ABSTRACT
This chapter argues that the mental schemas used to understand interactive arguments are influenced by the desire to maintain, dominate, or dissolve a relationship as much as they are by the desire to persuade and understand another person s position. It shows that argumentative thinking has an inherent bias that can be seen in adults’ thinking as well as in young children’s thinking. The chapter also argues that instructional strategies are often aimed at the wrong level of knowledge acquisition, in terms of teaching students how to write good arguments. It proposes the cognitive and emotional effects of a mediated conflict resolution training procedure. The effect of participating in meditated training is an increased understanding and accuracy of the opponent's position. By increasing understanding for the other s position, the participant incorporates input from the other, thereby increasing the new words and concepts that occur in thinking and reasoning.
