Placeholder Content Image

Arguing with the people you love? How to have a healthy family dispute

<div class="theconversation-article-body"><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/jessica-robles-617248">Jessica Robles</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/loughborough-university-1336">Loughborough University</a></em></p> <p>Unlike Britain’s royal family, most of us don’t have the option to move to another country when we don’t see eye to eye. But most of us have likely experienced disagreements with loved ones.</p> <p><a href="https://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/soc/faculty/heritage/Site/Publications_files/CA_as_SOCIAL_THEORY.pdf">Conversations are designed to</a> do things – to start some action, and complete it – whether it’s a service transaction, an invitation to coffee or reassurance on a bad day. Our <a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ZnhyDwAAQBAJ&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;source=gbs_ge_summary_r&amp;cad=0#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false">uniquely complex communicative system</a> has evolved to help us get things done in the social world.</p> <p>Arguments are part of this complex system. They can be unavoidable, necessary or even productive. But they can also be difficult.</p> <p>It can be hard to know what to do when tensions are high and harsh words are flying, particularly when it involves someone you’re close to. But research on how disputes unfold – and conversation more generally – offers some ideas about the best way to handle one.</p> <h2>What is a dispute?</h2> <p>There are many words for disagreeing, and there are plenty of academic theories describing what disputes are and why they happen. But arguments are not abstract models. They’re lived in, breathed in, sweated in and talked (or sometimes shouted) into being.</p> <p>Research focusing on <a href="https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/288351315.pdf">how disputes actually happen</a> shows they’re characterised by three types of features. First are the <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378216606000488">vocal features</a>, which include talking in a higher pitch, louder and faster. Then, there are <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1750481310395452?casa_token=MCNQWEQD6HwAAAAA:8nbyXh-cgjWzfL3syRrwybRFQl_ddHIMy9tRIAwPRAFADrgHtR2LSl9ZoUFsVlnzWPjWaKQZZ9XEVA">embodied features</a> such as aggressive gestures and avoidant stances, such as turning away from someone. Finally, there are <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/01638539009544746?casa_token=BB9edpIE1oUAAAAA:FTK-JRJ2oCmG7BufkUAQX1k1_9C1Cvc12r5ynYPM6duFB-HDWhgef8Va-Rh5Z2XksR64oTcPmi4FAQ">interactional features</a> such as talking over each other, not listening or metatalk – <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/08351813.2020.1826765?casa_token=isJl2NJbSIkAAAAA:Mh-dXMfkBSGvEeoOWAoxLDjzbZ_eF-zbND-D8q4RAP5WHadqg1KUZDF_UnySFAcyb3LD-DF3BbGq1A">comments about the conversation</a> as it’s happening.</p> <p><a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1354067X9953001?casa_token=Gje17vkyg_AAAAAA:ik_4Ze-4PIFLa6yjthOpztvJrtdVOokhRT73M8jDN4t1w0Bl7WzW2--d1vjZwanphorOH_r6jaVZdA">Displays of emotion</a> such as displeasure or anger, are also common. Participants might accuse each other of emotions or label their own emotions.</p> <p>Disputes happen for several reasons. What each person is doing can vary, from <a href="https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.530.8869&amp;rep=rep1&amp;type=pdf">complaints and accusations</a> to <a href="https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1348/014466610X500791?casa_token=r58ikQ5XFxEAAAAA:QR9wr0Fcz7q5BeSvL8soAIhKMNA1O9TcpcBaLleBKDvZ8Q5sPyX1OSg0OzSL5-xb8By5QbgNm9kHNhg">demands, threats or resistance</a>.</p> <p>They can be about many things – familial obligations, what to have for dinner, politics or how to plan a holiday. Luckily, disputes share elements <a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=2NxaC7nSetAC&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;source=gbs_atb#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false">with each other</a> and with conversation generally – so you don’t have to invent new strategies every time you’re caught in one.</p> <h2>Affiliation and alignment</h2> <p>When bickering with a friend or family member, there are ways to make them feel like you’re still on their side even if you disagree. If you can keep these in mind, and use them at the right time, you might stop your dispute from escalating into something harder to mend.</p> <p>The first thing is <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0196.pub2">affiliation</a>, which means support for the other person or their view of things.</p> <p>Affiliation involves phrasing what you say so it’s best <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/08351810903471258?casa_token=yxnWxfDAEB8AAAAA:uoHEX2dlOS06wxwlHH7TOWmmfB51qMMbzg5tadx5SeRcf_5-vABUKQZtIt0Hchu4vUlFNfCX4qRi5A">understood and easier to respond to</a>. For example, saying “you’ve been to France before, right?” invites someone to share their experience – partly by including the tag “right” at the end, which at least requires a confirmation.</p> <p>It can also involve categorisation, the way we talk about or treat others as <a href="https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/BF00142771.pdf">certain types or group members</a>. For example, if you reduce the other person to a stereotype through labelling – by saying something like “girls always say stuff like that” or “OK, boomer” – you risk provoking a response to the insult, not to the action in which that insult was embedded.</p> <p>The second thing we expect from any conversation is alignment – cooperating with the direction of the conversation, such as accepting or denying a request. The opposite, disalignment, might occur when a request is ignored.</p> <p>Alignment has more to do with the sequence of the conversation, how the dispute unfolds over time. Asking for clarification – a practice known as <a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0136100">repair</a> – or <a href="https://www.jbe-platform.com/content/journals/10.1075/prag.27.1.03rob?crawler=true">claiming a misunderstanding</a> can treat problems as fixable errors rather than moral failings or attacks. <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0261927X17744244">Humour can diffuse</a> conflict escalation.</p> <h2>How to have a healthy dispute</h2> <p>In the course of a dispute, you need to think about when to bring these tactics out. They’re more likely to yield better outcomes earlier in the dispute. By the time it’s escalated, your responses may be viewed through the prism of the dispute and <a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&amp;lr=&amp;id=eFSXDwAAQBAJ&amp;oi=fnd&amp;pg=PT200&amp;ots=6tM3fJnXr1&amp;sig=Zchtur1abh25W7ERN5Q49ASRaJc#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false">any offensiveness</a> you’ve already displayed toward each other. In cases like this, teasing can come across as contempt, for example, and claims to misunderstand as bad-faith mockery.</p> <p>It can feel like disputes take on a life of their own – as if the conversation uses us rather than we use it – and this is partly because conversation can seemingly take us along for the ride (consider the difficulty of turning down invitations). We invest our identities into conversations so disputes can seem to threaten us and <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378216618304302?casa_token=1SbOpn_2k8MAAAAA:YQ2Yb9nt-ONsmBKmVzTCx8cfl76bS5nK6_Yd8zONBVJFdJ57vwgdBDJxsXfk0aUOhilRQAF-ABA">what we stand for</a> morally.</p> <p>This may be starker with family, whose opinions of us often matter more than friends or colleagues, for example. It’s always worth stopping to reflect on what a dispute is really for, whether what you’re saying lines up with your goals and whether taking a stand is worth it.<!-- Below is The Conversation's page counter tag. Please DO NOT REMOVE. --><img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/159565/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /><!-- End of code. If you don't see any code above, please get new code from the Advanced tab after you click the republish button. The page counter does not collect any personal data. More info: https://theconversation.com/republishing-guidelines --></p> <p><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/jessica-robles-617248">Jessica Robles</a>, Lecturer in Social Psychology, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/loughborough-university-1336">Loughborough University</a></em></p> <p><em>Image credits: Shutterstock </em></p> <p><em>This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/arguing-with-the-people-you-love-how-to-have-a-healthy-family-dispute-159565">original article</a>.</em></p> </div>

Family & Pets

Placeholder Content Image

Advice on dealing with tricky in-laws

<p>From heated discussions to awkward family dinners, your relationship with your in-laws can have a big impact on family time. Here’s how to navigate this sometimes tricky dynamic.</p> <p>There’s nothing worse than heading to a family engagement when you have a son-in-law (or your daughter’s parents-in-law) that you just don’t get along with. Whether there's been a fight that you haven’t been able to move on from, or you simply don’t get along, if you find your in-laws draining or annoying, you may need to change the boundaries.</p> <p>Do you know the old saying, “good fences make good neighbours”? Think of your in-laws like your neighbours – there needs to be really good fences (aka boundaries) in place for the relationship to run smoothly. The best way to go about this is in such a way that you don’t make anyone feel as though you're closing them out, but rather comes off that you are simply focussing on yourself and things you have going on.</p> <p>Once you’ve set boundaries, don’t be afraid to talk to your family and in-laws about them, they’re not as fragile as you think. But do choose your words carefully and keep the focus on you and what your needs are, rather than making any judgements or comments about them or their behaviour.</p> <p>Still not sure how to deal with your son, daughter, sister or brother in-law? Here are some top tips for setting boundaries and dealing with awkward situations:</p> <ol> <li>The person with the primary relationship (for example your daughter, not your son-in-law) should be the one to step in and help fix a problem if it arises. You should never be the messenger or go straight to an in-law. Gently raise the issue or concern with your immediate family member. </li> <li>Decide with your partner, or in your own time if you are single or widowed, what type of role you want your in-law/s to play in your life. If you don’t get along and spending time with them just seems to cause issues, then you might want to limit catch-ups to birthdays and big events. This is ok. Just be gentle if asked to explain. And keep your explanation brief and about you. Something along the lines of, my schedule is quite busy at the moment or I don’t feel up to going out too much, but I am looking forward to the next family get together. </li> <li>Never criticise your family for their relationship with his or her spouse/your in-laws, nor comment on your in-law to your immediate family member – for example don’t criticise your son-in-law to your daughter/his wife. This tends to only lead to complications and awkwardness. And remember, you only know what your daughter tells you and if they come to you everytime they’re upset or angry with their partner or their partner’s extended family, you’re only hearing the problems when your daughter is frustrated and upset. You might not hear all the good things and about when they make up. Don’t take these things on board and stay out of it by reserving any judgement or comments. </li> <li>Don’t get involved. Easier said than done, right? You have to trust that you have brought your children up right and they are responsible enough to navigate their own relationships, treat others respectfully and can stand up for themselves if need be. As such, you should not get involved in their issues, arguments and general day-to-day dealings with their other relationships. Stay on the peripheral, be there for some light guidance if need be, but ultimately you should just help them come to their own opinions, decisions and judgements on things rather than sharing your ones with them. </li> <li>Don’t get pulled into arguments by your child and in-law. You can be supportive and still let the couple handle their own problems. Take a step back and trust that you have raised an adult who has the vision and the courage to resolve the problems that concern his/her own family. Couples need to set boundaries for their own relationships and this can, as I am sure you know, take some time to find the right ones. </li> <li>Think of yourself as a guest. When spending time with family in big groups, and especially when you’re at someone else’s home, it is best to think of yourself as a guest and act accordingly. For example you may not like the way you son’s wife is doing things in her home (child rearing, cooking, cleaning etc), but unfortunately it is not really any of your business. This is between your son and his wife. A good checkpoint is to ask yourself if you have a sense of entitlement and expectancy that is inappropriate. If there are issues that you just can’t stand but can’t let go, then you may need to consider not visiting them.</li> </ol> <p><em>Image credits: Getty Images</em></p>

Family & Pets

Placeholder Content Image

Pregnant woman argues unborn baby counts as a passenger under new abortion laws

<p dir="ltr">A pregnant US woman has argued her unborn baby should count as a second passenger in her car in the wake of <a href="https://www.oversixty.com.au/health/body/heartbroken-high-profile-women-react-to-landmark-roe-v-wade-decision" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><em>Roe v Wade</em> being overturned</a>, after she was fined for driving in a lane that requires at least two people in the car.</p> <p dir="ltr">Brandy Bottone of Plano, Texas, was pulled over on June 29 after driving in a high-occupancy (HOV) lane by the Dallas County Sheriff’s Department looking for drivers violating HOV lane rules, as reported by <em><a href="https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/pregnant-woman-cited-for-hov-violation-says-her-unborn-baby-should-count-as-second-person/3010193/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">NBC-Dallas Fort Worth</a></em>.</p> <p dir="ltr">HOV lanes, also known as carpool and T2 lanes, require drivers to have at least one passenger in their car when they use the lane.</p> <p dir="ltr">When an officer told Bottone about the rule and asked whether she had any passengers with her, she said she did.</p> <p dir="ltr">“I pointed to my stomach and said, ‘My baby girl is right here. She is a person’,” the 32-year-old told <em><a href="https://www.dallasnews.com/news/watchdog/2022/07/08/pregnant-woman-says-her-fetus-should-count-as-a-passenger-in-hov-lanes-she-got-a-ticket/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Dallas Morning News</a></em>.</p> <p dir="ltr">The officer argued that the rule applies to “two people outside the body”, to which Bottone responded that, since the overturning of <em>Roe v. Wade</em>, her unborn child is considered as a living person.</p> <p dir="ltr">“And then I said, ‘Well [I’m] not trying to throw a political mix here, but with everything going on, this counts as a baby’,” Bottone recounted.</p> <p dir="ltr">She said the officer told her he didn’t “want to deal with this”, insisting the law for HOV lanes required “two persons outside of the body” to be in the vehicle.</p> <p dir="ltr">While the penal code in Texas recognises a foetus as a person, there appears to be no language in the state Transportation Department’s code that recognises a foetus in the same way.</p> <p dir="ltr">Though deputies told Bottone that her case would likely be dismissed if she fought it, she still plans to fight the $215 ticket, arguing that her in-utero baby should count as another occupant.</p> <p dir="ltr">“This has my blood boiling. How could this be fair? According to the new law, this is a life,” she told <em>The Morning News</em>.</p> <p dir="ltr">“I know this may fall on deaf ears, but as a woman, this was shocking.”</p> <p><span id="docs-internal-guid-70a7d3e4-7fff-1441-abe6-955ac398f391"></span></p> <p dir="ltr"><em>Image: NBC DFW</em></p>

Legal

Placeholder Content Image

A new book argues Julian Assange is being tortured. Will our new PM do anything about it?

<p>It is easy to forget why Julian Assange has been on trial in England for, well, seemingly forever.</p> <p>Didn’t he allegedly sexually assault two women in Sweden? Isn’t that why he holed up for years in the Ecuadorian embassy in London to avoid facing charges? When the bobbies finally dragged him out of the embassy, didn’t his dishevelled appearance confirm all those stories about his lousy personal hygiene?</p> <p>Didn’t he persuade Chelsea (formerly Bradley) Manning to hack into the United States military’s computers to reveal national security matters that endangered the lives of American soldiers and intelligence agents? He says he is a journalist, but hasn’t the New York Times made it clear he is just a “source” and not a publisher entitled to first amendment protection?</p> <p>If you answered yes to any or all of these questions, you are not alone. But the answers are actually no. At very least, it’s more complicated than that.</p> <p>To take one example, the reason Assange was dishevelled was that staff in the Ecuadorian embassy had confiscated his shaving gear three months before to ensure his appearance matched his stereotype when the arrest took place.</p> <p>That is one of the findings of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture, Nils Melzer, whose investigation of the case against Assange has been laid out in forensic detail in <a href="https://www.bloomsbury.com/au/trial-of-julian-assange-9781839766220/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Trial of Julian Assange</a>.</p> <p>What is the UN’s Special Rapporteur on Torture doing investigating the Assange case, you might ask? So did Melzer when Assange’s lawyers first approached him in 2018:</p> <blockquote> <p>I had more important things to do: I had to take care of “real” torture victims!</p> </blockquote> <p>Melzer returned to a report he was writing about overcoming prejudice and self-deception when dealing with official corruption. “Not until a few months later,” he writes, “would I realise the striking irony of this situation.”</p> <p>The 47 members of the UN Human Rights Council directly appoint <a href="https://www.ohchr.org/en/special-procedures/sr-torture" target="_blank" rel="noopener">special rapporteurs on torture</a>. The position is unpaid – Melzer earns his living as a professor of international law – but they have diplomatic immunity and operate largely outside the UN’s hierarchies.</p> <p>Among the many pleas for his attention, Melzer’s small office chooses between 100 and 200 each year to officially investigate. His conclusions and recommendations are not binding on states. He bleakly notes that in barely 10% of cases does he receive full co-operation from states and an adequate resolution.</p> <p>He received nothing like full co-operation in investigating Assange’s case. He gathered around 10,000 pages of procedural files, but a lot of them came from leaks to journalists or from freedom-of-information requests. Many pages had been redacted. Rephrasing <a href="https://www.britannica.com/biography/Carl-von-Clausewitz" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Carl Von Clausewitz</a>’s maxim, Melzer wrote his book as “the continuation of diplomacy by other means”.</p> <p>What he finds is stark and disturbing:</p> <blockquote> <p>The Assange case is the story of a man who is being persecuted and abused for exposing the dirty secrets of the powerful, including war crimes, torture and corruption. It is a story of deliberate judicial arbitrariness in Western democracies that are otherwise keen to present themselves as exemplary in the area of human rights.</p> <p>It is the story of wilful collusion by intelligence services behind the back of national parliaments and the general public. It is a story of manipulated and manipulative reporting in the mainstream media for the purpose of deliberately isolating, demonizing, and destroying a particular individual. It is the story of a man who has been scapegoated by all of us for our own societal failures to address government corruption and state-sanctioned crimes.</p> <h2>Collateral murder</h2> <p>The dirty secrets of the powerful are difficult to face, which is why we – and I don’t exclude myself – swallow neatly packaged slurs and diversions of the kind listed at the beginning of this article.</p> <p>Melzer rightly takes us back to April 2010, four years after the Australian-born Assange had founded WikiLeaks, a small organisation set up to publish official documents that it had received, encrypted so as to protect whistle-blowers from official retribution. Assange released video footage showing in horrifying detail how US soldiers in a helicopter had shot and killed Iraqi civilians and two Reuters journalists in 2007.</p> <p>Apart from how the soldiers spoke – “Hahaha, I hit them”, “Nice”, “Good shot” – it looks like most of the victims were civilians and that the journalists’ cameras were mistaken for rifles. When one of the wounded men tried to crawl to safety, the helicopter crew, instead of allowing their comrades on the ground to take him prisoner, as required by the rules of war, seek permission to shoot him again.</p> <p>As Melzer’s detailed description makes clear, the soldiers knew what they were doing:</p> <blockquote> <p>“Come on, buddy,” the gunner comments, aiming the crosshairs at his helpless target. “All you gotta do is pick up a weapon.”</p> </blockquote> <p>The soldiers’ request for authorisation to shoot is given. When the wounded man is carried to a nearby minibus, it is shot to pieces with the helicopter’s 30mm gun. The driver and two other rescuers are killed instantly. The driver’s two young children inside are seriously wounded.</p> <p>US army command investigated the matter, concluding that the soldiers acted in accordance with the rules of war, even though they had not. Equally to the point, writes Melzer, the public would never have known a war crime had been committed without the release of what Assange called the “Collateral Murder” video.</p> <p>The video footage was just one of hundreds of thousands of documents that WikiLeaks released last year in tranches known as the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/jul/25/afghanistan-war-logs-military-leaks" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Afghan war logs</a>, the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/oct/22/iraq-war-logs-military-leaks" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Iraq war logs</a>, and <a href="https://theweek.com/articles/488953/wikileaks-cablegate-dump-10-biggest-revelations" target="_blank" rel="noopener">cablegate</a>. They revealed numerous alleged war crimes and provided the raw material for a shadow history of the disastrous wars waged by the US and its allies, including Australia, in Aghanistan and Iraq.</p> <h2>Punished forever</h2> <p>Melzer retraces what has happened to Assange since then, from the accusations of sexual assault in Sweden to Assange taking refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy in London in an attempt to avoid the possibility of extradition to the US if he returned to Sweden. His refuge led to him being jailed in the United Kingdom for breaching his bail conditions.</p> <p>Sweden eventually dropped the sexual assault charges, but the US government ramped up its request to extradite Assange. He faces charges under the 1917 Espionage Act, which, if successful, could lead to a jail term of 175 years.</p> <p>Two key points become increasingly clear as Melzer methodically works through the events.</p> <p>The first is that there has been a carefully orchestrated plan by four countries – the United States, the United Kingdom, Sweden and, yes, Australia – to ensure Assange is punished forever for revealing state secrets.</p> <p>The second is that the conditions he has been subjected to, and will continue to be subjected to if the US’s extradition request is granted, have amounted to torture.</p> <p>On the first point, how else are we to interpret the continual twists and turns over nearly a decade in the official positions taken by Sweden and the UK? Contrary to the obfuscating language of official communiques, all of these have closed down Assange’s options and denied him due process.</p> <p>Melzer documents the thinness of the Swedish authorities’ case for charging Assange with sexual assault. That did not prevent them from keeping it open for many years. Nor was Assange as unco-operative with police as has been suggested. Swedish police kept changing their minds about where and whether to formally interview Assange because they knew the evidence was weak.</p> <p>Melzer also takes pains to show how Swedish police also overrode the interests of the two women who had made the complaints against Assange.</p> <p>It is distressing to read the conditions Assange has endured over several years. A change in the political leadership of Ecuador led to a change in his living conditions in the embassy, from cramped but bearable to virtual imprisonment.</p> <p>Since being taken from the embassy to Belmarsh prison in 2019, Assange has spent much of his time in solitary confinement for 22 or 23 hours a day. He has been denied all but the most limited access to his legal team, let alone family and friends. He was kept in a glass cage during his seemingly interminable extradition hearing, appeals over which could continue for several years more years, according to Melzer.</p> <p>Assange’s physical and mental health have suffered to the point where he has been put on suicide watch. Again, that seems to be the point, as Melzer writes:</p> <blockquote> <p>The primary purpose of persecuting Assange is not – and never has been – to punish him personally, but to establish a generic precedent with a global deterrent effect on other journalist, publicists and activists.</p> </blockquote> <p>So will the new Australian prime minister, Anthony Albanese, do any more than his three Coalition and two Labor predecessors to advocate for the interests of an Australian citizen? In December 2021, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/jun/02/labor-backbenchers-urge-albanese-to-stay-true-to-his-values-on-julian-assange-trial" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Guardian Australia reported</a> Albanese saying he did “not see what purpose is served by the ongoing pursuit of Mr Assange” and that “enough is enough”. Since being sworn in as prime minister, he has kept his cards close to his chest.</p> <p>The actions of his predecessors suggest he won’t, even though Albanese has already said on several occasions since being elected that he wants to do politics differently.</p> <p>Melzer, among others, would remind him of the words of <a href="https://theelders.org/news/only-us-president-who-didnt-wage-war" target="_blank" rel="noopener">former US president Jimmy Carter</a>, who, contrary to other presidents, said he did not deplore the WikiLeaks revelations.</p> <blockquote> <p>They just made public what was the truth. Most often, the revelation of truth, even if it’s unpleasant, is beneficial. […] I think that, almost invariably, the secrecy is designed to conceal improper activities.</p> <p><em><strong>This article originally appeared on <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-new-book-argues-julian-assange-is-being-tortured-will-our-new-pm-do-anything-about-it-183622" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Conversation</a>.</strong></em></p> <p><em>Image: Shutterstock</em></p> </blockquote> </blockquote>

Books

Placeholder Content Image

5 ways we can argue better

<p>Argument is everywhere. From the kitchen table to the boardroom to the highest echelons of power, we all use argument to persuade, investigate new ideas, and make collective decisions.</p> <p>Unfortunately, we often fail to consider the ethics of arguing. This makes it perilously easy to mistreat others — a critical concern in personal relationships, workplace decision-making and political deliberation.</p> <p><strong>The norms of argument</strong></p> <p>Everyone understands there are <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-to-make-good-arguments-at-school-and-everywhere-else-121305">basic norms</a> we <a href="https://books.google.com.au/books/about/A_Systematic_Theory_of_Argumentation.html?id=DfMih3LWVBYC&amp;redir_esc=y">should follow when arguing</a>.</p> <p>Logic and commonsense dictate that, when deliberating with others, we should be open to their views. We should listen carefully and try to understand their reasoning. And while we can’t all be Socrates, we should do our best to respond to their thoughts with clear, rational and relevant arguments.</p> <p>Since the time of <a href="http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/gorgias.html">Plato</a>, these <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10503-009-9160-0">norms have been defended</a> on what philosophers call “<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-do-you-know-that-what-you-know-is-true-thats-epistemology-63884">epistemic</a>” grounds. This means the norms are valuable because they promote knowledge, insight and self-understanding.</p> <p>What “<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-to-teach-all-students-to-think-critically-35331">critical thinking</a>” is to internal thought processes, these “norms of argument” are to interpersonal discussion and deliberation.</p> <p><strong>Why ‘ethical’ arguing is important</strong></p> <p>In a <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0020174X.2019.1637776">recent article,</a> I contend that these norms of argument are also <em>morally important</em>.</p> <p>Sometimes this is obvious. For example, norms of argument can overlap with commonsense ethical principles, like honesty. Deliberately misrepresenting a person’s view is wrong because it involves knowingly saying something false.</p> <p>More importantly, but less obviously, being reasonable and open-minded ensures we treat our partners in argument in a consensual and reciprocal way. During arguments, people open themselves up to attaining worthwhile benefits, like understanding and truth. If we don’t “play by the rules”, we can frustrate this pursuit.</p> <p>Worse, if we change their minds by misleading or bamboozling them, this can amount to the serious wrongs of <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/40237210?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents">manipulation or intimidation</a>.</p> <p>Instead, obeying the norms of argument shows respect for our partners in argument as intelligent, rational individuals. It acknowledges they can change their minds based on reason.</p> <p>This matters because <a href="https://www.iep.utm.edu/kantview/#H5">rationality is an important part of people’s humanity</a>. Being “endowed with reason” is lauded in the <a href="https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/">UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights</a> to support its fundamental claim that humans are born free and equal in dignity and rights.</p> <p>Obeying the norms of argument also has good effects on our character. Staying open-minded and genuinely considering contrary views helps us learn more about our own beliefs.</p> <p>As philosopher <a href="https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/m/mill/john_stuart/m645o/">John Stuart Mill observed</a>,</p> <blockquote> <p>He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that.</p> </blockquote> <p>This open-mindedness helps us combat the moral perils of <a href="https://psychologenie.com/concept-of-group-polarization-in-psychology-explained">bias and groupthink</a>.</p> <p>What’s more, the norms of argument aren’t just good for individuals, they are also good for groups. They allow conflicts and collective decisions to be approached in a respectful, inclusive way, rather than forcing an agreement or <a href="https://theconversation.com/comic-how-to-have-better-arguments-about-the-environment-or-anything-else-98554">escalating the conflict</a>.</p> <p>Indeed, arguments can <em>make</em> collectives. Two arguers, over time, <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282544990_What_Virtue_Argumentation_Theory_Misses_The_Case_of_Compathetic_Argumentation">can collectively achieve a shared intellectual creation</a>. As partners in argument, they define terms, acknowledge areas of shared agreement, and mutually explore each other’s reasons. They do something <em>together</em>.</p> <p>All this accords with everyday experience. Many of us have enjoyed the sense of respect when our views have been welcomed, heard and seriously considered. And all of us know what it feels like to have our ideas dismissed, misrepresented or caricatured.</p> <p><strong>Why we have trouble arguing calmly</strong></p> <p>Unfortunately, being logical, reasonable and open-minded is easier said than done. When we argue with others, their arguments will inevitably call into question our beliefs, values, experience and competence.</p> <p>These challenges are not easy to face calmly, especially if the topic is one we care about. This is because we like to think of ourselves as <a href="https://positivepsychology.com/self-efficacy/">effective and capable</a>, rather than mistaken or misguided. We also care about our <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds?__s=goqjzsqdzqpwcb7jc8de">social standing</a> and like to <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/changepower/201808/11-ways-project-confidence-and-be-taken-seriously">project confidence</a>.</p> <p>In addition, we suffer from <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19586162">confirmation bias</a>, so we actively avoid evidence that we are wrong.</p> <p>Finally, we may have material stakes riding on the argument’s outcome. After all, one of the main reasons we engage in argument is to get our way. We want to convince others to do what we want and follow our lead.</p> <p>All this means that when someone challenges our convictions, we are psychologically predisposed to hit back hard.</p> <p>Worse still, our capacity to evaluate whether our opponents are obeying the norms of argument is poor. All the psychological processes mentioned above don’t just make it hard to argue calmly and reasonably. They also trick us into <a href="https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/04/190417084524.htm">mistakenly thinking our opponents are being illogical</a>, making us feel as if it’s them, and not us, who’s failing to argue properly.</p> <p><strong>How should we navigate the moral complexity of arguing?</strong></p> <p>Arguing morally isn’t easy, but here are five tips to help:</p> <ol> <li> <p>Avoid thinking that when someone starts up an argument, they are mounting an attack. To adapt a saying by <a href="https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/oscar_wilde_128481">Oscar Wilde</a>, there is only one thing in the world worse than being argued with, and that is <em>not</em> being argued with. Reasoned argument acknowledges a person’s rationality, and that their opinion matters.</p> </li> <li> <p>There is always more going on in any argument than who wins and who loses. In particular, the relationship between the two arguers can be at stake. Often, the real prize is demonstrating respect, even as we disagree.</p> </li> <li> <p>Don’t be too quick to judge your opponent’s standards of argument. There’s a good chance you’ll succumb to “<a href="https://hbr.org/1991/05/teaching-smart-people-how-to-learn">defensive reasoning</a>”, where you’ll use all your intelligence to find fault with their views, instead of genuinely reflecting on what they are saying. Instead, try and work with them to clarify their reasoning.</p> </li> <li> <p>Never assume that others aren’t open to intelligent argument. <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-organization/article/lets-argue-communicative-action-in-world-politics/F785E45F33231B4E600F97281BA5A6A3">History is littered</a> with examples of people genuinely changing their minds, even in the most high stakes environments imaginable.</p> </li> <li> <p>It’s possible for both sides to “lose” an argument. The recently announced <a href="https://theconversation.com/as-question-time-becomes-political-theatre-does-it-still-play-a-vital-role-in-government-121177">inquiry into question time in parliament</a> provides a telling example. Even as the government and opposition strive to “win” during this daily show of political theatre, the net effect of their appalling standards is that everyone’s reputation suffers.</p> </li> </ol> <p><strong>The upshot</strong></p> <p>There is a saying in applied ethics that the worst ethical decisions you’ll ever make are the ones you don’t recognise <em>as</em> ethical decisions.</p> <p>So, when you find yourself in the thick of argument, do your best to remember what’s morally at stake.</p> <p>Otherwise, there’s a risk you might lose a lot more than you win.<!-- Below is The Conversation's page counter tag. Please DO NOT REMOVE. --><img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/121178/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /><!-- End of code. If you don't see any code above, please get new code from the Advanced tab after you click the republish button. The page counter does not collect any personal data. More info: http://theconversation.com/republishing-guidelines --></p> <p><em>Written by <span>Hugh Breakey, Senior Research Fellow, Moral philosophy, Institute for Ethics, Governance &amp; Law, Law Futures Centre, Griffith University</span>. Republished with permission of </em><a rel="noopener" href="https://theconversation.com/actually-its-ok-to-disagree-here-are-5-ways-we-can-argue-better-121178" target="_blank"><em>The Conversation</em></a><em>. </em></p>

Relationships

Placeholder Content Image

7 tips for arguing with someone who is "always right"

<div id="page1" class="slide-show"> <div id="test" class="slide"> <div class="slide-description"> <p>We’ve all been there: in the middle of an argument it suddenly dawns on you that, no matter what you say or do, your opponent is going to take the win. Not because they’ve used reason and logic to secure their triumph but because they have an insatiable need to Always. Be. Right.</p> <p>It can be incredibly frustrating to enter into an argument with a person like this, but this character flaw can be managed. Remember, a person’s constant need to be right is most certainly masking their desperate fear of being wrong, and in the end, that fear is driving them to prevail by any means necessary. Try these tips to make these arguments and conflicts as painless as possible.</p> <div class="at-below-post addthis_tool" data-url="https://www.readersdigest.com.au/true-stories-lifestyle/relationships/7-tips-arguing-someone-who-always-right/"><strong>Stay strong but stay calm</strong></div> </div> </div> </div> <div id="page2" class="slide-show"> <div id="test" class="slide"> <div class="slide-description"> <p>It’s important to maintain your confidence if you truly feel you have a strong position. However, allowing emotion to enter the equation is almost always a recipe for disaster – because this tends to be seen as weakness by your challenger. Those that feel they are “always right” often pride themselves on being extremely rational. Be firm in your stance but never angry or desperate. A clear head and a steady tone will get you a lot further every time.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div data-fuse="21833175956"><strong>Qualify each point with evidence</strong></div> <div id="page3" class="slide-show"> <div id="test" class="slide"> <div class="slide-description"> <p>Your rival will be intent on breaking down your argument, so make sure you can give clear evidence for each point you make. It can be pretty difficult to tear down a well-structured defence. This means you’ll need to be prepared for the pending confrontation. Ultimately, this isn’t always possible, of course, because arguments pop up at the most inopportune times, but do your best to be prepared in any case.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div id="page4" class="slide-show"> <div id="test" class="slide"> <div class="slide-title"><strong>Present facts rather than opinions</strong></div> <div class="slide-description"> <p>Opinions are great, but they lack power during a conflict. While how you feel is certainly valid, it is not the best technique for winning an argument. Try facts that cannot be disputed. Alternatively, you can ask for facts or proof from your challenger. Statistics and case studies might be a little bit of overkill but try to present some seriously strong data to win your case. Be warned, though, that even with a mountain of legitimate data, your adversary may still decide they’ve come out on top.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div data-fuse="21833175500"><strong>Pick your battles</strong></div> <div id="page5" class="slide-show"> <div id="test" class="slide"> <div class="slide-description"> <p>If you feel your battle has become hopeless you might want to move on. For example, if you’re arguing with your work buddy over who’s the best football player of all time, there’s likely never going to be a resolution. There are too many ways to stack the deck for your player of choice. Instead, you may want to skip that argument and concentrate on things that, although might seem a little more mundane, really do affect your day-to-day life.</p> <div class="at-below-post addthis_tool" data-url="https://www.readersdigest.com.au/true-stories-lifestyle/relationships/7-tips-arguing-someone-who-always-right/"><strong>Avoid sarcasm</strong></div> </div> </div> </div> <div id="page6" class="slide-show"> <div id="test" class="slide"> <div class="slide-description"> <p>Sarcasm is widely considered the lowest form of humour, and is often used to hurt or insult someone. It can be easy to resort to sarcasm during an argument but it doesn’t often strengthen your case. Sarcasm will only make you seem petty and contrary. Take the high road in any encounter you may have. You feel better for it, at the very least.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div id="page7" class="slide-show"> <div id="test" class="slide"> <div class="slide-title"><strong>Consider alternatives</strong></div> <div class="slide-description"> <p>Just because your opponent always thinks they are right, does not mean they are always wrong. The truth is, they may occasionally be on the winning side. Consider their point of view for a moment. Could they truly be correct this time? Has their penchant for never backing down caused you to become so defensive in their presence that you can no longer see the other side? Take a minute to explore the dark side and you might be surprised at what you discover.</p> <div class="at-below-post addthis_tool" data-url="https://www.readersdigest.com.au/true-stories-lifestyle/relationships/7-tips-arguing-someone-who-always-right/"><strong>Live to fight another day</strong></div> </div> </div> </div> <div id="page8" class="slide-show"> <div id="test" class="slide"> <div class="slide-description"> <p>Walk away, because winning this one just might not be worth all the strife. Take your energy out of a losing battle and conserve it for another time. Don’t feel bad about conceding even if you feel you still have a horse in the race. After all, what does one really gain by arguing with someone who fails to see the legitimacy in the ideas and opinions of others? Take a step back and ask yourself if the outcome of the argument, wherever the victory falls, will really make any difference to you, at all.</p> <p><em>Written by <span>Shanell Mouland</span>. This article first appeared in </em><a rel="noopener" href="https://www.readersdigest.com.au/true-stories-lifestyle/relationships/7-tips-arguing-someone-who-always-right/" target="_blank"><em>Reader’s Digest</em></a><em>. For more of what you love from the world’s best-loved magazine, </em><a href="http://readersdigest.innovations.com.au/c/readersdigestemailsubscribe?utm_source=over60&amp;utm_medium=articles&amp;utm_campaign=RDSUB&amp;keycode=WRA93V"><em>here’s our best subscription offer.</em></a></p> </div> </div> </div> <p><img style="width: 100px !important; height: 100px !important;" src="https://oversixtydev.blob.core.windows.net/media/7820640/1.png" alt="" data-udi="umb://media/f30947086c8e47b89cb076eb5bb9b3e2" /></p>

Relationships

Placeholder Content Image

All families argue. Don’t they?

<p>Any family will tell you they’ve had their fair share of arguments. Fighting with the people closest to you is a fact of life but when squabbles become particularly heated or frequent it’s a problem you need to take some care in handling. You only have one family so it’s important to deal with the fight. Families have been torn apart by regretful words and actions. It’s a situation nobody wants so here are a few ways to deal effectively with family arguments.</p><p><strong>Cool off</strong></p><p>It’s hard to do after a fight but try and stay calm. Often our emotions get the best of us during an argument and we do or say things we regret. Go for a walk to clear your head so when you come back, you will be in a much better frame of mind to have a calm discussion. Similarly, don’t force the issue and let other family members cool off.</p><p><strong>Talk and listen</strong></p><p>Leaving the issue alone will not resolve it. Talk to each other about your problems but avoid being accusatory. Remember, listening is just as important. Try and understand the perspective of the other person. Just like you, they will have valid concerns that you should consider.</p><p><strong>Be the bigger person</strong></p><p>Don’t be the stubborn one; be the bigger person.&nbsp; Someone has to make the first move to mend the relationship. Often you’ll find your family member just as eager to forgive and forget.</p><p><strong>Choose to forgive</strong></p><p>You may still be angry but think about how the future will be if the relationship is not healed. Holding onto a grudge is not healthy so choose to let go of any resentment or hurt.</p><p><strong>Don’t gossip</strong></p><p>Even if you are just relaying what happened to another family member, consider how the other person will view it. They may feel like you are talking about them behind their back and trying to get other family members on your side. Of course, this is not true but with hurt feelings the situation may be viewed differently. It’s always best to talk to the person directly.</p><p><strong>Stay in contact</strong></p><p>With families spread so far and wide these days, it may be tempting to just pretend the fight didn’t happen. However, it’s not healthy to completely cut off contact with your family - it often leads to an irreparable relationship. Keep them up to date with any important news (birth, marriages and deaths) and send them out the annual Xmas card. With time arguments often resolve themselves.</p><p><strong>Professional help</strong></p><p>Rather than dragging another family member to mediate, consider professional help. These are people qualified to help families deal with conflict. Often it helps to have an objective third party who can help solve the issues.</p>

Family & Pets

Placeholder Content Image

Arguing can lead to weight gain

<p>Battles with your spouse can be linked to battles with your weight finds a new study.</p><p>Researchers at Ohio State University discovered that arguing with your partner was linked to an appetite-triggering hormone called ghrelin.</p><p>The study looked at 43 couples who had been married for a minimum of three years, ate a meals together and then tried to resolve a conflict in their relationships. They also completed questionaries, which included responses to their general anxiety symptoms and sleep quality, and had a sample of blood and saliva taken, so levels of stress-related hormones and immune cells could be tested.</p><p>The study results, published in Clinical Psychological Science, indicated there was a link between marital distress and poor food choices, with the aftermath of fights typically leaving couples reaching for junk food.</p><p>Lead study author, Lisa Jaremka, a University of Delaware assistant professor specialising in psychology and brain sciences, said: “Ghrelin's not just pushing you to eat. It's creating a craving for specific types of foods: those that are high in sugar, high in fat and high in salt.”</p><p>Jaremka says the study was prompted by data that suggested couples who experienced high levels of marital difficulties were more likely to suffer from weight-related health problems and tended to have shorter life spans.</p><p>She emphasised there was nothing to suggest fighting caused hunger, but there findings suggested a strong correlation between the two. It is hoped these results will lead to greater understanding of the link between marital hardships and health problems.</p><p><strong>Related links:</strong></p><p><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><em><strong><a href="/lifestyle/dating/2015/09/tips-for-working-through-relationships-problems/">10 great tips for surviving challenging moments in relationships</a></strong></em></span></p><p><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><em><strong><a href="/lifestyle/dating/2015/09/signs-of-unhealthy-relationship/">6 signs of an unhealthy relationship</a></strong></em></span></p><p><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><em><strong><a href="/lifestyle/dating/2015/08/cheeky-older-couples/">11 cheeky couples who prove love only gets better with age</a></strong></em></span></p>

Relationships

Placeholder Content Image

Arguing can lead to weight gain

<p>Battles with your spouse can be linked to battles with your weight finds a new study.</p><p>Researchers at Ohio State University discovered that arguing with your partner was linked to an appetite-triggering hormone called ghrelin.</p><p>The study looked at 43 couples who had been married for a minimum of three years, ate a meals together and then tried to resolve a conflict in their relationships. They also completed questionaries, which included responses to their general anxiety symptoms and sleep quality, and had a sample of blood and saliva taken, so levels of stress-related hormones and immune cells could be tested.</p><p>The study results, published in Clinical Psychological Science, indicated there was a link between marital distress and poor food choices, with the aftermath of fights typically leaving couples reaching for junk food.</p><p>Lead study author, Lisa Jaremka, a University of Delaware assistant professor specialising in psychology and brain sciences, said: “Ghrelin's not just pushing you to eat. It's creating a craving for specific types of foods: those that are high in sugar, high in fat and high in salt.”</p><p>Jaremka says the study was prompted by data that suggested couples who experienced high levels of marital difficulties were more likely to suffer from weight-related health problems and tended to have shorter life spans.</p><p>She emphasised there was nothing to suggest fighting caused hunger, but there findings suggested a strong correlation between the two. It is hoped these results will lead to greater understanding of the link between marital hardships and health problems.</p><p><strong>Related links:</strong></p><p><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><em><strong><a href="/lifestyle/dating/2015/09/tips-for-working-through-relationships-problems/">10 great tips for surviving challenging moments in relationships</a></strong></em></span></p><p><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><em><strong><a href="/lifestyle/dating/2015/09/signs-of-unhealthy-relationship/">6 signs of an unhealthy relationship</a></strong></em></span></p><p><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><em><strong><a href="/lifestyle/dating/2015/08/cheeky-older-couples/">11 cheeky couples who prove love only gets better with age</a></strong></em></span></p>

Relationships

Our Partners