To understand why we argue, we need to understand what is Reasoning. Reasoning is consciously applying logic by concluding new or existing information. We do this intending to seek the truth.
Key players in Reasoning are
Consciousness
Logic
Conclusions
Seeking truth
Only when four of these critical features come together can we make perfect Reasoning, or so we are told. But why do humans apply perfect Reasoning in specific scenarios and completely flawed/different Reasoning in some situations?
Over the years, people in Psychology have been trying to understand why Reasoning, in particular, does not work so well. If we analyze Reasoning, it is backed by consciousness, logic, and to seek truth, so reasoning/rationality should help us form new beliefs. But Dan Sperber noticed that psychologists generally don’t challenge the premise that Reasoning helps us in limited scenarios, despite the mounting evidence. This lapse in behavior prompted Dan to think that Reasoning doesn’t have the function of helping us get beliefs. Instead, argumentation is why we use Reasoning.
According to Dan, reasoning evolved for argumentation. And to help us convince other people or to evaluate our arguments. Psychologists have shown that people have a strong confirmation bias. In simpler terms, when people have an idea they start to reason about the idea and convince themselves to the point of no return or deliberation. There appears to be a bias toward their idea, which is confirmed to be very deep-seated. Reasoning aims to form better ideas, how do we get stuck on one preference? For example; when we argue, we don’t think about the next set of arguments for the other side. We think about our next arguments, and that is because we fixate on our idea without reasoning.
Basically, confirmation bias is a part of reasoning. People are good at reasoning to argue better. Coming back to the original question, why do we argue? Our ancient history is a testament to collaborative team efforts getting food together- hunting raising future generations together required communication and reasoning. Reasoning works well in larger groups, where faulty conclusions may be outnumbered. Like in Politics, an ancient way to prove that deliberative democracy works well. A collaborative effort to elect a leader. People deliberate their opinions and agree or disagree, applying reason.
But when we stumble upon personal differences of opinion, we don’t give room to criticism or deliberations. We jump to fend our ideas, which is the issue with arguing or individual reasoning. Individual reasoning may delete the possibility of neutral standpoints and may lead to poor decisions. Haven’t we had an argument that has exhausted us? It feels like a mental war of sorts also; sometimes it takes a while to get over one argument.
Now imagine entering into an argument from this premise that it is just a deliberative reasoning conversation. Where reasoning means to arrive at better results, and no party has to win or lose. Instead, reasoning has to be applied. The mere acceptance and awareness of this fact may change how we enter and exit arguments. It may also change our relationships, and state of mind.
