Eric Barker has written an article with the premise that one should not try to win arguments. The reason is that by not trying to win arguments you might win knowledge instead, which will be far more beneficial than the actual winning of the argument.
In the end Eric makes a clever riposte, by asking us to prove him wrong (i.e. make him lose his argument).
I will not prove Eric wrong. I believe he is right. Though, I’d like to perspecitify his statement and thus perhaps help someone to learn something.
It is correct that by not winning arguments, you heighten your own possibility to learn instead. I should know, because I have lived by that motto for many, many years by know. Since my initial university studies I have always seen disagreements as discussions rather than arguments. As I discuss with other people about anything, I try not to persuade others that I am right. Rather, I try to find truth instead.
And surely, I do learn more by the discussion way than the argumentation way. But it comes at a hard, hard price. The result of not trying to win arguments is that most people disregard anything you say.
The reason why most people ignore those who do not try to win arguments, is because the non-argumentative people lose status. The main reason why people bicker about tit and tat is to gain status, because a persons status makes other people listen more apprehensively to him or her.
Someone, like me, who never tries to win arguments, but instead give credits to proper arguments and agree to my reasoning mistakes, will continously lose status and respect, while at the same time, for each discussion, come closer to a better understanding of the subject discussed. Thus, paradoxically, those who know the least are arguing most fiercly for their standpoint and vice versa.
As a society, we have built structures, as higher education and so forth, to reverse the paradox of argumentational certainty. Anyone who has thought the least about human nature knows that the most argumentative people can abide to authority, and higher education creates such authority.
But refraining from argumentation in order to discuss instead, without proper authority, is a hazardous way of living. You just have to look at me. I am a creative, on verge to genial person, much thanks to me discussing rather than argumenting. But the price I have had to pay, is that almost noone listens to me and takes regard of my knowledge, opinion and ideas. This also applies to my job applications and networking as well. Thus, I am very close to the bottom of the societal hierarchy, working as a postman with very low income and about no status at all.
Therefore, not being argumentative is good for your personal development, but disastrous for your social status.