Is explaining why I think I’m right different from arguing?
This is something that keeps coming up for me based on early experiences and I wanted to get an outside perspective.
I don’t think they are the same thing; if I’m explaining why I think I’m right I’m usually describing /articulating how I arrived at X point of view and sharing any evidence I have for it. For me this is a discussion process where I also want to hear the same from you and between us we just explore each other’s POV.
There are times when I have taken this approach and been accused of being argumentative; am I?
6 comments
Ur wrong vs thst doesnt work that way ill help
As long as there’s a “who’s right” in the conversation, it’s an argument. If you change your tactic to explaining how got to your opinion and drop the need to prove that your opinion is the “right” one to have, now it’s no longer an argument.
It’s don’t know if it’s argumentative, but what you’re describing has confirmation bias.
Pursuing evidence that undoes your own POV is said to be less biased.
Yes. You need to acknowledge and consider the other person’s point of view.
Just tryin to be right without looking for a solution or empathising with the other person is argumentative.
Source: Old guy that used to do the same thing as you.
Whether it’s arguing or explaining doesn’t depend on you, but on the person you have in front of you.
It’s all decided in her stance.
They’re definitely not the same thing