Sounds like you nailed it.
The question (which I probably should have included in the OP) that necessarily follows is, how can we deal with that so that the least amount of actual blood gets shed.
Sounds interesting.
Although this one is rather fond of discussing things away from her own "home turf", sometimes standing on the opponent's territory for the sake of argument. But oh my, that is difficult! Definitely outside of comfort zone.
As for why people are so defensive of their ideas - I guess it is more an identity thing than territory thing. Ideas hold a great deal of what person considers "self". Lose a 1/3 of my body - if I still live, I am still myself, if in a sorry state. Lose 1/3 of my thoughts - I am no longer myself but someone else. To lose some arguments might mean losing yourself in a way.
If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common
Actually, maybe territorialism is a form of identification, too. It would nicely fit, then.
And I have found that I can more easily take the other person's perspective if I am very secure in my opinion and thus don't feel like someone can come along and "take it from me". So in this case, my "home turf" is secured and I don't need to worry about having it taken away.
edited 18th Apr '11 9:51:32 AM by vijeno
That's why the most "important" ideas, the core, with the greatest deal of self invested tend to also be irrational and/or axiomatic. That way one can hold to them even if outargued. More rational ideas by their very premise include circumstances/arguments that can make them not true.
If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common
Yes; I'm pretty sure it has to do with the fact that all our memories are coloured by emotions (I'm just reading a book about neurology; it's a fascinating topic!). So probably we aren't actually capable of a merely rational opinion about anything - perhaps there is always emotion involved, and thus bias?
Interestingly, it seems I can be undetermined about something, even if there are some emotions involved. Like, as a rather stupid and geeky example, I do know that emacs certainly has some advantages over vi, even though I personally favour the latter. I do remember a time when I was able to get into a heated discussion about that subject, and sure enough, that was before I had totally settled the isssue in my own mind.
So being emotionally attached to something is definitely not the only factor that determines whether I will be defensive about that subject. It seems that, as mentioned earlier, being sure about my opinion is definitely one factor. But maybe there are even more factors involved.
The fact you mentioned is very interesting too. The less rational arguments we have about an opinion, the more we seem to cling to it. Might translate into being insecure about it, deep down, perhaps?
I agree that our "core" ideas tend to be the most irrational. I just don't quite get why that is.
edited 18th Apr '11 10:16:58 AM by vijeno
So, humans are pretty territorial animals. Afaik, this is not only obvious, but has also been proven.
And we are also have a very strong tendency to treat our opinions, beliefs and ideas as though they were also territories, our own intellectual "home turf".
If this is true, it would explain rather nicely why we often feel compelled to force our beliefs upon others, be right in any debate, and defend our beliefs against any "intruder" to the last drop of intellectual blood.
Opinions? (harhar)