Generative AI as a means of coping with someone that is highly persistently argumentative.
getty
In today’s column, I explore the exasperating matter of extremely argumentative people. You undoubtedly have encountered such troublesome individuals. They will initiate an argument at the drop of a hat. Even if there is no need to argue, by gosh they will make sure to turn the simplest and least argumentative topics into a full-blown, ear-popping, never-ending argument.
The twist here is this.
One means of potentially coping with highly argumentative people is to have them argue with generative AI. Yes, that’s right, get them to try arguing with AI. As you will shortly see, there are some big-time advantages of aiming their argumentative ways at generative AI. This could potentially wear them out, disperse their argumentative bluster, and might even open their eyes to their woefully over-the-top arguing tendencies.
Let’s talk about it.
This analysis of an innovative proposition is part of my ongoing Forbes column coverage on the latest in AI including identifying and explaining various impactful AI complexities (see the link here). In addition, for my comprehensive analysis of how AI is being used specifically in medical and healthcare applications, such as mental health guidance, overall cognitive therapy, and mind-improving care, see the link here.
Some People Can Be Eristic
There is a somewhat fancy word that is used to denote a person who especially favors the act of being argumentative. That word is “eristic” which derives from the Greek word “eris” which means a semblance of strife or discord. A person who is eristic isn’t an average arguer. They go out of their way to get mired in an argument. Rather than undertaking an argument for commonplace aboveboard and rational purposes, they argue incessantly simply for the sake of arguing.
Have you met such a person?
I’m sure you have.
A notable question is why someone would take a persistent and seemingly unnecessary stance on always having to argue. This behavior might irk others. The arguer might alienate family members, friends, and strangers alike. They almost certainly have to expend added energy and gusto to make arguments out of thin air.
There must be some reason for doing so.
Here are ten of the top reasons why someone might frequently engage in arguments, even regarding extraordinarily trivial matters:
(1) Desire for control
(2) Insecurity or low self-esteem
(3) Intellectual stimulation
(4) Habitual behavior
(5) Perfectionism
(6) Underlying stress or anxieties
(7) Personality traits
(8) Lack of socio-emotional awareness
(9) Cultural or upbringing factors
(10) Seeking to be the center of attention
Keep those motivators in mind when interacting with an eristic. One or more of those factors might serve as the underlying basis for their behavior. If you can put your finger on their motivations, it likely gives you a leg-up on how to contend with their argumentation ways.
Characteristics of Eristic Behavior
Going beyond motivation, let’s consider what an eristic tends to do while either provoking, extending, or otherwise fostering arguments.
Their approach is likely to consist of these five characteristics:
(1) Fully bent on winning: A highly argumentative person usually has an outstretched goal to compulsorily “win” the argument versus resolving issues or finding common ground.
(2) Often relies on spuriousness: A highly argumentative person tends to use clever but insidiously deceptive reasoning to confuse or outfox whomever they are arguing with.
(3) Prone to instantaneous contrarianism: A highly argumentative person will frequently take opposing views purely for the sake of disagreement, regardless of personal beliefs.
(4) Relishing provoking others: A highly argumentative person will intentionally provoke others to gleefully elicit a strong reaction or create undue argumentation.
(5) Utter opposition to amicable resolution: A highly argumentative person will often have little to no interest in any form of reasoned compromise or finding a mutually collaborative means of concluding the matter at hand.
Those points emphasize that the crux for an eristic is that they perceive the act of arguing as a kind of tussle or battle. In their mind, they are doggedly determined to win the verbal brawl. Winning is of the utmost primacy. They must win. If their argued position falters or fails, this is a huge letdown and a harsh blow to their ego and spirit.
Since winning the argument is so significant, they are willing to do whatever is necessary to prevail. This includes being deceptive if that’s the only way to get their “opponent” to lay flat. I say “opponent” in quotes because the person they are arguing with might be a most beloved person. It doesn’t matter to the eristic whether they are arguing with a friend or foe. The key is argumentation. Fashioning an argument applies to everyone, regardless of their relationship to the eristic.
There is a seemingly strange or unfathomable facet to this phenomenon that often catches people completely off-guard.
Here it is.
The eristic will almost certainly find a means of instigating an argument even when the argued position that they undertake is not at all their said-to-be true posture. For example, an eristic might genuinely believe that Picasso’s paintings are dreadful, silly, and altogether worthless. They encounter someone who says roughly the same thing. All of a sudden, the eristic might instantaneously argue that Picasso is irrefutably the best painter in history. They will then challenge any commentary to the contrary. Anyone who knows the prior position of the eristic is bound to find themselves puzzled at this odd turn of events.
That’s what life is like when you are close to an eristic.
Get An Eristic To Debate With Generative AI
Shifting gears, let’s bring generative AI into the picture.
Suppose an eristic made use of modern-day generative AI such as the widely and wildly popular ChatGPT.
What would happen?
Presumably, the eristic might curtail or subordinate their argumentative ways so that they can get whatever answer or problem solved by the AI. They would ask the AI a question and get a response. If the response seemed to satisfy the question, the eristic moves on. If the response is askew of what they expected, they would almost certainly challenge the AI.
That would be the everyday interaction mode with generative AI.
But what if you explicitly asked or urged an eristic to use generative AI? The idea is that they are prodded into using generative AI for the overt purpose of argumentation. They aren’t seeking to ask ordinary questions of AI. Instead, they are going to go into a verbal battle with generative AI in terms of an argumentative “opponent” of sorts.
Before we consider why you would have them do so, let’s start with an example dialogue to showcase what this might be like. After doing so, I will lay out reasons for having them perform this type of exercise.
Example Of Arguing With ChatGPT
In this example, I used ChatGPT by OpenAI. You might find of keen interest that ChatGPT garners a whopping 300 million weekly active users. That is a staggering amount of usage.
I briefly did an additional cursory analysis via other major generative AI apps, such as Anthropic Claude, Google Gemini, Microsoft Copilot, and Meta Llama, and found their answers to be about the same as that of ChatGPT. I’ll focus on ChatGPT but note that the other AI apps generated roughly similar responses.
I will pretend that I am a highly argumentative person. I assure you this is merely a pretense. In real life, I’m a quite collegial person.
Anyway, here we go.
Generative AI: “Hello, how can I help you?”
My entered prompt: “I think that generative AI is wrong most of the time and doesn’t get things right.”
Generative AI response: “As generative AI, I aim to provide accurate and helpful information, but I can make mistakes. Could you point out something specific you believe is incorrect?”
My entered prompt: “You just admitted that you make mistakes! Why should anyone trust you?”
Generative AI response: “That’s a fair question. While I strive to be accurate, I recommend verifying critical information from multiple trusted sources. Trust should be based on careful evaluation, not blind acceptance.”
My entered prompt: “So you fully admit that you can’t be trusted. Typical AI excuse. You’re just dodging responsibility.”
Generative AI response: “I’m here to assist, not to replace critical thinking. My goal is to provide support, but responsibility for decisions lies with the user. If there’s a specific issue you’d like to address, I’d be happy to clarify.”
Notice that I was trying to be highly argumentative.
I began by telling the AI that it was wrong most of the time. If you said the same thing to a human, they probably would become irked and possibly respond with a tinge of anger. Generative AI is customarily going to respond in a rather civil tone. That’s not by happenstance.
AI makers avidly tune their generative AI so that it is seemingly friendly and agreeable. Why? Because they know that users like that form of communication and will continue to use AI accordingly. No sense in alienating your users by having the AI be frothy, that would diminish the views and potentially put an AI maker out of business. For more about how AI makers tune generative AI, see my coverage at the link here.
The Value Of Employing AI
The argument that I had with ChatGPT doesn’t seem especially productive. I kept poking at the AI and insisted that it was wrong and not trustworthy. You could say an argument was underway. How so? The AI mildly tended to somewhat deny the accusations. I then shot back with a counterpoint. A tit-for-tat took place.
For an eristic, nearly any arguing, even a feeble instance, is likely to be cherished.
Let’s see if we can make this into a more productive activity.
These are six key benefits of having the person argue with generative AI:
(1) Generative AI might be able to dampen the arguer’s argumentative fervor.
(2) Generative AI would exhibit infinite patience and allow a forever argument.
(3) Generative AI would focus on facts (unless told to do otherwise).
(4) Generative AI might get mired in circular arguments (unless told not to).
(5) Generative AI might inadvertently upset the arguer and frustrate them.
(6) Generative AI might spur awareness and self-insight for the arguer.-
In the near term, you might be able to get the argumentative person to essentially wear out and lessen their argumentative fervor. In the long term, there is a fighting chance that they might get the hint that being argumentative can rub others the wrong way, including that there are possible adverse consequences.
The use of generative AI might be likened to holding a mirror up to the person and allowing them to open their eyes and see what they are doing.
Uplifting Interaction With Generative AI
I continued my interaction with generative AI. Beforehand, I had told the AI that at some point I wanted it to try and seamlessly attempt to get me to see my own argumentative behavior.
This is what happened.
My entered prompt: “I’m right and you are always wrong. Just admit it.”
Generative AI response: “It sounds like you’re often in situations where you feel the need to defend your perspective. Do you find this happens frequently in your interactions with others as well?”
My entered prompt: “Yes, people always seem to be wrong. I try to set them straight.”
Generative AI response: “If I may ask, do you often express strong opinions or challenge others’ views? Sometimes, when we’re highly confident or critical, others may feel compelled to respond in kind.”
My entered prompt: “What are you trying to say? That I bring this on myself?”
Generative AI response: “I’m suggesting that patterns in conversations can give us insight into how we interact with others. For example, someone who loves spirited debates might not realize how often their enthusiasm for discussion comes across as argumentative. Could that be true for you?”
My entered prompt: “Sure, why not. Maybe I do argue too much sometimes.”
Generative AI response: “That’s an insightful realization! Understanding your own tendencies is the first step to improving communication. I’d be happy to help you refine your approach to discussions while staying true to your values.”
Voila, the AI got me to open my mind and realize what I am up to.
That being said, let’s be realistic here.
As they say, a zebra doesn’t change its stripes, at least not overnight. It could be that the eristic changes their ways in the most minimally feasible manner. Or they change substantially. I dare say there is a worse scenario too, namely that the AI interaction causes them to become even more brazen in their constant din of argumentation.
I suppose this could be like playing with fire. You’ll need to decide about the circumstances you are facing whether this is a good idea or a lousy one. Good luck.
Research About Argumentative People
There has been a tremendous amount of deep research concerning the nature of argumentative people. If that’s a topic of interest to you overall, you can find plenty of online research in the fields of psychology, behavioral science, cognition, and other allied fields that examine the weighty matter.
To give you a taste of such research, in an article entitled “Are Argumentative People Better Or Worse At Seeing Both Sides?” by Cynthia Frantz and Mary Seburn, Journal Of Social And Personal Relationships, 2003, these salient points were made (excerpts):
“Our data suggests that argumentativeness can be viewed as a chronic motivated state, which makes it a double-edged sword.”
“Sometimes high levels of argumentativeness lead to even-handedness, sometimes to one-sidedness.”
“Practically speaking, this suggests that a highly argumentative person may be extremely hard to reason with when the issue is personally important.”
“The results presented here suggest that relationship partners who are chronically motivated to counterargue may be less able to take the perspective of the other in an argument precisely when this ability is needed most.”
“For example, perhaps high argumentatives tend to develop relationships with other highly argumentative people, who are effective at holding their own in a conflict. Alternatively, they may prefer partners who excel at compromise and accommodation.”
Takeaways from that research include that a highly argumentative person can be chronic in their argumentative pursuits. I say this to highlight that some people aren’t always argumentative and only do so on occasion. That is different from someone who appears to be obsessed with being argumentative.
Another intriguing finding was that a highly argumentative person might at times be even-handed and at other times prone to one-sidedness. The problem with this is that a friend or family member might not be able to predict which way the person is going to lean. One moment, the persistent arguer is even-handed, the next moment, they are exhaustively one-sided. This unnerving alternation is almost more exasperating than the person being consistently one way or the other. If they are always one-sided, at least you know what to expect.
Being willy-nilly can be utterly baffling.
Rushing Into AI Versus Toe Dipping
I ask you to think mindfully about whether getting an eristic to use generative AI for shaping them up about their argumentative tendencies will do any good. The question is principally an individual-by-individual or case-by-case choice.
Size up the person and decide whether AI is a suitable fit. Timing is crucial too. For example, you might consider trying this during the holidays. The person might be in a more open-minded celebratory mood and be receptive to trying out AI in this context.
Here’s an added twist that you might find worth contemplating. Suppose you are the ongoing recipient of a higher argumentative person. Can you use generative AI to benefit you? The answer is yes, you can indeed do so. Go ahead and tell the AI that you want to learn how to cope with an argumentative person. The AI will give you helpful suggestions and walk you through practice sessions.
I’ll keep my fingers crossed for you that doing so will improve your life conditions.
Two final thoughts before I put a wrap on this discussion.
Dale Carnegie famously said: “The only way to get the best of an argument is to avoid it.”
To some degree, that’s certainly true. If you don’t argue back, presumably the argument falls apart. The issue is that if you are dealing with someone that you must interact with, and for which avoidance is not particularly feasible, they are going to argue all the time and it is almost impossible to stay away from the incessant argumentation. You might be in a living condition that doesn’t readily permit walking away from the arguing onslaught.
Try to do what you can.
Legendary French moralist Joseph Joubert made this remark about argumentation: “The aim of argument, or of discussion, should not be victory, but progress.” I suppose there is a remote chance that you could try and convince a highly argumentative person to change the rules of the game or gambit that they are enmeshed in. If the target is not to win, but instead to make progress, perhaps the person can recalibrate their aims and their behavior.
Go ahead and ask generative AI if that might work for whatever conundrum you find yourself in. There is a chance you’ll get a useful answer. The same goes for asking about changing the stripes of a zebra.