying a positive spin by using the word trade-off ; I was trying to appear a reasonable man who can weigh different aspects of a situation and is flexible to consider trade-offs. On the other hand, she was applying a negative spin by using the word compromise; trying to make me appear as if I was not resolute enough. This argument is not about facts or logic, its about interpretation of facts. A spin is an intellectuals dream tool because it does not come with the ethical baggage of manipulating facts or bad logic that would be looked down upon by peers.

Emotions

Mixing emotions in an argument cuts through all barriers of facts, logic or spin. An emotional argument can make people do things they think are counter-intuitive or illogical. The use of emotions in an argument can be an article in itself, but here are a few examples of powerful use of emotions --

1. Love : "If you love me....". You can complete the line with any absurd request.
   
2. Fear: "God forbid, if you hit a bad phase in life; it is then you would stop questioning His existence".
   
3. Hope: The business of selling hope is a profitable one -- casinos in Las Vegas sell it ("You can be rich without real talent"), weight loss advertisements sell it, all the different get rich schemes sell it, God men sell it, miracle medicines sell it etc etc. Most people would embrace an argument based on hope fully understanding that the dream they are being sold is overstated. But there is a "what if" factor that interferes with logical thinking once hope has been implanted in some corner of your brain.
   
4. Faith: Surprising as it might seem, sometimes people respond to the explicit request of giving up logic. I happened to pick up a book titled "Eternal Celebration" by Osho once and on page 12 it says -- "The the mind is always wrong, and heart is always right". I could not read any further. But over years I have noticed that these very lines which piss me off inspire others.
   
5. Hate: History has repeatedly shown that hate is a very powerful argument, a great unifying force among people who have a common object of hatred.

Shifting the onus of proof

In academics a reference is a popular and acceptable form of argument. A lot of science is based on assumptions, and so while making any assumption you either need to provide a reference -- "Look I am not the first to use this assumption" -- or be prepared to provide rigorous empirical evidence in support of your assumption. Invoking reference as an argument is just as common in everyday life -- "he says so", "she says so", and "a religious book says so".

Majority

A reference is just one way to shift the onus of proof to a third party. In the book "The Future of Freedom", Fareed Zakaria points out how a US politician would use sentences like "The American people want to know" when in fact it might be just the politician who wants to know. Somehow the human race has come to the conclusion that the majority is always right and hence the argument "everybody thinks so" is a very acceptable. If the majority were indeed right all the time the world would be flat with the sun revolving around it. I read in a few different places recently that a majority of people think they look better than average and have better than average intelligence -- a statistical impossibility!!

High ground

In my opinion, half the argument is won if you have successfully claimed a high ground. Anti-abortion groups in the US call themselves -- pro-lifers. Not only does the word "pro-life" apply a positive spin to the negative sounding word "anti-abortion", it attempts to claim a moral high ground. (How can being in favor of life not be a good things ?) . Of course the pro-abortion groups aren't yielding any ground --- they call themselves "pro-choice".

The highest moral ground ever claimed in the history of mankind was probably by M. K. Gandhi. After he climbed the mount everest of moral high ground, the world saw him lecturing the British. A defining moment in the movie "Gandhi" was when Martin Sheen, in the role of an American journalist reports over phone the moral high ground Indians captured in a spectacular display of non-violent resistance at Dharasana Salt Works, May 21, 1930. He yells over phone "Whatever moral ascendancy the West held was lost today. India is free -- for she has taken all that steel and cruelty can give, and she has neither cringed or retreated."

Well Left

The phrase is derived from Test Cricket. A good test batsman knows that not every ball is playable, and does not offer a shot to tricky deliveries . Thats when a commentator would say "Well left". Sometimes it is better to not offer any opinion on a subject.

A few months back, Daily Show host Jon Stewart pretty much ruined Tucker Carlson (the host of Crossfire on CNN)

Carlson: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. We're talking to Jon Stewart, who was just lecturing us on our moral inferiority. Jon, you're bumming us out. Tell us, what do you think about the Bill O'Reilly vibrator story?

Stewart: I'm sorry. I don't.

In a desperate attempt to save his behind, Carlson wanted to change the subject and move on with the other hot story of the day. Stewart offered no comments and continued to annihilate his opponents. Sure enough, CNN canceled Crossfire a few days later.

Shifting the central issue

If you are adept in the art of arguing, and you know that your position cannot be defended, you can simply change the central issue of the argument. The movie "Thank you for smoking" beautifully illustrates this point --

Joey: But... you didn't prove that vanilla's the best.
Nick: I didn't have to. I proved that you're wrong and if you're wrong, I'm right.

Audience

Finally, its important to know who the audience of an argument are. Often a politician would use blatantly absurd arguments, and you think he is a moron. While the fact is that you may not be the audience he wants to reach. Again, quoting from "Thank you for smoking"

Joey: But you still didn't convince me.
Nick: Because I'm not after you. I'm after them.

There are more ingredients to arguments, but this post is already long, and I am tired :)