

How to Teach a Child to Argue - dsil
http://www.figarospeech.com/teach-a-kid-to-argue/

======
inigojones
> 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.

~~~
shard
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?"

~~~
Wallo
I agree to an extent I believe that pathos is the one you don't really want to
overdo with children. It's basically emotional exploitation or extortion. I
would never do that to my parents out of a sense of guilt for exploiting them
that way.

The overall thing is that he's teaching his kids to be critical, which is a
good thing for kids to learn. But it's also important to put ground rules and
let the kids know that you're the one teaching them this and to lead them on
that you'd be wise to their attempts at using it on you.

------
grandalf
Growing up I was usually given my way if I could make a good persuasive case
for it.

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
Yeah I was raised in a family where logos and ethos reign supreme, pathos is
personally the weakest path in an argument.

I totally agree with his parenting style, great article all around.

------
wglb
"And let’s face it: Our culture has lost the ability to usefully disagree." --
great point.

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
Many parents do not remember their logos, ethos, and pathos. As a result, some
fall prey to red herrings, logical fallacies, and guilt-tripping.

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.

~~~
Wallo
I don't know if you've seen it, but their are parents that give in to their
kids requests with children rationalizing their desire for something simply
with "I want it".

I think it's more ruled by the fact that they feel they owe it to their kids
or that they've fostered this need in their kids to always gratify their
wants. There's less emphasis on critical thinking, which is what I think the
author of the post was trying to get at.

------
TallGuyShort
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.

~~~
dxjones
Yes, rather "argue", the article is actually about: persuading, negotiating,
debating, reasoning, communicating.

Not just being "argumentative".

In Canada, we call the class on rhetoric "Critical Thinking".

~~~
evgen
> Yes, rather "argue", the article is actually about: persuading, negotiating,
> debating, reasoning, communicating.

Which are all forms of argument. (Ok, the last one is more general than
"argue" but it is far too broad to be useful in this context.) One of the
minor points the author made is that people often try to downplay disagreement
or avoid dealing with it to their detriment. Acknowledge the disagreement up
front and employ persuasion, negotiation, and reasoned debate to come to an
agreement that both parties live with.

~~~
dxjones
In some contexts (like a class on philosophy, or pitching a startup) I agree
with you. "That is a valid argument."

However, for most _parents_ the colloquial meaning of "arguing" or "being
argumentative" understood as the _opposite_ of "being reasonable".

"Go to bed now!", insisted Mom. "Don't argue with me", she told the six-year-
old. "We can talk about your bedtime tomorrow, after you have had some sleep,
but I am not going to negotiate your bedtime at 11pm on a school night."

------
stcredzero
_5\. Let kids win sometimes._

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
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.

~~~
derefr
Okay, "let them win" might have been a bit hyperbolic. Instead, how about
this: handicap yourself so you are always a _surmountable_ challenge. People
learn best when winning is "just" a matter of putting all their effort into
something and being ingenuitive. If something's below this level, they aren't
learning much, and if it's above this level, the challenge seems _in_
surmountable, and so <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_helplessness> kicks
in.

~~~
pubbins
This is the approach I try to take. I explained it poorly, but that's what I
meant when I said "setup situations where they can win". But just letting them
win so they don't have to feel sad about losing? Not with me.

One of my boys will call a foot race to the car when he's close enough to
where he thinks he can beat me. When he says go, I'm coming full tilt. Or when
we practice baseball I'll set up a contest - hit a ball past me and we go for
ice cream.

------
tokenadult
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.

~~~
maneesh
I did ARML, good for him :)

------
GiraffeNecktie
Everything I know about arguing I learned from Monty Python

<http://urielw.com/refs/montyargc.htm>

~~~
keltex
Here's the video:
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y&feature=chann...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y&feature=channel_page)

------
RiderOfGiraffes
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.

~~~
iigs
What is the "real stuff" by name? I am not familiar and would like to
investigate further.

~~~
RiderOfGiraffes
As said - "How to Win Friends and Influence People."

It's old, it's dated, in places it's laughable, but it contains amazingly
useful advice. It seems trite and shallow, but it's astonishingly effective.

If you read it as a complete cynic you'll have plenty to laugh at and get
nothing of lasting value. If you try to gain insight from it, reading past the
no-longer-relevant examples to find the intended truths, you will have the
means to be a better person, and accomplish much, much more.

Yes, that's a rave review. Perhaps I hold the book in such high regard because
it was exactly what I needed at exactly the time I needed it, but I still
reference it to this day and ask "What could I do better?"

------
sketerpot
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.)

~~~
grandalf
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.

~~~
randallsquared
A counterargument that I've heard to abbreviated forms of this argument runs
like, "God gave us the ability to feel lust and envy, as well, but that
doesn't mean that He intends us to follow through with fornication and
coveting, and we know this because He told us so in His inerrant Word..." ;)

~~~
grandalf
Good points... I'd counter-argue something like:

Lust is a variation on an emotion that is necessary to truly be close to God,
known as rapture. Lust is simply the profane version of it. We may misuse any
of the gifts God gave us, but that doesn't mean that their intended purpose
isn't to bring us closer to him.

~~~
klipt
Ok, so presumably you have enough of a religious background to argue from the
viewpoint of your opponent. There are advantages to that approach but also
disadvantages.

The advantage is that, if there is any claim to rationality in your opponent's
view, you can use it to build a bridge to alternate viewpoints that they'd
never normally consider. It can be very persuasive.

The downside is that this persuasiveness can be so strong as to feel invasive.
That can provoke an angry reaction; in some countries it could endanger your
life. There's a reason that several religions prescribe harsh punishment for
apostates: someone who has left a religion knows enough about it (and about
what they see as its shortcomings) to be dangerously good at 'leading others
astray'.

In addition, by arguing from their axioms you are implicitly accepting large
parts of their viewpoint which they can then use against you. For example, any
sufficiently persuasive argument against Christianity from a Christian
viewpoint can be met with "The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose." Why
should they trust someone who seems to acknowledge Christianity as true, only
to argue against it? Surely only someone on the side of the devil would fight
God while acknowledging his existence.

And once they've labeled you as being on the side of devil, the more
persuasively you argue, the more sure they'll be that they're right ... and
that you're just deliberately lying to lead them astray.

~~~
grandalf
Good points. In response to the "devil could use scripture for his benefit"
I'd argue:

What tool did God give only to humans to bring them closer to Him?
Rationality. Thus, who would want you to suppress this but God's opponent
Satan.

What does this irrational faith look like? It's like the child's faith in the
easter bunny, juvenile and hollow, the kind that will not stand up to
scrutiny. Is this the kind of faith that God intended for you? Did He want you
to simply claim things that you do not fully believe? Did He want your prayers
to be lies or mere wishes?

All I am arguing is that God wants your faith to come from his greatest gift
to you, which is Reason, not from the part of you that can easily lie to
yourself about things, for that is what Satan is trying to harness.

Satan knows that faith is difficult and knows that you would happily take the
easy way out. He knows that you would enjoy patting yourself on the back for
being more faithful than others and for enjoying the resulting feelings of
superiority. It is Satan's victory over God when your faith is shallow and
self-serving.

Only a solid, adult faith that has been honed by every ounce of your
rationality can help you get closer to god by avoiding the various traps laid
by Satan.

~~~
klipt
And that might even work on some people. The problem is that as far as I know,
there is actually support in the New Testament for blind faith - something
about a doubting Thomas.

When fundamentalists say there's no morality outside of the bible, I've tried
telling them to look at certain parts of the Buddhist scriptures (which in my
opinion covers some of the moral parts of religion without the blind belief
parts). But it just seems to go over their head. Anything outside the bible is
suspect. If it seems to contradict the bible, it must be devilish. Etc.

Not every religion has a Kalama Sutta (also known as "Buddha's charter of free
inquiry").

~~~
grandalf
Good point... From Wikipedia:

Doubt as a path towards (deeper) religious faith lies at the heart of the
story of Saint Thomas the Apostle. Note in this respect the theological views
of Georg Hermes:

 _... the starting-point and chief principle of every science, and hence of
theology also, is not only methodical doubt, but positive doubt. One can
believe only what one has perceived to be true from reasonable grounds, and
consequently one must have the courage to continue doubting until one has
found reliable grounds to satisfy the reason.[3]_

------
Angostura
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.

------
bbg
For what it's worth, Aristotle was the first to make this division of the
three 'modes of persuasion' or _pisteis_ , at _Rhetoric_ 1.2:

[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text.jsp?doc=Aristot.+Rh...](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text.jsp?doc=Aristot.+Rh.+1.2&fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0060)

Or at least, this passage is the earliest attested formulation of this sort.
Aristotle may have been codifying a system developed by others.

------
known

        Credibility = Quality + Consistency
    

Child should be taught that his communication should enhance the credibility
of the elder people.

------
jimbokun
Already considering ways to employ this with my children. Will discuss with my
wife when I get a chance.

------
ahoyhere
His book's fantastic... Thank You For Arguing.

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.

