Perpetual Argument Discussion

Moved from CategoryPerpetualArgument

I see no difference between "perpetual arguments" and HolyWars. Thus, I feel it does not deserve its own category nor topic.

From the HolyWar page: "The characteristic that distinguishes holy wars from normal technical disputes is that in a holy war most of the participants spend their time trying to pass off personal value choices and cultural attachments as objective technical evaluations". The difference, in my view, is that in a Perpetual Argument, neither side is necessarily religious, elevating personal value choices and cultural attachments, and all that stuff. Instead, in a perpetual argument, the two sides are simply going around and around - because both sides want the argument to continue. Unlike a HolyWar, in which one or both sides seeks "victory", in a perpetual argument, the continuation of the argument is itself the perhaps unconscious goal of the participants.

For example, in the OO vs Procedural perpetual argument, both sides attempt to offer genuine and sincere technical evaluations. Unfortunately, those evaluations work together to perpetuate the argument. Instead of acknowledging that and moving on, the participants instead prefer to keep the cycle going. This is the essential characteristic of the perpetual argument: A dispute where the arguments lead to a perpetual cycle, and where the participants willingly and enthusiastically continue that cycle.

I believe that eventually there will be patterns of principles that will emerge. Each party may not agree with all the principles, or perhaps give them different weights, but in the end at least one hopes these principles will be identified and given topic names so that references can be used instead of repeating debates in the future.

If the participants actually sought resolution of the dispute, this might occur. The distinguishing characteristic of a perpetual argument, however, is that the participants seek the continuation of the dispute (although they may be unaware of this desire). Suppose we label the arguments A, B, C, ..., etc., and suppose we say that A -> B, B -> C, and so on. The perpetual argument will occur when a loop is formed, such that A->B, B->C, ..., N->A. Imagine a game of chess trapped in the draw-by-repetition-of-moves pattern. Each step of the argument is locally sound, and so will continue. Such a pattern requires the intentional decision of the participants to recognize and withdraw from the exchange. When the participants actually want the dispute to continue, such termination will never occur. This perpetual nature is what distinguishes a perpetual argument from a holy war.

[Instead of playing armchair psychiatrist and making Olympian omniscient pronouncements on what the participants desire, this should be rephrased to only neutrally comment on the observed cause and effect model involved; such a thing might well be triggered by psychological motivations not visible to you in this medium, at least sometimes.]

Perhaps you might offer a rephrasing that you prefer.

[I'm not sure there is one. Once the non-neutral stuff is removed, it seems to become a tautology: a perpetual argument is one that has a structure such that it goes on forever.]

Hmmm. First, I see no reason why "non-neutral stuff" should be "removed". Second, your "tautology" sounds pretty clear to me. I've revised the description in an attempt to reflect your comments.

The PerpetualArgument description seems nicely neutral now, thanks.

The reason to avoid psychological pronouncements is that it's almost always dirty fighting, on top of typically being the fallacy of overgeneralization (it's rare for it to be phrased as "sometimes the psychology is..." rather than implying that it's always the case).

The dirty fighting part is that people pretty much universally do not appreciate other people attempting what amounts to mindreading, yet any counterargument is permanently sealed off by saying that they're just not aware of what they're doing. This is understandably resented.

Even if the psychological analysis is actually true (unlikely even when a professional psychologist attempts such, in my experience, since such aspects of psychology typically stray far from scientific methodology and into the realm of pure unsupported opinion), it still tends to come across like a flame when the person being described does not agree, or even when they secretly agree, but feel they cannot afford to agree publicly, because it would place them at a conversational disadvantage.

Another way to look at it is that talking about a person's psychology is really quite, quite personal, and should be avoided for the same reasons that one shouldn't unilaterally start talking about their sex life. Their (speech) actions in public are a fair topic for conversation; their private motivations are not, and could only be speculative in any case.

It depends on how and where psychology is used. If somebody says that "semicolons bother me because they can visually conflict or contradict with line breaks", this is a psychological issue to be further analyzed. Math won't tell us what trips up code readers. However, if somebody says, "you only say that because you want to get my goat and stir things up", then all heck breaks loose. The second is a misuse of psychology.

Yes, it all depends. One of the differences is whether it is being used as a rhetorical weapon.

Which again requires guessing another's motivation, I assume.