Cultures of Debate

Speaker A: 00:00:00

Hello and welcome to the Cognitive Engineering podcast produced by me, Fraser McGruer for Aleph Insights. In this series of podcasts, we take a look at interesting topics and discuss what we think they tell us about analysis and decision making. I'm here with Peter Coghill, Sara Nonu and Nick Hare of Aleph Insights. And this week, we're having an argument and due to the lockdown, unusually, we're recording this remotely. Nick, why are we having an

Speaker B: 00:00:28

argument? What are we arguing about? It's something we touched on in a previous podcast, actually, and I thought was interesting enough to discuss, which is, you know, families have got very different cultures. Obviously, we get these little micro cultures. Families, if you think of them as isolated islands, you know, the kind of Andaman Islanders type. I mean, families spend a lot of time together, develop their own distinctive cultures and very rarely mix in any kind of significant way with other families. So you've got a real opportunity to get different family cultures growing up. And of course, when you get the big culture clash, of course, when you get, you know, families joining together in marriage or, you know, when you've got two people from quite different families raising a family together and having to decide what their values are going to be, it's interesting. It's an interesting situation. And one particular aspect, which is close to my heart, is arguments and arguing. And I come from a family who are very arguey, like everything, almost, we don't really have conversations, we have our arguments, but they're completely meaningless. Like we, it's just the way that we relate to each other. Now, none of it hardly ever actually means something. And even if it ever does, it's, it's like, you know, in an hour's time, everyone's forgotten about it. There's never any, got no culture of sulking in my family. And there's no, no kind of, nothing is ever persistent. It's just, it's onto the next, the next round of sort of sniping and arguing. Very different to my partner and lots of other people I know, you know, come from families where they're, you know, they never seem to have arguments, never seem to have any visible differences, where problems are solved in back channels. And, you know, through one to one bilateral negotiations, and, you know, any conflicts are resolved in a nice, rational, sensible way. And it's, you know, it's difficult because obviously I, she, and in fact, all of their family tend to see, sometimes think I'm being, I'm being aggressive, or I mean, I mean it, you know, when I, if I'm, if I'm being a bit arguey, and of course I don't. That's just, that's just, you know, the way that I tend to express myself. So yeah, what's basically where I'm going is, I actually, I think it's better. I think arguing is better than keeping it all under wraps. That's what we're here to discuss. Yeah. I mean, is the

Speaker A: 00:02:54

question, how do we disagree with each other? Or I don't know if that's the, how do we, how should we, should we? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Sarah, what was your sort of family like growing up? Were you like Nick's or like Nick's partner's family? What was your family like in terms of arguing?

Speaker C: 00:03:13

I think it was individual specific. So you wouldn't argue with my dad, no way. Me and my, me and my sister would definitely argue a lot. And with my mum, yeah, there was definitely, it wasn't fun being a teenager with a mum, but that's what happens when you're a girl. But yeah, I think it was mixed. And I think it's actually changed over time. So now, now that I'm older, I'll definitely argue with my dad when I think he's wrong or I know he's wrong. But if it's going nowhere and he just thinks he's right, I'll just let him trail off and I'll stop listening, which is the usual case. I've got him better with my mum. One of the most powerful things you can do in an argument is just stop listening. Yeah. With my mum now, I fight, I argue a lot less with her. I'm a lot more patient. I think there's a lot more tolerance. You're a lot further away as well, which helps, I'm guessing. Yeah, it's key. And with my sister, I think I just take an avoidance technique. I just, I just, I just don't do it. I just, I just stay away. Okay. Peter, your,

Speaker B: 00:04:22

your, your upbringing. It sounds like a kind of Krav Maga approach to argument where you've just

Speaker C: 00:04:27

got a different, you know, depending on the circumstance, you've got a different technique. That's exactly it. I have, I have to be a different person depending on who I'm talking to. But I've learned that over time. So it makes it much more cohesive bond between everyone if I, if I do that. I just need everyone else to do it too. You're, you're, you're right. You're in the

Speaker D: 00:04:44

middle, mediating between everybody else, are you? Pretty much. Yeah. It's fun. It's a great place to be.

Speaker A: 00:04:49

The child becomes the parent. Peter, I imagine you come from a family of just calm rationalists.

Speaker D: 00:04:54

But anyone, any sort of kind of disagreements are just subsumed. I've been thinking about this all afternoon and I can't quite tell because they, I was always, we were always encouraged to be discursive and try to explore topics through discussion. But in the same note, I was, we're, we're often just, just shut down and told to shut up and stop asking questions. So depending on how tired or, or annoyed parents were at the time. So it was, it was difficult to put a finger on it. I think we were just always on our toes. That was it. But the, but certainly I've noticed in the last 10 years or so, my parents and my sister have become much less discursive and would rather, much more conciliatory. They want to, they just want to get consensus, even if it's wrong. And I hate that. That winds me up. So I think I'm a bit of a black sheep now in the family because I'm always, I'm a bit like Nick. I'm always trying to, you know, not argue per se, but try to discuss things and get to the bottom of why people believe something. And my, my family just won't,

Speaker A: 00:06:02

won't, just won't entertain it. I mean, when I was growing up, I sort of had sort of the worst of both worlds because we were quite an argumentative family and it's quite explosive. So something was always kicking off, but also quite sulky as well. So we'd have these big arguments and it just, it would just really never go away. So it's, you know, just this air of sort of quite violent discontent, I think. Well, I think this is good because this, this,

Speaker D: 00:06:26

this tech, this gets back to something I think both Nick and Zara kind of suggested that it's not necessarily what you argue about this problem. It's how you argue this, this, the, the art of discussion is, is a precious thing. And being able to talk with somebody about a difficult or controversial topic in a way that doesn't offend or cause you to be offended is very, very important for the way that humans gather information about the world and find out about themselves. So that, that, that I think is definitely worth diving into is how, how to argue in a productive, consensual and productive way. Yeah. And now Zara, I think you were going

Speaker A: 00:07:12

to lead into something and I think perhaps you can pick up there from Peter. Yeah. So basically

Speaker C: 00:07:16

when I was looking at research I came across an article, which kind of put it all together quite nicely that there's kind of three styles of argument, arguing that's conflict engagement, which is like essentially losing your temper. There's the withdrawal that I spoke to about earlier that sometimes it's what I do. And then there's also what Peter's just alluded to like positive problem solving, having those constructive arguments. So I think it's a case of figuring out exactly which, which person you are and which person you kind of want to be. And for the most part, positive problem solving is where you would want to be having your arguments, but that's also dependent on the person you're arguing with. If you've got someone who wants to do, have a discussion and work, work through something, but has someone who's more of that argumentative conflict engagement style, you're never going

Speaker B: 00:08:07

to get anywhere. That's just basically what I was thinking. I think there's a, I'm inspired to think of a sort of two by two matrix, of course, the two axes being actual conflict versus no actual conflict. Is there an actual thing you're actually fighting about, which is significant, right? And then the other axis is probably what Sarah was just saying, style. Now I would say that my, my family, we are of a very direct conflict style of engagement, but there's actually almost never anything we're really arguing about. It's, it's, it's utterly it's, you know, would it make more sense to put the gravy on over there and then bring it over here? Or should we, should we make the gravy here? But, but we need the, but we need that, that hob to do the potatoes that, that can kick off an hour long argument, right? That kind of thing in my family, it's completely inconsequential. And really it's an excuse to have an argument, but, and then of course at the opposite extreme, you will have people where there's a really, you know, maybe a significant issue about finance or something, you know, about how much money you're spending or alcoholism or something, you know, some really big actual real family issue where they don't talk about it at all. Don't address it, whether perhaps they all just use a withdrawal strategy. So, so I think, I think it's useful to think about, you know, style as separate, argumentative style. And I think, I think it, you know, my feeling is that if there's no real conflict, as long as you're all happy with the way things are going, fine. But if there's real conflict, then you have to worry about that. It's like, okay, there is

Speaker A: 00:09:48

actually a real issue we need to solve. Here's a question then, given that, if we sort of, if we think of alternatives as being out in the open, you know, always arguing about stuff, having disagreements about where to put the gravy and so on, and the opposite of that, sort of withdrawal sort of method, different kind of withdrawal method. Is it, when it does come to those bigger things that you were talking about, do you think that the kind of family or the kind of people who are used to having that kind of argument where it's all out in the open? Do you think they, I mean, do we have a view as to whether those sorts of people are better equipped to then talk about the more meaningful stuff, the more important stuff? Any of you, any thoughts on that?

Speaker D: 00:10:31

I know, yeah, knowing Nick's family quite well, they're very good at arguing, but not necessarily arguing about picking the right arguments. So they're very good at the retrological, to borrow a term from beautiful data, beautiful information, the retrological tools and mechanisms in using conversation to win each point, in like a debate. So debating is a sort of art form in forming arguments and using rhetoric to defeat your opponents point by point. That doesn't necessarily mean you're arguing in a useful way, it just means you're beating somebody. So there's that form of competitive discussion, which doesn't necessarily get you any further in understanding things, it just means that you're honing a particular skill.

Speaker B: 00:11:28

No, you're absolutely right. And I would draw an analogy here between the way that I think people ought to play board games. And when I say ought to, I mean, I don't mean sort of morally, but I mean, ought to, to have the most fun, which is everyone should play like they really want to win. Otherwise, there's no point, right? The whole point of a board game is boring if you're not trying to win, right? But you shouldn't actually care. And I feel like that's, you know, I really enjoy arguing to win an argument, to find the flaw in an opponent's argument, or, you know, to discover that your own argument is rubbish and to sort of fold it up and say, all right, well, you've got me here. It's fun. But I don't care. I don't care about winning. It's exactly the same as how I play board games. But that's probably because I don't really have anything I need to

Speaker A: 00:12:18

address. I don't have anything serious I need to worry about. I think that's quite a potentially self-centered way of looking at it, right? Because, Nick, I find myself quite frustrated with talking with you sometimes. And the reason why is because I think you're really good at arguing, okay? And I pretty much never win an argument with you. You're way better at it than me. And so although it's great that you like to argue, and sort of knocking these ideas about, it can be really frustrating, because I never bloody win. And I'm never right. So...

Speaker D: 00:12:48

This is turning into be a really useful group session, actually.

Speaker B: 00:12:52

No, no, I mean, the thing is that what you're saying, it doesn't surprise me at all. I know that. And I'm not sure what to do about it. The problem is, it's remembering that there are different cultures, and that other people just don't play by those rules. Just like in a board game. I know you like board games. We're not as big into it as I am. But some people will not engage with them at all, because they don't like what looks to them like competitiveness. Like some people don't like the idea that they're supposed to try and beat other people. And they really don't like playing board games. And that's just a different culture. Like it's not better or worse. They're two different ways of engaging with things. I want to bring in Sara. Before I do,

Speaker A: 00:13:32

I've had an idea, Nick, rather than sort of what you should do is continue with that style. But every now and again, what you should do is just really go for it. And then just go, Oh, no, you're right, Fraser. And so just let me have one every now and again. I just accepted that you were right. What more do you want? Yeah, there we go. It's already working. And Sara, I don't

Speaker C: 00:13:50

want to bring you in. Any thoughts? No, I just think it comes down to the type of argument. You can have a healthy argument. You can have a toxic argument. And it usually depends on who you're having the argument with or about. And the other thing I think of when if I'm in an argument is, how am I perceiving it? Am I perceiving the argument to be a bit of a threat to me? Or is it a moment of growth, like when I can learn something from it? For the most part, it just really depends on who I'm arguing with. If I'm arguing with my husband, he's very similar to Nick, and I just kind of withdraw. And most of the time, I actually find it exhausting. I just want it to be over with. Whether I'm not right or wrong. I'm just kind of like, Oh, this is exhausting.

Speaker A: 00:14:32

I'm done now. Well, there's another element we haven't talked about here, which is the maybe emotions as well. Because, you know, I don't like having arguments with my wife, just because she starts crying. And it's a physical beating, rather than a verbal abuse. And it's just like, Oh, no, I don't want to, you know, it's just I just can't deal with this. Like, can we not have just a discussion without emotions coming into it? Or is that really sort of unfair and just horrible

Speaker D: 00:15:03

of me? I don't know. It might be the way you're going about it, Fraser. If you're resorting to sort of ad hominem attacks all the time, then she might be reacting completely rationally. And emotions are acting as a sort of defense mechanism at that point. But there are ways of facilitating people who are not used to two sort of dialectic conversations. But you have to be you have to work very hard. I like to try and make all my conversations with anybody, a sort of information exchange, you know, it's not transactional, and completely lacking emotion. But I want, I talk to people, because usually I want to find something else, something else out about them, or something that they might know. So I asked

Speaker B: 00:15:49

some questions. Hello, fellow human, would you like to engage information exchange protocol?

Speaker D: 00:15:55

Well, yes. You just but you have to be the design and execution of that protocol, you have to be careful, then you have to tune it depending on who you're talking to. So I can talk to Nick, in a very different way that I can talk to members of my family or my girlfriend, they, they, they, they see confrontations of intellectual confrontation, and they take it as a threat. And they often take that personally. And then they drag the conversation in a sort of ad hominem direction and start sort of trying to undermine me rather than my argument. So at that point, it breaks down. The way I try to facilitate conversations is ensuring that the way I think about the way I express everything carefully, and so that I can express things in a way that they can't take as being a personal attack. So rather than saying, why do you believe that? I'll ask, okay, that's interesting. What has led you to believe that? Tell a story about it? Yeah.

Speaker A: 00:16:56

Yeah, we're close to needing to be wrapping up. But again, I've just realized something else of which I'm the victim of being the worst of two worlds, which is that I'm super competitive. I'm really competitive. But I'm also really rubbish at arguing. And so it's, yeah, I'm just losing arguments all the times I'm arguing, you know, I really want to win them, but I'm losing

Speaker D: 00:17:18

inadequate, the worst of all worlds.

Speaker B: 00:17:20

Well, I cheat by being right most of the time. So that's my secret. The secret of success is just making sure you've actually you actually have reasons to believe the things you're saying. And then you can usually back them up. So that's the top tip.

Speaker A: 00:17:35

I once worked with a person, obviously, it was a very nice chap, but he used to love to get into an argument. And what I realized, actually, it wasn't that he was good at arguing or liked arguing, all he liked doing was disagreeing. So you'd having a chat or a discussion about something or an argument, and just everything, every single thing you said, he would just disagree with. The contrarian. Yeah. And that was just irritating, actually, after a while. Okay, so look, yes, we've still got a little bit to go.

Speaker B: 00:18:00

I think there's something worth mentioning in this context, actually, just to do with family culture, which I was thinking about something that we bring it we sort of bring up every so often, because it's really useful way of thinking about sort of group culture, but which is the relational models theory, which is basically describes different, like fundamentally different models for how groups can interrelate. And there are sort of basically four. So you have what that have been identified, I think, you know, so I think this is an empirical rather than a theoretical division, that you have communal sharing, which is where no one really keeps track of who's consuming what or who's doing what you all just pitch in and do stuff. And the there is an assumption that everyone will, will sort of do that do the same thing, but no one's keeping score. Then you have authority ranking, which is sort of essentially that the higher ups give you resources. That's generally how firms work. The higher ups have a legitimate power over you, which everyone accepts. And, you know, they give you stuff and you get what you're given sort of thing. Then you have equality matching, which is, you know, where you are keeping score, and it's much more transactional. And it's, you know, well, I do the washing up on Mondays, and so you have to do it on Tuesdays. I'll do the ironing, you do the washing kind of thing, where it's much more explicit. And then finally have market pricing. And it seems to me that well, that there are lots of problems. Problem of one is when you try when you have when you have, you can't have two of these models at once, right? So you've got the classic problem where I mean, I come from a an equality matching family, my family very like, you know, when they lend each other money, they really pay it back on, you know, and will make sure that that happens. And it's just the way that things work. ROS comes from a communal sharing family. So, you know, that the problem there comes because I sort of think, well, I would like to be told what my responsibilities are, I'd like to be told, okay, well, you're washing the I do the bathroom on Saturdays. And I just know that is in a list. Ros thinks that's absurd, and thinks I should just do stuff. And that, that is a sort of microcosm of, you know, that, that, that really, that's, that's really it like, and, and that distinction, which, you know, to me, I don't have any problem with being told these are your responsibilities. But but she, she thinks that that's that in itself, asking to do that is problematic, a bit, it'll be a bit like, if I offered to pay her to do the to do the housework or something, it'd be like a completely inappropriate relational model to bring into, you know, the the family. So, yeah, and I think listening to just the it sounded to me like Sarah's family might, might be a bit more of an authority ranking type deal. If your if your dad is like the head of the household, you know, and my family is sort of equality matching. And the kinds of problems you can imagine emerging from those different, different models are probably unique to those models. So in a communal sharing situation, you're going to get a tragedy of the commons. Yeah, probably everyone will borrow money from everyone else. And suddenly no one will have any

Speaker D: 00:21:18

no one will do the washing. Yeah, there'll be freeloaders. Everyone's exact. Well, actually,

Speaker B: 00:21:23

well, free riding is a problem for equality matching. So that's, that's like, that's what you're looking out for. If someone is taking the piss, and it's equality matching in a communal sharing, no one's keeping score. So you don't notice, you know, but everyone has, everyone has just eaten all the cake and not done the washing up. Whereas with equality matching in my family, the arguments would be about Oh, has someone done their fair share? Are we keeping score, you know, an authority ranking, it would be more a challenge to authority, you know, that you don't think that your dad is the legitimate head of the household. And, you know, actually, you should have more of this stuff. And, you know, you've eaten his cake. So yeah, anyway, I thought I think it's

Speaker C: 00:22:01

quite interesting model to think about families. My parents are separated. So my dad was the authoritative figure. But in my mom's household, it was more like the communal sharing, but it was more as you've described, especially between me and my sisters. Well, I've done this, it's your turn to do that. So I think it depends. It was always situation like dependent. So even though dad was essentially the head of the family, like the family unit, when my parents separated, and he still was, the dynamic shifted, especially in our household, because mom had two, two young girls to contend with, who also like to play up and not do what they were told. So I think it's a match.

Speaker A: 00:22:40

Very interesting. Okay. So we need to we need to stop there. Is there anything we want to finish

Speaker C: 00:22:45

this off on? I would just like just to say, I think it's a good idea for our families not to listen to this. I don't think I want my family hearing it at all, just putting it out there.

Speaker B: 00:22:57

My family knows all of this. We're very highly aware.

Speaker A: 00:23:04

Yeah, I mean, I don't know how I'm going to make that happen, though, because my wife's just she's an avid listener to these things. I just don't know how I'm going to stop her from listening to this one episode. So harking back to a different episode, I'm gonna have to make a good excuse for that one. Okay, so let's stop there. Let's wrap up on that. Thank you, as always, for listening to the Cognitive Engineering Podcast. I'm Fraser McGruer. We've been here with Sara Nonu, Peter Coghill, and Nick Hare of Aleph Insights. And until next time, goodbye.