Learning to lose to learn -- a funny thing about arguments: Dan Cohen at TEDxColbyCollege

Summary

In this insightful talk, philosopher Dan Cohen examines the nature of argumentation, challenging the prevalent metaphor of arguments as war. He identifies three models of argument: as war, as proofs, and as performances, highlighting the limitations of the adversarial approach. Cohen argues that true intellectual growth comes from embracing loss as a learning opportunity, rather than a defeat. By encouraging a collaborative mindset and valuing the quality of reasoning, he proposes a transformative view of argumentation that fosters mutual understanding and cognitive gain for all participants, ultimately redefining what it means to be a good arguer.

Takeaways

• 🧠 Arguments are not just battles; they can be viewed through different models, including dialectical (war), proof, and rhetorical (performance).
• ⚔️ The dialectical model treats arguments as wars, leading to adversarial thinking and a focus on winning or losing.
• 📊 The proof model emphasizes logical validity and substance over confrontation, promoting a more analytical approach to arguments.
• 🎭 The rhetorical model recognizes the audience's role, suggesting that arguments can be persuasive performances rather than mere contests.
• 💔 The war metaphor in arguments can create divisive mindsets, inhibiting constructive dialogue and compromising.
• 📉 Viewing arguments as wars equates learning with losing, discouraging people from changing their views based on new insights.
• 💡 Losing an argument can lead to significant cognitive gains, as individuals may adopt better-supported beliefs in the process.
• 🔄 Cohen calls for new entry approaches and exit strategies in arguments, encouraging a shift towards more productive discussions.
• 🤝 Envisioning an argument where participants appreciate the quality of reasoning can foster a collaborative environment.
• 🌱 The ultimate goal is to redefine what it means to be a good arguer, valuing growth and learning over traditional notions of winning.

Q & A

What is the main puzzle that Dan Cohen discusses regarding arguments?

Dan Cohen explores the paradox of becoming better at arguing yet experiencing more losses in arguments. He questions why he is okay with losing and what cognitive benefits arise from engaging in arguments.

What are the three models of arguments that Cohen identifies?

Cohen identifies three models: the Dialectical Model (arguments as battles), the Proof Model (arguments as logical proofs), and the Rhetorical Model (arguments as performances in front of an audience).

How does Cohen critique the 'argument as war' model?

Cohen critiques the 'argument as war' model for promoting adversarial dynamics, polarizing discussions, prioritizing tactics over substance, and leading to outcomes of either victory or defeat without fostering negotiation or collaboration.

What implications does the war metaphor have on learning and arguing?

Cohen argues that the war metaphor equates learning with losing, implying that when someone changes their belief after an argument, it is viewed as a defeat for the person who convinced them, even though cognitive gain occurred.

What does Cohen suggest is necessary for creating positive outcomes in arguments?

Cohen suggests that we need new entry approaches to arguments and new roles for arguers. He emphasizes the importance of imagining arguments where losing can still lead to a positive recognition of the argument's quality.

What role does the audience play in Cohen's rhetorical model of arguments?

In the rhetorical model, the audience plays a participatory role in the argument, as they are not just passive listeners but actively judge and influence the argument's effectiveness.

How can one benefit from losing an argument, according to Cohen?

One can benefit from losing an argument by gaining new insights or cognitive growth from the exchange, as the process of questioning and being challenged can lead to a better understanding of the subject matter.

Why does Cohen believe it is important to rethink the concept of winning in arguments?

Cohen believes it is important to rethink winning because traditional notions focus on who prevails, rather than recognizing the cognitive benefits gained from the discussion, which can lead to more meaningful and productive discourse.

What is the significance of viewing oneself as both the arguer and the audience?

Viewing oneself as both the arguer and the audience allows for self-reflection during arguments, enabling individuals to appreciate the quality of the arguments regardless of the outcome, fostering a mindset that values the process over the result.

What does Cohen hope to change in the way arguments are conducted?

Cohen hopes to change the dominant view of arguments as combative and instead promote a collaborative approach that recognizes cognitive gain, negotiation, and shared understanding as positive outcomes.