The Anatomy of an Argument

 A few decades ago the world famous comedians from Monty Pythons Flying Circus created what became one of their funniest sketches.  The Argument Sketch was based around the idea of ‘buying an argument’ from someone in the ‘argument room’ whose first question was, “Would you like the five minute argument or the ten minute argument”. 

It seems many people grow up in a context where arguing was a regular feature of family life.  They developed their inclination to argue early in life and for the rest of their life often find themselves both consciously and subconsciously looking for an argument.  And while they have no negative motive (it’s just a habit) others do get bored and sometimes irritated with what has become their argumentative nature.

Others however, are always looking to pick a verbal fight.  They consciously look for someone to disagree with so that they can build an emotional ‘head of steam’ and proceed to re-create and vent their frustrations and angers.   They become argument addicts as the emotion also gives them a physical buzz.  Some of us are way down the other end of the spectrum and we instantly shy away from any kind verbal confrontation.  Most of us are probably somewhere between the two.  And a very few have worked out the futility of any kind of argument because they understand the ‘anatomy of an argument’.

Do you ever argue?  When we argue it means we have an opinion, and at the heart of our opinion is our belief.  When we hear the belief of the other we argue back because we are seeing their belief as a threat to us personally.  Why?  Because we are attached to, and identified with, our belief.  So we interpret the others belief as a personal attack.  Before we know it we are either defending or attacking, which means we are creating both fear and aggression, which means we are inflicting emotional suffering upon our self. 

Many people come to a conversation ‘armed’ with their opinions, prepared to defend their beliefs, and ready to do battle.  It’s easy to disarm them.  All you have to say is, “That’s an interesting way to see it.  Not sure I agree with it, but I can see how you can see it”.  We often argue because we want to 'defend' our own poin of view, and this generally ends in emotional distane that results to a physical distance. Rather that get into the dynamics of an argument, why say to thew other person, "I'd rather be loving than be right." (Even if you are right). If we find this hard to do it’s because we believe we are right and we want to prove we are right and they are wrong because when we are right we are initially 'happy' because then we 'won', we are victorious. But what about the other person's (your dear and near one, for example) feelings and emotions? - sad and miserable, aren't they? Do you enjoy seeing them like this? Would you want to witness this? I don't think so. Being right we feel superior and feeling superior is the best way to avoid the possibility of feeling inferior.   So being right, being superior and being/feeling 'happy' become synonymous.  But it’s obviously not true happiness because in the process of attempting to prove our rightness we are tense and even angry that the other is not ‘getting it’ or that they are not acknowledging that ‘I am right’.  The possibility of losing the argument becomes the possibility of losing face. 

And then there are those who deliberately look for an argument regardless of who is right or wrong.  They are spoiling for a fight so that they can justify and satisfy their addiction to the accompanying emotions i.e. anxiety, anger and perhaps hate.  Like hard drugs, if these emotions are indulged in, they will have to be ‘felt’ every day, hence the continuously ‘argumentative attitude’ that some develop.  They are effectively saying, “Go on, I dare you to disagree with me”, which is another way of saying, “Go on, press my buttons, make my day!”

But it’s good to have an opinion isn’t it?   If we don’t have an opinion about important issues we believe we will be seen as weak – right?  And if we don’t stand up and fight for the rightness of our opinion we may be accused of being soft, conciliatory, without the courage of our convictions.  This is how some people often justify holding an opinion about anything and everything.  But wait a second – in the moment of expressing our opinion, if it is in the defence of a position or designed to be against another opinion, it is therefore the birthplace of conflict and the seed of war.    All wars, at their roots, are differences of opinion, a clash of beliefs, and the emotions and actions that follow are firstly a violence upon oneself, and then a violation of others.  The truth of this is then avoided with the claim, “We had to be strong to make the decision to go to war”, which is really the way of avoiding saying, “We weren’t strong enough to ‘let go’ of our need to be right” and “We didn’t have the courage or the patience to turn an argument into a dialogue”… where the first principle of dialogue is always seeking to truly understand the other's position and therefore the other's point of view.

It takes courage to have a point of view, and yet be extremely interested in others points of view to the extent that we are prepared to shift your viewing point!  This says, “I am flexible and I acknowledge there are many ways of looking”.  It says, “I have the humility to learn from you”, and it says, “I seek to meet you on the ground we share, as opposed to fight you from a proclaimed territory.”

What is the difference between a discussion, a dialogue and an argument?  In essence, a discussion is an open exchange of views, a dialogue is a mutual exploration of meaning and an argument is a battle of opinions. 

An argument is the meeting of two closed minds.  A discussion is only possible when we are open to one another’s ideas.  A dialogue will only happen when two parties collaborate to uncover a deeper wisdom and co-create a new understanding.  In an argument 1 + 1 = nothing.  In a discussion 1 + 1 = 2.  In a dialogue 1 + 1 = 3.  In a dialogue there is much more listening than talking, in a discussion there is an equal exchange between friends and in an argument there is war! It is an enlightened soul that moves from an argument to a discussion to a dialogue, a process that is driven not by the need to be right, but by a genuine curiosity alongside the intention to understand the other.  The presence of curiosity is usually a good sign of the absence of the ego.

One day three pupils came to see their master.  The master held up a flower and asked his pupils what colour they saw.  The first pupil said, “A redish brown”.  And the master said, “You are right”.  The second pupil said, “I see a bluish purple colour” And the master said, “You are right”.  To which the third pupil said, “But master, both cannot be right”.  To which the master replied, “You are right”! 

Who do you find yourself arguing with most, either verbally or mentally, and what do you argue about, and why are you really arguing with them…really?

The reflection I'd like you to do is to imagine yourself exchanging ideas with that person where you are doing most of the listening and, at the end of which you let them have the last word.  How might the conversation sound?

 
And the action you need to take is to practise creating a dialogue with one other person this week.  Pick a person, pick a topic, pick a place to meet, pick three questions around that topic and then pick each other’s brains in a free flowing mutual enquiry.
- - - - - - -
Ross Galán, NLP Spiritual Life Coach
at the Spiritual Life Coaching School