I've been lately quite intrigued by the devices employed in arguing. I myself am not well versed in the strategies in arguing, only knowing that I find myself at wit's end sometimes during arguments. A case in point was having a discussion which left me feeling rather emotionally distressed, agitated and quite furious. I eventually started to realise that this result was quite a regular ending to most arguments I enter - that of somehow giving in and feeling terrible about how you've firstly been treated(rather viciously in most cases in arguments) and how victimised I felt.

Now I'm not one who ever wants to feel victimised however, when I cannot help it and I am a victim - that really irritates me.

So I thought to myself that surely there is a strategy or strategies that can be used to better deconstruct a argument, shy away from the distractions and present an honest argument. It happens that in arguing, a variety of cunning, often dishonest and deceptive tricks can be used to muddy the facts and confuse the opposition. Unfortunately, if you, like me are not aware of these tricks - you can be absolutely trodden over in all matter of ways, often leaving you quite incapable of dealing with the logical and decision making skills needed to reason out an argument - primarily because you cannot see the wood from the trees in all the muck and tricks used to confuse and hide the facts - or indeed lead you up a path from with you didn't need to go.

As it happens, after doing a little bit of reading - there are two types of interpretation of information. One is fuel by how we feel about the information or how it makes us feel, the other is the essential facts in the information that describe the objects that need to be reasoned with. I am emotional by nature, I'm creative, expressive and am passionate about what I believe. Poetry and reflection make the bulk of my character. With these traits I find that I often am quite biased(without being objective) about how I feel about information, almost to the extend and actaully mostly to the extent that makes my mind up for me, whether or not I've evaluated the facts or not - if i've recived information that makes me feel distressed, upset or negative, I feel something is not right and thus in this vain, I make up my mind.

As it transpires, this is a common mistake made by people, it is that they make an emotional distinction between right and wrong - when essentially right and wrong are states that cannot be determined by how we feel. Right and wrong, truth and false are facts that are or they aren't - no emotional connection should change them in once respect and change it again in another. And this is where I fall foul.

In conversation, the basis for communication are statements or questions. And its your job to, when a statement it made, to decide whether that statement is true or false. When asked a question, it is your job to attempt to retrieve as much information as you need in order to answer that question honestly and truthfully.

One of the ploys used by people in conversation, when making a statement is by making suggestive remarks as part of that statement, in the form of emotionally charged words, which either invoke approval or disapproval, and other emotional connotations that are assimilated by people like me - how respond and react to how we feel about how these words and descriptions make us feel. This often blinds us from the facts nested in between. Furthermore, these emotionally charged words can be subtly incorrect, false and make assumptions which you cannot see because you've reacted to them already. These words other than invoking emotion can also lie and because you cannot detect the lie,you take it as truth. For example. Some words suggest something when its not really something, like a statement 'your reasoning is broken, Stuart' where you react on the 'broken' and forget about the essential facts being transmitted : 'All of your reasoning is flawed'. To which you could now make a better true or false reasoning like. 'Wait a second all my reasoning is flawed' - do you know all my reasoning? Which elements are flawed? I'm not going to agree with you until you've satisfied my pursuit of truth or false...How can you say all when you dont know all?? This sort of thing - you need to persue the truth and not blindly give in to the emotional connotations and suggestive implications - these are all tricks.

It makes me quite angry that these devices are used to disrupt thinking, reasoning and momentum. Its dishonest and manipulative. It's a skill and its deceptive. Now the best way is knowing that its happening to you and for you not to react emotionally. This is difficult when you are like me. The other thing is to not get angry that these devices are being used on you. Some people don't even know they are doing it but they know that when they do it - it works for them.

So really every conversation is a pursuit of truth or false, right and wrong and the attempt to rid all things that may disrupt that discovery.

Quite interested now and will continue to understand and protect myself from these devices.