ARGUING WITH MYSELF

I often wonder why I post on Usenet and occasional web forums 
(where my level of engagement is usually limited by the terrible 
interface). I've got a lot of theories, most not very unusual, that 
I don't have time to explore here now, but I think a large part of 
it is the idea that I should be able to perceive what everyone else 
is thinking. It's similar to me trying to guess the lyrics to songs 
I've never heard before while watching music videos on TV, and try 
to sing to them in unison. It's a little challenge to post a 
response while expecting the other person's response and have a 
response ready for that.

To be honest this mainly applies to when I've got into an argument 
with someone, and I won't deny that at such points I sometimes cave 
into the temptation to try and set them up for a particular 
response. In a way it's manipulative and nasty, except that often 
whomever I'm arguing with has already got abusive at that point 
anyway, but what I'm really trying to do is argue with myself. I'm 
trying to prove to myself that I can guess exactly the thought 
process of the other person. After all there's usually not much 
real function to trying to prove one's point after about the third 
post over the same disagreement in a thread - when reading such 
exchanges between other people I know I'm usually well decided on 
who'se wrong by that point.

Now if you contrast this with real life, on those rare occasions 
where I'm actually in the physical presence of the human that I'm 
talking to, I generally behave quite differently. I voice my 
opinion once, and if I disagree with the response I generally keep 
it to myself unless the topic is of some immediate practical 
importance to me. What I actually do is imagine the likely exchange 
that would go on if I continued and assume from that either the 
uselessness of going through it for real, or find another approach 
to demonstrate the answer to an argument that I imagine they would 
make against my proposal if I continued to push it further (note: 
this can piss some people off, they probably find it disrespectful 
and would prefer a more open discussion).

I don't know how common this sort of argumentive strategy is. I am 
pretty sure that most people wouldn't admit it to themselves, let 
alone describe it on the internet. For me it ties in directly to my 
philosophy of loving and hating everything at the same time, 
because you switch from arguing one side to the other in your mind. 
Sure you don't actually believe in the logic of the opposing side, 
but just by understanding the logic of it you can work back towards 
the flaws and trade-offs in your own plan that you might not 
otherwise admit to yourself.

Then again you can also quite easily convince yourself of the 
problems in every proposal and end up not really doing anything, 
just sitting alone arguing with yourself. I'm probably quite a long 
way down that road actually.

 - The Free Thinker