The Believing Game Analysis

It’s the balance between, or the more balanced approach to an idea compared to either the believing or the doubting game. Where the believing game or the doubting game are more singular approaches, critical thinking doesn’t necessarily come just between the two but rather in between in a more advanced sense. Elbow proposes the idea that realistically there are two stances to an argument, one that is compliant and one that is resistant. In the article, Elbow pleas that one is always chosen over the other, and that’s the most common way to go about, but to find a medium and use each equally would be “a revolution”.
He builds the idea that upto a certain point all the knowledge you have then can be used to make an assertion and to learn from that assertion, depending on whether you are wrong or right, to put in perspective the opposing side. He instills that the believing game is rather beneficial for one who always doubts and vice versa. But we become increasingly better at one and usually that defines who we are or become. So after reading the essay I realized that I play the believing game, more often than not.
When I took part in a class debate last year for
It just couldn’t have been possible, because to understand a concept I’d have to give into the idea, I would have to put my pride aside and really dive into to the individual's mind and swim in their thoughts for a while to get a feel for why they wave in such a way. Also I believe that that’s genuinely how people grow mentally because the way I see it is, that by playing the doubting game we indulge in our own thoughts and doubt what we already know but by playing the believing game we are essentially growing by taking in outside perceptions, beliefs, opinions and extracting from them what we see correct. In simpler terms, we