Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.
Matthew 5
Yes, this post will somewhat lack direction.
The Happy Warriors and the Wolves.
People who like to argue provoking an introvert into arguing. . . as seen by the introvert.
I don't like arguing. It's one of the constant ironies of my profession in relation to me.
I'm really good at arguing. I always have been. I didn't intend to make it my living, that's for sure. It was an accident that it ended up part of rice bowl really. I hadn't intended to go into litigation, but when I was in my last year of law school I clerked at a firm that did litigation and now, 32 years later, that's where I still am.
I learned to argue at home, but not in heated debates. My home was pretty intellectual and I was the only child. Different parents deal with that differently, but as my parents also came from intellectual homes it was normal to discuss the merits and demerits of a lot of topics.
I'm highly used to arguing professionally, and of course do it all the time. And I can do it on any topic, or at least on any I have knowledge of. On some topics which are open to debate, such as certain historical topics, I do enjoy it. But I don't like argument for argument's sake. And I regard forensic debate, as done in high schools and universities, with absolute contempt.
Indeed, I'll occasionally hear somebody aspiring to be a lawyer, or even who became a lawyer, state that they did it as "I like arguing". That doesn't make you well suited to be a lawyer, it means that you're an asshole.
Professionally, or on the topics which are open to debate and about which I enjoy discussions, I can completely separate myself from the argument. Except where people can't do that, and get personal, mean or petty, I don't leave the courtroom or the discussion angry. Not everyone can do that, however, and I note that some of the people who claim that they "enjoy arguing" cannot.
Indeed, there is a real psychological difference between gregarious arguers and introverted intellectual arguers. I'm highly introverted and when people who like to simply argue on stuff provoke one with me, I normally avoid it completely. If basically cornered on one, however, and forced to argue, I have an Irish temper, and that spills over into arguing.
People think that people with Irish tempers fly suddenly into arguing Not hardly. Rather, they avoid the fight until forced into it. At that point, it's not for fun, it's for blood. At the point where one of the "happy warriors" that I encounter socially finally provokes me into an argument, as they "enjoy arguing" the game hasn't begun for me, as it isn't a game. I never ever argue just for sport, in that context.
Indeed, I have a friend who claims to like arguing and constantly is provoking arguments with about anyone who will argue. This doesn't usually involve me as I'll avoid the conversation. When he's in the lunch room dissing something to provoke an argument or some body of thought, I just leave without joining the fray.
The other day, however it became impossible as I was cornered on a topic. And as I'm really good at arguing, and this wasn't professional, and no separation was possible, I was forced to join the argument.
Provoking such a person into an argument like that is a lot like throwing rocks at wolves. Normally they'll walk away. But if that gives you the idea that they always are going to do so, you are mistaken. If they turn on you, they're going to try to kill you, metaphorically. Such arguers don't believe in allowing the other person to "walk away to fight another day". The battle is on and there will be only one survivor. That's it.
Which is where I'm at in such debates, metaphorically. By the time I was done arguing with the person, I'd not only defeated their argument, I'd left the happy warrior as white as a ghost, broken down, and shaking. And I don't regret it a bit. Join me in an argument for sport and not know your facts, I'm going to destroy you. I'll keep arguing once you try to disengage and I'll leave your argument torn to shreds and your world view messed up.
If you are a happy warrior, i.e. an asshole, leave people who aren't like that alone. We just wondered in here trying to get through the day, not for your sport.
We don't argue for sport.
And here endth that lesson.
Evolutionary Biology and the Argument.
Mother and daughter cooking. They'd probably been arguing before the photo was taken.
I'm constantly and deeply amazed how little attention evolutionary biology gets.
We are right now in a constant swirl of social nonsense which anyone with a modicum of understanding on evolutionary biology could avoid. I'm practically at the point where if a person is going to spout off on any topic, they should have at least had an introductory course on it.
Indeed, the contempt for science, on the right and the left, is simply epic right now. There are entire topics that "conservatives" can't touch right now as they run contrary to science. And the left, which likes to point this out, is at war with evolutionary biology.
It's a tragedy.
And here's where I'll stand to get myself in trouble.
Men and women are radically different, as I've mentioned here before, and one of the things that they are really different in regards to are household arguments.
I don't argue much with my wife. Every married couple. . . lets' make that every couple, argues some. But we don't argue much, which is a good thing of course. In addition, I don't like to argue, and therefore I generally avoid arguments with people if I can.
My wife and daughter, however, argue with each other constantly.
I don't think either one of them grasps how distressing this is to a person who doesn't like arguing, particularly as there's virtually no way not to be involved in their arguments at some level.
I think this is a common feature of household dynamics, and I think its' explained by evolutionary biology. Look it up on the net, however, you'll get a pile of social science crap, most of which isn't scientific in nature whatsoever. Indeed, for such a common occurrence you'll see efforts to blame it on everything other than what it is. Blaming it on men is one such common approach, which is not only non scientific, it's just bullshit social propaganda. I.e., it must be the fault of men as everything is the fault of men.
So, what provokes this part of my post?
I generally stay out of the mother/daughter arguments if I can, including avoiding efforts to be drawn into them. When I can if there's a real point of contest that there's a solution to, or a problem that has caused them, I point it out, and generally the view is accepted. This presumes, however, that you know what the argument is actually about.
Often, you will not.
Indeed, there will be an observation on that below.
My work involves a lot of professional arguing. And as an introvert, my work also has the feature of dealing with people a lot, something that's draining on introverts. At the end of a day, an introvert needs a little down time. I often don't get it.
The other day I didn't, on either score. When I got home, my wife was on the driveway (people can hear my vehicles distinct sounds pretty easily). I thought at first how nice that was, my wife coming to greet me.
Instead, I got in an odd tone, the question "what do you want to do for dinner?"
Now, that's an innocent enough question to be sure. I really didn't have an answer, and I virtually never try to actually dictate a dinner choice. I've given up on that, and after a long day, I don't really have any desire to plan out a dinner. So my answer was something neutral, as in whatever you want is fine.
"I haven't planned anything" was the response, and it was a bit of an agitated one. Now, that's a common response to a conversation that I'd just as soon not have, but which we frequently do.
My wife is one of those people who like to make decisions by presenting endless options. I've posted on that decision making type here before, on our laws of behavior series.
Everyone must make decisions in life, of course. But not everyone has the same decision making style. Some people are highly analytical, others highly instinctive. Some make decisions based on facts, others on emotions. Some make decisions rapidly, while others prefer to deliberate slowly.
But there are some people who actually prefer to have options, rather than make decisions at all. For highly decisive people, these people are aggravating in the extreme.
Chances are high that everyone knows somebody like this. Confronted with the necessity of deciding something, they tend to go to a decisive person and lay out the options. The decisive person will decide. Rather than accept it, the other person will set out 27 more options, and go on and on actually past the point where the other person has committed a decision, with that person usually aggravated in the extreme by that point.
These people like options more than decisions, and are often able to get by on a lot of decisions by not deciding. Somebody else will end up doing it, usually to the declared surprise of the option lover, who doesn't like having options eliminated, and who has added an other 72 options by the time the decisive person forces a commitment.
This is often my wife's approach to decisions. If you are in the opposite camp, and I tend to be, this is a species of torture in some instances, although there are instances in which I will do that myself, particularly on some very serious topics. At any rate, the I haven't planned anything comment drew a second "I want to go out".
That was fine, and was followed by me with a question where to, which was followed by the reply she didn't want to go out, but order in, which I agreed to. This was followed by a comment that we'd saved food she didn't want to waste, which was true. I said that was fine, which was followed by there wasn't enough spaghetti, which is what we'd saved. Then she pointed out there was also a chicken breast that had been saved from the day prior.
At this point there was clearly no way out, so I just said, thinking I was agreeing to what had been noted, that I'd make something with all of those, which was followed by that being an impossibility. I then agreed to cook something, even though I'd done that the day prior after a really long day, which brought back the comment that she didn't want to waste food.
A conversation like this, for a person who is required to make decisions all day long is a special sort of torture. I'd been asked to make a decision, given a range of options, and then told that all of the options were 100% impossible. What's the point of that?
Well, there probably wasn't one. What was really going on was a continuation of some sort of argument about which I'm still unclear, between my wife and daughter. My wife, in frustration, spilled out into the driveway to give me a set of problems because she was upset at my daughter. I vaguely discerned that the conversation had started with one between them on dinner.
This flowed into a conversation in which I tried to draw my daughter out on the question, but she already had her back arched up as well, and it was instantly an argument between the two of them, with me as the unwilling referee. That rapidly expanded into a set of planning demands from my wife, who likes to plan things with precision further out than I conceivably can. I'll tend not to plan things until I know that I can, which must be frustrating for people who like a clear agenda. Indeed, I'm not really big on clear agendas for a lot of things as, over time, I tend to find that my professional life disrupts them.
This went on and on and ultimately I was involved more and more, something that I hate to do, until I was finally engaged. And at that part, I destroyed all of their arguments Teutoburg Forest style and went off to the room where this computer is located, shut the door, and sat by myself.
On their own they came up with a dinner plan and we had that, and a very quiet evening. People, having made me bitterly angry, avoided me, and they probably still should, as I'm still bitterly angry.
What was that argument about?
I don't know, but I don't think it has anything to do with dinner. That would be monumentally stupid.
What I think it has to do is having two closely related women in the same household.
I know that sounds Neanderthal, and that's likely what causes female therapists to claim that the spats between wives and daughters are men's fault, but in looking up mother daughter conflicts, I came up with one comment that I thought absolutely brilliant. Here it is:
mothers and daughters fight from 10 -20 there is nothing you can do about it . unless you are thinking about getting a divorce back up your wife in front of your daughter all the time . have a quiet word to you wife when its just the 2 of you . but if you take your daughters side she will think its ok to fight with your wife .
I think that's right.
That is particularly the case that "mothers and daughters fight from 10-20 there is nothing you can do about it".
But why?
Nature. I.e., I think that's DNA.
In spite of what bullshit sociologist think, women mature much more rapidly and their behavior is radically different from men's. And that impacts their relationship with their children, i.e., boys and girls, much differently.
From about the time they're 13, girls DNA tells them they are women. And it also tells them that they are to be the head of their domestic households. In the Old Testament we find examples of ancient Jews with more than one wife, and almost invariably it ends up being a miserable experience as one woman doesn't like the other and it drives the man nuts. If you can stand to watch the horrible television show Sister Wives, you'll see the same thing at work. Cody Brown must be on the most extensive set of pharmaceuticals imaginable simply to eat breakfast every morning. Brown is a member of some Mormon offshoot that must compel him to such a lifestyle, but the more typical reaction in that circumstances is probably the one portrayed in Paint Your Wagon where the frustrated husband auctions off one of his wives for domestic peace.
That's a different situation, obviously, but the same logic, I think applies. Once a girl hits 13, in her mind she's fully mature and her natural impulses are telling her to run things in regard to herself, and in the house. Those same impulses are at work in her mother. Getting the two to mesh, perfectly, isn't going to happen.
For whatever reason its different with men. Men generally don't try to be head of the domestic household in a family, even if they are very much the head of the family in general. In a tribal society, they're out during the day trying to hunt something, and they have to have cooperation with each other to get that done. Just as too many cooks spoil the broth at home, a lack of teamwork in the field can get you stomped flat.
Additionally, irrespective of what bullshit sociologist wish to believe, men generally have a pretty strong protective instinct and women know this. It's part of the reason that women in combat is a frankly stupid idea. Any man who wont' act to save a woman from harm, if he can, isn't worth his rations, and rank and position have nothing to do with that. It just is.
Women also have a strong nurturing aspect that men lack to the same degree. Almost everyone knows this, in spite of what they might assert. When we find that in men, it's remarkable. Be that as it may, in the domestic household its generally what makes the mother somebody that children turn to with problems, arguments notwithstanding. And this frustrates mothers in regard to their daughters and also strongly ties mothers to their sons.
All this goes back to the tribe and what we were days long gone, maybe even before our current species. And that's what those arguments are about. They aren't about dinner, they're about "this is my tent."
None of which really deals with the complications such things entail or that arguments are serious by nature (except to the aforementioned "I like to argue" crowd). But which partially explains why I have a long day ahead of me and I'm already tired. I love my family, and I like having them all here. One of the tragedies of the modern industrial world is that everyone has to leave home, it seems. I'll be glad when the arguing era stops, which hopefully it will soon.
