I've had people mention to me an interesting pattern of behavior I have.
I don't keep beating my head against a conversation when it's clear that the other person just wants to argue or isn't curious about my position. If I present information and I get push back multiple times--indicating that the information that I'm presenting isn't even under current consideration--then I back out of the conversation, leaving some material if I can in case someone does want to explore further. I don't just keep trying to convince someone who doesn't want to be convinced (meaning, they're not curious and flexible enough in their own thinking to challenge their own position).
I know, that's crazy, right?? After all, I should want to prove that I'm right! Isn't that what we are all doing when we share our opinions and try to make a case for something??
No, actually...that's not my goal.
Arguments vs Arguments
Look, there's a difference between "an argument" and "an argument." By that, I mean that there are logical arguments which lead to a conclusion and these should be supported by valid premises and evidence and coherent thought and all that kind of thing. These are things I love presenting! Especially because by doing so, someone else might show me a way that the argument is wrong. And when that happens, then I can formulate an even stronger argument. Sometimes what I present is something another person hasn't considered and thus I'm pleased in expanding the thoughts of others.
But then there's an emotional argument where you're trying actively to prove you're right about something. In this kind of argument, you really don't want to be wrong. You disagree with a position because you're interested in showing how right you are. And you know, sometimes there's need for that in life, personally as well as professionally. I get that some people wish to engage in formal (and informal) debates to pit their position against another and try to "win."
But really, that is not what I'm doing. It's just...not.
Winning isn't the point; thinking is.
Often, the difference between the two types of arguments is thin. Again, I'm open to being challenged--but the line between arguments includes gaslighters who are very full of themselves.
If you don't agree with me, and you're not interested in considering the view I'm presenting, and further if you just want to "prove" that you're right, then I'm not interested in wasting my time in the discussion. And the reason for not wanting to continue isn't about the disagreement, but rather about the lack of curiosity and flexible thinking.
I do believe that truth can stand on its own. I also believe that truth is not clear to everyone, and I don't think that I have a monopoly on it. I present information and you can take it or leave it...or you can give me something new to think about, if you can do so in a reasonable and evidential manner. But I'm not here for pushing matches with people of large egos.
