It’s been an interesting few weeks. Between work and personal stuff, there just doesn’t seem to be that much time to do anything else. But, I won’t bore you with life or what constitutes ‘crises’ around here.
I’ve been having some interesting conversations with different people. The topics vary, covering both personal and general ideas and concepts. What I have found is: when I’m in the middle of a conversation, I don’t do very well. I’m sure part of it is the difficulty I have putting my thoughts into words. It takes me quite a while to get what I want to say into an understandable form (either written or spoken, more so with spoken). I’m starting to get a little better, but there’s still a long way to go.
Anyway, the reason for my title is that I have some basic concepts of how I look at discussions/arguments. I’m going to lay out three. If some of them make me a cynic, then I’m a cynic. So, here goes.
First: everyone has an agenda. I don’t care whether it’s politics, culture/society, religion, whatever. In today’s society, it seems even the ‘scientific studies’ are started with an agenda. If you show me a study that shows rabbits eating pine needles tend to grow wings and fly, I’m going to wonder what you and those who wrote the study are trying to prove. One of the most important parts of the scientific method is the ability to reproduce the results. There are some things that are more difficult to do that with than others, but if I’m a scientist in that particular field, I should be able to look at your study, and be able to do it myself with similar results. By the way: do you know if eggs are good or bad for you this week? I’m just curious. A byproduct of this (and it’s a pet peeve of some I know) is someone saying ‘I’m just saying’ when they say something they know is going to set you off. If it’s your opinion, own it.
Second: persuasion doesn’t work on the stubborn. I don’t care if you’ve got the best argument in the world that money does grow on trees. If I’m convinced it doesn’t, you won’t get anywhere and odds are we’ll end up fighting. I’m not suggesting that everyone should be open minded about everything, but if you’re talking to someone who’s on the opposite side of an issue, it’s better to realize that sooner rather than later.
Third: Don’t assume everyone who doesn’t agree with everything you say TO THE LETTER is a knuckle dragging Neanderthal (no offense to the Neanderthals). One of the great things in this life is that our beliefs and concepts can be challenged on a daily basis. We should not look on this with dread. We should rather be glad for the opportunity to determine, if it’s something we’re less than certain about, the ‘correctness’ of our concepts. It’s also an opportunity to hone our debate skills so we can better defend our beliefs. I’ve discussed the shallowness of some debate methods. I continue to hope I can improve in the future.
Finally: Disagreement does NOT mean a lack of understanding. At the same time, just because you do understand (or say you do), it doesn’t mean you agree. There are times when people do understand the premise of what you’re trying to say and they still don’t agree with your conclusion. I tend to think better conversations come out of situations where both sides understand where the other is coming from.
Do these rules work? I sometimes tend to forget them, or I may use them to ‘opt out’ a lot quicker than I should. I’m a work in progress, so I continue to better myself.
