Tag Archives: conversation

Digital bubble

Just a quick reminder that while our social circles are very small right now, we can still connect with others online. Make that phone call a video call. Make that video call a 3-way or 4-way conversation.

We need to be thoughtful about how many people we meet face to face with, but that doesn’t limit us from connecting with family and friends online.

Who haven’t you seen in a while that you miss? Well, you can still see them on a screen. You don’t have to tidy the house or add an extra cleaning to the bathroom, just pick up your laptop or phone and make a call. (Ok, maybe comb your hair first 😜.)

We live in an incredibly connected world and we can make distance and time zones disappear with the click of a few buttons. So, who are you missing right now? It’s time to open up your digital bubble!

Listen to what they have to say

Last week I wrote, ‘Know your audience‘ and asked, “Are you trying to share your view only with people that already agree with you? Or are you trying to share your view with others who think differently?“

Yesterday I wrote ‘When you live in a democracy… VOTE‘ and quoted Thomas Jefferson, “We do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.”

Would my message actually reach anyone who chooses not to participate and change their mind? It’s possible, but unlikely.

I’m in education, it’s not that I don’t believe that we can change minds, open them to new ideas, and help people learn… it’s just that I’m guessing my audience already votes. And if they don’t, my post won’t change their pattern of behaviour. This reminds me of a quote that I often share,

“As a general rule, adults are much more likely to act their way into a new way of thinking than to think their way into a new way of acting.” ~Mark Millemann

Adults don’t tend to act differently as a result of hearing new and different ideas. They are not convinced easily, or as easily as kids. So how do we speak to them? In his comment on my ‘Know your audience‘ post, Dave Sands said,

“Perhaps share a your message in a “way” that they will hear it as well. Too often we display an emotional response to those who hold a different view and our egos emerge blocking any chance of reciprocal understanding. Staying logical and intentional with a genuine will to listen goes a long way in seeking to understand as opposed to seeking to convince.“

‘A genuine will to listen.’

Why don’t people really vote? I gave the reasons I thought, but are they the reasons people actually have?

It’s interesting that I originally titled this, ‘How do you speak to them?’ and not, ‘Listen to what they have to say’. But is listening enough? Can listening help me better understand something like a person’s choice not to vote in such a way that can then alter my argument enough to change their minds?

I can’t say that I’ve really tried. So, if you choose not to vote, tell me why? You don’t have to do this ‘out loud’, here is a contact form to share your thoughts privately, if a comment below is too public.

How can I help you act your way into a new way of thinking? Or why won’t I be able to do this?

I’m listening:)

Anti-social media

I was in a Twitter conversation recently that went a bit sideways. I don’t want to get into details, but I want to talk about a landscape of social sharing that is exhausting me. Is it just me or does every challenging conversation seem to go somewhere it doesn’t have to?

Pick any prominent public figure, if they say anything germane to a serious topic, the comment responses are caustic and angry. It’s like people are trolling just to attack. That’s not what happened in the conversation I was having, but that’s where my mind went.

What happened to me was that I went silent. I had more to share, but saw no use in saying more. The conversation between two others went to a place where I could add no value. It was upsetting. I am not someone who likes to walk away from something unresolved, but I didn’t have the words. I typed a response, then deleted it. I did this again.

I can’t stay on Twitter and only share things I think will acquire likes and positive comments. I’m not a poop disturber either, but I want to be able to go to hard places sometimes, to question and to learn. But I’m not feeling like good discourse can happen on social media anymore. Discourse has become argument and different views are not tolerated.

What I’m talking about goes far beyond the conversation I had, but what I’ve seen recently has pushed me away from following conversation threads on Twitter… Not because I’m not interested in the topic, but because I’m not interested in the polar, angry, and even nasty comments that fill any (even slightly) controversial thread.

Social media seems a lot less social these days.

I miss the conversations that used to happen on blogs

I can remember blogging and getting 20 to 50 comments that made the post into a conversation… a dialogue that I learned from. That rarely happens anymore. Part of this is that the conversation has moved. For example my Daily-Ink posts generate conversations on LinkedIn, and on Facebook. But I miss rich feedback that made a blog post feel like an engaging conversation. That doesn’t happen much anymore.

What made me bring this up is that I had two people, Brad and Bill, comment on my post about ‘Trying to find the Truth‘, and this conversation reminded me of the kind of commenting that used to happen more frequently.

Twitter conversations are fun, but the richness isn’t there like it is in a longer format blog post and follow up conversation in the comments. Facebook seems to invite compliments like, ‘thanks for sharing’ or ‘I really enjoyed this’, but seldom anything deeper as an add-on to a shared post. LinkedIn seems to have the better conversations coming from blog posts, but they get lost in the stream as opposed to being curated with the blog post.

Perhaps I need to make the effort Aaron Davis does to ‘Read Write Curate‘. Interesting timing that I went to find that link and stumbled on this quote Aaron curated from Bill Ferriter:

Here is Aaron’s full website, Read Write Respond.

Anyway, I’m going to make a commitment to comment more on the blogs I read. If I want to see this kind of conversation more frequently, I should also participate more myself.

Purposeful Contributions

Yesterday I was part of a meeting with teachers offering a new course this year. Teachers and administrators (principals or vice principals) from each high school were there, and the VP in charge had us go around the table sharing. When it was my turn, I passed it over to one of my teachers who supports this course online. Since she works closely with the Inquiry Hub teacher who teaches the course, and she knows the content of the course better than I do, I knew she would do a better job than me sharing.

The next round, the conversation was more specific about delivery in the schools. When it got to me, I realized that in the context of both the online school and Inquiry Hub, nothing I could share would benefit a school of 1,000+ students, like the other schools that were sharing. So, I passed when it was my turn.

Anyone who has been in a meeting with me knows that I am not afraid to speak up or speak out. I’m happy to share my thoughts, ask a question, or present an idea. But I don’t need to hear my own voice. There was nothing I could have added to the conversation that would have benefited others.

The meeting was excellent. I think everyone left knowing a lot more than when they came, and my online teacher is creating a shared repository for all the teachers to contribute to, and benefit from. I definitely benefited more from listening than talking, and think that I would not have added value by saying more… I would have wasted the time of the group.

Moral of the story: Make positive and purposeful contributions, or shut up and listen.

The Dalai Lama is a bit more eloquent:

When you talk, you are only repeating what you already know. But if you listen, you may learn something new.

The Dalai Lama

Ad Hominem Attacks on Social Media

Ad hominem (Latin for “to the person”), short for argumentum ad hominem, typically refers to a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. (Wikipedia)

It used to be that an ad hominem attack during an argument was a (weak) defensive move, but that is no longer the case… especially on social media. Don’t like someone’s ideas? Attack their character, their physical features, their business acumen, or even their choice of clothing. As for the point they are making, the very thing that was upsetting, this is not dismissed with any points of merit. No, instead it is simply assumed that the opposing view is already a lost argument with no need to fact check or provide counter evidence or opposing rationalization.

I’m not sure when this became so acceptable? It is a weak and counterproductive approach to disagreeing with someone’s ideas, and yet it is pervasive on all social media platforms. While ad hominem attacks used to be used as a poor, defensive response, now it is done as a knee jerk reaction with little thought as to how it undermines any points made in conjunction with it. While ad hominem attacks used to be used by weak people avoiding having to put forth a weak argument, now it is used as fuel to feed the rage that social media can invite. ‘Here is my point, and here is a personal attack I’ll add for good measure.’

Ultimately, here is the problem, an ad hominem attack is literally an argument that preaches only to the converted. It undermines any valuable information or argument that is shared along with the attack. Sure it scores a point with the people who agree with the person on the attack, but it does the opposite with those that disagree, those that the attacker would actually want to convince otherwise. Think that through to its logical conclusion: Ad hominem attacks are great for convincing people who are already agreeable, while angering or being fully dismissed by those that disagree. What does this accomplish?

____________

Addendum: Sarcasm works the same way, pandering to those who need not be convinced, while being dismissed by those that it would be desirable to influence.

Also, this brings me back to the post: Ideas on a Spectrum.

Resilience #OneWord2020

If I were to pick 2 words for 2020, I might pick “Growth Mindset”, but if I’m only choosing a single word, it would be:

Resilience

The world needs this word right now. Here are some specific places I see a need to pay attention to this #OneWord in 2020.

In Schools:

Student anxiety seems to be on the rise, and anxiety lowers resilience and the willingness to try new things. Words seem to ‘injure’ students in ways that victimize them rather than make them stronger. This is not to say that students should tolerate bullying or inappropriate language or slander, rather they should speak up, defend themselves, and report poor behaviour. Instead it seems that they feel wounded and do not act. This is a sensitive topic, but one where I’ve seen a greater awareness of adults who want to support students and at the same time I see students allowing words to hurt them deeply, giving too much power to the transgressor.

In Politics:

I said this in Ideas on a Spectrum, “In a civil society, dialogue is the one problem-solving strategy that should be sacred. To do this, free speech is essential. But right now there is a culture of ‘attack the opposition’ that is very scary.“ – We need to be resilient when hearing opposing views, and understand that, “…we must be tolerant and accepting of opposing views, unaccepting of hateful and hurtful acts, and smart enough to understand the difference.” When we can’t have conversations with people that have different political views, we don’t grow as a culture or as a society.

In Online Spaces:

People will make mistakes online. They will say things that are unintentionally hurtful, or blindly offensive. This is different than someone being intentionally biased and rude. If the slander is intentional, it should be reported. If it is unintentional, even to the point of ignorance, we need to be more resilient about what our responses are. When every transgression is treated with an attack, the most severe/bigoted/rude/biased transgressions are not given the heightened alarm that they deserve. With lesser errors and mistakes, we need to let people have a venue to recognize their errors and invite conversation rather than damnation.

Growing up, I heard the playground retort to taunts, “Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words will never harm me.” We are past the era of letting nasty people say whatever nasty things they want, and just turning the other cheek to pretend we are not hurt. This is a good thing. We want to live in a world where that behaviour is not acceptable. But it does not serve us well to treat the attacker like they can not repent or be sorry. It does not serve us to let the words said hurt us too deeply. By being resilient we can speak up, clarify our perspective, and engage in conversations that help us feel empowered rather than victimized.

Resilience allows us to be strong, flexible, and engaged in a society that is the kind of society we want to live and thrive in.