Tag Archives: argument

Wrong with conviction

Leave a reply

I was going to share a social media post that basically called science a religion and argued that people who ‘believe in science’ are in a cult and so it doesn’t feel like worship, it feels like sanity. I only just decided that I don’t want to bring attention to this post, because when I went back to the post, my comment was gone.

I found it in my activity stream, but on the post itself, it wasn’t there. My comment didn’t fit the narrative so it was deleted. I don’t want to participate in sharing this drivel when it was shared only to promote a biased and grossly misleading narrative, with no intent to stand on its own merit against a disagreeing comment.

Meanwhile the post has over 150,000 views and 10.4K likes. I’m tired of seeing people spew convincing sounding nonsense with conviction, and spreading bad ideas that gain traction. And this is getting worse, not better.

We have access to almost unlimited information, and yet so many people just ride out their biases and beliefs, standing their ground on topics they only have a tiny understanding of… Sharing half truths, misleading ideas, and exaggerated lies that sound as if facts are factored in, but they are not.

We’ve entered an era where being wrong with conviction will gain traction simple because it fits a narrative that is appealing. We are living in a post truth era and I’m struggling to see how we escape this? And there’s no way to say this next part without sounding condescending but I’m going to say it anyway.

I think we’ve reached a point in our civilization where you have to have a certain level of intelligence or you are doomed to get dumber. Either you pass a threshold of intelligence or you succumb to stupidity shared online that simply traps you in the stupidity zone. I used to have faith in humanity but if I use what’s shared on social media as a litmus test then a very, very large number of people are doomed to stay stupid.

Missed the point

Leave a reply

One of the most challenging things about being a leader is watching a simple miscommunications lead to big issues that could have easily been avoided. It’s watching people come from different points of view, all with the same objectives, all wanting the same goals, but approaching the issue believing that the end goal is something they want but others don’t. Or just failing to see a similar perspective from a vantage point other than their own.

I’ve tried to live by the mantra, ‘The meaning of your communication is the response that you get.’ …Putting the onus of responsibility on myself when my message was not received the way I intended it. Yet I too still mess up. I have to take a step back and question where my error was? And when I don’t see an error in thinking, I can still often see an error in my communication.

But ‘error’ might be too strong of a word. It might only be a mistake after the idea was shared and received. Only after an unexpected response am I able to look back and see how my words could be misunderstood, how my message could be perceived differently than expected. This is the work I try to do.

However, when the miscommunication happens before I’m involved my entrance is even more delicate. When the temperature has risen before I enter, it’s often hard to get others to see that their communication did not align with their intended message. It becomes an issue where even to suggest some responsibility for miscommunication can seem like blame, rather than a means to reach a resolution. And so my communication becomes even more challenging. If my point is missed then I’m not being supportive, I’m not helping the issue, I’m missing the point.

And if that’s the message I’m giving off, then that’s the meaning of my communication, and the undesired response is my fault. If I’m not willing to take that responsibility, then I’m not modelling what I’m expecting of others.

Small mountains

We’ve all heard the term, ‘Making mountains out of molehills’, and understand what it means. What we don’t realize is how often we do it. It’s easy to see when someone else does it, but not us. No, our escalated concerns are little mountains. They aren’t mole hills. Other people do that, not us. Our concerns are real… or rather really big.

Except they are not.

~~~

Being a school principal involves a lot of deciding how big to make an issue. Dismissing a problem is only allowing it to get bigger. Overreacting to a small problem can bring too much attention to it and make it bigger.

Being overly supportive of one side of an issue can make the other side escalate the size of the issue. Being neutral can equally exasperate the issue and create a mountain out of a molehill.

An insincere apology can be worse than no apology. Too harsh or illogical of a consequence can be as harmful as being too easy. Because to kids, to young adults learning to navigate the world, their mole hills are little mountains. To them the issues are not small.

But if we’re honest, we think our mole hills are mountains too… and that’s an important point to keep in mind when we get a little frustrated wondering why these little issues seem so big to everyone else.

The difference between a mountain and a mole hill might not be the size of the problem, but simply a matter of perspective. And that’s a perspective worth keeping in mind.

The inverted political bell curve

We no longer have an opportunity to be centrist. Extremes on either side make this challenging. Being centrist is too hard, hated by both sides because if you aren’t way over here on ‘our’ side, you lack the merit of being associated with ‘us’, so you belong with ‘them’. Rather than being seen as partial to common interests you are lumped in with everyone else that is not on ‘our’ extreme.

Examples: Liberal minded but worry about immigration? Well you may as well be fully right wing conservative. Believe in equal opportunities for gay marriage? Well then you might as well be a bleeding heart liberal, no matter how else your views may be conservative.

There used to be a bell curve where most people were not on the extremes, rather more centrist, more in the middle. That curve has inverted and flattened. Less people are ‘in the middle’ and more people are veering to the extremes. And it’s not getting any better because any political candidate who appeals to the center is not appealing to the masses. The once peripheral minorities are now a divided majority.

There is no room for nuance. No debate, just argument. Dichotomies, not a spectrum of ideas. But global issues are not well defined into clearly opposing views. Electric vehicles can be a net good while the environmental cost of dead batteries pose a problem. We can provide rights for some without taking them away from others. We can have strong border policies, and be both discerning and compassionate. We can disagree and not vilify, argue and not attack, debate facts and dismiss logical fallacies.

We can… but will we? Or are the propaganda machines too powerful right now? Are we entering an era where truth is elusive, and biased AI created videos constantly exaggerate perspectives? An era where fact checking is a requirement before accepting information? Throw in ad hominem, personal attacks, and intentional foreign interference focused on deepening polarization, and anti-social social media, and I’m afraid to think about where we are headed.

The bell curve majority of moderate thinkers have dispersed to the extremes, and these extremes are dragging everyone out of the middle. It’s 2024 and I can go on social media and watch a live debate between a scientist and a flat earther, and despite the evidence to the contrary, no flat earther is going to change their mind. I can find a bible prophecy that ignores wild extrapolations and factual inaccuracies, and no countervailing points will be accepted. I can find intelligent people arguing biased and counter factual points, and putting their intellect aside blindly to support a point, a belief, a perspective, or even a political candidate.

I’ve come to the realization that we are just monkeys. We are not civil, we are tribal animals, playing at being intelligent. We are more likely to solve disputes like other animals than we are as humans. We admire bravado, we look down on the meek, we beat our chests and vie for attention. Winning is more important than playing fair. I am safer when my tribe, my group, my monkey troop, is stronger and other troops are dominated.

The bell curve is gone, only warring tribes remain, and the fighting is just going to get uglier.

Unnecessary conflict

When expectations of outcomes are different, there is often unnecessary conflict.

When people are faced with unknowns that worry them, there is often unnecessary conflict.

When there is misunderstanding, there is often unnecessary conflict.

When there is disappointment, there is often unnecessary conflict.

When there is disagreement, there is often unnecessary conflict.

Things don’t go as planned, people don’t always see things from the same perspective, goals often vary from person to person. This is just part of life. Conflict is often built up unnecessarily. Conflict is created by seeing things from just one viewpoint.

Conflict is often optional. A choice. A defence mechanism. Not necessarily desired, but brought on from holding a perspective that is biased or fixed.

At times, conflict is also necessary. And in these rare cases it should not be avoided. Running away from a conflict can create a greater conflict later.

But more often than not conflict can be avoided… it is unnecessary. It results not from need but from misunderstanding, or lack of awareness. Seek to understand, not to be right. Ask questions before making statements. Listen with intent to understand, not to defend a viewpoint. And look for common ground rather than reasons to disagree.

Conflict is often optional.

Going Meta

If I was going to give this post a subtitle it would be, ‘How do you know that you’re smart enough to know the difference?’

Just to be clear, I’m delusional. But guess what… so are you. The world we live in and the world we think we live in are two different things. We don’t see the world as it is, we see it as our senses are capable of seeing it. Then we go further and apply our individual perspective to add meaning to what we observe.

I say think of a dog, and I guarantee you that you aren’t thinking of the same dog I am. Not the same kind, not the same size, probably not the same disposition… which might be different in our perception even if we were thinking of the same dog.

So we live lives of illusion and delusion, except most of our delusions are close enough to each other’s that we don’t think of each other as crazy… Most delusions. Although, maybe less of them than at any time in recent history. Because now more than ever people seem to be seeing the world in vastly different ways.

So what can we personally do? We need to get meta. We need to think about our thinking. We have to start from honest awareness and seek to debunk ourselves, to figure out how we are deceiving ourselves. We have to see the frame we put around things. Observe ourselves, (the observer).

This meta self reflection is most important when we talk to someone with a different perspective or world view. It’s so easy to see the bias of others, and much harder to see our own. Yet this self reflection is essential.

A wonderful example of this is looking at the growth in numbers of people who think the world is flat. It flabbergasts me to think that this number is actually getting larger. How is that possible? Flat world views. That is to say, people are asking one question, looking from one central position: ‘Show me the curve… I’m on earth and I can’t see it. You must be delusional and gullible to believe it’s round, when you can’t see it.’

Only then, and from that biased position, can someone make jumps to conclusions like NASA is trying to fool us, and the conspiracy to fool us is suddenly everywhere. Then evidence that fits this world view suddenly starts to appear. Except it doesn’t.

No, what actually happens is that these flat mindsets start to create excuses for everything that doesn’t fit this world view. Never mind that civilizations like the Mayans, 4,000 years ago, understood the movement of the stars and probably already knew the earth was round. Never mind the view of earth from the Apollo moon missions. Never mind simple science experiments that have been around for hundreds of years proving the earth is round.

All that said, the flat earthers start with an observation, or lack of observation of a curve. They are using their senses, that are basing the criteria on their view of the world… their delusion.

That’s an easy example, because there is a lot of evidence debunking a flat earth. But there are a lot of topics where one perspective isn’t so clearly wrong. There are arguments on different sides of the political spectrum, different sides of a global conflict, and different sides of hot topics where the perspective someone, the perspective you, take is not necessarily the clearest. Suddenly our delusion is potentially working against us.

If we aren’t willing to go meta and really look at where our view is coming from, we are susceptible to flat world views. We can get stuck in a single delusional frame of mind where we don’t see what’s really happening, what a better perspective might be. And so just like the flat earther, we only see the issue from a perspective that we can observe, but isn’t correct.

The irony is that the more humble you are, the more likely you are to be able to go meta and see other possible perspectives. It seems that being humble is a key ingredient, because a lot of smart people struggle with this. Religion, politics, and culture all seem to undermine intelligence, and smart people get lost in dogma. Even scientists can do this. It’s not about how smart you are, it’s about how humble you are.

Are you willing to recognize other views? Are you able to let go your ego and really observe an issue from a different perspective? Are you willing to change your mind? Ironically if the answer is yes, you probably don’t need to get meta as often as others. It’s still useful to do though, both to solidify your own view, and to change your mind.

Basic assumptions

I was talking to a friend last night and we came to a conclusion about the way things have changed in the last few years. Our conversation was mostly about global power struggles and concerns for how certain global hotspots are really just proxy wars of superpowers so that they don’t have to fight directly. But we also talked about basic relationships between people, and how we relate to one another.

A conclusion we came to is that people no longer give each other the benefit of the doubt that intentions are good. This used to be a basic assumption we operated on, the premise that we can start with the belief that everyone is acting in good faith.

That used to be a good starting place: “Everyone here has positive intentions, now let’s look at where we agree and disagree.” But that isn’t what we see now. Instead it is about winning, making gains, counter arguments, and public attacks and shaming. The starting point is to believe the other side is acting in bad faith.

That dissolves the ability to come to a mutually agreeable conclusion. Before a negotiation or even a conversation starts, the premise is that the outcome won’t be good… that the injury is too deep, the conclusions won’t be mutually acceptable. High expectations, low compromise, and ultimately unsatisfactory outcomes.

A basic assumption of good faith won’t fix all the challenges we see in the world today, but it would be a better place to start. We don’t get very far when conflict usurps conversation and intransigence trumps compromise. There is a difference between wanting a good outcome and wanting to win, desiring conversation and choosing to start with an argument.

Maybe it’s just nostalgia that makes me think we ever had a different starting point, but I believe we have become less tolerant and more reactionary, and that people don’t start with basic positive assumptions anymore.

It’s about the nuances

Today I ran into a teacher that was a favourite of my two daughters. He brought up a current geopolitical issue that I won’t discuss here, because there is too much nuance and I’m not prepared to write a dissertation of my thoughts… and anything else will only cause me grief. In fact, even a dissertation would cause me grief because I’d be bound to garnish disagreement and even anger. Why? Because no matter what position I hold, no matter how nuanced or not, it will upset people.

We’ve reached an impasse in public conversation when nuance is not part of the conversation. Everything is black & white, and any shade of grey is ‘othered’ to the opposing view. This is unhealthy. Very unhealthy.

It took my conversation today, where we agreed yet were equally reserved, to realize that a more public conversation can’t happen for me. I’m not knowledgeable enough. I haven’t done the hard work to have a strong and well defended view of a sensitive issue. I ask questions that could and would piss off people on either side of the issue.

I’ve said before,

“We want to live, thrive, and love in a pluralistic society. We just need to recognize that in such a society we must be tolerant and accepting of opposing views, unaccepting of hateful and hurtful acts, and smart enough to understand the difference.”

I don’t believe that distinction is being made right now. I don’t see an openness to nuance. I don’t see a way forward where we are moving in the right direction. An upcoming election in the US coupled with AI generated fake news, and the bi-polar positions on the left and right, are going to lead to a shitstorm. It’s going to get ugly, it might get violent, and it will not get better until it gets worse.

We need to find a way to bring back nuanced debate and conversation… where different opinions are met with interest not scorn, with acceptance not ridicule. Discourse can be had without anger, and nuanced opinions will lead to solutions where now we only find conflict.

Bad questions

One of the dumbest tropes in education is that, ‘There is no such thing as a bad question’. Yes, yes there is. Yes there are. There are many bad questions. We live in a world filled with bad questions.

Why are people still asking if climate change is real? Why do people still question if the world is flat? Why do people still question evolution and want creationism taught in classrooms?

Because we live in a world where bad questions are asked and people respond to them. With each justification there is a rebuttal, and when millions of people hear the dumb, illogical, misleading, and inaccurate rebuttals some of them will believe these bad ideas.

Bad ideas spread from debating bad questions.

Good questions deserve debate. Bad questions should be ignored… or redirected. ‘Is climate change real’ is a dumb question based on a bad idea. A better question is, ‘We know humans are impacting the climate, what can be done to reduce that impact?’ Spending time rationalizing the first question is literally giving the question too much power, and the ignorant responses an opportunity to be shared.

It’s worth saying this again, it’s the problem we face today across many fields, spreading through news and social media… and when we participate, we are part of the problem:

Bad ideas spread from debating bad questions.

So the next time someone tells you there is no such thing as a bad question, you might want to disagree, just don’t waste too much time debating the point.

The meaning of your communication

One of my favourite sayings, almost a mantra for me, is:

The meaning of your communication is the response that you get.

This message has two important parts:

1. It puts the responsibility of good communication on me as a communicator.

2. It focuses on the result of my communication.

If someone doesn’t understand my message (2 – result), then I didn’t communicate the message well enough (1 – responsibility).

It reminds me to be clear and concise. It reminds me to check for understanding. It reminds me to bite my tongue, and listen so that I understand the perspective of the other person. And it harshly reminds me that I’m imperfect at doing these things when I’m not understood and when I don’t take ownership of the miscommunication.

This is most important when dealing with difficult conversations.

I’m reminded of this coaching advice about verbal jujitsu:

It’s easy to blame someone else for poor communication, much harder to accept that we can control the narrative when we recognize that we are accountable and responsible for our good communication… And that in the end it’s the result matters. Not winning a point. Not blaming someone else for misunderstanding. Not getting the last word in.