Link to original video by TED

Daniel H. Cohen: For argument's sake

Summary of "Daniel H. Cohen: For argument's sake"

Short Summary:

• Philosopher Daniel H. Cohen explores the paradoxical nature of argumentation, arguing that good arguers are better at losing.
• He critiques the dominant "argument as war" model, highlighting its deforming effects on how we think about and engage in arguments.
• Cohen proposes a new model of argument as performance, where the focus shifts from winning to the quality of the argument itself.
• He suggests that by embracing the possibility of losing, we can create a more productive and collaborative approach to argumentation.

Detailed Summary:

Section 1: The Puzzle of Losing

• Cohen introduces the paradox of argumentation: the more he argues and the better he gets at it, the more he loses.
• He questions why he is okay with losing and suggests that good arguers are actually better at losing.
• He poses the question: why do we argue? What do we gain from convincing others?

Section 2: Models of Argument

• Cohen presents three models of argument:
  • Dialectical Model: Argument as war, with a focus on winning and losing.
  • Proof Model: Argument as a mathematical proof, with a focus on logic and validity.
  • Rhetorical Model: Argument as performance, with a focus on tailoring the argument to the audience.
• He argues that the "argument as war" model is the dominant one, shaping our understanding and practice of argumentation.

Section 3: The Deforming Effects of the War Metaphor

• Cohen criticizes the war metaphor for its deforming effects on argumentation:
  • It elevates tactics over substance.
  • It magnifies the "us versus them" aspect, creating adversariality and polarization.
  • It limits outcomes to triumph or defeat, preventing negotiation, deliberation, and compromise.
  • It makes arguments seem like dead ends, leading to gridlock and lack of progress.
  • It equates learning with losing, creating a distorted view of cognitive gain.

Section 4: Rethinking Argumentation

• Cohen argues that we need new entry approaches and exit strategies for arguments.
• He suggests that we need to think of new kinds of arguers, going beyond the traditional roles of proponent, opponent, and audience.
• He proposes a new model of argument where the loser can still recognize the value of the argument, saying "Wow, that was a good argument!"

Section 5: The Good Arguer

• Cohen emphasizes the importance of becoming a good arguer, one who can benefit from losing.
• He concludes by acknowledging the role of colleagues in providing practice and opportunities for growth.

Notable Quotes:

• "The more that I argue and the better I get at arguing, the more that I lose."
• "What do we win when we win an argument?"
• "The war metaphor seems to force us into saying you won, even though I'm the only one who made any cognitive gain."
• "We need to think of new kinds of arguments."
• "Can you imagine yourself watching yourself argue, losing the argument, and yet still, at the end of the argument, saying, 'Wow, that was a good argument!'"