Daniel H. Cohen makes an interesting case that:
- We equate arguing to war; such that there are winners and losers.
- The loser is the one who makes a cognitive improvement, so losing gains the most.
So, we should strive to lose. “It takes practice to be a become a good arguer from the perspective of benefitting from losing.”
My personal observation is whether or not I win or lose an argument, explaining my position requires:
- Arriving at how someone else understands the world requires developing one’s Theory of Mind.
- Tailoring the argument such that the other(s) understand the position.
These explanations help expose both strengths and weaknesses in the position. In order to “win”, I have to shore up the weakness. That is a cognitive gain. Is it more than the loser who changed? Maybe.
If the above video does not work, then try Daniel H. Cohen: For argument’s sake.
I love logic.