A couple of weeks ago I weighed in on readers' comments about my response to
Dave Snowden's argument favouring debate over dialogue, even when it produces
some friction. I owe some further explanation and elaboration.
My thesis on how we establish our beliefs, and how we learn, is as
follows (based on nothing more than personal observation, and on an
appreciation that this thesis makes some Darwinian sense):
- We tend to accept, on any new subject, the first point of view we
hear that is not inconsistent with our established worldview (our 'frames').
- After that point, we tend to reject any information or argument
that is inconsistent with that point of view, and accept any
information that reinforces or 'fills in' that point of view. There are
three exceptions when we may accept information or an argument even if
it is inconsistent with, or changes, our point of view:
- if the information or argument comes in a conversation with someone whose judgement we trust,
- if the information is rich in context and apparently objective
(e.g. stories, some works of art, personal observation or video footage
that let you 'see for yourself'), or
- if the information or argument comes wrapped in an emotionally
powerful package (e.g. a tearful speech, a heartfelt plea, a rock anthem, or clever propaganda with an emotional punch).
There is a strong psychological and emotional side to all this
that defies rationalization. I think this is because our process for
learning (internalizing knowledge), and the resultant process of
forming beliefs, are complex. I've tried to illustrate this in the
graphic above, which shows Jung's four forms of learning and knowledge
-- sensual (through the senses), emotional (through the heart),
intellectual (through the mind) and instinctual (through the
body/genes). Conversations of all types (including debates and
dialogues) are variously effective at helping us acquire these four
types of knowledge:
- Intellectual knowledge can be relatively easily imparted through articulate speech.
- Emotional knowledge can be imparted through our choice of language,
our tone of voice, our body language, and the visual and other stimuli
we may use to provoke it (consider the images of poverty and tragedy
that charities use to 'educate' us as to the need for us to support
them).
- Sensual knowledge can be imparted directly through exposing us to
sensory experiences (showing us something personally, using film or
stories etc.)
- Instinctual knowledge cannot be imparted; it is hard-wired into us, inherited genetically at birth.
These four accumulations of knowledge make up what we understand,
and that in turn drives what we believe, and makes up our worldview,
the frame through which we filter (i.e. assess the credibility of) all
arguments and information.
There are several different types of
conversation, each with a different effectiveness at imparting
knowledge and therefore influencing our beliefs. Otto Scharmer has
argued that there are four types, which he rates judgementally in
increasing order of value as follows (I'm paraphrasing):
- Polite conversation: Cautious discourse which does not attempt to impart information or influence beliefs.
- Debate: Espousing conflicting points of view, selectively
presenting information and arguments favouring those points of view,
with the objective of influencing the beliefs of others of opposing
points of view, or previously uncommitted participants.
- Reflective dialogue: Empathic listening while suspending judgement ('letting go' of conceptions).
- Generative dialogue: Open, collaborative, creative conversation to allow emergent understanding ('letting come').
This is a tich new-agey to me (and I can hear Dave Snowden gnashing
his teeth). As a model, though, is such a distinction fair, and is it
useful? I'm
not sure it is either. Debates need not be manipulative or selective in
the information they introduce. Yes, debates are adversarial. They
attempt to present two different points of view to allow the debaters
and their audience to contrast the credibility of each. Our legal
system thinks this is a good thing. So do those who think that advocacy
ads (I just saw one by a BC anti-abortion group that masqueraded as a
health advisory!) should be immediately countered by one providing a
contrasting point of view. And debaters are often better prepared for
conversation (they've put more effort into research) than participants
in other types of conversation. But advocates of the alternative
disputes resolution process think adversarial conversations are
destructive and cause both sides to exaggerate the truth, lie, withhold
information and try to coerce. Debaters can get caught up in their own
rhetoric and defensiveness and stop listening to reasonable arguments
for other positions. Some people like to debate purely for the pleasure
of fighting and defeating an 'enemy' -- they have no interest in
learning. Brainstorming sessions and other conversations with either a
creative or collaborative purpose are usually not helped much by
adversarial discussions. I've argued before that a good conversation is like a dance, and a dance is a cooperative performance, not an adversarial one. The
obvious conclusion is that there are some situations when a debate is
the better form of conversation, and others when a dialogue is more
suitable. There are certain protocols appropriate for both (the need
for good research, and cues, signals and facilitation steps to disarm
bullies, liars, manipulators and conversation hogs).
What's even
more important is that we each achieve an understanding of our own
worldview, our blind spots and our biases, and hone our listening,
judgement-suspending, creative, imaginative and critical thinking
skills. And of course, practice, attentively, our conversational
skills. If we were all better at these things, it probably wouldn't
much matter which type of conversation we chose for any particular
situation.
My own point of view on all this? Well, in this
article I've tried to present the arguments for both types of
conversation, so while I don't much like adversarial conversations, I
can see the value in laying out the arguments for conflicting
viewpoints. But if there's a more peaceful way to get those divergent
viewpoints on the table, I'm not much of a fan of debate. When I'm
listening to and participating in a conversation, I'm internalizing
more than just what is being said. I'm watching body language, tone of
voice, word choice. I'm listening to what my instincts are telling me.
Like those in aboriginal cultures, I'm filing all of this away to sleep
on it, and to allow my subconscious knowledge to factor in before I any
conclusions emerge. I'm thinking about what I want to do and see and
read later as follow-up research. None of these things can be
articulated well in a debate, but they're all important to our
individual learning.
I love to be part of dialogues. But while
I'm often attentive when others debate, I'm rarely willing to enter
into them. That's probably selfish of me -- if I were more active in
debates, others might learn more from me. I'm too preoccupied with my
own learning, my own Let-Self-Change process, to be as generous as
perhaps I should at helping others learn along with me. But I'm still
practicing, and maybe if and when I get as good as Dave Snowden at
debate, or as good as Chris Corrigan at dialogue, I'll become more
generous at both.
|
MADE IN CANADA
trust your
instincts 
