|
|
| [Discussion Index] |
Being an academically inclined person, I enjoy spending my time sharing and refining my ideas with other people. However, I often find people making asses of themselves (for various reasons), which seems to result in the productive discussion becoming a ridiculous debate. So I've decided to help you by showing how to not let this happen to you!
First, however, I should digress a tad and briefly bore you with what I mean by a discussion and a debate (as I may not be using the same definitions as you). That way, you don't get lost and confused (possibly resulting in your wandering off and running into a parked car, denting it, and subsequently having to pay a hefty repair bill, because I'm not paying that bill for you). Anyway, I promise the diversion will be relatively painless.
I'm going to do this by example, because examples are less painful than dry definitions. Suppose two people are talking about cats and dogs, and which is the smarter animal. And, to help make things clearer, we'll say that Lisa Loeb and Drew Barrymore are the ones having this discussion. (This has the added benefit of allowing the male (or lesbian) readers of this rant to fantasize about Drew--but not Lisa, I have dibs on her--when they get bored.) Let's also say that they are having this debate in my living room. (If they don't have their hypothetical debate in my hypothetical living room, then how can I hypothetically hear the hypothetical conversation?) Anyway, Lisa, having two cats of her own, claims that cats are very smart and sophisticated animals, and that dogs are the dumb and dirty animals. However Drew very much disagrees: Her dog is very intelligent and loving (indeed Flossie saved her and Tom Green from being burned to death in a house fire). Furthermore, Drew believes that cats are quite dumb creatures in comparison. (I should note that this rant doesn't necessarily reflect Drew's thoughts on our feline friends, nor Lisa's feelings on our canine friends. I said it was a hypothetical discussion!)
The dogs vs cats statement, of course, sparks a big debate between them. Over the course of the debate, many things are said and many tales of smart cats, dumb cats, smart dogs, and dumb dogs are flung at one another. In the end, however, neither of them is willing to budge from their original points of view, and Lisa, in utter frustration, leaves the room to find something else to do.
Of course, this makes both Lisa and Drew look like grumpy old conservatives who wouldn't admit they are wrong if you poked them in the eyes with sporks until they bled spam! I mean, who can respect people who are so closed minded? I certainly can't. They just seem like bitter old fools who would rather bloat their own egos than learn about the world they live in. Ironically, someone who can see through their game will think they are being perfect asses because they are so worried about their egos that they can't do anything slightly productive. On top of that, since their debate was only being marginally productive, much time and energy was lost in the attempted beating of the one another into submission. Who wants to be like that? I certainly don't! Is it far better to improve ones knowledge and understanding than to drastically fail at trying to save face.
So what if, instead of letting their debating tactic be driven by their emotional attachments and their egos, they were both willing to admit when they are wrong? They would be free to express their thoughts and ideas without worry of if they were proved wrong. Thus, the energy that was spent beating eachother into submission would instead be used to teach eachother things about the world they live in. Indeed, they hopefully would even arrive at a whole new understanding of the subject that neither Lisa nor Drew had ever conceived of on their own. Thus is the magic of an academic discussion. Time and energy is spent on problem solving, solutions, and understanding, instead of egos, greed, and emotional outbursts.
Now don't get me wrong. Debates do have their place. They work well for politics and court rooms. But these are places where people aren't so interested in producing mutually agreeable solutions so much as to proving why their own side is the only correct way of thinking.
So this brings me back to where I started: What can you do during a discussion in order to prevent yourself from looking like an ego driven ass? I have come up with ten simple rules, which have come from both my own mistakes, and those of others, that will serve you as an excellent guide to being an effective intellectual discusser:
This is the most important rule. People who argue with their egos always look like assholes. Indeed, you probably have been in an argument with one. They are the people who won't let go of an idea unless they are slapped in the face with an electric eel. Don't be one of those! Instead, be ready and willing to admit when you are wrong. Remember, discussions aren't competitions, they are group problem solving sessions.
Also, make it clear when you have changed your point of view, or else your seeming shiftiness could make you lose credibility. In all seriousness, I had a debate with someone who thought that if you looked at a piece of video tape, you could see little frames of the picture on it, like it were film. We argued about it until I managed to locate a video cassette and open the door, revealing that he was quite wrong. However, an interesting thing happened once he saw that tape: he claimed that he never thought that cassette tape had pictures on it at all, and that I was confused about what he said. It was really amazing how somehow he was right all this time, and I was the one that was wrong. (Sarcasm intended). To this day (almost a decade later) I still remember how foolish he looked at that moment and his credibility was forever marred in my eyes.
The knowledge that you bring into any discussion has many flaws and inaccuracies. Geez, don't act so offended. This fact is true of everyone; however now that you are aware of this fact, it should be easy for you to see that your viewpoint on any subject is not the best possible one. Therefore it is best to be open to any new ideas. Some will be better than your own, some will be worse, but all of them will teach you something.
Unless your self-esteem is low, this should be an easy one. Most people who will ever carry on a discussion will be intelligent, so treat them as such. Don't say things out of frustration or anger--unless you like coming off as an idiot that can't defend his ideas any other way. This isn't to say that you can't tell people when you think they are wrong. Just that if you disagree with someone, use logic and facts to correct them, not insults and quips. Also, avoid placing blame for the break down of a discussion; if things do go wrong, focus on making them right.
For something seemingly so simple, this seems to be just about the hardest rule to follow. I have, more than once, squandered huge amounts of time arguing with people because neither one of us realized we were trying to answer slightly different questions.
If Adam Carolla thinks the question is "Why are plaid skirts nicer to look at than solid colored skirts", and Jimmy Kimmel thinks the question is "Are girls in plaid skirts sexier than ones in solid colored skirts", they will possibly never agree because they are different questions. Now you may be thinking this is a stupid example (and it is), but differences such as these are quite common in academic discussions.
Words are tricky things. People usually form their definitions for words based on fuzzy logic, thoughts, and feelings. The result of this is that the same word can mean different things to different people.
For example, the other day I was in a three hour discussion with someone, where the crux of the matter hinged on the definition of the word "money". I mean, how stupid does that sound? Everyone knows what "money" means. Well, if that were true, we would have been done a lot sooner, and I could have been off doing things like playing video games or cruising for women. Well, probably not cruising for women, but the point is that we should have made sure we both agreed on the definitions much sooner, as we found that neither of us really had good definitions for 'money' in the first place. Indeed, when we finally agreed on a definition for 'money', everything else in the discussion had only one logical conclusion!
People naturally interpret and filter what they hear. The human brain is funny that way. How many times have you told your mother something, just to have her completely misunderstand what you said? You swore you said you wanted tea with no lemon, but when you take that first sip you somehow have the sour taste of lemon juice on your tongue. Thus it is especially important to carefully pay attention to exactly what someone says, listening to all the details.
Several things can cause this problem, such as anxiously waiting to stick in a rebuttal to a statement, daydreaming about your cool new Etch-A-Sketch, or thinking about the ending to that strange Kubrick movie you saw the other day. Anyway, the important thing to remember is that it can, and does, happen to everyone. Just work hard to accept the signs that you've fallen into this trap, and even harder to avoid it in the first place.
This goes hand-in-hand with Rule #6, as the funny interpretive filter in the brain works for outgoing words as well as incoming ones.
For a hypothetical example, Lisa Loeb's boyfriend, Dweezil Zappa, decides he wants some pie, and so he turns to Lisa (who likes baking pies) and says: "Man, you know what sounds good right now? A nice cream pie." Now, interestingly enough, Lisa has been thinking about making a cocoanut cream pie all day, so she turns to Dweezil and says "I would love some pie. Let's make some right now." Thus Lisa and Dweezil merrily bake along until, part way through preparation, Dweezil suddenly notices Lisa dump a bunch of shredded cocoanut into the bowl. "Oh no Lisa! I didn't want a *cocoanut* cream pie!", shouts Dweezil. To which Lisa replies, "Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you said that's what you wanted."
Lisa's mistake was easy enough. Anyone (including myself) could make it. This is especially so with my hypothetical Lisa because she was thinking about cocoanut cream pie all day, and accidentally misinterpreted Dweezil's words to include her own thoughts on the subject. However, this cuisinological disaster could have been averted if Lisa had done one simple thing: repeat back all of what she though Dweezil meant, instead of assuming that her and Dweezil were thinking the same thing. Hence, instead of saying "Sure thing, I would love some pie", it would have been better if she said "Sure thing, I would love some cocoanut cream pie". At hearing the word "cocoanut", Dweezil could point out that whether he said it or not, he didn't mean for there to be cocoanut in the cream pie, and then Dweezil and Lisa could make any form of cream pie they agree upon.
So the point? Just remember: people can't read minds, so you have to communicate clearly.
Since any one question can give rise to many new questions, an unchecked discussion can quickly get sidetracked into obscurity. When a discussion about rising insurance costs eventually meanders its way into a discussion about whether or not Ewan McGergor or Wynton Marsalis is the sexiest man alive, odds are no one was keeping the discussion in check.
A good technique to keep things on the ball is that whenever you notice the discussion drifting off on a tangent (because you do remember the thesis question for your discussion, right) ask the other person what the current discussion branch has to do with solving the initial problem, and then restate the initial question as a reminder. This has the added benefit of allowing you to make sure everyone still agrees on what the initial question even is.
This is pretty straight forward: The faster a group can find where they disagree, the sooner they can work through to a solution. Indeed, if the crux is found quickly, everyone will have more energy to properly discuss the point of disagreement, and hence more energy to find a better solution.
Even the most open minded individual has a core belief structure. For example, someone that values life over choice is probably going to be anti-abortion. Core values, such as these, are almost indelibly ingrained in a person. Don't even bother trying to change their minds as your efforts will be entirely misguided. If the crux of a disagreement hinges upon a core value, each person will have a different solution which will depend on their core values.
Opinions are much the same. If one person likes black coffee and another likes coffee with cream and sugar, you aren't going to argue which tastes better (I hope, because that would be really dumb). So don't bother arguing when the opinions are slightly more veiled, like as to whether Classic rock is better than Smooth Jazz. That's just the way it is. If someone likes something you don't, it doesn't invalidate what they like, so make sure your arguments are based on facts and not opinions.
This is an unwritten rule in so much that most people in discussions are assuming that you are attempting to be as logical as possible. You might not get your logic right all the time, but as long as you admit when you've made a mistake, no one should care. Also, remember that your facts may be flawed. Communicate your confidence in facts with phrases such as "I read this on the web, so it might not be true", "I saw a study that said...", "This is just an impression, but...", and "Oh My God, it's five in the morning, what am I still doing up?" (Well, disregard that last one... but the first three are still good examples.) Anyway, communicating this confidence in your facts is a big help to everyone in a conversation.
And here you have it, my sort of ten commandments of discussions. If you follow these, the likelihood that you'll look foolish to your peers during a discussion (read "make an ass of yourself in front of your friends") will be much, much lower. Also, for the debater types out there, remember that although you might think you are coming away looking like a winner who stands up for what you believe in, odds are you're going away looking like a stubborn loser who has ego issues.
| [Discussion Index] |
(c)2005, Jeff Reinecke. |