Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
This means that the dispute is not yours and that you are not a conflict person at all. “For the word in the pocket “usually” do not climb ” those who are offended by the world and this world ,for them, as a rule, is in the same plane. By the time you're digging through your Cartesian system to find the right elegant answer, you're already swamped with a dozen flat arguments.
An important reason is that at the moment of an argument, people are usually overwhelmed by emotions. Excessive emotionality interferes with rational thinking. After a certain amount of time, emotions subside and we can look at the situation more objectively.�
Another reason is that discussions (especially offline ones) usually take place when there is not enough time to think about your comments. It can be compared to a chess blitz. Here you need a good reaction, fast switching from one task to another. So, in a blitz, chess players make more mistakes than in a classic game, and in a classic game, they make more mistakes than in a game of correspondence chess.�
Finally, the third reason is that when we think about the situation later, we already know how it ended, what stages it went through, and we see it from the outside. We know not only our own arguments, but also the arguments of the opponent. If we had known them in advance, before the dispute began, we would certainly have been better prepared for this dispute.