Arguing the Point

Where I work we had a crisis in progress. One of our pieces of equipment wasn't working. It had to be fixed. The problem, however, was vague. It could be that the hardware itself had a problem. It could be that the firmware running the hardware could be faulty. Or it could be that the software running the system had an error. So I gathered the firmware and hardware engineers (I'm the software guy) to have us each take a look and see what we could find. It didn't take long at all, unfortunately, to figure out that the hardware guy was not particularly interested in looking at the hardware. "It worked when I designed it. It can't be the hardware." It took a little longer to figure out the real point. "If it turns out that the hardware is defective, that will reflect poorly on me, so I'm not going to allow for that possibility." As a result, any discussion about hardware was pointless. While I thought we were discussing possibilities which included hardware, it turned out that we were actually discussing this engineer's ability to do his job. And that wasn't the point at all.

I don't really know how often this scenario plays itself out in day-to-day existence, but it is my suspicion that it is far more common than most of us realize. And it extends to almost anything you'd care to discuss. Many Christians will argue, for instance, that Evolution cannot be true, not because they have a problem with the science, but because they realize that Evolution is diametrically opposed to Christianity (theism) and, therefore, push back on Evolution to defend Christianity. Many atheists will argue for Evolution for similar reasons. They couldn't actually tell you what it was that convinced them that it was true. They can't actually give the logic train or pile of evidence that proved it to them. It's just that a pre-commitment to a naturalistic paradigm requires that they, out of hand, reject Christianity in favor of ... anti-Christianity. If they give in on Evolution, they're stuck with theism, and that just won't do.

Those are just examples. You'll find it in discussions on politics, religion, sex, or whether or not the hardware is broken. You'll find it anywhere you turn. The other day I asked a contractor working on our building if he would install the required electrical connections that were called for. His response was defensive. "Well, I just didn't know where you needed them and I didn't trust the drawings and ..." My request wasn't an attack. It was simply a notification. But if he admitted that he hadn't done his job yet, he would be admitting, at least in his mind, that he wasn't doing his job. Of course, not being privy to this private conversation going on in his mind, I was baffled at first at his response. "No, no rush. No, not complaining. No, I don't have a problem with the fact that it hasn't been put in yet." I had to back pedal all over the place to get around to, "Yes, we'll be putting that in sometime in the near future." That was all I wanted. So you'll find this everywhere.

It's hard to avoid, actually. The truth is, most of us do it some time or another. "If I admit that I made a mistake, it will reflect badly on me and that's not acceptable, so I won't admit to the error." "If I agree that he has a point about that biblical passage, it will bring down several of my positions. Rather than allow for that, I'll have to argue against that point." "Sure, she's just telling me that the on ramp is coming up, but I feel like she's telling me that I'm not a reliable driver, so this will be an argument." So I can't fix that. All I'm hoping for here is to 1) make you aware that you might be doing it like all of us do, and 2) make you aware that some of the debates in which you engage seem to be about A, but are actually about an unspoken B. Perhaps, if you tune your ear a bit, you can recognize it. And if you recognize it, perhaps that will help reshape the discussion to what the actual point is rather than the point you thought you were arguing, whether it's your underlying point or theirs.