Home

Eristic Awareness

by Robbie Pitts, 2021-07-13

It's common to offer our own perspectives before fully appreciating someone else's. Sometimes this is a conversational device to relate with others or to advance a dialectical argument in pursuit of a shared goal, but when this behavior moves beyond this purpose it can lead to undesirable outcomes. I'm talking about eristic argument, characterized by antagonism and a desire to win the argument¹.

In my experience this frequently plays out in corporate meetings and typically comes in the form of a brief, fallacious or dismissive remark in response to someone else's remark—presented so matter-of-factly that it is difficult to recover from before the conversation moves on. It is, after all, not an actual argument that one could counter, but rather one weird trick to suppress potentially competing ideas. At this point, the argument has passed, and to bring it back up after the conversation has advanced elsewhere can be quite difficult—and certainly unwelcome by the antagonist.

Yet other times the antagonist—who is usually dominating the conversation, possibly with another person who is similarly dominative—will listen to a person make a statement or ask a question and then immediately start talking about something else without giving anybody a chance to respond. Dismissing a stated concern simply because it is not bundled with a solution beyond reproach is also a classic tactic.

Notice that this behavior is maladaptive: for the antagonist, for the individuals in the group, the group as a whole, and the larger organization. There is no benefit other than the perpetuation of domination, prioritizing personal social rank over ideas and results. Indeed, it has been shown that this sort of dynamic in meetings consistently yields negative results and leaves participants dissatisfied².

What is the nature of these negative outcomes though? It varies of course, and would be impossible to study in a pure, controlled way in the real world, but anecdotally there are at least a couple general features I believe to be constant:

• Damage to the communication structures within the group because people feel disrespected and disregarded in some form, creating dialogic friction and strife
• The advantage of collective intelligence is lost, along with the opportunity for a potentially more desirable, well-informed conclusion and outcome

Other people have valuable perspectives that have never crossed our minds, and if we are being intellectually honest, these perspectives can often change our own and respecting them can lead to improved outcomes. In fact, collective intelligence is improved with increased social sensitivity and mutual respect, unaffected by individual intelligence, and decreased when a subset of people in a group dominate the conversation³.

We would be better served, both personally and organizationally, by awareness of the eristic in ourselves and others. Think about when you have been on the receiving end of this behavior, the outcome, and then consider when you've done it yourself. With this awareness, we will be better equipped to participate in constructive, respectful dialogue and achieve more desirable outcomes.

© 2021 Robbie Pitts