It had been inspired by a phone conversation the evening before where a friend had found himself having a debate in a pub. Over the phone afterwards, we'd subsequently begun our own debate on what it is people are seeking to do when they argue.
Many are afraid to not be seen to have an opinion, to admit
ignorance on a topic. And so up and down the country, in pubs, restaurants,
coffee houses, living rooms, in beds, you can hear arguments on politics,
religion, the economy, distant military conflicts, the right way to brew a cup
of tea.
I truly think that we defend our subjective feelings with rational arguments to justify that which
we wouldn’t change when faced with contradictory evidence. We argue and defend our
position, attack that of our opponent, rather than listen, question, reflect. We
rarely ask ourselves, ‘Why does the person I’m talking to hold their view? How
are they constructing their argument in defence of it? Is there any merit to
it?’
How many of us can admit to ourselves and to each other that
we sometimes use our intelligence as a weapon to clothe gut feelings in
rational thought, backing it up with what we deem to be empirical evidence? Is
he who shouts most eloquently always right?
And if one is right is the other consequently intrinsically
wrong? Why must we divide into opposites, into black and white? We argue,
defend, become offended, attack. But who knows the full picture of any
situation? It feels as though there must be a supreme ignorance in assuming you
know all there is to know about any given topic or situation.
We argue opinion rationally, and so ask yourself: would you
change your stance if presented with a
logic that revealed flaws in that opinion? Or would you acknowledge that
there’s arguments against the view you hold and continue holding it regardless?
And if this is the case, why carry on arguing, attempting to persuade others
that your way is the right way when it is likely that, like you, they are
unlikely to change their position? Are you debating to elucidate, or are you
arguing to humiliate, to convert? If the latter, pause to question yourself.
Why are you seeking to convert, to humiliate? Are you so incredulous at someone
else’s opinion that you feel you must enlighten them, show them the error of
their ways? Or have they attacked you first, and you’re on the defensive?
And so, rather than arguing, attacking, defending, simply
waiting your turn to speak, let me make a quiet suggestion: we can recognise
the power and strength of questioning. Instead of blinding your opponent with
facts, general knowledge, negative assumptions about their viewpoint, we can try
truly listening to their position. Why do they think what they think? Are there
deep-set assumptions sitting behind their argument, ideologies, are they
cherry-picking their facts? Can we challenge through questioning, not through
arguing? Are we able to make them think through the implications of their own
argument, see the different sides?
Listen. Question. Summarise. Find connections between
seemingly disparate points, find logical flaws in their argument, take opinions
to their logical conclusions. Play devil’s advocate, agree with them, test opinions you don’t believe in. All these things can be done without taking up a
position in opposition to the person you’re talking to, which will at some point
need to be defended. Rather than argue, you can work together to debate a point
of controversy and work out why it’s a point of controversy; rather than
seeking to embarrass, batter down, win, you can have an open conversation where
the end isn’t a forgone conclusion.
And, if done skilfully enough, if you’re able to lead them
down a path of thought with your questioning, you may just convert them to your
way of thinking.
And just to sign off, here's a few lines from Rudyard Kipling and a few verses from a Tim Minchin song, on questioning and straddling:
I KEEP six honest serving-men
(They taught me all I knew);
Their names are What and Why and When
And How and Where and Who.
~ Rudyard Kipling ~
I'm taking the stand in defence of the fence
I got a little band playing tributes to ambivalence
We divide the world into liberals and gun-freaks
Into atheists and fundies
Into tee-tot'lers and junkies
Into chemical and natural
Into fictional and factual
Into science and supernatural
But it's actually naturally not that white and black
You'll be
Dividing us into terrorists and heroes
Into normal folk and weirdos
Into good people and pedos
Into things that give you cancer and the things that cure cancer
And things that don't cause cancer, but there's a chance they will cause cancer in the future
We divide the world to stop us feeling frightened
Into wrong and into right and
Into black and into white and
Into real men and fairies
Into parrots and canaries
Yeah we want the world binary, binary...
The more you know, the harder you will find it
To make up your mind, it doesn't really matter if you find
You can't see which grass is greener
Chances are it's neither, and either way it's easier
To see the difference when you're sitting on the fence
~ Tim Minchin ~
