Mad Skillz: Dave on how to argue with me…

I meant to post this yesterday – I think I may have mentioned that Dave Walker was contributing two Mad Skillz. Here’s his second. It’s timely – perhaps – given some of the discussions this week. And I didn’t even bag out U2.

If you have a Mad Skill and would like to contribute I would be happy to keep posting these as long as material keeps coming in – feel free to go for a second bite of the cherry.

Anyway, here’s what Dave has to say. I don’t necessarily agree with all of it – but I’ll let the disagreements slide.

Nathan is one of the best people I know to have an argument with. You cannot argue with Nathan without being forced to think about what you’re saying and to consider fresh, creative, and insightful ideas. But arguing with Nathan can be a bit of an art form! Having been a sparring partner with Nathan in the North for the last four years, here’s my 5 tips for friends ‘down south’ on how to have a good argument with Nathan:

  1. Don’t. At least sometimes. Arguments with Nathan sometimes end with (metaphorical) blood on the floor on both sides, so a level headed assessment of whether it’s sensible to enter the fray is well worthwhile. Nathan will argue for arguing’s sake, so a release valve is important.
  2. Remember that the thinner the basis for Nathan’s position, the more strenuously he will defend it. You might think it’s stupid, but he really likes to do that. It helps him work out whether there’s anything in his position that he wants to hang on to, and whether your criticisms of the idea have any merit to them. Nathan’s whole philosophy is to test ideas to their absolute limits — so rather than be exasperated by that, just enjoy watching him defend the (sometimes) ridiculous. But don’t think that just calling an idea ‘ridiculous’ will somehow cool Nathan’s enthusiasm for it — it will do quite the opposite!
  3. The better the point you make, the less likely Nathan is to acknowledge it out loud. This is related to #2 — he’s not looking to agree with you, he’s looking to test ideas. So when you make a good point, he’ll ignore it and argue his point on different (and sometimes only loosely related) grounds. This can be very frustrating, but don’t bite on the deflection unless you think it’s relevant and call him on it if he needs it.
  4. Tell him to pull his head in every now and then. Nathan needs good friends who can see through his obstreperousness and self-confessed moments of arrogance, and remind him that there are often real people attached to the ideas he’s arguing against.
  5. You can never end an argument with Nathan. He is not interested in finding a position of agreement (see point 3) and he is psychologically incapable of letting you have the last word. So when it’s time to finish, make your point, let him have the last word, and either shrug your shoulders at him or say ‘thank you for highlighting that we don’t agree’!


simone r says:

Love it! And I'm so bored right now, that I might just pick a fight.

Nathan says:

I think I learned everything I know about arguing from Monty Pytho – what would you like to argue about today?

Did you know Chappo said there is no copyright in the kingdom?

simone r says:

not that one. It's too tired.

Nathan says:

Umm… see point 5 above. There's no such thing as a tired argument – just one I haven't won yet.

simone r says:

Thank you for highlighting that we don't agree.

Goannatree says:

i'm laughing…but only cause i know that Dave's telling the truth! :P
My recent post Scholar-Bloggers in the Spotlight: Female Science Professor and the Little Professor

Aaran says:

If Nathan was ever cloned and they both met somewhere I wonder what would happen. The probability of an argument occurring would exceed 1. With endless possible arguments and endless counter arguments I think a mathematical model would be similar to infinity squared. My prediction is that they would both overheat and die simultaneously.

Aaran says:

Actually I know how it would play out if Nathan were to meet a clone of himself

N1. “Nice shirt”

N2. “Yeah I designed it myself”

N1. “No you didn’t you plagiarised the design of others and added to it with other plagiarised designs”

N2. “Only God creates, we can only rearrange the creation, therefore there is no truly original design and some overlap in inevitable”

N1. “Some people would argue that random interaction over infinite time could produce something original and that God doesn’t exist.”

N2. “The logical conclusion of Atheism is Nihilism and the design could not be recognised as anything meaningful or significant. Therefore Atheists are wrong.”

N1 faced with a contradiction of the only two absolutes in his life, 1 That Atheists are wrong and 2 that his opponent is wrong, would implode.

N2 recognising that N1 is indeed himself and therefore has been contradicted would then conclude that the clone was not actually himself as it is not possible for him to be wrong and claim that the clone was fake.

Therefore it is not possible to clone Nathan