From: Sunah Caroline Cherwin (slippery@pobox.com)
Date: Sat Aug 16 1997 - 15:24:42 MDT
>>Eric Watt Forste writes:
>>>Many people have the experience (possibly illusory) of being able
>>>to think more clearly, and particularly of being better able to
>>>detect flaws in ideas, when they are in an argumentative frame of
>>>mind. Argument also represents an opportunity to invite other
>>>people to find flaws in one's ideas. Possibly argument is the chief
>>>means by which ideas are improved.
>>
>>The theory needs to be coupled with a theory that explains why it is
>>easier to find flaws in ideas if individual people tie themselves to
>>specific ideas, rather than critiquing ideas one doesn't feel
>>especially tied to.
>
>If ideas serve a role in sexual selection, then an opposing ideas espoused by
>a potential rival is obviously more of a threat than one that is not. Hence
>we may have more motive to find errors in an argumentative setting than
>otherwise, even with a sham rivalry.
>
>Not a theory, but a starting hypothesis.
Some linguists see a male tendency toward argument not as part of
present-day sexual selection, but as legacy code in which
(to put it broadly and generally)
*men* communicate to seek status
(originally for sexual purposes)
and *women* communicate to form connections
(originally a habit that led to fathers and other community members helping
support them and their kids).
I find the styles of argument on the Extropians list not as gendered as on
other lists, but in mailing lists in general (again, broadly) I see support
for this.
--
Sunah Caroline Cherwin + + http://pobox.com/~sunah
Member: HTML Writer's Guild + Member: San Francisco Webgrrls
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:44:44 MST