Refraining from argument can yield more analytic insight than winning debate
Evidence
The point is, I could not have discovered this if I had automatically argued with them. Toward the end of my fieldwork stint, I started to force myself to express my own opinions once in a while, though this too was meant as an experiment, not as a means of self-expression. I did not argue with those particular racist individuals, whose narrow-mindedness would, in any case, pop up in other bodies with other names even if I won my arguments with them as individuals. — Nina Eliasoph, Avoiding politics, 1863
Categorization
- XREF: Methodological point that parallels the ‘spiral of silence’ contrast — silence in the field is not failure but data. — connects to: Concealed deliberation can produce better judgments than open debate; Confrontation with contrary evidence can intensify rather than weaken firm belief. — Philip Mirowski, Never Let a Serious Crisis Go to Waste, 97; Elite debate intensity does not predict mass awareness of an issue. (+2 more)
- corroborated: 4 independent passages support this claim — Nina Eliasoph, Avoiding politics: how Americans…, 1863
Broader Connections
- Concealed deliberation can produce better judgments than open debate
#corroborates(0.85) - Having better arguments and better manners does not win disputes
#corroborates(0.80) — Holm Gero Hümmler, Ulrike Schiesser, Fact and Prejudice, 123 - Confrontation with contrary evidence can intensify rather than weaken firm belief.
#corroborates(0.75) — Philip Mirowski, Never Let a Serious Crisis Go to Waste, 97 - Standard argumentation guides fail because opponents are often unwilling to engage factually
#corroborates(0.72) — Holm Gero Hümmler, Ulrike Schiesser, Fact and Prejudice, 7 - Elite debate intensity does not predict mass awareness of an issue.
#corroborates(0.70)