I'd much rather have 15 people arguing about
something
than 15 people splitting into two camps,
each side convinced it's right and not talking to the other.
Linus
Torvalds
It
is one of the least examined constants of the human condition,
of human behaviour: the propensity to argue and disagree. Ever
since man took his first human steps circa 300,000 years ago,
human beings have been arguing and disagreeing (A & D) over
almost everything. In light of the unhappiness, despair and
violence triggered by A & D, we should have long ago been
disposed to query why evolutionary biology saw fit to preserve
-- through thick and thin, through war and pogrom – the
intractable disposition. If there was a prototype of the human
being that was short-changed on the A & D reflex, it didn’t
make the cut: it was deselected.
Everywhere
in the world men and women and even the young tots they once
were argue over matters large and small, of great or no consequence,
as if A & D are vampiric hungers that must be fed on a regular
basis. The disposition is so insistent (primordial) that when
people find themselves alone, they argue with themselves.
Many
disagreements are frivolous in nature. It matters not if X and
Y disagree on who is the better soccer player or musician. But
even in matters of no apparent consequence, if one or the other
insists s/he is right, that is infallibly right, the failure
to find a consensus can result in the dissolution of the relationship
and may even degenerate into violence. When nations differ over
who owns a particular tract of land, or the rights to water
from a river that passes through several jurisdictions, it matters
very much on who prevails. In these instances, A & D are
proxies in the war of words that often erupt into national and
international conflicts.
Unlike
all other forms of life, human beings are endowed with the faculty
of choice. Where differences exist, where one choice is ostensibly
better or worse than the other, people will invariably disagree
and argue over what constitutes the best choice.
So
we ask: what does nature intend in respect to A & D? What
benefits accrue to the species as a consequence of arguing and
disagreeing?
First
and foremost, when one idea prevails over another, the winning
side will enjoy a more advantageous position in whatever hierarchy
is being contested, which is consistent with the cultivation
and preservation of culture and orderly functioning of society.
Secondly, A & D creates a learning environment that brings
to light both the merits and demerits of the ideas under discussion
which makes the entire process or exercise one of the means
by which both idea and species fitness are maintained. One could
argue that every argument is a contest of values.
We
know that when two ideas (for ex. two opposing visions of governance,
or weapon enhancement) are competing for dominance, the disagreement
is instrumental in revealing the substance and nuances of the
choices under consideration which greatly facilitates making
the case for the fitness of one idea over the other. In the
absence of disagreement (constructive debate) we are more likely
to make an incorrect decision. If a tribe is debating how to
best defend a territory, it is in everyone’s vital interest
that the correct decision be made. The debate will encourage
a discussion on the various types of attack it might face, and
how best to respond.
A &
D is essentially a winnowing process that enhances knowledge
and understanding. But we all know of powerful, charismatic
individuals who successfully push through ideas that are strictly
self-serving, and frequently to the detriment of the greater
good, which is not what nature intends. If we are to honour
the blood, sweat and lives lost on account of A & D, it
is essential that reason prevail over the egos at the table.
When
two farmers argue over what irrigation method is most effective
in getting the best yield of a crop, and one method is shown
to be demonstrably more productive, all farmers stand to gain.
However, if for one of the combatants pride is the supreme value,
which prevents him from recognizing the superior argument of
his adversary, the disagreement is likely to turn hostile. In
such instances that are all too common in the daily affairs
of man, not the wise, but the strongman wins the day, leaving
the many to suffer the consequences of a flawed decision. The
jaundice coloured haze that hovers like a pestilence over our
cities is a rude example of the strongman (corporatism) prevailing
over the wise man.
The
success or failure of a relationship or marriage very often
depends on being able to weather the bad weather produced by
argument and disagreement. A wife feels strongly that her husband
should learn a second language since a significant percentage
of his clientele speaks that language and he risks losing his
position to someone who is bilingual. Each presents his/her
contrary views. But the husband, due to either sloth or having
convinced himself that it makes no difference whether or not
he speaks the same language as his client, or that he’s
the man of the house and therefore the last word, refuses his
wife’s arguments. If his wife proves to be correct, he
will have jeopardized his employment prospects and perhaps the
marriage.. But whatever the result, A & D has done its job:
the issues have been articulated and the opportunities to make
the correct decision maximized.
A &
D is the crack in human relationships that lets the light in
so that differences of opinion are exposed and stripped down
to their essentials. If the wrong choice is made, and it often
is, evolutionary biology cannot be blamed. A & D has done
its work in that the relevant information on a given issue has
been brought to bear. That reason, at this stage in human evolution,
is not adequately equipped to deal with pride, vanity and the
territorial imperative in the decision making process is less
a failure of will than a concession to our biological pre-sets.
In
our present age, A & D shines an unambiguous and ominous
light on the catastrophe that awaits in the event of nuclear
or biological warfare. If it is clearly in the best interest
of the species that these weapons of mass destruction are never
deployed, it is essential that reason, and not human frailty,
has its finger on the button.
Since
reason often comes out second best in matters of disputation,
must we finally conclude that human nature, formed hundreds
of thousands of years ago when man was living in tribes and
hunting wild game in the savannahs, no longer serves the best
interests of the species, and that the time has come to consider
tweaking our genotype?
From
Thomas More (1516) to the present, one of the constants in the
design of Utopias – from the Greek ou-topos,
which means no place, nowhere – is the absence of conflict
(argument and disagreement). Utopias typically mistake wishful
thinking for vision, for if conflict were eliminated and people
always agreed with each other, not only would nothing (or indiscriminately
everything) get done, all differences and distinctions would
dissolve in a homogeneous relativist mist. In the real world,
utopia would very quickly degenerate into dysfunctionality.
Wife to husband: I think we should eliminate red meat from
family diet because of the antibiotics and toxins in the
meat? OK, I agree.
Husband to wife: I think we should consume more red meat
because growing children need more protein. OK, I agree.
Based
on numerous on-site studies, ethology, the study of animal behaviour,
makes the case that the basis for argument and disagreement
predate human existence. When two animals are competing for
the right to impregnate the females, the contestants are disagreeing
over whose seed deserves a future hearing, which is what nature
intends. If they don’t come to an understanding, they
will fight, sometimes to the death. If there was only agreement
among the males, and inferior males were allowed to breed, the
genetic fitness of the species would be compromised over time.
In
theory, our legal systems represent A & D’s greatest
triumph. Justice, based on impartiality of law, rejects as inadmissible
arguments or positions that are partial to power and influence.
When impartiality is compromised and the results of A &
D rendered null and void, resulting in an incorrect decision,
both the individual and society at large suffer the consequences,
which reinforces the argument that despite the stress and unhappiness
left in the wake of argument and disagreement, we would be significantly
worse off in their absence. Without resistance and challenge,
our ideas, our way of life, will not evolve and respond to our
ever changing needs.
Argument
and disagreement, despite their unflattering (embarrassing)
public displays, speak to the universal disposition to want
the best of whatever is at stake to prevail. As a method, A
& D best ensures the improvements upon which every civilization
depends for its advancement.
If
in the heat of battle we come to view A & D as a gauntlet
that most of us would rather not run, we can take comfort in
the knowledge that the most successful species thus far on earth
is the one for whom A & D underwrites all its decisions
and best guarantees its future. And for all of us who during
the course of a lifetime will come out second best in an argument,
that is the occasion to turn defeat and humiliation into an
opportunity to cultivate our humility in order to better appreciate
a DNA-deep disposition that can at once shatter the ego while
serving the best interests of the individual and the race.
