Talking Across

Today, I got into an argument with one of my friends over an issue. The content is not of much concern to me, since such arguments can arise over just about any issue. The main issue is that it is sometimes possible to engage in talking across (or what I somewhat inaccurately term "parallel arguments") to the extent that it becomes impossible to reach a favorable conclusion even when both parties in the argument are already agreeing with the main points of an argument.

The conclusion of such a situation is often a stalemate, with both parties agreeing in principle on the main thrust of the argument but with either or both sides vehemently refusing to accept this agreement by virtue that either or both sides harbor views that run contrary to either party's idea of complete acceptance. In short, it is an unwillingness to compromise even peripheral points.

This seemingly irrational approach is so precisely because irrationality is thrown into the mix. Specifically, someone got pissed. It surprises me how easily one can inadvertently push the buttons of another in the course of sensible discussions, causing them to degrade into such parallel arguments, where passions prevent agreement where it would have been obvious in less emotionally tainted scenarios.

The challenge, it seems, is to know which buttons each individual has, and to avoid pressing them in the first place. Easier said than done, since besides the obvious ones like being overly aggressive or outright rude, people do tend to have their personal niggles. A more tenable solution, perhaps, would be to find ways to un-press those buttons. The most effective general purpose solution seems to be disengaging for sufficient time such that the other party manages to cool down, without becoming angrier about being ignored. However, it does seem certain that there are more...elegant methods in existence.