Daniel H. Cohen: For argument's sake

Summary

In this thought-provoking talk, philosopher Dan Cohen explores the paradox of becoming better at arguing while losing more often. He challenges the common 'argument as war' model, which he believes emphasizes tactics over substance and hinders constructive dialogue. Instead, Cohen suggests embracing a more collaborative approach to arguments, where the focus is on cognitive gains rather than winning, and where even the 'loser' can appreciate a well-crafted argument, ultimately fostering a more productive and enlightening discourse.

Takeaways

• 😀 Dan Cohen is an academic and philosopher who enjoys arguing and has been doing so for decades.
• 🤔 He has noticed a paradox where the better he gets at arguing, the more he loses, and he is comfortable with that outcome.
• 🧐 Cohen ponders the purpose and benefits of arguments, especially in the academic context where cognitive understanding is at stake.
• 🕵️‍♂️ He distinguishes between trivial arguments about everyday life and important academic arguments that seek to establish truth or validity.
• 🏰 Cohen introduces three models of argumentation: as war, as proofs, and as performances, with the latter also involving an audience or jury.
• 🗣️ The 'argument as war' model is dominant in society, but he argues it has negative effects, such as prioritizing tactics over substance and inhibiting collaboration.
• 💡 He criticizes the war model for its polarizing nature and for framing arguments as having only two outcomes: victory or defeat.
• 🤝 Cohen suggests that the war metaphor hinders the possibility of negotiation, deliberation, or compromise in arguments.
• 📚 He points out the irony that in the war model of argument, learning is equated with losing, which is counterproductive to cognitive growth.
• 🔍 Cohen calls for new approaches to argumentation that move away from the war metaphor and instead focus on the substance and mutual understanding.
• 🌟 He concludes by encouraging the audience to envision a new kind of arguer who can appreciate a good argument even in defeat, embodying a growth mindset.

Q & A

What is the main puzzle that Dan Cohen discusses in his speech?

The main puzzle Dan Cohen discusses is that despite becoming better at arguing over the years, he finds himself losing more often, and he is okay with that. He questions why good arguers are better at losing and what it means to win an argument.

What are the three models of arguments that Dan Cohen introduces in his speech?

The three models of arguments introduced by Dan Cohen are: argument as war, argument as proof, and argument as performance.

Why does Dan Cohen argue that the 'argument as war' model is problematic?

Dan Cohen argues that the 'argument as war' model is problematic because it elevates tactics over substance, magnifies the us-versus-them aspect, polarizes discussions, and inhibits negotiation, deliberation, compromise, and collaboration.

What does Dan Cohen suggest is the deforming effect of the 'argument as war' model on our conduct in arguments?

The deforming effect of the 'argument as war' model on our conduct in arguments is that it leads to a focus on winning at all costs, often at the expense of meaningful dialogue and cognitive gain.

How does Dan Cohen describe the relationship between learning and losing in the context of arguments?

Dan Cohen describes the relationship between learning and losing in arguments by suggesting that if an argument is viewed as war, then learning is equated with losing, which is counterintuitive because the person who changes their belief due to the argument has actually gained knowledge.

What alternative perspective does Dan Cohen propose for viewing arguments?

Dan Cohen proposes an alternative perspective where arguments are viewed as performances in front of an audience or juries, where the focus is on the quality of the argument rather than winning, and the audience plays a participatory role in the argument.

What is the role of the audience in the 'argument as performance' model according to Dan Cohen?

In the 'argument as performance' model, the audience is not just passive listeners but can have a more participatory role, similar to a jury, making judgments and deciding on the case presented.

Why does Dan Cohen believe that we need new kinds of arguments?

Dan Cohen believes that we need new kinds of arguments because the current dominant 'argument as war' model does not yield positive outcomes and often leads to dead ends in conversations.

What does Dan Cohen suggest as a new approach to arguing that could lead to positive outcomes?

Dan Cohen suggests that we need to think of new kinds of arguers who can be both the arguer and the audience, watching and evaluating their own arguments, and being able to acknowledge a good argument even when they lose.

How does Dan Cohen define a 'good arguer' in his speech?

Dan Cohen defines a 'good arguer' as someone who is capable of benefiting from losing an argument, learning from the process, and being able to acknowledge the quality of an argument regardless of the outcome.

What is the significance of the applause at the end of Dan Cohen's speech?

The applause at the end of Dan Cohen's speech signifies the audience's appreciation and agreement with his insights on the nature of arguments and the need for a shift in how we approach them.