by launchboxbill » Wed Sep 07, 2005 1:17 am
arguement is an art. unfortunately the skill is to keep emotions out, because emotions actually -are- like holes in your brain, not physically, but in neuron connections. what this means is that your arguement, which is based on logic strings concerning your own and your opponents arguements, have gaps. once a gap opens, it is like a tear in fabric, emotion ensues and then you need more control to keep it closed.
but if you arent aware of anger creeping up then it will get out of control and the fabric of logic will fall away to pure emotion, due to the nature of the emotion - an arguement, it is anger, for you are inable to compete with an opposition.
but how do teh tears start? i believe it occurs when one doesnt believe in the arguement theyre saying, or doesnt the the other person will give in to an arguement, and so, the strings of logic thin down without any confidence to keep them going. it is of course, natural to merely fight as an animal, however humans have a higher level of competition- arguement, which is sort of like a layer on top of animal instincts, emotions.
this is where assertion comes in. if you are confident in yourself, then you will know that it doesnt matter what the other person argues, its just oppinion. confidence maintains the fabric of arguement logic.
at teh same time, if what you believe in is just bunk, this can have problems if you dont have enough faith in yourself or simply the other person shows you where you are wrong. in tehse instances, teh best thing to do is either concede that the other person is right (hard and really just the quick exit), or continue to formulate arguments based not on your belief but merely on what the other person is saying.
if you can weave an arguement based purely by what someone else is saying, there is no way that emotion can get involved because it is no longer an issue of your confidence, by theirs.
unfortunately for women, they are more susceptable to bad arguements. women have more.. strands of logic that they can weave together at once. however, the bonds are not held together very well in women, and so they end up with endless pathways to irrational emotions.
men on the other hand, have less ability to multi-think, but are also less susceptable to having their confidence dropped in an arguement. men therefor can integrate their emotions into their arguement which may be very one tracked (and therefor easier or harder to shut down), whereas women can try to think of too many things at once and fall apart into random emotion.
it balances out for the sexes in teh end, but overall women just have to try harder to keep emotions out of arguements wheras men have to try hard not to use their fist as the conclusion to their oppinion.