Arguing & Complaining

Arguments and disagreements often don't work out all that well. Even if to you your point is painstakingly as clear as day and is irrefutable, this rarely ever means that somebody else will also see it that way. Of course a lot of people can have minor disagreements and get on with things soon after, but this is far from the case all of the time. Siblings shun each other and vow never to speak again, marriages end as a result of constant bickering and on a more grand level, political hostilities can be fuelled by disagreements and failed negotiations. One probable reason arguments so often seem doomed is because people can be very easily offended and if anything they stand for is challenged or questioned, they decide to go on the offensive. Few of us like being directly challenged and one can often feel hostile because of it.

However, this alone doesn't seem to explain what is going on with our failed and frustrating discussions and disagreements. What I (and many others) suggest is that there is a more fundamental and powerful reason; individuals tend to approach arguments in a magnificently biased manner and typically we aren't aware of this. For want of a better saying, when we jump into arguments we can't see the wood for the trees, we don't realise that our perception is massively biased by our own personal beliefs and motivation to prove ourselves right. This blog discusses some of the ways in which we act so biased and why it is problematic.

When we assess others points of view we are strongly influenced by our beliefs. A US study by Cohen (2003) nicely underlines this tendency and hints at how this might become problematic. The researchers took students who were either supporters of the Democratic or Republican parties.Democrats and Republicans have rather divergent policies and belief systems about how to govern. Using a cover story, the researchers then had the participants read a news story concerning proposed welfare cuts and manipulated the newspaper to lead participants to believe one of two things: either the cuts were proposed by the Democratic party or the Republican party. Shortly afterwards, the researchers then asked participants to indicate whether they thought the policy was a good idea or whether they opposed it.

The effects were very clear. If participants believed that the policy came from their opposing party, they tended to disagree strongly with the policy. But if they were led to believe it was in fact their party, they thought the policy was a great idea. Participants' opinions were being shaped not by the relative credits of the policy, but by their perception of whether it came from someone on 'their side' or the opposition. What this study suggests is that we tend to be very biased when evaluating our opponents views or suggestions. Even if an opponent puts together a great argument, we have a tendency to evaluate it in a more negative way than perhaps it should be. Yet, our bias doesn't stop at argument evaluation, we also seem to try and ignore arguments and evidence that counter our beliefs.

Frey & Stahlberg (1986) report a clever study in which they gave participants a mock IQ test and then led some participants to believe that they had scored rather dismally or very well on the test. The interesting part is what they did next: they set the experiment up so that participants could later peruse newspaper articles about how reliable or valid IQ tests are. Some articles championed the IQ test, others questioned their reliability. The researchers timed how long participants spent looking at the different articles. If participants had been led to believe they'd done badly, they then spent far more time reading articles that suggested IQ tests aren't great measures of intelligence after all. Thus, it appears as though we tend to search for and pay more attention to information and evidence that bolsters our views. If it doesn't, it seems a lot easier to turn a blind eye. If on

e is aware of this tendency, what can be done? Perhaps we should spend more time consciously looking for information that counters our arguments rather than confirm them, if we really want to gain anything from debates and discussions.

You get into an argument with a house mate and you suggest that you take the rubbish out all the time inthe house. Furthermore, you can easily recount many instances of you doing so. Yet, when confronted, he/she doesn't seem to take to this very well and suggests otherwise. What is going on? It may well be that your 'belief bias' filter is acting on memory. If we are arguing for one proposition, memories that support this idea can spring to mind very easily as memory can be belief or desire driven. For example, in a study by Sanitioso et al. (1990) some participants were led to believe that individuals high in the characteristic of extroversion (being socially outgoing) are more likely to be successful in life. After this, participants were then asked to recall memories of their past behaviour in order to help the researcher determine whether they were extroverted or introverted. The result? Driven by the desire to view oneself as an extrovert, participants were far more likely to recall memories of extroverted like behaviours. Who doesn't want to succeed in life?

The heat of arguments can also be problematic. The ease with which we find confirmatory information for a point of view seems to be very important in whether we decide that point of view holds any validity, perhaps even more important than the amount of evidence. Some classic, yet seemingly paradoxical studies by Schwarz et al. (1991) underline this well. Here participants are asked to either list 6 or 12 examples that would confirm an argument. For example, it could be 6 or 12 examples of generous thing you did in the last week. With this information you could then conclude whether you really are all that generous. What happens here is that participants in the 6 example group can come up with these 6 examples fairly quickly. Whereas the 12 examples group have to think harder for all of their examples and might fall short at 10 and then give up.

What happens when each group later judge whether they are generous? Even though the 12 example group might have more examples of generosity in the last week than the 6 example group, because they found it more difficult, they would be less convinced of their generosity. This of course seems slightly illogical, as the 12 example group actually possess more evidence for their generosity. It appears as though the ease at which information springs to mind is important in shaping how valid we believe our arguments to be. Thus, when we are arguing and actively searching for information that supports our beliefs (good old belief bias), evidence can easily be found, and this results in us becoming even more swayed into believing our point of view is definitely the correct one. The only problem is that everybody else believes that too.

What these studies suggest is that when we find ourselves in arguments we probably don't treat others points of views and arguments fairly or objectively. We favour our own and reason in a biased way. We seem to lack perspective and generally appear to believe that our perception of reality is right. Yet, this obviously can't always be true, as everybody must be wrong sometimes. Perhaps we need to be more forthcoming in deliberately attempting to take other persons' perspectives, or consciously search for reasons as to why our view point might be flawed. Perhaps if we all did this it would be easier to meet in the middle. Although this is all probably easier said than done, there is evidence that individuals with a tendency to take others' points of view (perspective takers), do tend to have better social relations (Davis, 1983). Yet, perspectives may not be enough - if we want to settle disputes or get to the truth we really must be aware of our overwhelmingly strong biases and blind spots.

A final point of consideration is whether we should find ourselves in arguments to start with. Constant arguments can damage friendships or relationships. Companionship is good for many reasons and we all like our friends. Furthermore, science backs this up – feelings of social connectedness are associated with all sorts of important things, like life satisfaction, happiness and even our physical and mental health. In addition, the common myth that a good argument can 'get it all out of our systems' through some form of catharsis is extremely questionable. So perhaps we should be choosing our arguments and complaints more wisely. Some issues are of importance, and long lasting positive changes can occur as a result of discussion. Yet, so often they don't. Awareness of whether new or old ground is being covered is probably of importance. For example, if we hear ourselves having the same arguments with friends or partners, it seems unlikely things are going to change any time soon, as surely they would have previously? If a friend is constantly letting us down, should we continue to complain ? Or should we reconsider whether it is wise to continue to put ourselves out there to be let down by them again?

Application

Don't argue about anything. Let it all boil up inside and then eventually go absolutely insane.

Or, try and be aware of the pitfalls of complaints, disputes and arguments and be a more reasoned and all around good person.

Don't continue to have the same complaints about horrific boyfriends or terrible friends. Ditch them, forget about it, move on. Find better ones. Join a salsa class.