Scientific American reports on these terms in the February issue. An objectivist holds absolute beliefs, while a relativist is open to persuasion. All of us are both, depending on the issue. Everyone is an absolutist on the cube root of 27; even if you don’t know what it is, you know there is one correct answer. Most everyone is a relativist on sushi; you may like it or not, but you are willing to believe there are others who feel the opposite, and you probably would not argue to the death that there is no imaginable circumstance on which you would change your viewpoint even a tiny bit. Maybe a new friend persuades a No-Sushi to try veggie sushi, or persuades a Yes-Sushi that it bad for the environment.

Issues that invoke absolutist opinions are often fraught, so I am going to illustrate with what most of you will consider a relativist issue: Pizza My Heart versus Sweetgreen. In the spirit of science, spherical horse-wise, let’s assume PMH only serves pizza and SG only serves salad, and that these are the only two restaurants, period.

According to the article, objectivists on either side would not only eat exclusively at their chosen restaurant, they would be unwilling to room with or even sit near someone who doesn’t share their view. Relativists may occasionally eat at the other restaurant, and are more open to interacting with those who don’t share their view.

If relativists become engaged in a discussion on the topic, they argue to learn, presenting an argument, listening to a counter-argument, and moving toward agreement.

I don’t feel like cooking tonight. Let’s go to SG.

It will be packed. They’re hosting the major’s retirement party tonight. 

Uh-oh. I guess we’d better choose PMH.

If objectivists become engaged in a discussion on the topic, they argue to win, that is, they may provide arguments for their side, but the purpose is to score points, to defeat the other side competitively.

I don’t feel like cooking tonight. Let’s go to SG, where we can eat without fear of a heart attack.

Protein rules! Lettuce is for ruminants!

Die Young, then! All doctors say we should eat mostly veggies.

Oh yeah, doctors are always right. Meat makes me strong!

The conclusions of the article were subtle. In experiments, when people are instructed to argue in one style or another, those who argue to win cement their views and those who argue to learn relax their views, whether they started out as objectivist or relativist. Befriending a relativist is the most common way for an objectivist to convert. That has certainly happened to me. If someone I care about expresses an opinion I would have vigorously opposed, it gives me pause, and makes me think about the issue again.

So think about that. The more we argue to win, the more convinced of rightness we are, while the more we argue to learn, the more ambiguous the world becomes. How one argues has a real impact on what one thinks. Creepy?

When there are no instructions, and no love lost between debaters, one side may argue to win while the other argues to learn. This often happens in a public forum. In that case, the person arguing to learn will usually lose, by legitimizing the other position. Discouraging.