The playful divide: a new look at arguing for fun.

• Author: Stoltz, Nathaniel H.

Introduction

The idea of arguing for fun has been studied by a few previous scholars, but forays into examining the nature of these interactions, as well as what may predispose individuals to seek out or engage in them, remain in their early stages. Continued study in this area is important due to the prevalence of playful arguments as well as the previous finding that attempts to engage in them can often produce problematic results (Hample, Han, and Payne 2010). In this paper, I lay out what I believe to be an important distinction to allow inquiries in this realm to proceed effectively--the division of playful argument into two categories. After explaining the two categories and the nature of their differences, I discuss what variables may help explain each and report the results of my investigation into the variable relationships.

Playful arguing

Interpersonal arguments can be undertaken by the participants for any of a variety of purposes. One, identified by Hample (2005a, 38-39), is play. This can be considered in a couple of different lights. Perhaps the simplest is that individuals, through experience, realize some sort of satisfaction and/or enjoyment from the act of arguing with others and thus may approach or create (perhaps, design) arguments that will recapture those effects. However, the more discussed conception is that of playful argument as a lamination of the eristic natural strip of argument, drawing on the work of Goffman (1974) and further explored in Hample, Han, and Payne (2010) and Magnani (2011, 150-151). This view holds that arguing is a naturally aggressive, competitive activity, and that reframing it as play makes it possible to enjoy if all participants understand and apply the frame correctly (though there is strong evidence that this mutual understanding often is not reached, creating adverse effects).

Hample, Han, and Payne (2010) give a fairly thorough treatment to who tends to argue playfully and what sorts of arguments might fall into this category. They put forth three basic examples of playful arguments: interscholastic debate, continuing arguments about sports, politics, or similar public issues, and "pok[ing] at" the other person (406). It appears that these were not intended to be an exhaustive, all-inclusive list of playful argument arenas, but even these shed considerable light on a problem with treating playful arguing as a single construct.

Toward a reconceptualization of playful arguing

Differing phenomena

Much as the tendency to reason can vary across arguments in general (Dillard, Segrin, and Harden 1989), we can see even from Hample and colleagues' simple list of common playful argumentation arenas that the level of reasoning in playful arguments may vary. Interscholastic debate is a formal affair in which two sides bring forth large quantities of evidence and reasoning in order to prove a case as fully as possible, whereas two friends arguing at a bar about whose football team is superior may put forth little, poor or (intentionally) fallacious evidence; these sorts of discussions may not progress past mere repetitions of the initial "poking" statements. Interscholastic debates lose their substance without additional arguments and reasoning being brought in, thus robbing them of their enjoyability as well, while a sillier argument derives its play from the fact that it does not delve into deeper, more serious waters. These examples illustrate that the level of reasoning in playful arguments can vary as widely as it does in "serious" arguments.

The dramatic differences in these two situations cast significant doubt on whether disposition to argue playfully (and, of course, acting on that disposition or lack thereof) is in fact a single construct. The individuals who participate in debate (or pseudo-debate interactions with like-minded friends and colleagues) would seem on face to be rather unlikely to enjoy exchanges that consist of (often intentionally) problematic evidence and little true exchange of ideas, and those that enjoy the latter sort of interaction do not seem particularly predisposed to seek out the former.

As such, I propose that what has heretofore been treated as the single construct of playful argument--any argument where play is a goal--functionally contains two very different sorts of interactions that are likely predicted by different sets of individual (and perhaps situational) characteristics. I refer to these two types as substantive playful argument (SBPA) or superficial playful argument (SPPA).

The key distinction between these two types of playful arguments is what communicative behavior drives the arguers toward the goal of enjoying themselves. In SBPA, arguers find themselves energized and stimulated by a back-and-forth exchange (serious or otherwise), which may manifest in exchanges of considerable depth, "trying on" positions in a "devil's advocate" manner, or going on extended information searches. Conversely, superficial play depends on comical exaggerations and simple, overt humor, which may also depend on knowing "pokes" between individuals in a close relationship. Again, these mechanisms diverge rather sharply from each other in form and content, especially in terms of the extent of reasoning required to achieve the play goal.

Other than the presence or absence of extensive reasoning, what exactly separates these two categories of interactions? Two main distinguishing features of SBPA and SPPA are the role of bad arguments and the need to maintain a position. Consider the flow of an interscholastic debate--the affirmative puts forth a bevy of arguments, the negative reacts to most or all of them while putting forth a few original ideas as well, and as the rounds progress, the weakest or most well-opposed arguments are abandoned in favor of the ones that seem to maintain some persuasive power. Huston (1985) notes that this process is controlled by the critical thinking and analysis abilities of the participants. The more reasoned (or substantive) an argument is, the more these skills should kick in and select for argument quality in this fashion the superior points remain on the floor while the weak ones are discarded. Conversely, in an eristic, "needling" sort of interaction, bad arguments often are the ones that are selected for. Hample (2005a) puts forth the example of the "outrageous argument ... supposed to gain a reply in the same spirit" (39). Such outrageous arguments would be immediately discarded in an encounter where critical thinking is paramount, but here, they bear the weight of creating the fun. This highlights the different origins of the play in the two types of playful arguments. In substantive ones, the play derives from the participants' mutual enjoyment of debating topics. SPPAs, in contrast, seem to be driven by an impulse to be silly or outrageous, or perhaps to playfully tease the other(s) in the argument.

The second distinguishing feature of SBPA versus SPPAs is the need to defend a position. SPPAs have an overtly eristic element to them; participants are focused on "winning" the argument (Walton 1998). Thus, positions must consistently be defended. Furthermore, if the argument is not "resolved" in favor of a side, the enjoyment or humor that it brings to the participants can be revisited in future interactions. The poor quality of an argument (often in conjunction with this recurring nature) can be used to signal that the arguer is employing a play frame, an important navigation for any aspiring playful arguer (though one that is not always successfully applied; Magnani 2011).

Interestingly, while interscholastic debate can, in a sense, be seen as a representation of the extreme substantive end of the playful argument spectrum, it actually aligns with the superficial, reason-less end in this second respect, as the situation compels the participants to remain on their original "side" throughout the argument. An interscholastic debate is not going to conclude with both sides agreeing. This may be largely mitigated by the fact that participants understand their opponents are obligated to continue opposing and that their arguments in this context may not be fully accordant with their personal beliefs. Still, probably a better example of a near-fully SBPA is a pseudo-debate between friends or colleagues about an issue where this formality is removed and thus the constant need to defend a "side" thus ceases to apply.

In sum, an SBPA is a playful argument that includes extensive reasoning, the progressive discarding of bad reasons, and positional flexibility, whereas an SPPA is a playful argument that is characterized by the adherence to a small number of (often purposefully problematic) reasons in support of an inflexible position. Since they seem to be driven by different impulses, it seems likely they will be statistically different phenomena rather than overlapping manifestations of a general impulse to argue playfully.

H1: There will be a statistically significant difference between individuals' affiliations with substantive and superficial play frames.

Potential predictors of SBPA/SPPA

If SBPA and SPPA indeed represent different behavioral orientations, then clearly they will have some differing associations and predictors; otherwise, in spite of the differing features of SBPA and SPPA, they are not useful distinctions and playful arguing ultimately should be treated as a single construct. There are a large number of possible predictors of the two types of playful arguing, but the three areas I spotlight here are: argumentativeness/aggressiveness, levels of epistemological orientation, and teasing and inside jokes.

Argumentativeness and aggressiveness

Hample Han, and Payne (2010) ran substantial analyses on predictors for playful argument in general. Variables that indicated aggressiveness tended to show strong positive correlations with the playful arguing frame. Civility and...