> Dorothy: “Dad, you look tired. Want to sit down?”
> Me: “Thanks. Where did you have in mind?”
> Dorothy: “Ben & Jerry’s.”
There's a difference between argument through reason and manipulation. I think this guy is teaching his kids to be manipulative.
The little dialog above shows that the daughter doesn't care a wit about how her father feels, she's just using the emotion as a point of leverage. If I had kids and they did this to me, it would sadden me.
I wouldn't feel disappointed. I'd be delighted at the clever twist she put on the answer. The response would be to out-clever her answer: "Sure! You're inviting me so you're buying, right?"
But now you are putting your own ethics on the concept of manipulation.
If we are taught manipulation is wrong, we never learn how to use it and we are less able to defend against it, and it puts us at a disadvantage when we have to deal with a less scrupulous person who doesn't have a problem using it.
Instead if we are taught that manipulation is a tool, and like any tool can be used for good or evil depending on the tool user, maybe we would get less upset at the beer commercial with the twins in wet t-shirts, but also we would be less affected by it.
This was an example to show pathos. He had covered logos earlier. And this isn't a quote from his daughter, it's a quote from a theoretical daughter who employed pathos to get what she wanted.
It would probably disturb me, but I'm not sure I'd truly be disappointed. People are going to try that sort of manipulation on the child, and it's important that they be aware of the technique. It increases their resistance to it.
The "advertising inoculation" mentioned in the article is an example of this.
I think this guy is teaching his kids to be manipulative.
No shit Sherlock! It's called "How to Teach A Kid To Argue." That's where you bat a point of debate back and forth in an attempt to manipulate the other side to agreeing with you or at least seeing your viewpoint.
Reasoning is manipulation because you use reason to change other people's opinions or actions.
A more appropriate (though less-intriguing) title would be "How to Teach your Child to Reason and Communicate". I think it's a great technique - my university requires freshman to take a class on rhetoric - and it really changed the way I communicate. I was more focussed on what I need to do to communicate effectively rather than what my audience needed to do.
Some parents have a problem with this. I remember a conversation where a woman volunteered that she completely suppressed her kids every time. She was absolutely proud of this fact.
I very rarely let my kids win anything. You can play games of chance or setup situations where they can win. In the situation described in the blog post it's really a judgement call for the father - if the child was able to present a good argument, then she wins.
Kids whose parents let them win consistently have their world views shattered when they find out that they aren't the best at everything. These children are usually poor sports at winning and losing.
My boys are pretty happy when they beat their old man and I'm proud of them when they do.
I immediately emailed the link to my sixteen-year-old son, so that he and I can discuss it. (He's off to the ARML Central Region tournament, so he won't see it right away.) I too like the idea that learning how to usefully disagree is an important life skill.
Excellent article. Couple this with Dale Carnegie (the real stuff, not the manipulative fluff people try to peddle) and you get real people that you can discuss things with.
There's a lot of merit in what the author calls "argument by the stick", arguments in which convincing the other guy is not the primary goal. If you argue with someone in public, as in most online arguments, simply making your opponent look stupid can make the onlookers more likely to agree with you. I've seen this happen in creationism/evolution debates: the only way to win a debate with a creationist is by trouncing them so hard that the peanut gallery silently drifts toward accepting evolution. And, invariably, someone claims that this strategy is completely ineffective because it fails to convince the one hard-line religious nut that you're arguing with. (I'm sure other examples exist, but I'm most familiar with this one.)
It may be a useful technique at times, but I think it's more productive to establish as much common ground as possible, then highlight where each person diverges.
In most cases, divergence among rational people can be traced to different priorities. I think the same would apply if discussing religion with a rational religious person (something I don't think is totally impossible).
For example, here's my argument about why I'm an atheist:
God gave humans rational minds where he gave animals teeth and claws. He surely didn't give us rational minds so that we would stop using rationality. Thus, God intended humans to be atheists at first. If He intended humans to be faithful (which you claim) then he intended it not as a counter to rationality but as the result of the application of rationality. Just as the bird is meant to flap its wings in order to alight, the human is meant to exercise the full strength of his rationality in order to thrive.
By contrast, God also created angels, who lack the problem of rationality-inspired doubt. They are in essence "faith robots" who are incapable of achieving faith, since they start out with it. Such a being is really little more than a slave or automaton.
As we all know, the plight of humans toward faith is a far higher cause than if we were simply pre-programmed. God intended humans to have a journey whose reward at the end (a solid, rational, unwavering faith) is not something that can be gained by reciting something as a child or sitting unquestioningly in a pew, but must (and should) be earned via the most earnest rational inquiry one can muster.
Thus I, an atheist, am completely confident that if God one day wishes me to be faithful I will discover that faith through the same process of rationality that currently makes me an atheist. QED.
Arguments won via "Argument by The Stick" will work only as long as our institutions of learning continue turning out more sheeple than rational humans (once upon a time, this was not true in the U.S.; I know because an elderly friend of mine was required to take a "Critical Thinking" class in high school).
As for the "advertising immunization shots" the author of the article talks about, the authors experience is beautiful confirmation of what C.S. Lewis writes in the first few chapters of "The Abolition of Man".
If you argue with someone in public, as in most online arguments, simply making your opponent look stupid can make the onlookers more likely to agree with you.
Unfortunately, this is a double-edged sword. Often, victory is achieved in ways that damage reasoned public discourse, even when the "right" side wins. And the "right" side doesn't always win.
I accidentally invented a game with my daughter when she was about 3 which she really seemed to enjoy and appears to have helped her at school in terms of reasoning and thinking out of the box.
There was a football up in a tree - "how could we get that down?" I asked and we proceeded to take turns starting off with the prosaic "use a stick" to the increasingly farfetched "helicopter" "string elastic between the houses and bounce... no it would get tangled".
We still play it today and as she gets older the form modifies and she gets more imaginative. There's a nice element of problem solving and silliness. I recommend it.
[+] [-] inigojones|17 years ago|reply
> Me: “Thanks. Where did you have in mind?”
> Dorothy: “Ben & Jerry’s.”
There's a difference between argument through reason and manipulation. I think this guy is teaching his kids to be manipulative.
The little dialog above shows that the daughter doesn't care a wit about how her father feels, she's just using the emotion as a point of leverage. If I had kids and they did this to me, it would sadden me.
[+] [-] shard|17 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dusklight|17 years ago|reply
If we are taught manipulation is wrong, we never learn how to use it and we are less able to defend against it, and it puts us at a disadvantage when we have to deal with a less scrupulous person who doesn't have a problem using it.
Instead if we are taught that manipulation is a tool, and like any tool can be used for good or evil depending on the tool user, maybe we would get less upset at the beer commercial with the twins in wet t-shirts, but also we would be less affected by it.
[+] [-] gamache|17 years ago|reply
[+] [-] amalcon|17 years ago|reply
The "advertising inoculation" mentioned in the article is an example of this.
[+] [-] petercooper|17 years ago|reply
No shit Sherlock! It's called "How to Teach A Kid To Argue." That's where you bat a point of debate back and forth in an attempt to manipulate the other side to agreeing with you or at least seeing your viewpoint.
Reasoning is manipulation because you use reason to change other people's opinions or actions.
[+] [-] grandalf|17 years ago|reply
I like this approach and one day when I have kids I'll probably use it with them.
However I was never encouraged to be manipulative, only clear and logical.
As a result, I expect that most people will respond to reason, which is far from the truth of how the world works.
[+] [-] Wallo|17 years ago|reply
I totally agree with his parenting style, great article all around.
[+] [-] wglb|17 years ago|reply
Good article.
The fact is, that kids do "run" their parents quite a bit. This approach might just bring it out in the open.
[+] [-] DTrejo|17 years ago|reply
I think that by bringing it out into the open, the ground is leveled and there is more understanding.
It is like the difference between being able to think, and being able to think about thinking.
It is the ability to reflect on conversation.
[+] [-] TallGuyShort|17 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dxjones|17 years ago|reply
Not just being "argumentative".
In Canada, we call the class on rhetoric "Critical Thinking".
[+] [-] stcredzero|17 years ago|reply
Some parents have a problem with this. I remember a conversation where a woman volunteered that she completely suppressed her kids every time. She was absolutely proud of this fact.
[+] [-] pubbins|17 years ago|reply
Kids whose parents let them win consistently have their world views shattered when they find out that they aren't the best at everything. These children are usually poor sports at winning and losing.
My boys are pretty happy when they beat their old man and I'm proud of them when they do.
[+] [-] tokenadult|17 years ago|reply
[+] [-] maneesh|17 years ago|reply
[+] [-] GiraffeNecktie|17 years ago|reply
http://urielw.com/refs/montyargc.htm
[+] [-] keltex|17 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jws|17 years ago|reply
[+] [-] RiderOfGiraffes|17 years ago|reply
[+] [-] iigs|17 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sketerpot|17 years ago|reply
[+] [-] grandalf|17 years ago|reply
In most cases, divergence among rational people can be traced to different priorities. I think the same would apply if discussing religion with a rational religious person (something I don't think is totally impossible).
For example, here's my argument about why I'm an atheist:
God gave humans rational minds where he gave animals teeth and claws. He surely didn't give us rational minds so that we would stop using rationality. Thus, God intended humans to be atheists at first. If He intended humans to be faithful (which you claim) then he intended it not as a counter to rationality but as the result of the application of rationality. Just as the bird is meant to flap its wings in order to alight, the human is meant to exercise the full strength of his rationality in order to thrive.
By contrast, God also created angels, who lack the problem of rationality-inspired doubt. They are in essence "faith robots" who are incapable of achieving faith, since they start out with it. Such a being is really little more than a slave or automaton.
As we all know, the plight of humans toward faith is a far higher cause than if we were simply pre-programmed. God intended humans to have a journey whose reward at the end (a solid, rational, unwavering faith) is not something that can be gained by reciting something as a child or sitting unquestioningly in a pew, but must (and should) be earned via the most earnest rational inquiry one can muster.
Thus I, an atheist, am completely confident that if God one day wishes me to be faithful I will discover that faith through the same process of rationality that currently makes me an atheist. QED.
[+] [-] northwind|17 years ago|reply
As for the "advertising immunization shots" the author of the article talks about, the authors experience is beautiful confirmation of what C.S. Lewis writes in the first few chapters of "The Abolition of Man".
[+] [-] stcredzero|17 years ago|reply
Unfortunately, this is a double-edged sword. Often, victory is achieved in ways that damage reasoned public discourse, even when the "right" side wins. And the "right" side doesn't always win.
[+] [-] Angostura|17 years ago|reply
There was a football up in a tree - "how could we get that down?" I asked and we proceeded to take turns starting off with the prosaic "use a stick" to the increasingly farfetched "helicopter" "string elastic between the houses and bounce... no it would get tangled".
We still play it today and as she gets older the form modifies and she gets more imaginative. There's a nice element of problem solving and silliness. I recommend it.
[+] [-] bbg|17 years ago|reply
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text.jsp?doc=Aristot.+Rh...
Or at least, this passage is the earliest attested formulation of this sort. Aristotle may have been codifying a system developed by others.
[+] [-] known|17 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jimbokun|17 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ahoyhere|17 years ago|reply
I read it on the Kindle, then I bought a copy so I could refer back to it easily and make notes in the margins.