Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
social interaction. Prior to argument, the parties were in a situation of respectful
disagreement (“We have different views”), but once the issue has been debated
in details without reaching any consensus, the arguers find themselves in a
condition of stubborn disagreement (“You will not listen to reason!”), which
directly threatens their relationship. The longer the argument, the higher the
danger of facing such quandary.
(c) Duration reduces the likelihood of a satisfactory conclusion (benefits) :pro-
longed argumentation can indicate either that the subject matter is especially
complex or that the parties are failing to find any common ground or both.
Whatever the reasons for prolonging the debate, it would thus seem that
duration speaks against reasonable expectations for a positive conclusion. This
negative correlation between argument duration and success expectations is
understandable, in view of the following considerations: first, by having to
repeatedly defend their respective positions against criticisms and objections,
the arguers become more and more entrenched in their views, hence less willing
to accept alternative standpoints or compromises (radicalization) 6 ; second,
exploring the matter in greater details is likely to uncover further issues of
disagreement between the parties (e.g., we begin discussing why we like
different political candidates and end up heatedly debating abortion rights and
alternative energy sources), which in turn makes it harder to reach a satisfactory
conclusion on the original topic (explosion); third, in terms of rhetoric value,
long-winded arguments are more complex to follow and persuasively less
effective, thus reducing the chances that the counterpart will be swayed by them
(deterioration); fourth, the very fact that the arguers have been discussing for a
long time over the same issue is taken as evidence that further debate is futile
and no satisfactory conclusion will ever be achieved, and once this conviction is
in place, it acts as a self-fulfilling prophecy (disillusion). Due to the combined
effects of all these factors, argument duration typically reduces the arguer's
reasonable expectations of reaping the benefits of the discussion, whatever they
might be.
The upshot of this analysis is that the expected utility of prolonging an argument
should be expected to steadily decline as a function of its duration, since the
cost/benefit balance deteriorates, various dangers increase, and likelihood of success
decreases. This yields the straightforward prediction that the arguer's willingness to
disengage from the argument will grow as the discussion progresses. The presumed
6 In group discussion, this interacts also with polarization , as an effect of being exposed to novel
arguments (from other like-minded arguers) in favor of one's previous position: as it has been
repeatedly shown in social psychology (for a review and discussion, see Myers and Lamm 1976 ;
Isenberg 1986 ; Sunstein 2002 ), this leads groups of like-minded people to develop positions
far more extreme than those previously held by their individual members. The interplay of
radicalization and polarization explains why multiparty argumentation, e.g., debates on social
media, easily produces partisanship, that is, the predominance of relatively few views, each quite
extreme and fanatically opposed to any dissenting voice.
Search WWH ::




Custom Search