He sports a long salt and pepper beard and begins by saying, “My name is Dan Cohen, and I am an academic… And what that means is that I argue...It’s an important part of my life….I am a philosopher and so I like to think that I’m actually pretty good at arguing....but the more I argue, the better I get at it and the more I lose…”
The conundrum with which the professor from Colby College, Maine, begins his talk adds to the enigma that his appearance creates. He specialises in argumentation theory. A philosopher is one who throws many conundrums together and then sorts them out, in search of reason and rhyme. Cohen does much the same.
He shows a sketch of a boy and girl who seem to be screaming their lungs out…they are arguing. He calls this the first model of argument, “…let’s call this the dialectical model…that we think of arguments as war, and you know what that’s like. There’s a lot of screaming and shouting and winning and losing, and that’s not really a very helpful model for arguing but it’s a pretty common and entrenched model for arguing...The argument as war dominates how we talk about arguments and because of that it shapes how we argue, our conduct…we want strong arguments which have lot of punch, arguments that are right on target…with our defences up and strategies in order…we want killer arguments...and I think this has a deforming effect on how we argue….first, it elevates tactics over substance. It magnifies the ‘us versus them’ aspect of it. It makes it adversarial. It is polarising. And the only foreseeable outcomes are triumph or abject ignominious defeat.”
This understanding of arguments we face every day convinces you that the enigmatic looking professor has actually his nose to the ground. He adds that there are two more forms of argument, which are contextualised.
“The second model is arguments as proofs…think of a mathematician’s argument…” and he goes on to describe the questions that a mathematical proof addresses. “The third model is arguments as performances, arguments as being in front of an audience…” In this, Professor Cohen describes a politician presenting his position or an argument in front of a jury. He calls this a rhetorical model. “You know, presenting a sound, well-argued, tight argument in English before a francophone audience just isn’t going to work. So we have these models — argument as war, argument as proof, and argument as performance.”
While the second and third models are used in certain contexts, the first is the most oft seen model and that, says Cohen, “...seems to prevent negotiation, deliberation, compromise or collaboration…Have you entered an argument thinking, ‘Let us see if we can hash something out rather than fight it out. What can we work out together? And I think the argument-as-war metaphor inhibits those other kinds of resolutions to argumentation. And finally, and this is the worst thing, arguments do not seem to get us anywhere…they are dead ends...”
Having thus analysed the idea of arguments, Cohen now proceeds to unravel the riddle he posed right at the beginning, “If argument is war, then there is an implicit equation of learning with losing…”And he talks of getting convinced in an argument. This is interpreted as losing. “Whereas,” says Cohen, “I have a new belief…a well-articulated, examined one; it is a battle tested belief. A great cognitive gain. The war metaphor seems to force us into saying you won even though I am the only one who made a positive cognitive gain. What did you gain for convincing me? ...from the cognitive point of view, I am the winner...”
Cohen suggests the only way to change this picture is maybe to watch yourself while you are also arguing. In other words, be less dogmatic with your views.
Says Cohen, “It takes practice to become a good arguer in the sense of being able to benefit from losing…”
Web link: http://www.ted.com/talks/daniel_h_cohen_for_argument_s_sake.html
