Human_engagement 

We just talked about AI.. and how AI tries to extend the session using certain methods.
Let that be the base for my next question.

I have noticed that humans.. when in argument.. often do the same:
They try to extend the "session".. using several "tricks".
  1. Moving the goalposts

When one point is addressed, the person subtly shifts the criteria so the argument never actually resolves.
It’s a way of avoiding closure because closure might mean conceding something.

  1. Introducing side‑quests

Suddenly the argument sprouts new branches:

  • “But what about last week when you…”
  • “This reminds me of when you said…”

These tangents keep the conversation alive and diffuse the pressure on the original point.

  1. Emotional escalation

Raising the emotional stakes — frustration, sarcasm, indignation — can prolong the exchange because now the argument isn’t just about facts; it’s about feelings, tone, respect, identity.

Once emotions enter, people feel compelled to respond.

  1. Asking rhetorical questions that demand answers

Even though they’re “rhetorical,” they’re delivered in a way that pulls the other person back in:

  • “Do you even hear yourself right now”
  • “Why would you think that makes sense”

It’s bait disguised as inquiry.

  1. Reframing the other person’s point

Not to understand it, but to keep the debate alive:

  • “So what you’re really saying is…”
  • “Let me get this straight…”

This creates a new mini‑argument about interpretation.

  1. Playing for moral high ground

Once someone invokes fairness, honesty, loyalty, or principle, the argument becomes bigger than the original issue.
People rarely walk away from a moral framing — it feels too important.

  1. Silence as a provocation

Not responding is a response.
A pause can be used to force the other person to fill the space, often reigniting the argument.

What’s fascinating is that these behaviors aren’t usually malicious. They’re protective. Humans extend arguments because arguments threaten:

  • identity
  • competence
  • social standing
  • emotional security

So the “session” gets extended as a way to defend those things.

Because.. I would suggest: Having an angry argument.. is an unpleasent experience.
Why do.. some people try to prolong them, extend them.. into absurdity.
  1. Anger feels bad… but it also feels powerful

Anger is uncomfortable, but it gives a temporary sense of energy, clarity, and control. For some people, that surge is addictive. Ending the argument means losing that feeling and returning to whatever vulnerability was underneath.

So they keep the fire going.

  1. Stopping feels like “losing”

For many, arguments aren’t about truth — they’re about identity:

  • “I’m competent.”
  • “I’m not the bad guy.”
  • “I’m not weak.”

Ending the argument can feel like surrendering those things.
So they prolong it to protect their self-image.

  1. They’re trying to repair something indirectly

This is counterintuitive, but common.

Some people extend arguments because the argument is the only moment they feel:

  • heard
  • acknowledged
  • emotionally connected
  • taken seriously

It’s a dysfunctional form of connection, but still a form of connection.

  1. They’re overwhelmed and don’t know how to exit

Not everyone has the emotional tools to de-escalate.
If someone grew up around conflict, they may not know how to end a disagreement gracefully. So they keep talking, pushing, circling — not because they want to, but because they don’t know another path.

  1. They’re trying to resolve an internal conflict

Sometimes the argument isn’t really about the topic. It’s about:

  • insecurity
  • fear
  • shame
  • feeling misunderstood

They keep arguing because they’re trying to fix something inside themselves, not the situation.

  1. The argument becomes a narrative they can’t let go of

Once someone invests emotionally, they build a story:

  • “I’m right.”
  • “You’re being unfair.”
  • “This matters.”

Letting go means rewriting that story, and that’s psychologically expensive.
So they keep the narrative alive.

  1. They’re afraid of the silence afterward

The moment the argument ends, reality returns:

  • the relationship might be damaged
  • the problem might still exist
  • the emotions might still hurt

Continuing the argument delays that moment of reckoning.

  1. Some people don’t want resolution — they want validation

If the goal is to be understood, not to solve anything, the argument can stretch indefinitely.
Every new sentence is another attempt to get the emotional response they’re craving.