By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Brilliant post to start the day. I believe an argument is a misused word. You can discuss a discuss a subject without it becoming an argument ,although an argument could be when simply two conflicting views are discussed. This thread is a cracker and worthy of a Tip Full of popcorn
Arguments vs discussions on 09:06 - Aug 29 by onehunglow
Morning Dr
Brilliant post to start the day. I believe an argument is a misused word. You can discuss a discuss a subject without it becoming an argument ,although an argument could be when simply two conflicting views are discussed. This thread is a cracker and worthy of a Tip Full of popcorn
“…although an argument could be when simply two conflicting views are discussed. ”
Agreed, in terms of pure definition - although that is very much a desired thing, especially on a football forum. It’s kind of the reason they exist. So unsure that would be the context that is being used by some.
The “arguments” being alluded to on here though, such as “why are you arguing?” etc seems like it is more the definition of “angry exchange of views”.
In which one would have to decipher who is angry.
If I answer someone’s question calmly and as a result, they get angry - are they arguing while I’m still discussing? If they have brought the anger in are they starting the argument?
It’s a bit like a “if a tree falls and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound” type of thing.
Swansea Independent Poster of the Year 2021 and 2022.
Arguments vs discussions on 09:48 - Aug 29 by Dr_Parnassus
“…although an argument could be when simply two conflicting views are discussed. ”
Agreed, in terms of pure definition - although that is very much a desired thing, especially on a football forum. It’s kind of the reason they exist. So unsure that would be the context that is being used by some.
The “arguments” being alluded to on here though, such as “why are you arguing?” etc seems like it is more the definition of “angry exchange of views”.
In which one would have to decipher who is angry.
If I answer someone’s question calmly and as a result, they get angry - are they arguing while I’m still discussing? If they have brought the anger in are they starting the argument?
It’s a bit like a “if a tree falls and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound” type of thing.
Be interesting to see the views of our followers on this . Arguments are what opposing Counsel give at Crown .
I think a discussion ends up argumentative when either side don’t know when to agree to disagree and keep peddling their opinion ad nauseum. Best sometimes to just walk away having made your point.
I think Transactional Analysis (TA) is helpful here. Theory is that when two people 'transact' (whether by speaking, messaging, making faces at each other, whatever) they adopt an 'ego state' of Parent, Adult or Child. (Bear with me here, it's worth it I promise.)
'Parent' can be nurturing or controlling. 'Child' can be compliant or rebellious. But there's emotion involved in all of them. Two people transacting in Rebellious Child mode will most likely be having a lot of fun while ripping into establishment figures or rules - dissing Russell Martin or the owners or the Trust. As long as everyone is on the same page, it's all good.
Then someone comes along who disagrees with the premise of the discussion. They get cross. They typically flip into Controlling Parent - ie they talk down to the person/people they disagree with, hoping to force a Compliant Child response ("you're right, I'm sorry!!!"). More often than not on social media forums, they get a Rebellious Child response instead ("F you"). And so it goes on.
But remember that third Ego State - Adult? That's the neutral one, the one with no emotion involved. If you can switch into Adult, you cut the legs out from whoever is trying (almost always unconsciously) to elicit an emotional response from you and thereby control the transaction.
So the short answer to a short question is 'a discussion becomes an argument when someone injects emotion into it'.
But more importantly, we can always control what happens next.
Arguments vs discussions on 11:28 - Aug 29 by cadleigh
I think Transactional Analysis (TA) is helpful here. Theory is that when two people 'transact' (whether by speaking, messaging, making faces at each other, whatever) they adopt an 'ego state' of Parent, Adult or Child. (Bear with me here, it's worth it I promise.)
'Parent' can be nurturing or controlling. 'Child' can be compliant or rebellious. But there's emotion involved in all of them. Two people transacting in Rebellious Child mode will most likely be having a lot of fun while ripping into establishment figures or rules - dissing Russell Martin or the owners or the Trust. As long as everyone is on the same page, it's all good.
Then someone comes along who disagrees with the premise of the discussion. They get cross. They typically flip into Controlling Parent - ie they talk down to the person/people they disagree with, hoping to force a Compliant Child response ("you're right, I'm sorry!!!"). More often than not on social media forums, they get a Rebellious Child response instead ("F you"). And so it goes on.
But remember that third Ego State - Adult? That's the neutral one, the one with no emotion involved. If you can switch into Adult, you cut the legs out from whoever is trying (almost always unconsciously) to elicit an emotional response from you and thereby control the transaction.
So the short answer to a short question is 'a discussion becomes an argument when someone injects emotion into it'.
But more importantly, we can always control what happens next.
We covered this when Cooper was at the club, he is a great believer in this. ðŸ‘
But I can’t find it 😂
This post has been edited by an administrator
A great believer in taking anything you like to wherever you want to.
Arguments vs discussions on 11:28 - Aug 29 by cadleigh
I think Transactional Analysis (TA) is helpful here. Theory is that when two people 'transact' (whether by speaking, messaging, making faces at each other, whatever) they adopt an 'ego state' of Parent, Adult or Child. (Bear with me here, it's worth it I promise.)
'Parent' can be nurturing or controlling. 'Child' can be compliant or rebellious. But there's emotion involved in all of them. Two people transacting in Rebellious Child mode will most likely be having a lot of fun while ripping into establishment figures or rules - dissing Russell Martin or the owners or the Trust. As long as everyone is on the same page, it's all good.
Then someone comes along who disagrees with the premise of the discussion. They get cross. They typically flip into Controlling Parent - ie they talk down to the person/people they disagree with, hoping to force a Compliant Child response ("you're right, I'm sorry!!!"). More often than not on social media forums, they get a Rebellious Child response instead ("F you"). And so it goes on.
But remember that third Ego State - Adult? That's the neutral one, the one with no emotion involved. If you can switch into Adult, you cut the legs out from whoever is trying (almost always unconsciously) to elicit an emotional response from you and thereby control the transaction.
So the short answer to a short question is 'a discussion becomes an argument when someone injects emotion into it'.
But more importantly, we can always control what happens next.
Arguments vs discussions on 12:35 - Aug 29 by Dr_Parnassus
So as soon as someone becomes emotional then that becomes an argument that they are bringing, in your eyes?
So considering I never get angry or emotional by words on a football forum, I think it’s fair I never get accused of arguing again then.
Following the logic of TA the answer to your questions would be: - no, it is possible to have an emotion fuelled discussion without it becoming an argument. For example, two people happily exchanging views they hold in common. Heck, they could even be sharing how angry they both feel about last Saturday’s performance, but because they agree, there is no argument. Emotions are not sufficient for an argument to take place, but they are necessary - emotions come in all shapes and sizes, and sometimes we don’t recognise that we are experiencing them. A post might be motivated by pride in one’s knowledge, or disdain for another’s opinion. These are as much emotions as anger, but maybe not so easy to recognise?
Arguments vs discussions on 11:28 - Aug 29 by cadleigh
I think Transactional Analysis (TA) is helpful here. Theory is that when two people 'transact' (whether by speaking, messaging, making faces at each other, whatever) they adopt an 'ego state' of Parent, Adult or Child. (Bear with me here, it's worth it I promise.)
'Parent' can be nurturing or controlling. 'Child' can be compliant or rebellious. But there's emotion involved in all of them. Two people transacting in Rebellious Child mode will most likely be having a lot of fun while ripping into establishment figures or rules - dissing Russell Martin or the owners or the Trust. As long as everyone is on the same page, it's all good.
Then someone comes along who disagrees with the premise of the discussion. They get cross. They typically flip into Controlling Parent - ie they talk down to the person/people they disagree with, hoping to force a Compliant Child response ("you're right, I'm sorry!!!"). More often than not on social media forums, they get a Rebellious Child response instead ("F you"). And so it goes on.
But remember that third Ego State - Adult? That's the neutral one, the one with no emotion involved. If you can switch into Adult, you cut the legs out from whoever is trying (almost always unconsciously) to elicit an emotional response from you and thereby control the transaction.
So the short answer to a short question is 'a discussion becomes an argument when someone injects emotion into it'.
But more importantly, we can always control what happens next.
What like when two adults tell a naughty child off or put them in the right direction and they question it with attitude?
Anyone who has done psychology will tell you that questioning something that needs no answering is a form of argumentative nature.
This can be hidden or over hyped on a forum for instance when there is no voice tone to highlight the situation.
What I read in your post was very informative and really highlights it very well. I think arguing with it or questioning it highlights it even further.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
