Building on quicksand

[denny]

An IRC, erm, dispute :) has just reminded me of one of my personal pet peeves. People who will argue a position really strongly when they have no idea of whether or not they're actually right. Is it just me that finds this infuriating?

Some of these people have the good grace to do a 180 when they realise they're talking complete shit, but others will just go on and on, arguing their position despite having no evidence to defend it and you having plenty to refute it. I'm confused about how anyone can do this and not feel really daft at the same time.

(slightly tidied copy of the IRC conversation which provoked this post - no statements by either me or hellsatan have been removed, just part/join/unrelated stuff)

Comments

[wechsler.livejournal.com]

Very few people have the self-confidence to be wrong.

[dennyd.livejournal.com]

I don't think of saying "I dunno really" or "Oh, I didn't know that" as requiring self-confidence... certainly less embarrassing than arguing the point and then being proved wrong, I would have thought.

[feanelwa.livejournal.com]

*blink blink*
How...? Even I have the sense not to argue about something like that.

[olethros.livejournal.com]

*boggle*

There was a work colleague I had some time back who knew his stuff, but who I sometimes found it very difficult to discuss stuff with. When we got into a decent technical discussion, it was very frustrating - just as I started to home in on a point, he'd jump to something else, and I'd lose my footing.

I eventually realised that we had completely different methods of argument. I try to reach a compromise, he tried to defend a position. They're both valid and both produce useful results, but they're completely incompatible because I wouldn't have the decency to hear out his side before conceding bits of it, and he wouldn't have the decency to stay nailed down on the bits I knew I were right. :-)

That said, that guy on IRC ended up out-and-out rude very quickly. I think some people these days must read ANTISOCIAL-HOWTO as their first document on the internet or something.

[dennyd.livejournal.com]

Heh :) I'm usually the same as you - too keen to see both sides of everything. It makes for amusing debates, anyway, and also means that you can have fun arguing whatever the underdog side is of any debate you happen to get into, regardless of what your personal opinion might be.

As for rude, I thought I started that by calling him a 'moron'... it was him rolling his eyes at me that got my back up as I recall. *re-reads* Oh, he invited me to 'bite his arse' before that... I guess I didn't start it then, I just joined in enthusiastically :)

[barakta]

hellsatan: you can apologise for arguing without knowing what you're talking about any time you like

Of course that above can often be interpreted as rude. I see it for what it means; giving him a back off gap and whatnot, but I think that would be seen as arrogence or rudeness by some people....

Its interesting how other people behave online when they are wrong, and then get all defensive and stuff.

Natalya

[dpash.livejournal.com]

I know I have a habit of thinking I'm right most of the time, but I know one person who is significantly worse at it than me. Even if I know more about a subject and they know hardly anything, they will argue with me. Even after I dig out proof they will still disagree with me. It drives me mad beyond words. At least I have the sense to look for proof most of the time. (Mmmm internet n' google)

[dennyd.livejournal.com]

Actually that was mostly meant rudely, yes :) Well, it was said to provoke anyway, rather than to placate.

[olethros.livejournal.com]

In conversations with more than three people, I've found myself switching sides mid-stream. I'm going to have to stop that.

Rudeness is an attitude, though, not just a statement. It was all over before the name-calling began. :)

[barakta]

LOL!

Fair point, but it did have pertinence and the guy deserved it.

*grin*
Natalya

[random-goblin.livejournal.com]

i think a lot of it has to do with the american simplification of democracy... ie if all my peers believe it it's true, regardless of the evidence.
the many idiots are MORE right than the lone genius...

still maybe a few more years under a kleptocracy will educate them...