Daniel H. Cohen: For argument's sake
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 9 июл 2024
- Why do we argue? To out-reason our opponents, prove them wrong, and, most of all, to win! ... Right? Philosopher Daniel H. Cohen shows how our most common form of argument -- a war in which one person must win and the other must lose -- misses out on the real benefits of engaging in active disagreement. (Filmed at TEDxColbyCollege.)
TEDTalks is a daily video podcast of the best talks and performances from the TED Conference, where the world's leading thinkers and doers give the talk of their lives in 18 minutes (or less). Look for talks on Technology, Entertainment and Design -- plus science, business, global issues, the arts and much more.
Find closed captions and translated subtitles in many languages at www.ted.com/translate
Follow TED news on Twitter: / tednews
Like TED on Facebook: / ted
Subscribe to our channel: / tedtalksdirector
When he said "the better I become at arguing, the more I lose!" I thought of the addage, "the more you learn, the more you realize how little you know."
as soon as i saw that beard, i knew i was in safe hands
Win win: The arguer gets their point across AND you learn something new. I love that idea.
This is one of the best Ted Talks I've seen in a while.
This may be my favorite Ted talk ever. I'm kind of saddened it has had so few views.
Well, let's get sharing then.
i dont even wanna be here
He should do another talk about how he wins arguments like "who's turn it is to do the dishes". I tend to lose those arguments.
If argument is war, then there's an implicit implication with learning and losing.
It isnt about WINNER and/or LOSER its about BE ABLE TO LEARN MORE THAN OUTSIDE OF YOUR EGO !!
This is what I always tell myself too. The only problem comes when you argue with someone who doesn't think that way and wants to argue to win, but doesn't realize that you're not even playing that game. It just makes them frustrated and it elevates it until they start screaming at you.
De todas las TEDx que he visto, esta para mi es la numero uno, gracias por traducirla para los hispanoparlantes.
Self-esteem is an excellent argument with yourself.
Philosophers seem to always have the best beards.
I loved it Thank you!
Thank you for the complement. I realized a few years ago that it was too tiring to be frustrated with people on the internet. I try now to only maintain correspondence when someone seems genuinely interested, and not ever if they're unduly rude or insensible.
If only more people saw things as clearly as you just did. Well put.
RUclips is the best place to transmit that kind of knowledge.
He seems like a very genuine guy and a good debater.
And wow... he proposed that argument well.
Symbolic Logic class.
Loved it
Holy crap I live a few towns over from this guy
Always be prepared to be wrong.
That's the key thing to remember when arguing.
Everyone's conscious judgements/beliefs are based on his perception, and yet no perception is complete.
Good video! A true argument, in the academic sense, is one where the sides wish to gain a better, deeper, more accurate, or more clear insight. If you keep the intellectual standards in mind instead of looking at argumentation as a contest, then an argument is simply a critically thinking process that takes place. As long as it moves in that direction, there are no losers--everyone wins. Of course people have to be trained to see things in this way, but our society, as you point out, doesn't.
Fantastic reply sir. I couldn't agree more.
Great presentation.
This guy speaks how I feel with people in arguments most of the time. I wish my friends could see and understand this. lol
1 second ago
Prof. Cohen, we need YOUR TALK, in our crises with the VIRUS and with DEMOCRACY.
You can argue against the RIGHT, that denies the VIRUS and the DEMOCRACY dangers.
You can argue against the LEFT that denies the INEFFECTIVENESS of their endless DEBATES.
(I hope this TED talk is seen by REPUBLICANS and DEMOCRATS, alike) thanks Hatzlacha
One thing that has helped me is to "argue for truth". That is, use arguments as a search for truth. If you're serious about searching for truth, you know that you have to remain humble, honest, diplomatic, and be prepared to be wrong. You want the discussion to be calm and peaceful, so that it remains constructive. But you'll also actively try to reveal fallacies, bad arguments and manipulation. Most importantly, the goal of the argument is no longer to win, but to learn.
Respuestas en español CONCHETUMARE ESTO ES PARA UNA GUÍA NECESITÓ ESTO
Weno, pero no te enojes
From a 'learning perspective', you can still have an argument, just listening to the other and test his arguments to what you think. Since every person has a different background and different believes, just testing to what you think is right may be enough to have an argument.
I like this guy!!!
What I get ofut of winning is that you have learned, and that THAT is what I want! I want you to learn! That is for me the victory to see somene learn something new - and I dont mind losing, becuase I love to learn!
Prof. Cohen, we need YOUR TALK, in our crises with the VIRUS and with DEMOCRACY.
You can argue against the RIGHT, that denies the VIRUS and the DEMOCRACY dangers.
You can argue against the LEFT that denies the INEFFECTIVENESS of their endless DEBATES.
(I hope this TED talk is seen by REPUBLICANS and DEMOCRATS, alike) thanks Hatzlacha
This is really good.
All debate teams need to listen to this.
"Not everyone desires mind stagnation within a bubble of ignorance." Agreed, that's why I come here to watch TED. I humbly propose there is a reason they call it "Oxford style debate", not "Oxford style argument". For arguments sake, you win.
I was sceptical at first, but actually it was a really good talk!
There is only one way to lose an argument, but with the right attitude you cannot lose. Either you explain something to someone, and in doing so expand the depth of your own understanding of it. Or you learn something. Only way to lose is to try to win.
For more on this subject, might i recommend a great book called "Thank You For Arguing" by Jay Heinrichs...Great video too...
I think a discussion rather than an argument yields better results for both sides, listen to the thoughts and ideas of your opponent and see if you can find worth in what they say then expand your consciousness with this fresh information, you could come a winner in the end if you improve your concept of something.
arguing too often turns into a form of manipulation, thats the big problem. When someone feels like your talking to them because they are trying to "change your mind about somthing", if you can look at an argument without thinking like that people can leave an argument hopefully learning something from both sides. It would make the world a better place.
Powerful argument.
In the past few months, I have been forced to spend lots of time with someone who loves to argue to be right whereas I argue for truth. And so, I had a hard time "arguing" with this individual.
The best tactic I found is to ferociously defend your lack of position by admitting strengths to both sides. You can never prove that individual wrong but you can provide a reasonable doubt to their point. Then you can change the debate into a discussion and avoid being forced to stroke the arguer's ego.
that's one of the reasons (only may be) made me watch this video.
He's got a good point. The kind of person you have to be to win a lot of arguments is not the kind of person who should be in a position to be making arguments.
learning is winning. i like that :)
just watching this for class lmao
Same
He was the keynote speaker at a conference at my school. I'd recognize that beard anywhere :)
5:03
He's probably really good at among us.
he covered this in the talk, his proposition is that the more learned person wants to have they're mind broadened by considering fresh points of view.
From certain point of view we are constantly arguing in our own head whether to accept the information presented in front of us as reality.
So in a way argument is essential for any learning at all.
“Empty your cup so that it may be filled; become devoid to gain totality.”
- Bruce Lee
This makes a lot of sense to me. I remember arguing with a creationist (a particularly stupid one) and I said to him 'Look, I'm just trying to educate you...' to which he replied 'Don't say you're trying to educate me, that's condescending.' I thought 'What?'
But if arguments are set up as to make us suppose that Learning = Losing, then no wonder he took offence.
Very interesting talk.
He did provide a way of doing this, at the end of the talk. He identified different frameworks for understanding arguments, showed why the dominant one doesn't work, and suggested that we use better ones. The solution is simply to think differently about arguments so that you can approach them better. What more do you want?
That is the way I try to argue. I love losing an argument as long as it's for good reason. I hate to continue on being wrong in life.
UFPE THANKS THIS VIDEO
I would argue that a conversation is not really an argument.
my aim in debating has always been to learn, not to "win". it's kind of depressing that some people seem not to have a doubtful or skeptical bone in them, and argue with unjustifiable certainty.
Getting someone to do what I want them to do, even if they're the only ones who "gain cognitively" in that exchange, is beneficial to me. Nothing (beyond the banal) is more important to humans than getting other humans to behave as we want them to.
Hence, if I "win" an argument, I do indeed win.
I argue in order to test my beliefs. I care about the truth of my beliefs. I don't want to believe things that aren't true. So I argue with people who disagree with me. They don't usually convince me that I'm wrong, but it has happened. That's a GOOD thing.
But I meet a lot of believers who don't care if their beliefs are true. They just want to believe what they want to believe. I can't understand that, myself. If I'm wrong, I want to know it. I can accept reality, even if I'd prefer fantasy.
This feels like semantics. What one means by winning will of course differ depending on what one wants to achieve by arguing.
BRILLIANT !
Learning is Losing ... sounds like life in the USA! ;-) (and most of the rest of the world)
I do not feel the same way about the word (we can agree to disagree), but i do agree about what i think is a good definition of an argument.
Yes I can imagine it. It's called "having a conversation". It's a lost art form.
Thanks for providing this lecture. I've usually been the aggressive arguer who hates when someone is wrong and wants to make them understand but now I can see that I haven't been acting so good after all.
It is a good argument when the opposition is left with nothing else to say except agree.
his epic beard stole the spotlight, I couldn't take my eyes off it!!
People want to win arguments because it gives them a feeling of superiority and dominance. Look at how invested folks are in 'proving' their superiority in the comments.
Hawking and Mlodinow were talking about the ancient tradition of natural philosophy, which has since evolved into modern scientific practise. The sort of work that's done in Philosophy departments today is quite unlike what was done back then, and is very far from being 'dead.'
Jct: The loser of the argument gains the truth with the audience but the winner also wins the "collaboration" that was not possible any other way plus the satisfaction of having improved on the efficiency of the whole! Successful professing is an amplication of power of the whole that is of benefit to the winner as well as the loser! Especially when you count in the audience or future "set-straights" scored by the replicator!
If you take the side of time proven concepts, you will never lose an argument.
Objects can't make you, without being directed because they cannot direct themselves.
Before, after or during. It's all good.
Yes, although it can be very hard to discover the strength of both sides. Sometimes you don't even get what the other individual's position is at all. So you're left puzzled and your only way out seems to make wild guesses about the other one. Unfortunately, this can be quite prone to misunderstandings...
I CAN'T STOP LOOKIN AT THAT BEEEAARRRDDD YEAH
I’m doing this for an assignment
same
An acknowledgement for good arguments has to be opposed by somebody willing to listen. Unfortunately, argument-as-war is usually coupled with the opposition being defensive and obstinate.
The thing to watch out for with this theory is that, while you have to be happy about losing an argument, you still have to try your best to win. If you don't there is no argument, or if there is the resulting idea won't be well tested.
Medicine is a practise that aims at health, philosophy aims at the elimination of false belief. It's very hard to draw good analogies with philosophical scholarship because it is such a variable thing.
Haha there are people arguing about the right way to argue. I think you should always enter an argument knowing that you can be wrong. The key is to not have an ego.
I'd say most people are years behind their time.
this sort of thinking has been around since Socrates, nothing new really, it's just that most people haven't learned about it yet.
The situation he called between two individuals over proposition "P" sounded more like a conversation than an argument.
I got this link in class, what’s persuasive writing?
If you're not willing to learn from an argument, you lose.
Research 'output' differs depending on the subject of study. Doctors publish medical trials and aggregates of trial data, physicists publish experimental data or mathematical proofs, mathematicians publish proofs (usually), and philosophers publish arguments. Depending on the philosophy, the arguments can take many forms. Logicians publish proofs and work on metalogic most often, while Rawls would publish articles on economics, justice, ethics, and their relationships.
Well he earned the respect from an aggressive argumentarian like me... Next I can rephrase his talk in , ' Nobody wins an arguement...u either lose the opponent or loose the arguement.' The point is How you loose an argument? Do u draw any insight and learnings for urself? If yes, then u are a winner in losing, If not, then you stagnate, struggle and suffocate in your own limitation.
agreed that u have millions of entry points into an argument but seldom a safe exit-point.
That kind of debating is not really about the arguments, but about the format, the rhetoric. The sophists in Ancient Greece already did that. It is more a competition in the art of persuasion, motivation of the audience. I perfectly understand that, because a good argument brought in a bad way can lose lots of it's power. Of course there is a downside, because this often leads, as Plato criticized, to deceit. I think rhetoric can learn us a lot about what the definition of a 'good' argument is.
Is anyone else doing a worksheet on this?
But to them, they might also just think you are plain wrong and walk away. The point is, you are creating a fake sense of self satisfaction without knowing for sure. If they truly agree with your point, they might actually learn something from it and appreciate you for giving them a new perspective.
It is possible that an argument is a matter of improving our communities, lives or loves, so if I win, I may gain if you now care more and act on that caring. Right?
I argue that this is a good video. My proof is that I hit the "like" button before I made it to the half-way point.
I'm sorry so many don't know what you are talking about, professor Cohen. But long live those who do---
Ethical arguments concern opinions, and fundamentally there are no correct answers. On the other hand, scientific/math arguments concern questions which often have correct answers; though sometimes there are difficulties in communicating deep concepts in an accurate way, which confuses the issue.
This argument-as-war also causes people to be scared of arguing, it causes an aversion of debate. They'd rather keep their ideas unanalyzed as opposed to gaining knowledge and building better thoughts. Arguing must not be a competition and I think this concept should be though to children, things like "don't be afraid to express yourself, but you must also listen to others," "arguing can be a win-win situation," etc.
behold the power and rightness of P
I argue that this man should be Santa Claus. Why you ask?
Yes of course THE BEARD but he could probably make any kid rethink what they want for Christmas.
the one who "won" the argument gained the ability to articulate their points more clearly whereas the one who "lost" gained new information.
those who aren't open to arguments given by others, have lost before it even started, but those participating fully, are winners. Twisting it that way, I agree. Otherwise: if you went into a discussion as wise as you come out, you haven't won anything.
Competetive debating also relies on lots of other thing than reasonable arguments. Also in modern society we tend to see arguing something of a competition where one loses and other wins. The truth is that with bad argumentations we all lose. We all lose the truth to our ego.
this man is a fan of ZZ top!!
Daniel - Sound logic and reason are very often not enough to win an argument. Emotion can easily trump them both. For example: However good my logic and reason is in presenting a case for you to shave your facial hair and beard off completely, you will not do so until I have a way of allowing you to feel ecstatic about the idea.
Dan Cohen Obliterates the Argument as War Metaphor!
having one amplifies the other