picking battles

there are different types of arguments: there are the kinds that are carefully, methodically lain out, with no clear opponent-- the fight for truth against falsehood; there are arguments created to make way for better, deeper arguments; there are playful arguments between potential lovers; and there are angry, bitter arguments between two people who care about one another very much.


when is the argument worth it? when will it damage more than it resolves? when does a joke argument turn into a real argument? when does a statement of observation become a jab?

where does an argument start from?
it starts from a "difference" that two people have. "having differences" has become a rather stupid colloquialism that connotes an inability to agree on something with the person with whom you have that difference. i think it's dumb because, dur, we all "have our differences."
this difference could be minute like "coke or pepsi" or slightly less minute like "republican or democrat" or maybe still minute like "do you eat your food right away or keep it for when you know you want it?"

what fuels an argument is two things:
1. you feel your side of the argument is legitimately true and you believe that you're right
2. once the argument is started, you want to win at all costs

a little bit of both of these elements fuels a good argument... but i'd say you can characterize by how much these two factors are at play.

so like, if you're exhibiting a 2:1 ratio of feeling like you're right and wanting to win, then you are probably having a structured debate, not unlike those that occur in a high school debate situation. if you have a 1.5:1 ratio, you might be a pretty "good" politician (in that you care more about what's right than winning but if you're a really good politician maybe you want closer to a 1:1 ratio, because in order to achieve number 1, you've gotta be able to do #2.) i feel like the ratios exhibited in most passionate, spur of the moment fights with people you care about is a 1:2 for the offensive arguer. sometimes it's even more in the direction of #2 because the arguer is very often not even arguing about the thing, but the greater meaning behind that thing. they want to get the attention of the other person in some way, by getting mad at them, by being right. oh and the ratios between people who are being playful don't matter really at all.

so where is this coming from?

i guess i just never know where or when to pick my battles with people. this might be because i don't think of them much as battles as they are sharing opinions and putting down evidence for them (that is until #2 takes over). i don't like it when people dismiss arguments before they are fully formed. but i also realize that some arguments are a lost cause, like preferences. (or can you? what causes preferences? to be discussed at a later date.)
i always get all tangled up when people don't share my preferences because i think they just need to see something in the same light as i do and then they'll understand. what i should realize is that our world is richer because people have preferences.
then we wouldn't have people who knit or people who paint or even computers. i think that argumentation can be particularly harmful when one person tries to say what's best for everyone. often, it's simply not what's best for everyone. people are different, they have different modes of operation, different comforts, different weaknesses, different fears.
what i guess i really wish, though, was that people (self included) would be more open-minded about people, places, things and ideas encountered in life. i feel like so many things get dismissed "on" some "principle" that's founded in some preference that someone else has. sometimes it gets dismissed on circumstance... e.g. "i was in a bad mood when i met this person and misjudged him."

enough rambling for tonight, i still have plenty of orgo to keep me warm.