You are searching about Conversations With My 2 Year Old I M The Boss, today we will share with you article about Conversations With My 2 Year Old I M The Boss was compiled and edited by our team from many sources on the internet. Hope this article on the topic Conversations With My 2 Year Old I M The Boss is useful to you.

Self-Sealing Arguments and Learning to Fight Fair

Reasonable fallacy especially powerful in arguments of

personal beliefs, ideologies or worldviews are the

a self-serving argument. Self-sealing arguments take

positions that no evidence can possibly refute. During this

may seem attractive, and a good way to win any argument,

self-sealing arguments are both useless and possible

harmful to relationships.

One of the most common forms of self-sealing

arguments assert that the other person is not sophisticated

enough or learned enough to understand the concept being

argued It is evident in the following conversation:

John: All families are dysfunctional.

Mike: My family was not dysfunctional. I had a good one

childhood

John: That just shows how dysfunctional it was. You are in

no

Mike: I don’t deny it. It was good.

John: You are in too much denial. You’re just too dysfunctional for

see how dysfunctional your family was.

No matter what argument Mike offers, John will use it as

“proof” of his point. Self-sealing arguments often center on

personal beliefs, attributes or attitudes. The arguer – John,

in this example — for some personal reason sets himself up

as the expert, the one who knows, and Mike is relegated to

the inferior position. Nothing Mike can say yes to

disprove John’s position. Just try. John will tell you that you are

wrong!

Carolyn, her mother, and two sisters appeared on a

television talk show as an example of an estranged family.

All four of them agreed they were upset and angry

each other for many years.

Carolyn told of many instances when her sisters did not cope

she lovingly or justly. She was angry with her mother for

taking her sisters side in disputes and not supporting her.

Meanwhile Carolyn’s mother and sisters agreed things

didn’t always go well for Carolyn. She was hard to be

around, and they didn’t spend much time with her. Hers

mother kept trying to say that she did love Carolyn, did want to

relationship with her, but Carolyn rejected her advances.

Then the show manager suggested that Carolyn come and sit closer

to her mother, rather than on the edge of the set. Caroline

jumped up and shouted, “They do it just because

we are on tv They don’t really love me. she says she does

but she doesn’t.”

Looking at Carolyn was very painful. She didn’t just say no

she was loved, but it looked as if she felt unloved. She didn’t

want to stop being angry She wanted to get even with her

family for what they did, not to get over the past hurts

they all experienced.

Carolyn’s self-sealing logic kept her stuck. It doesn’t matter what

her family members said, or anyone else said, she

interpreted it as, “They don’t love me. They don’t care about

me.” Nothing they did or said could change her mind.

Whatever they said wasn’t the right thing, they didn’t do it

means it, or most repeatedly, things should have been

different or better many years ago, so nothing can be done

today to improve it.

Carolyn was stuck on getting even rather than putting

the problems behind them. She wanted her family

limbs hurt as much as she hurt. She used

her interpretations of their behavior to support her pain.

Logicians call impersonation an ad hominem argument

fallacy, or attack the person, not the argument.

As a child psychologist, Leon often testifies as an expert witness

witness in child custody cases. He’s used to being tough

examinations of lawyers who fight for the rights of their clients

and goals. Sometimes those lawyers seem to attack

him personally, his credentials, or his goals for the

case After one particularly stressful trial,

Leon’s young companion asked him why he smiled when he

was so brutally attacked by one of the lawyers.

“Simple,” Leo replied. “When they start attacking me, I

know that I won. There is nothing I said that they can disagree with

with.”

Leo had learned this when the attacks happened

personal, there was nothing else that could be attacked.

His work was unassailable. So they had to go after

he personally Attacking the person is the fallback position

of a fighter who must win at any cost and knows he is

losing

Facing such an argument is really frustrating.

Nothing you can say will be accepted as proof that you

right Everything you say can and will be twisted

provide further proof that your opponent is right. Even wearing

about a conversation with someone who self-seals is a

true judgment No matter what you say, your words prove that they are

exactly

One of your best responses might be to say, “If you

argument is valid, it should be able to predict what will or

won’t happen If it can’t be used for predictions, then it really is

says nothing Think of a specific example so we can

talk about it.” They will usually walk away or demand you

are not smart enough to see it. Just smile at this point. you

got them

Or if you want to get out of argument mode, just say, “I

don’t buy it. I don’t believe that all families are dysfunctional. We

don’t see eye to eye on this one.”

Self-sealing arguments sometimes occur when one

a person takes an idiosyncratic view of a thing and then

arbitrarily removes or avoids another’s position because

it is different. Again, no matter what you say, they won’t

agree and will say you are wrong.

What passes for conventional wisdom, or the worst of

stereotyped thinking, can be self-sealing arguments.

“Everyone knows that Latinas are great lovers,” or “Women can’t

be counted as leaders because they are unreliable

several days a month,” or “All men are only interested in one

thing.” When people really believe these statements are

“truth and reality, as the world really is,” does not exist

amount of evidence that will change their minds.

Howard missed an important meeting and lost face with

his boss He was furious with Elaine, his administrative support

a person He said she didn’t give him the message. She

said she had He said she was a liar. Howard had not

the message and Elaine could not produce the piece of

paper with the message on it. That’s why Elaine lied.

When Elaine tried to explain, she sent him an email

message with the information, Howard answered that email

didn’t count Everyone knew email wasn’t real

communication

Howard and Elaine were part of a working group that was

spread over several buildings over eighteen acres. The

group agreed to use email for important programming

messages rather than physically tracking each other

down Howard was not the only one who did not like the

to change, but he was the only one who would not use the new one

system He would only use “real communication”– in writing

paper or spoken in person.

No matter what Elaine said, Howard claimed he was

right and she was to blame for his missing the

appointment His definition of notification did not include

what did she do to let him know. Throwing away email

because not true communication, he could tell she was wrong

using it, and does not have to admit that he was wrong in not using it.

With self-sealing arguments, anything that happens will be

to prove a point, so the position loses its ability to predict what

can and/or will happen. Logicians call such

arguments empty, or empty. They are a form of logic

fallacy, or logical fallacy.

Self-sealing positions are difficult to refute and argue

around They often take the zeal of a religious or

political argument and serve as sounding boards for a point

of view, rather than representing any attempt to engage in

discussion or dialogue. It is often more effective to declare

what happens, to face the process of the interaction,

rather than trying to change someone’s position or to

influence their thinking.

This becomes an example of knowing when to count

your losses and stop playing the game. The only way

“to win” is to stop playing.

Conflict is inevitable. We will always have differences with

our loved ones, friends and colleagues. It does not have

arguments that is the problem, but how we argue that is

difficult Arguing can bring people closer together and increase the respect they have for each other and for themselves. Or it can drive a wedge between people,

pushing them farther and even destroying theirs

relationships

When we focus on winning at any cost, overwhelming

another person, it is easy to slip into logical errors, problems

with defining our positions clearly, or not even using

accurate data to support our positions.

By understanding the types of logical fallacies we can

do in the heat of argument, we can refocus the

issues, clarify our positions, and come to a better solution

of the things that separate us.

Video about Conversations With My 2 Year Old I M The Boss

You can see more content about Conversations With My 2 Year Old I M The Boss on our youtube channel: Click Here

Question about Conversations With My 2 Year Old I M The Boss

If you have any questions about Conversations With My 2 Year Old I M The Boss, please let us know, all your questions or suggestions will help us improve in the following articles!

The article Conversations With My 2 Year Old I M The Boss was compiled by me and my team from many sources. If you find the article Conversations With My 2 Year Old I M The Boss helpful to you, please support the team Like or Share!

Rate Articles Conversations With My 2 Year Old I M The Boss

Rate: 4-5 stars
Ratings: 1230
Views: 14273063

Search keywords Conversations With My 2 Year Old I M The Boss

Conversations With My 2 Year Old I M The Boss
way Conversations With My 2 Year Old I M The Boss
tutorial Conversations With My 2 Year Old I M The Boss
Conversations With My 2 Year Old I M The Boss free
#SelfSealing #Arguments #Learning #Fight #Fair

Source: https://ezinearticles.com/?Self-Sealing-Arguments-and-Learning-to-Fight-Fair&id=120630