Being called contentious

[Marduk]

So my sister in law posted a facebook comment about how her boys could be models. She is Japanese, my brother is (obviously) half white (Canadian) half Mexican. She complained that their racial diversity and ambiguity would be their only hindrance.

I pointed out that racial ambiguity was a good thing for models, as studies showed that we often seek someone of our own race who we can identify with in advertising, so being racially ambiguous allows you to appeal to multiple races.

She then asked what studies showed this, and she didn't think it was true. So I linked a few studies to her.

She then complained that she didn't like to argue, and it just led to hurt feelings, and that studies don't convince anyone, but she could easily link studies that said the opposite of what I was suggesting.

I love my sister in law, and this event, although annoying to me, will not even be a blip in our social interacting. But it leads me to my question, as this sort of experience is intensely common for me. It frequently happens that I'll suggest a different point of view, in (my opinion, of course) a very non-threatening manner, and then I am accused of being an arguer, or contentious.

How does one present alternate points of view without being labeled as an arguer?

[Dead Cat]

You could always label yourself as an arguer beforehand so they don't have to.

[UnluckyStuntman]

I have this same problem, Marduk. Bad Astronaut and I will be having some sort of social or political discussion and werf will accuse me of trying to start a fight. For example, a few months ago we were driving to dinner and B.A. was complaining about how people in America were lazy, and that if they only worked hard enough, more people would be able to climb out of poverty and stop relying on welfare (this is a very simplified version of the argument, but it was basically this). Since I happen to have studied a bit about social inequality and poverty (causes, potential solutions, etc.), I cited some studies and theories which suggested that the problem wasn't that simple and that werf's orignal argument failed to address certain (important) variables... etc. Anyway, B.A. got mad at me and now we never talk about that particular subject.

I guess what I'm trying to say, is that when a person makes up their mind about any topic, whether it be modeling or poverty, no amount of calm, rational discussion will sway them and ultimately, they will believe what they want to. Even if you have presented to them all of the evidence in the world which suggests that they may be wrong. I guess it's easier that they label us the contentious ones (or as Bad Astronaut calls me, the "passionate one") than having to re-think their established viewpoints.

So, to answer your question, depending on who you are speaking with (and perhaps how they feel about the topic at hand), you may be seen as contentious no matter how you present it. Which is why certain topics are no longer addressed in my home. Sad.

[Tao]

no amount of calm, rational discussion will sway them and ultimately, they will believe what they want to.

Dr Drew Westen of Emory University (author of "The Political Brain") ran an interesting experiment where he put individuals who identified themselves as either liberal or conservative into an MRI and then proceeded to ask them political questions. Interestingly enough, in both groups the part of the brain that light up was NOT the rational, but rather the emotional parts. Despite the researchers looking at the physical proof that these people were being emotional, not logical, the participants ALL swore that they were being logical and reasonable in their 'thinking.'

Can't seem to link the study itself, here's an interesting article referencing it though.

Also, in light of this, how sure can we be that we really are being calm and rational about things if we are passionate about them?

[thebigcheese]

I think people's reactions will depend on a few factors.

First, how much the given topic resonates with them, how passionate they are about that particular topic, and how it affects their life. Let's say you're having a discussion about the causes of rape. And let's say that you're having that discussion with someone who has been raped. Right or wrong, they probably have a very very strong and unchangeable opinion about it because it has significantly affected their life.

Second, their social skills and how their personality handles disagreements. Some people are very non-confrontational and don't like to disagree. I'm one of those people. If you don't approach me in the right way, I feel like I'm being attacked. In this situation, usually one of two things happens to me: Sometimes I'll get snippy and may even fight back. Sometimes I'll crawl into my shell like a scared turtle.

Third, their understanding of your explanation and their perception of how plausible it seems. If they don't fully understand (or want to understand) your explanation, they will just write you off. They will come up with a hundred thousand reasons why your opinion can't possibly be right. I think this is generally the case with politics and religion.

I also think it's very true that people will ultimately believe what they want to believe, and they will hold on tightly to ANYTHING that reaffirms that belief.

[NerdGirl]

This doesn't answer your question, but it seems to me like you're not the one who was the arguer in this situation. This is how I'm picturing the interaction you just described:
SIL: If my kids weren't multi-racial, they would be cute enough to be models.
You: You know, I've actually heard that multi-racial people make better models! Your kids could totally be models.
SIL: I don't believe that.
You: Well, here's where I heard it.
SIL: STOP PICKING FIGHTS WITH ME!

I think the problem is not limited to your side of the interaction.

[Dragon Lady]

Ok, I may be way off base here, but here's my theory. It's not so much how you approach the topic that labels you an arguer, but how often you do so. I have a friend that I chatted with often. We had a great time chatting. We both realized that the other was decently good at debating, so our conversations naturally turned more and more towards controversial topics. When I realized that, I tried to back away. I had had many relationships turn sour because of constant debate. Here and there it's fine, but all the time is damaging (at least for me). But he kept going. Almost every conversation I'd say something that he'd refute and we'd end up in a debate. I got really, really sick of it. I finally had to stop one time and say, "Listen. I'm sick of this. Can we please have a conversation in which we don't argue?" Which, of course, turned into another argument. We stopped chatting as much, which made me very sad, because I had enjoyed our chats, and to this day, though we chat frequently enough, it's typically about "safe" topics, which means our conversations rarely get much depth.

So, point of the story is… how often do you point out conflicting views? In here it's quite often. Is it the same in your real life? If so, I'm guessing that's why you're labeled as an arguer. Because as soon as you open your mouth, no matter what is about to come out of it, people who know you will put up their defenses, because they expect that you're about to argue.

Does that make sense?

[krebscout]

Poking fun at oneself - or not taking oneself so seriously - always seems to make equivocal comments more benign. That might not be everybody's style, though.

[Darth Fedora]

I think it just comes down to social awareness: When you start to perceive that the other person is becoming heated or uncomfortable, if you really don't want to be labeled contentious, you have to either back down or change the subject. Marduk, I'm guessing that sometimes you might prioritize accuracy in argument over social comfort (which totally is fine!). There are definitely some issues you really shouldn't back down on, but avoiding the 'argumentative' label involves being willing to back down (even when you're right) at least some of the time, if not most of the time.

[Dragon Lady]

I think it just comes down to social awareness: When you start to perceive that the other person is becoming heated or uncomfortable, if you really don't want to be labeled contentious, you have to either back down or change the subject. Marduk, I'm guessing that sometimes you might prioritize accuracy in argument over social comfort (which totally is fine!). There are definitely some issues you really shouldn't back down on, but avoiding the 'argumentative' label involves being willing to back down (even when you're right) at least some of the time, if not most of the time.

Agreed.

[thebigcheese]

So, point of the story is… how often do you point out conflicting views? In here it's quite often. Is it the same in your real life? If so, I'm guessing that's why you're labeled as an arguer.

I would have to agree.

[TheAnswerIs42]

Just as a side note, I don't think this particular one was Marduk's doing, really. My honest guess is that there is something else preventing her kids from being models (they weren't selected, she doesn't have time or know how to get them started, or she really doesn't want to do it), and it was just easier for her to pin it on something else entirely. Something outside of her control. You took away her excuse, and that made her lash out a bit.

So that goes back to what people said about emotions being involved in why they believe something. Sometimes you just have to realize that people need their beliefs, even if they are utterly wrong. You can try to make your point, but they will just get mad and push it out of their mind quickly.

[thebigcheese]

Yes, it's probably good to clarify a bit. In this particular case, it sounds like Marduk was simply the victim of someone overreacting. But generally speaking, it seems that he enjoys debates far more than the average person.

Oh, and I just thought of one other thing--if you are constantly offering alternative perspectives on everything, you may be frequently and unintentionally sending the message that the other person is wrong. In that case, the solution is probably to try harder in validating others' opinions. Not everybody is interested in the ultimate scientific truth all the time. Sometimes people just like to be validated.

(And on that note, see here: Validation)

[Imogen]

just validate you more marduk, when i was considering being a professional actress, my adviser (who is a professional director) told me my ethnic ambiguity would be a huge asset because it opened up the possibility of more jobs for me.

[Wisteria]

I'm with Dragon Lady, thebigcheese, et al. Like a lot of people on here, I know a lot of random facts and I'm a scientist. This makes me skeptical sometimes and it makes me more inclined to question statements that people just throw out there that sound sketchy or inaccurate. However, I consciously refrain from adding my point of view to a lot of conversations because I'm learning how to feel out a vibe of whether or not it would lead to a productive conversation or whether it would be more like "I'm right and here's why- haha!" because no one likes to spend time with people who are always correcting them or challenging their points of view, even when it ends up being true or better than what they were doing. A lot of it has to do with how one goes about addressing the fallacies. And picking battles.

[Emiliana]

I thought about this conversation last night when I wound up in an almost-argument with my ... um ... well, the young man with whom my relationship is ambiguous. We were discussing over gchat the theological importance of Christmas, of all things, which is a ridiculous thing for us to almost get mad at each other over. But here are a few things that I thought of:

1. Whether a comment comes across as argumentative or simply informative has to do with the emotions that both parties have wrapped up in the subject. While I'm sure you love your nephews, you aren't as heavily emotionally invested in them as your sister-in-law is. It's possible that she's sensitive about her kids' ethnic ambiguity because she's afraid they'll face discrimination of some sort. If you're telling her she's wrong about one aspect of that, she might feel like her worldview is under attack. I'm inclined to think she's wrong, but you can't always fix that.
2. Sometimes people just want to talk. They don't want you to offer a solution, they just want to tell you about it. Why? I don't know. But sometimes people are just like that, and it's annoying when people try to offer solutions when that's not really what you want.
3. When it comes to potentially sensitive topics, sometimes it's hard to communicate over the internet. It's hard to pick up on when you've hit on something the other person just doesn't want to talk about, so you don't always know when to back off. If this conversation had happened in person, she might have shrugged her shoulders and changed the subject, and you would have been able to tell she wasn't interested in discussing it further.

[Katya]

How does one present alternate points of view without being labeled as an arguer?

Based on this anecdote (and what I know of you from this forum), I think you're someone who likes to take a logical, fact-based approach to the world. Not everyone is the same way (as I'm sure you've noticed) and not everyone likes interacting with such people, although some people crave that sort of interaction.

I've heard what Tao said in other contexts—that there are certain topics that people tend to approach emotionally and others that they tend to approach rationally. (And there are certain people who tend to approach more of their life rationally and others who approach more of their life emotionally.)

I think the question you have to ask yourself is how invested she (or anyone) is in being right (either generally or in this specific case). For example, if she says that she's bummed because she has to buy this expensive piece of equipment for $400, and you find a place she can get it for $200, she's probably not going to think you're contentious for pointing it out. But, in this case, it sounds like she was unexpectedly invested in being right, and so it really upset her to have you point out that she was wrong.

If it had been me, and if I'd known she was really invested in this issue, I might have gone with more of a soft sell. (E.g., "Really? I've known of some models who were multiracial and seemed to be more popular for it.") However, I don't think you should necessarily compromise your personality just to avoid offending people with facts.

[Whistler]

On the topic of debates in general, wording means a lot too. I told a colleague about some fact about procrastination I knew, and she was like "Can I get a source for that?" and I said "why yes, I will e-mail it to you," but the way she worded it made me feel like she didn't trust me (why would I make something up like that?). It would have been better if she had asked, "oh, where did you read that?" or something less hostile-sounding.

[Marduk]

Resurrecting this thread to say that this same sister-in-law is now suggesting that the reason more people get sick in the winter is "the colder it is, the longer the viruses stay alive." I don't have the heart to tell her different. Sigh, why are there so many wrong-headed ideas in this world?

[Cindy]

Resurrecting this thread to say that this same sister-in-law is now suggesting that the reason more people get sick in the winter is "the colder it is, the longer the viruses stay alive." I don't have the heart to tell her different. Sigh, why are there so many wrong-headed ideas in this world?

She could have phrased it better, but she may not be entirely wrong. At least one study has shown that the flu virus is more stable and has higher transmission rates at colder temperatures. See http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/05/healt ... 05flu.html