Countering according to Harris "is not to nullify but to suggest a different way of thinking." This is very different from an argument such as was demonstrated in the italics that began the chapter. To me a counter may stem from an argument. But unlike an argument, a counter has a purpose. A counter is almost more parallel to a debate than it would to an argument. Because in a debate your points must be raised in a respectable way that does not infringe upon your opponents rights as a debater. This is very much like the countering approach Harris discusses. In a counter you are expected to recognize the value of the oppositions point of view. You are forced to respect it, if you are to make a valid point yourself. So by recognizing the validity of the opposition in a respectful way you pave a path that allows you as the "counterer" to propose your idea in a way that may "argue the other side", "uncover values", or "dissent". By conveying your opposition to the previous idea in these ways you provide yourself with a means to provide a respectable counter without seeming argumentative.
To be honest I had trouble finding a good example of countering in my blogs but this is the best one I could come up with. On 538 by Nate Silver he discusses the "establishment survey". He states that the "market tends to trust [the establishment survey]" over the "household survey". He recognizes that although this survey did end up in the Dow going up for the time being, he still believes that it is overvalued.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I like how you stated that countering is parellel to a debate rather than an arguement. I think thats a good way to explain it. Although Harris talks about countering in writing, I believe it can also be applied in verbal discussions, and the perfect example is debates. The best way to 'win' a debate is to recognize your opponents strengths, and then expand on his or her's weaknesses. In alot of ways countering is like rewriting, its just a little bit more pointed.
ReplyDelete