Argument from ego

One considerable problem for healthy debate is what we might call “argument from ego”. Often people allow their egos to intrude in argument to such a degree that they become the entire motivation for the discussion and prevent a resolution of the topic in question. Ego should really play no part at all and the only thing of any value to either party should be the arrival at truth. It should be team play, not competition.

In order to “score points” a common trick employed is the following: a person will assert “facts” (never opinions), often giving statistics, relying on the fact that the other people do not have material to hand to refute them. This is indeed a devious move, and we all know about lies, damned lies and statistics - an over-dependence on them always seems somewhat suspicious. Often you might find yourself strongly doubting the veracity of the claim, but because of your own actual valuing of truth, you might be reluctant to categorically contradict it.
Fortunately what you can now do in this case is pull out your mobile device and look the issue up there and then on the Internet. I have been able to refute several know-alls in this manner, however one also has the problem that they rely on the politeness of those around them not to flatly humiliate them in public and be responsible for sullying the atmosphere (another very devious move on their part).

Such people will also take the view that because they are older they must be considered wiser, whereas this by no means follows (as I have written before) or that if they have travelled more they must know more and be considered to know more. But, in the age of the Internet, this does not necessarily follow either - especially since many business travellers see nothing but hotel rooms. Furthermore, while travel may increase experience it does not increase the intellect or powers of reason. People must earn respect with their individual contributions to debates and they cannot rely on short-cuts.

Sometimes I detect that someone is employing techniques such as the above in an attempt to use a discussion as a vehicle to try to impress people, rather than simply having the discussion for its own sake. Aside from revealing their own insecurity, this behaviour can be very offensive and annoying. The way I personally tend to deal with it is as follows:

First of all I take them on on their own terms. I will mention, for example, expensive brand labels such as Gieves & Hawkes and Holland Esquire, I’ll mention my first class degree, income etc. and the other things they seem to admire (though I do this as subtley as possible as I hate such vulgarity). Thus phase one consists of me establishing that I am at least their equal on their own terms. I then go about dismantling those terms and I indicate through comments that I think these are essentially unimportant and are a very bad value system. This is a pattern of “neutralise then educate”. If you consider their rudeness a physical assault, it is the equivalent of beating them up and then calling the police on them - and it is entirely asked for on their part.

The lesson? Have arguments, or discussions, for the impartial pursuit of truth, and try to keep the obstacle of your ego completely out of them. If you have a problem with your self esteem, find another outlet. Only state facts when you are certain of them, otherwise temper your statements with some modesty. Have some consideration for others, and what they might know. Admit when you don’t know things (there’s nothing to be ashamed of!) and try asking people questions instead of being switched 100% of the time to transmit. You otherwise risk making a fool of yourself and being “outed”, publicly, by somebody like me.