Is there a difference between starting an argument and continuing one?

[Andrew Gubb]

Is there a difference in the level of maturity (or shall we say lack of maturity) needed to start an argument and the level needed to get annoyed by someone who is starting an argment, get drawn in and contribute to continuing one?

Is there a difference between starting an argument and helping to continue one?

Did person A start in the first place or did person B set things up for person A to start the argument? Did person B subconsciously find ways to create the argument in the same way as person A did?

How do you hold off when someone starts pushing your buttons or looking for a chink in the armor?

[Bradshaw]

If you continue an argument, you can do it for positive reasons, although it does take a bit of kung-fu debate skills to not get sucked into the black hole.

In the context of a forum such as this one: Basically, you address a valid or semi-valid point that the argument starter posted, without getting sucked into his energy, for the value of the other people who may read what the thread starter posted, and then you go on your merry way.

You may have furthered the discussion and gave it some more fire to continue, but you're actually providing some good stuff for other people to read.

In other words, you don't get annoyed. The other guy/gal, just like you, is an imperfect human being--and it's his or her own stuff. No need to get annoyed.

How do you hold off when someone starts pushing your buttons or looking for a chink in the armor?

How do you not get annoyed, you ask? Well, remember when that woman tried to annoy you at the improv stand-up and you didn't even flinch? That's how.

[Brutha]

I don't think that making blanket judgements makes sense. It doesn't matter whether an argument got started but why it got started.

There are people with low self confidence with avoid having arguments because they don't dare to have an argument.
There are people with low self confidence that feel the need to have an argument to appear more powerful.

Both people are a bit immature but use different strategies.

The key questions are whether you are in control of the way you are communicating. Are you going towards ends that are you like?

[Andrew Gubb]

Originally Posted by Bradshaw

How do you not get annoyed, you ask? Well, remember when that woman tried to annoy you at the improv stand-up and you didn't even flinch? That's how.

Maybe my ex girlfriend knows my soft spots better

[RonSouther]

I see arguing as immature, but fun. It's fun to let go of repressed emotions because if feels so good, like a powerful sneeze.

It's immature because of the damage done since most people take words personally and don't listen for the real message in the words.

Arguing is an excuse to stop repressing oneself, but that build up of stuffed emotions comes out as violence, verbally and/or physically.

If you can see that this venting process is a cleansing then it's easy to let the other person vent and not get wrapped up in it. Even to encourage it helps the other and helps your relationship to heal from it.

Thanks for the question...it was something I wanted to write about so I put something similar here.

[RonSouther]

The argument won't be won...can't be won...Arguments are simply logic chasing it's tail.

The real message is in why it's happening, not what is being argued about. The argument is just an excuse to vent.

[Angela]

First of all, you did improv stand-up?!? That's so cool!!!

Secondly, I think it's not as helpful to compare who's more immature in such a scenario, even a hypothetical one, as it is to take on being at cause -- 100% responsibility -- whichever side of the equation you're on, because that's where you have real power to make a difference.

If you're comparing, like "I'm only continuing the argument, but that other guy who actually started it is really much less mature/self-aware/conscious than I am," then what you're doing is arguing in your head -- that is, you're making him wrong, or at least wronger than you are. That keeps you in a state of resistance, which attracts argument-pickers (mismatchers) like flies to honey.

And if you look at how you are being at cause in the matter -- "What choices have I made and am I making, both consciously and unconsciously, that have me here in this argument, not feeling the way I'd prefer to?" -- that can give you tons of access to resources for making new choices that totally interrupt the pattern you're in, whichever side you're on.

How do you hold off when someone starts pushing your buttons or looking for a chink in the armor?

I'd put the armor away and dismantle the mechanism of the buttons, to begin with. Examine your sensitivities (your habitual negative thought patterns) and remove the wiring so that if someone does push that button, it doesn't "work" anymore. (NLP works great for that!) And while or before you do that, if you find yourself in the middle of a pushed-button argument or episode, have a strategy in your pocket for dealing with it with minimal fuss - Erin Pavlina suggested a great one a few years ago: "Hold that thought!" (walk away).

Another is to simply say, "Thanks for the feedback," or "You may be right," and if you can, take a moment to fully consider the person's feedback as if they were right and it were truly helpful -- find an aspect of truth in it. That can be a challenge, but it can also be really valuable in your self-awareness. If you just don't find yourself able or willing to try on the aspect of truth of what they're saying, granting freedom to them (in your head) for them to say whatever they choose to say, by using a phrase like those, can give you that bit of space between stimulus and response that could make all the difference for you in choosing a conscious way to proceed, rather than being run by your unconscious negative thought patterns (that is, having your button pushed.)

If you do that, you don't need armor, unless there's a real dragon coming at you.

[Andrew Gubb]

First of all, you did improv stand-up?!? That's so cool!!!

Thanks - it wasn't quite that actually, I was telling my life story in a mostly non-humorous way. It was a an event called "Vent" where we had to tell true stories from our lives. Most were funny, I went for intense and radically sincere about painful truths. Some woman seemed to find my talk offensive, probably because she hasn't accepted the vulnerable part of herself - I don't know. She was really cruel but at that point I managed to see it as entirely about her, and not about me. It helped that I had a room full of allies I guess, though they all seemed to get angry at this lady - I was the only one who didn't.

I'd like to be able to feel that lack of importance every time someone attacks me.

If you're comparing, like "I'm only continuing the argument, but that other guy who actually started it is really much less mature/self-aware/conscious than I am," then what you're doing is arguing in your head -- that is, you're making him wrong, or at least wronger than you are. That keeps you in a state of resistance, which attracts argument-pickers (mismatchers) like flies to honey.

I did have that thought more or less when I started the thread, though I do feel like there's a part of myself that wants to be validated for the fact that I rarely do start arguments. I do, however, get excessively sensitive at others attacking me.

At least I think I don't start arguments. I'm willing to examine that point.

I'd put the armor away

I had the thought while I was writing that actually. It's not quite like I feel like I have an armor - at least not particularly. I wanted a metaphor for when they're probing you to find the point where they can get a reaction out of you. When a particular person was angry maybe I'd be able to brush off the first couple of attacks, and then maybe they'd try something else and manage to get something I'd allow myself to feel bad about.

Erin Pavlina suggested a great one a few years ago: "Hold that thought!" (walk away).

I like that

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Andrew Gubb

At least I think I don't start arguments. I'm willing to examine that point.

I think where real power might be available is in always seeing yourself as being in a position where you are the cause of the argument, regardless of where it got started. (Not at fault or to blame, but at cause in the sense that your choices, both consciously and unconsciously, have you here, smackdab in the middle of an argument.)

Because I think that it doesn't really matter who started it, there's no The Truth about that that is absolute. What started the argument? Was it someone being or doing something you didn't like, or vice-versa? Or was it started when you felt that same pain the first time, back when you were a little kid? or Did it start when Adam met Eve? Doesn't matter -- it's helpful to get your own unconscious representation of the root cause of a conflict, because that's where learnings are richly available that can help you get in touch with powerful resources for going forward. But it may not be the root cause for the other person, and it may not be a rich source of learning for them. Nevertheless, it only takes one person to interrupt the pattern and try something else that feels better. It only takes one person to spark an upward spiral.

[The Cloud]

Originally Posted by Andrew Gubb

Did person A start in the first place or did person B set things up for person A to start the argument? Did person B subconsciously find ways to create the argument in the same way as person A did?

How do you hold off when someone starts pushing your buttons or looking for a chink in the armor?

How silly is it to have buttons that aren't meant to be pushed? If person A has a button, they're just setting up the context in which person B can push it, accidentally or on purpose. Have you ever seen a cartoon where the button with a sign saying "Don't push this button!" and an arrow pointing at it doesn't get pushed?

A good question would be whether buttons serve a greater purpose than starting arguments. A useless button doesn't need armor; it needs the boot. If you hold on to your convictions (buttons), that's a vulnerability that you've chosen to have.