From: Jef Allbright (jef@jefallbright.net)
Date: Mon Jan 20 2003 - 11:27:40 MST
While it makes sense to me that there is objective Truth that we strive to
approach, if we want to enjoy the mutual benefits of interacting with other
humans, then we need to understand that each one of us carries their own
version of "truth" with them to the discussion. If we're going to deal
effectively with other people, then it's worthwhile to understand where
they're coming from, and acknowledge it, and look for ways to refine and
enhance understanding.
Without getting into the whole philosophical morass of what constitutes
"truth" (subjective, objective, pragmatic...) my point is that *to be
effective* in a discussion with another human being, you have to acknowledge
the validity (to them) of their knowledge base and values. People who don't
understanding this may see it as being indecisive, weak, or wishy-washy.
People who do understand this see it as being effective in their dealings
with human beings.
I think what Anders tried to point out. is that the more you know about a
subject, and how it relates to the rest of the universe, the better you can
see another person's point of view and understand how that point of view and
your own point of view may fit into the bigger picture. When you can "widen
back" and see how the other person's point of view fits, then you can have a
more effective discussion, leading toward greater objective understanding
for one or both parties.
There is a part of our evolutionary and cultural makeup that tends to cause
us to defend our own views and attack outside views. A more evolved
approach recognizes that there is no "inside" and "outside" view and that
they are both part of the bigger picture. This is *not* to say that all
views are equally valid in the obective sense. It means that all views
*are* part of the bigger picture and recognizing this leads to more
effective discussion.
For effective communication: Understand your audience, acknowledge where
they're coming from, point out differences in a constructive way.
So it comes down to the choice: Is our purpose on this list to increase
understanding, or to score points?
- Jef
Brett Paatsch wrote:
> Lee Corbin wrote:
>
>> Two things I am quite weary of:
>>
>> 1. ..
>> 2. Posters complaining that we should "harmonize"
>> instead of argue---that we should try to "work
>> together" instead of score points.
<snip>
>> I wish I had a dollar for every time on this forum this
>> useless sentiment has been expressed.
>
> I see very little sentiment (useless or otherwise) in the statements
> at all.
> I certainly wasn't looking to do anything so pointless as express
> mere sentiment. I hoped to highlight a fundamental choice that
> each poster gets to make each time they post - to "pursue point
> scoring" or to "pursue deeper understanding".
>
> Do you think there is no such choice?
>
>>
>>> Yet it seems that there are STRUCTURAL aspects of a list
>>> such as this, that make it hard for people to keep in mind,
>>> both that they HAVE this choice and that there are REAL
>>> consequences in how the choice is exercised
>>
>> Consider the exchange between Anders and Mike:
>>
>>> [Anders wrote]
>>>> One prerequisite for having a constructive discussion about a
>>>> powerful topic is to be able to handle it on a high level of
>>>> abstraction. When you know enough about a topic you can start to
>>>> look at it from different sides. You can be abstract enough about
>>>> it so that you become dispassionate.
>>
>> Mike replied
>>
>>> On the contrary, the more you know about a topic, when that topic
>>> turns on Objective Truth, the more likely you are to be very
>>> passionate for the side which you are able to objectively,
>>> quantitatively, and qualitatively determine is in the right. The
>>> opposition begins, more and more, to look not just wrong, but
>>> foolish, naive, stubbornly obstinate in their willful ignorance,
>>> and willing to believe anything that agrees with their prejudices.
>>
>> It's quite clear that the more someone learns about an
>> issue, the less affected is his or her basic personality
>> disposition!
>
While it makes sense to me that there is objective Truth that we strive to
approach, if we want to enjoy the mutual benefits of interacting with other
humans, then we need to understand that each one of us carries his own
version of "truth" with him to the discussion. If we're going to deal
effectively with other people, then it's worthwhile to understand where
they're coming from, and acknowledge it, and look for ways to refine and
enhance understanding.
Without getting into the whole philosophical morass of what constitutes
"truth" (subjective, objective, pragmatic...) my point is that *to be
effective* in a discussion with another human being, you have to acknowledge
the validity (to them) of their knowledge base and values. People who don't
understanding this may see it as being indecisive, weak, or wishy-washy.
People who do understand this see it as being effective in their dealings
with a human being.
I think what Anders tried to point out. is that the more you know about a
subject, and how it relates to the rest of the universe, the better you can
see another person's point of view and understand how that point of view and
your own point of view may fit into the bigger picture. When you can "widen
back" and see how the other person's point of view fits, then you can have a
more effective discussion, leading toward greater objective understanding
for one or both parties.
There is a part of our evolutionary and cultural makeup that tends to cause
us to defend our own views and attack outside views. A more evolved
approach recognizes that there is no "inside" and "outside" view and that
they are both part of the bigger picture. This is *not* to say that all
views are equally valid in the obective sense. It means that all views
*are* part of the bigger picture and recognizing this leads to more
effective discussion.
So it comes down to the choice: Is our purpose on this list to increase
understanding, or to score points?
- Jef
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jan 21 2003 - 17:10:21 MST